« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
April 27, 2006
Bertagna Gets More Support
 |
| Earlier this month I had the opportunity to speak
with the Butte County District 3 Supervisor candidates as a member of the
Hooker Oak Alliance. After the meetings, and after discussing the candidates
with our membership, the Hooker Oak Alliance has decided to endorse Steve
Bertagna for Supervisor. I
think it's a good choice. All three candidates (Steve Bertagna, Maureen Kirk, and Chuck Kutz) are excellent representatives for our community. Maureen has a long history of service and is a thoughtful person. Chuck, a newcomer to politics, is very bright and needs to remain engaged in local issues, but is a long shot for this race without the local history we can look back on. But what struck me about Steve was his ability to deal with issues head-on. He was concise and to the point, and had a great command of the knowledge base that a Supervisor needs. Steve is a business owner and family man. He also has a history in local politics that we can look back on and see good decisions. Among other things Steve helped broker the Community Park / Martin Luther King agreement that made all sides come together. I think Chico should be happy that we have such good folks to draw from. I hope the race is run in a congenial and reasonable manner by all parties. And as a member of the Hooker Oak Alliance I'm happy we'll be supporting Steve Bertagna. He's a great pick for Supervisor. |
Posted by Lon at 12:42 PM
April 25, 2006
Are You a Master Plan Fan?
 |
| My favorite commission met again last night. Part 2 of the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission review of the draft Master Management Plan kicked off. It was replete with grammar and english lessons, discussions reaching outside of their sphere of influence, as well as the obligatory last minute maneuvers around disc golf. |
| I had to attend
three meetings last night, so I arrived late to the Park Commission party.
There were
about
6 people
in attendance, big crowd. The discussion I witnessed was mostly related
to grammar and subtle word changes in the plan. But every now and again
you could
see the tell-tale signs of bigger issues rearing up. Park Funding: The Commission discussed the concept of having developments adjacent to Bidwell Park pay into a fund for park improvements or swapping land for development rights. An example given was the property in the county north of Bidwell Park, and how land might be exchanged to expand Bidwell Park while offsetting the impact of homes being built there. Also covered was the concept of having a portion of city-wide development impact fees going to Bidwell Park. What's missed in the discussion of development impact fees is much of the infill development going on about the city as well as the continuous absorption of county neighborhoods. This year the city will add a couple of thousand homes through infill, new construction, and annexation of Chapman Town and other blighted areas. Development impact fees will not completely fund the increased strain these new city properties will put on infrastructure. There needs to be another method of funding parks. |
| Children's Playground: Members
of the Park Commission asked why they hadn't been engaged in any of the
discussions about Children's Playground. Police Chief Hagerty recently
(well... in January, according to the memo) brought forward some ideas
about improving
safety at Children's Park. The Commission was unaware of the discussion
until they read about it in the paper. I think this discussion is being
continued at the next City Council meeting. The Commission also seemed to be unaware that the discussion of funding improvements to Children's Playground (~$250K) will probably begin on 4-26 at the Finance Committee meeting. Tom Lando's short list of Capital Improvement Projects funded by the RDA will be discussed, and that includes this small park. The Park Director assured the Commission that they would be involved when the time was right. I think staff may see the Commission's role different than the Commission does. Or it may be coming from the Council to bypass the Park Commission until the groundwork is laid for completing this project. Anyway, it will be interesting to watch who the decision makers are on this issue. In an election year I think the Council will want to handle the important issue of moms, parks, and safety. |
| Disc Golf: At the close of last
nights meeting Commissioner Barrett brought up the fact that discers weren't
adhering to the voluntary course closures. Commissioner Mills suggested
that the public access disc golf videos be stopped since the Commission
is trying to stop people from playing disc golf (I assume he meant "in
