Bullfight

I am so relieved to hear you believe the four concilors will not be personally responsible for a whimsical change of heart. Of course, unfortunately, we the taxpayers will not be so lucky. But who cares? We will end up buying more "open space" we will not be allowed to walk on for more millions of $ better spent elsewhere.

Ron,

Good to hear from you. I've been keeping up with your exchanges with the other bloggers so I look forward to some constructive back and forth.

My belief that Councilors will not have to defend themselves personally with their own lawyers related to the Oak Valley lawsuit has nothing to do with their decision, but a general comment about the private ciizen-public servant role in government decision-making.

If Councilors had to defend themselves personally with their own lawyers for any City Council decision, no one would want to serve. Anyone can sue the City for whatever reason. Why would anyone want to make decisions on behalf of the public, if those decisons might make them personally liable?

For example, I expect developer Tom Fogerty will sue the City to try to recoup the costs associated with cleaning up some of his contaminated property. I was on the Council when we refused to pay to clean up his private property unless he provided evidence that the City was responsible for the contamination. If he sues, I am confident the City will win because if he had any evidence of City liability in the first place, he would have provided that evidence prior to the Council's decisions on Humboldt Road Burn Dump.

The City sent letters requesting evidence and all we received were unsubstantiated accusations from his lawyers. I stand by my decision even if Fogerty sues because I believe it was the right decision and I believe the City should not be in the business of cleaning up contaminated private properties the City never owned. But if I was personally liable to defend this decision or any decision, I'd have quit and advised anyone not to serve. I couldn't afford to pay for my own personal lawyer everytime the City was sued.

The City ended up cleaning up 20+ acres that was formerly the County dump, but a Council majority believed the City had no responsibility to clean up the other 60+ acres of private properties that were previously owned by private parties who operated their own private landfills in the area.

I mention this only to highlight that if I, as a Councilor, could be sued by Fogerty or anyone else for my decisions as a public servant, I wouldn't even bother showing up - and most reasonable people wouldn't either. Ultimately, the voters will be the judge as to whether they believe the Council decision was appropriate.

As for your reference to "open space" that you will not be able to walk on, I can only guess you're referring to Bidwell Ranch. It is my understanding that the City has just recently gone out to bid to develop a management plan for the property.

I believe there will be a public access component to Bidwell Ranch, but keep in mind "public access" is a grey area without a management plan. I want access to enjoy open space just like you, but I also want public authorities and a community to take responsibility for letting me know where it's appropriate for me to "access" since I'm no expert on trails and environmentally sensitive areas.

In other words, when I visit any state or national park, I try to follow direction and guidelines on what trails I should walk on. If there was no direction, people would just walk all over. We see some of those scars on bootleg trails in our own Upper Bidwell Park.

As such, I wouldn't jump into conclusions that Bidwell Ranch will not be open for some public access. Sure, right now there are some "no tresspassing signs," but that's likely because the City has no management plan for the property. And until last year's open space rezone decision, there was no management plan for Bidwell Ranch because the property was zoned for development - up to 1,500 homes based on the last development proposal considered by a past Council.

Keep in mind that the "no tresspassing signs" have been up under both conservative and liberal-leaning Council leadership and that some conservative-leaning Councilors also voted to buy the Bidwell Ranch property. So I'd caution you about blaming only liberals for buying Bidwell Ranch that you feel you don't have "access to" when some conservatives also voted to purchase the property and tresspassing signs were also up under conservative-leaning leadership.

On public access and management plans, here's another example to make my point. The City owns the Old Municipal Building on the corner of Main and 5th. It's been boarded up for some time like an abandoned building. Unfortunately, an arts coalition that was supposed to occupy the building has falterd, but I am confident eventually the Old Muncipal Building will become a thriving downtown cultural center, whether it involves the arts, a musuem, or some other activities.

The City has already allocated funds to renovate the Old Municipal Building, but until tenants and a management plan for the building are finalized, the building remains boarded up. I don't hear citizens demanding "public access" to the Old Municipal Building right now and requesting that the City get rid of those door locks. I think most people are willing to be patient, to wait until a mangement plan to occupy and maintain the Old Municipal Building is finalized, before we all have "access" to the building.

I feel the same way about Bidwell Ranch. Let's wait till a management plan is developed before jumping to conclusions that the public will not be allowed to walk on parts of the property on their own on yet-to-be determined designated trails.

I know we all want things to move faster, but my experience is that when you involve the public - and that public is not some monolithic group, but a diverse group of active citizens with their own perspectives and self-interest - sometimes the process moves slower than we desire.

Hey Dan,

The council members under legal threat have learned what a lot of business folks already knew. Anybody can sue anyone for anything. Whether or not this threat has enough legal merit is yet to be determined. My advice to all the City Council…get legal insurance today!

But it’s interesting that this topic spills from the court room, to Bidwell Ranch, to old municipal buildings. The subject is really much broader than just a legal threat.