wet conditions" but that's not what he said). Public Access TV: I hope I missed something here. This didn't seem like Mills. I don't count him as a fan of disc golf, but he is probably the most "prepared" of the Commissioners. Public access TV is not under city control. Censorship is a ridiculous concept. It was recently applied to the Orion by (allegedly) some of our environmentally minded young people. All I can say is WOW! I'm stunned anyone suggested exerting control over this valuable free-speech tool. Voluntary Course Closure: I think Commissioner Walker brought up the concept of closing the course in the rain (months back). I like Walker. He's very environmental, but still thoughtful enough to accept the value of recreation. I'm comfortable following Walker's lead on these issues, but his reasonableness has been diluted by the other events. I think what was an honest attempt to communicate with park users has been wrecked. The policy has been poorly implemented. It seems like opening the course has been an afterthought. On fine sunny days, with no water or mud pooled throughout most of the area, the course remains closed. People can see that someone just never bothered to change the sign, or that the restriction is not based on muddy conditions. The closures could have started as less stringent and over time (a few years) gradually increased to match the mountain bike restrictions. There seems to be little thought on how to successfully implement changes in use patterns. An additional kink in the policy was the impression that it was just an attempt to remove the disc golf courses. Commissioners Ober and Barrett voted to remove the targets a couple of weeks after the voluntary closure was put in place. It's hard to convince people to adhere to new voluntary rules when the city is all stick and no carrot. |
Posted by Lon at 09:49 AM | Comments (2)
April 23, 2006
Yes David!
 |
Congratulations to David
Little, an editor at the Chico ER, and gate-keeper for NorCal blogs. |
Posted by Lon at 10:08 AM
April 18, 2006
Regeneration Hesitation
 |
| I didn't notice the grass and bushes
growing unfettered in areas of the 1 Mile Recreation Area. A friend pointed
it out while walking
back
from kite flying at CARD's
Sycamore Field (adjacent to Caper Acres). He mentioned that it seemed
kind of like encroachment. It's an interesting idea. The new growth was such a gradual addition to the park that I never noticed it. It has been promoted by the city and forms a new line of demarcation. While not specifically a fence, it will probably act as one. It may be seasonal and soon to be removed, but judging from the recently released 1-mile map that doesn't seem to be the case. This is Oak regeneration land now. |
| Before we look at the map I think it's interesting
to consider some of the various decisions made in recent history
and how they changed the way Chico uses Bidwell Park. Let's go back to July 5th 1995, when in a 4-3 vote alcohol was banned from the park. The minority that voted against it felt it couldn't be enforced. That's probably true, but the days of obvious parties are gone. For good or bad the ban removed a user group from the park forever. I think that group included responsible users of alcohol, as well as the other kind. The recent improvements to Horseshoe Lake, while attractive, seem intentionally designed to crowd us. Parking on sunny days is not available to meet the demand. A few Sunday trips to the closed upper park gate and minimal parking will cause some families to stop short at Wildwood Park, and abandon future attempts at an afternoon hike in the wilds. I couldn't find the date when the 5 Mile Recreation Area was no longer seasonally dammed to create a swimming pool. Someone told me it was in the mid '80s. I seem to remember high water in '89 or '90. Regardless, the Park Director (Dennis Beardsley) has said it will never be dammed again (edit: this comment was in relation to changes in environmental law, not a personal judgement). The once inviting bank, and cool waters of 5 Mile Recreation Area are replaced with a stand of linebacker-like shrubs and moss congested water at most a foot deep in summer. This once vibrant picnic area seems to me like it has lost its purpose. It's a nice place to pass through (bathrooms and all), but is no longer a destination. This is far from a recreation area (photo below is from today). |
 |
| Our neighborhood parks go
un built and
the Bidwell Park sites specifically named recreation areas
are being converted by restoration projects. Like 5 mile, once the conversion
takes
place it's
unlikely to be reversed. The new map of 1 Mile Recreation Area (below) shows just how much of the park has been swallowed by Oak regeneration areas (dark green, looks to be about 2/3). It remains to be seen whether or not this area will evolve into a "no-mans land". But it will probably not be used for horseshoe pits, picnic tables, bocce balls, playgrounds, or any other recreation that brings people together. As we move forward I hope people pay attention to Sycamore Pool. It is one of the last examples of it's kind in the country. Environmental groups tried to "restore" it a couple of decades back. A lack of will by city officials to refurbish it may be occurring today. If this pool dies a death of neglect then we will have lost even more of what Chico is. And we will never get it back. I don't know if there has been an intentional move to reduce recreation areas in Bidwell Park. But intentional or not we seem to have lost much of what we once were. Let's hope people are willing to stand up for what's left. |
 |
Posted by Lon at 09:33 PM | Comments (9)
April 13, 2006
Pennies from Heaven
 |
| The city will be handing out money at the April 27th Finance Committee meeting. Please feel free to attend. |
| More than 30 organizations are seeking funds from
the City of Chico to help them continue operations. The total greenback
expected to
be allotted this year is ~$740,000. The money will come from the General Fund, Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG),
and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT).
This is about $100,000 more than last year. It's also $250,000 less than the City Council allotted. They didn't distribute all of the money the Council set aside because of other pressures on the General Fund account. I could go through this list and point out the ones I don't think deserve funds. But it's kind of subjective. I usually support business interests and school related organizations. I also like to see mental health organizations doing their job. For some reason crazy* people are attracted to me. I like it best when they're being treated. Both park funded groups have had members bad mouth my favorite recreation, but I'll bury the hatchet. Who doesn't like cats and creeks? I do (not together though). I do have one park comment. The Kiwanis Chico Community Observatory operates completely on its own. And Kris Koenig, the stand-up guy that put it together, recently dined with the leader of Egypt. Now that's a non-profit. Good for the kids, pay their own way, science (I love science), and hob knobbing with world leaders. You go girl (Kris is a boy, I just wanted to say "you go girl"). Give the observatory money. I did, and I will again. Many of the organizations did not ask for additional money because they knew the city had a stretched budget. "Meals On Wheels" said they didn't ask for more money, but didn't account for increased fuel costs, and if money was left over they would like some of it. I like that. Very honest. I'd give them a City gas card. Since this is community money. I wanted to be sure that the community (at least the blog readers) knew who was asking for what. So here it is. You decide if they should get it. The Finance Committee will argue the matter on 4-27. When looking over this list keep in mind the $160,000 charrette, and the $250,000 game table art project. *my mother-in-law, a social worker, says crazy is not an appropriate word to use when describing the mentally ill. I say quit redacting my dictionary, political correctness be damned. |
||
| Organization Arc of Butte County Butte County Behavioral Health Caminar Catalyst Women's Advocates Catholic Ladies Relief Society Chico Area Council on Aging (Meals on Wheels) Chico Cat Coalition (PAWS) Chico Community Children's Center Chico Community Shelter Partnership Chico Creek Nature Center Chico Unified School District Community Action Agency Community Legal Information Center (CLIC) Do-It Leisure (Work Training Center) Independent Living Services of Northern California Innovative Health Care Services Innovative Preschool Legal Services of Northern California North Valley Parent Education Network Passages Adult Resource Center Rape Crisis Intervention Sunshine Kids Club VECTORS Barry R Kirshner Wildlife Foundation CARD (4th of July) Chico Chamber of Commerce Chico Chamber of Commerce Chico Economic Planning Corporation (CEPCO) Downtown Chico Business Association (DCBA) Far West Heritiage (formerly Chico Museum) Far West Heritiage (formerly Chico Museum) Hispanic Business Association Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Natural History Museum (CSUC Foundation) University Public Events (CSUC Foundation) |
2005-6 $8520 $0 $7140 $9510 $19000 $20780 $10000 $22669 $12000 $53889 $0 $13906 $2652 $13818 $16150 $30122 $8840 $16616 $11934 $5835 $25603 $3768 $11220 $0 $3115 $118948 $20000 $40000 $38400 $20376 $7000 $5000 $5000 $0 $10000 |
2006-7 $13422 $19998 $7140 $16528 $19000 $21000 $14000 $22669 $12000 $60960 $10970 $16000 $3000 $13818 $16150 $31628 $10000 $20000 $16000 $5835 $25603 $6000 $0 $8300 $3115 $156169 $0 $48000 $47500 $34000 $0 $0 $35000 $20000 $20000 |
Posted by Lon at 10:37 PM
April 12, 2006
Big Brother Meets Big Bird? (Children's Playground Part 2)
|