The foothills development was adjusted because a majority of council members decided to support a constituency that opposes development. We’re not just talking about houses and roads. Bidwell Ranch might one day have a component of public access, but that’s not what Bidwell Ranch was about. The parking structure wasn’t about parking. Removing disc golf and road closures in Bidwell Park are not about those topics either.

In my opinion, the effort underway is about restricting growth on all fronts. Infrastructure supporting our increasing population, whether housing, roads, recreation, or parking are all opposed. Policies based on this philosophy are no less destructive than those that would allow unmanaged growth with no restrictions.

The problem is that when reasonable people seek compromise and allow for adjustments to projects based on environmental concerns, they see no reciprocal response from detractors. What they see are revolving CEQA challenges, excruciatingly slow to develop management plans, and a continuous flow of public money to private consultants.

As for the burn dump…. I see that BEC says it is highly dangerous for the kids. Is this a toxic wasteland? If so, why do the Friends of Bidwell Park suggest to the Park Commission that it’s a great place for disc golf (see related documents on their web site)? At that same web site, disc golf is listed as a fun activity for kids. I’m a little confused by these contrasting opinions.

And I no longer trust those that say they’re trying to protect our natural communities.

Lon

Hi Lon,

Always great to hear from you. I know you’ve learned much about the public decision-making and local government process from your active involvement in the disc golf issue – some of it good, some of it not so good.

I’ve supported disc golf in its current location with appropriate mitigations to deal with some of the environmental and safety issues. I believe that the majority Park Commission decision on disc golf will likely get a 7-0 or 6-1 approval vote from the City Council.

So don’t jump into conclusions that a majority of the Council will want to remove disc golf from its location just because a vocal, organized constituency – Friends of Bidwell Park – has been involved. Wait until the Council vote – which I bet will be a 7-0 or 6-1 vote in favor of your position.

As for your comment that “the foothills development was adjusted because a majority of council members decided to support a constituency that opposes development,” you’re absolutely right but you’re missing an important qualifier. A Council majority supported a constituency that opposes development in our foothills. Note my qualifier “in the foothills.”

Keep in mind that those 80-160 Oak Valley housing units in the foothills were not removed entirely, but were moved to lower elevations within the project. No housing units were lost, but simply moved. Yes, this means less expensive homes with nice, higher-elevation views of the City will be built, but the rest of the community can still enjoy our foothill views because those homes will now be situated at a lower elevation.

Putting aside the legal controversy, what I’m saying is that Oak Valley as a land-use decision was more a debate over how we grow, not if we grow. The question was: how far into the foothills should we grow, not should we approve 1,300+ homes to be built? If there was a no-growth member on the Council, we would have seen a vote against the entire Oak Valley project that will eventually have 1,300+ new housing units.

You also write: “Infrastructure supporting our increasing population, whether housing, roads, recreation, or parking are all opposed.” My perspective is that one of the major problems with our increasing population is: (1) the City has stretched resources to even maintain its existing infrastructure to support our existing population and (2) the City continues to approve housing, like Oak Valley, without adequate financing to support improved or new infrastructure to support increasing population demands and the new homes they live in.

For example, 1,300+ homes will eventually be built on Oak Valley. If you assume 2.5 people per household, that’s 3,250 more people traveling on roads in the area. Fees on new development are collected to supposedly cover the costs of new and improved infrastructure – roads, parks, and the like – to support the increasing population.

Unfortunately, this is a cart before the horse issue. The City collects these fees on new development, which aren’t even high enough to cover the full cost of new and improved infrastructure to support a growing population. Homes get built. People move in. Traffic gets worse. But the City is building the infrastructure to support this growing population after the impacts have already been felt by the existing population, not before the new homes are built.

As for the suggestion to use the capped remediated land that was formerly the County dump for disc golf, I don’t know much about that proposal and the logic behind it. I still feel that another appropriate disc golf location within biking distance for kids is the site on 1st and Verbena near Lindo Channel. I know some of those neighbors will oppose it because they prefer a “natural park” like its current condition.

Nevertheless, the 1st and Verbena site was supposed to be a neighborhood park but neighbors balked at paying an assessment to cover the maintenance costs even if the City developed the park. I’d like to see the site re-designated a “community park” with a disc golf course that is compatible with keeping the site “natural,” as some neighbors in the area prefer. By making the 1st and Verbena site into a "community park" with a disc golf component, the neighborhood would not be required to bear the full maintenance costs because those costs would be spread throughout the community.

Dan,

Your focus on the responsibility for the leaked mem is on point. What kind of government would we have if every time someone was dissatisfied with what a majority of the council decided, they leaked confidential information to the ER?

And why did the ER feel so justified in reporting it and assuming it had already been leaked? Did they ask the people they assumed had seen it before they published it? No. I hope the time comes when they are under oath and have to answer about their own responsibility.

The Butte County Jail is no country club. There are no special rooms for white collar criminals. Everyone is there together - rapists, murders and reporters and editors who refuse to answer questions posed by the Grand Jury. I hope that the ER is thinking hard about their role in this and will make the right decisions in the future about how assumptions can undermine fair reporting.