| I attended an Internal Affairs Committee meeting this morning. The catalyst for me to rush downtown at 8AM was the ER article on Children's Playground solutions that quoted Chief Hagerty. I was concerned over the concept of security cameras being installed in the park. I thought that it was a poor solution to the problem. But will Chief Hagerty's recommendations for Children's Playground fix the problems? |
| Policing Children's Playground: I'm not a privacy nut. Cameras don't scare me, but they don't replace community policing. I was also looking at the funding proposed for Children's Playground. It's that pesky redevelopment thingy again (RDA). RDA funds can't be used to pay for police services. I was afraid that security cameras were a novel way to provide enforcement without paying for enforcers. That doesn't seem like an appropriate strategy for Children's Playground. From the Chico ER on 4-12-06 Chico's Police Chief suggests a number of changes in Children's Playground to make it more friendly to moms. These include pruning and changes to make things more visible to passers by (inlcuding officers driving by in cars). Suggested physical changes eliminate places to hide, dramatically increase lighting, make seating uncomfortable for sleeping, and add security cameras. In a 1-30-06 memo from Chief Hagerty to Greg Jones it looks like the only suggested camera placement would be at the amphitheater. But a portion of the discussion this morning about downtown and Children's Playground revolved around the installation of cameras. This city wouldn't pay for most of the security cams. It was interesting that the discussion of Children's Playground extended into policing and security downtown. They suffer the same problems of vagrants and pan-handlers. Some of whom are not very nice. But do we want our community policed by cameras? NO! The least desirable kind of policing is the kind that shows up after the crime and picks up the pieces. Cameras work when people have fear of prosecution. Without that fear, they only serve to gather evidence of crimes already committed. Peace officers can better understand the personalities involved in downtown issues if they are stationed there. Some of the transients are mentally ill. Others are jerks. It's hard for a camera to tell the difference. A foot-patrol officer can develop relationships with the denizens of downtown. They can then make policing decisions based on that knowledge base. So my summary on policing? Give the Chief and others credit for putting some thought into this. But then give them some money for a downtown officer. Driving by in cars and/or placing cameras is only part of an answer. |
|
| Other Stakeholders: Todays meeting showed a considerable amount of staff brainpower and extra-city organizations have been thinking about this problem. The Chico Mothers' Club, CARD, police, parks, public works, and others were present with ideas. The fact that I might disagree with some of the ideas shouldn't take away from the reality that the city is looking into this problem. The Chico Mothers' Club was, and should be, given credit for making this a public issue. But this is a community park, and those of us with kids ought to lend a hand by getting involved. CARD Takes Part: CARD showed up and discussed downtown recreation programming that might include some of their sport camps and summer camps. Restrooms were an issue, and the ones at Ringel Park were discussed. Also discussed was the possiblity of partnering with the Church and/or University to accomodate parking and restroom needs. FYI: Girls Sports Day includes disc golf this year along with other more vigorous sporting activities. Inspire our young ladies and support CARD by having your kids attend Girls Sports Day (Activity# 345, 4-29-06 9AM-4PM, Ages 9-13, Community Park, $15.00 includes free lunch). I receive no money for this plug. I just love CARD. Homeless and Ringel Park: An interesting discussion occurred about moving transients away from the bathrooms at Ringel Park. Ringel Park is the little chunk of heaven between Children's Playground and Collier's. I love these discussions because they are always about how to remove the homeless without violating constitutional rules about targeting specific types of people. Usually it boils down to finding a technicality that only applies to the people you want to remove. Legally, it's very tough to do, and in the few conversations I've heard there's never been a policy that people agree on. The police can't remove a fellow who is present in a public place unless he's committing a crime. They can't say "Hey you &*$@%:, move along, you're not wanted here!". Andy Holcombe had an interesting idea about providing places where homeless can get out of the weather. Little homeless depots if you will. In reality the homeless need to be somewhere, and laying about in the rain can't be the best place for anyone. Of course that "helpfullness" might create a magnet effect and cause more problems then it solves. |
|
 |
Greater Community Involvement: Public art like that shown here (which was not allowed in Children's Playground because it was not in the RDA zone and couldn't be funded with RDA money) should be encouraged to attract visitors to the site. At least $125K dollars of any RDA funded improvements should go to more play equipment so that parents are attracted to the site. Amplified sound should be allowed once per month for movies in the park at the amphitheater. Proceeds could go to fund whatever club put them on (Chico Mothers' Club, CARD?) or could be put back into the park. Disc golf? The Park Commission has been talking about a kid's course in town. There's already a target there. The distances are so short that it's only good for kids or putting practice. I think it could be considered. Establishing a wireless network at the site could allow business people to work there. They do it at Woodstocks whose new motto is "Good pizza, great technology". Put in a really expensive game table art project... oh, never mind, we've already got one.  |
| Bad Andy! There was a brief conversation at the Internal Affairs Committee about high school kids in the Children's Park buying/selling/smoking doobies (marijuana for the unhip, spleef for the stoners). Dan Herbert made a great comment. Paraphrased (and then put in quotations to look like a quote) it was "I'm not going to paint high school kids with a broad brush. They're not all there doing drugs, and a park is a perfect place for high school kids to take their lunch." Andy's reply "I'll paint them with that brush". I'm not going to feign outrage over this. It was no big deal, and he was probably kidding. But it was a pretty lame thing to say. High school kids are just that...kids. Lets not put all our kids in the same box. Below: The magical, wondrous, amphitheater. I once watched a rock concert here where a black lab jumped in and got stuck in the current. While the band played on the crowd began to shift attention to the dog. Within a couple of minutes the attendees were cheerfully chanting for the dog to beat the current. In the end he did. Here it is shown in "rinse cycle". This is a problem area at night. |
|
 |
|
Posted by Lon at 02:27 PM
April 11, 2006
The Dome is Up!!!
|
Regardless of how you feel about the cost of this park, the funding source, or the $250K game table portion of the project. This will be a stunning addition to downtown. Enjoy this with your families. The dome is up! |
|
Cropped and brightness/contrast adjusted for a better view of the half-dome. The dome was being lowered onto "alignment rods" here. It took about 40 minutes to lift and place. |
|
Posted by Lon at 10:29 AM | Comments (8)
April 09, 2006
Is Email a Public Document?
| The way we communicate with each other,
and our government, has changed in the last decade. We're no longer in the midst of transition between electronic and hard copy (paper) media. That transition is complete. Email is now the primary method of communication between most businesses. Our city government has done a good job making the move (I applaud Anthony Watts for private sector donations supporting electronic media). I have written email to the City with the expectation that they will be part of the public record. However at a recent Art Commission meeting, Art Projects Coordinator, Mary Gardner(head of dept.), admitted to deleting email from the public. When Commissioner Payne questioned why a specific email did not show up in the "Public Comments" section of the meeting the response was troubling.... |
|
| Mary Gardner had only been forwarding
comments received via the postal service that were directed to the Art
Commission. Emails
were not forwarded and were deleted. To be fair, she implied in an Art
Committee meeting that no important emails to the
commission
were missed. On the surface this may be true. But it seems to disregard the purpose of her position as city staff. On the city web site the only method of contacting the Art Commission (or city) about art matters is through an email to the Art Projects Coordinator. It seems like all email she receives via this link could be considered public input that the Art Commission should be aware of and have access to. At the previously mentioned Art Committee meeting I saw finger pointing and accusations. The meeting was supposed to be about creating an art survey to see if the public is engaged in Chico's public art (beyond the "art snobs" sipping wine out of plastic cups). And since the public rarely shows up at this commission's meetings (unless money is being doled out) a public survey seemed like a grand plan! |
| What is the city policy
related to email storage as a public record? This from Lynn McEnespy (Information Systems Director City of Chico) to Commissioner Payne related to retrieving deleted emails. "Hopefully I can answer your questions and possibly suggest some things that may assist the Arts Commission in the survey project: " "... If e-mail messages are deleted, they are gone and can't be recovered. The system is encrypted so file recovery programs don't work. Our City Attorney and City Manager, in consultation with me, have determined that we will not back up this system, or retain superflous messages for many very good reasons including the sheer volume and cost. Important e-mails are saved or printed by City staff. It is City policy, and is diligently followed by all staff, that if ANY type of correspondence, request for information, etc. is received from Council, Boards, Commissions, or Committees; all members (and generally the City Manager) receive the same information. I am positive that any correspondence, including e-mail sent to the Arts Commission would have been handled in accordance with our policy and all commissioners informed. We can have copies of E-mails received from the "E-Mail Arts Coordinator" address on the website to Commissioners private E-mail addresses if they so choose." This seems like a reasonable proposal. If Art Commissioners have some concern over whether or not they are getting all of the information from staff they should have separate email addresses on the City web site, or receive copies of all emails. The policy of allowing city staff to determine what is worthy of being saved or forwarded is realistic. This policy is also easily misused. If somebody were to email a scathing review of work done by the Park, Planning, Housing, or Art staff, why would they forward that on to city officials? And in areas where the city staff have a financial stake, there is greater reason for concern. If public concern via email came from someone that had a personal disagreement with a city official how do you ensure that the delete button doesn't get hit? It may be that a separate position knowledgeable of the California Public Records Act requirements should determine what should be saved-stored and what is "superfluous". At the least the city should have an obvious link to an ombudsman. |
Oddly enough this whole issue seems to be getting worse and worse. In an effort to gain access to emails that were NOT deleted Commissioner Payne has filed a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request to see the emails. This legal request is being ignored. He was initially told he could head up to the office and see them. Then he was told he needed to file paper work to see them. Now the legal 10 day time limit has expired and the city has failed to meet the request in a timely manner, The city is required to provide a written explanation of why they cannot provide this information, and can grant themselves a 14 day extension (24 days). They have neither provided the information, nor a written reason why they cannot do so. Email is covered under the CPRA. The request from an Art Commissioner to see work product of the Art city staff does not seem unreasonable. Information system staff have provided a reasonable response to the question of deleted emails. I have to wonder why the Art Projects Coordinator has failed to provide the emails that were not deleted. The City Manager and City Attorney have determined that the current policy is valid. If it turns out that the Art Projects Coordinator has saved and stored no emails in the last couple of years that can be a result of only two things. The first is that the Art Department has received no email worthy of "public record" status in the last few years (which is impossible). Or secondly, the Art Department has failed to meet the standard of saving records under the CPRA (which is illegal). The City Manager and City Attorney need to clear this matter up quickly. Personality conflicts appear to be creating a liability for the city where none needs to be. This public information should be provided to Commissioner Payne, and the city appears to be out of legal compliance with the California Public Records Act. |
| This from
The First Amendment Project describing the California Public records
Act: WHAT’S COVERED " Records" includes all forms of communication related to public business "regardless of physical form or characteristics, including any writing, picture, sound, or symbol, whether paper, fiber, magnetic, or other media." (§ 6252(e)) Electronic records are included, but software may be exempt. (§§ 6253.9(a),(g), 6254.9(a,(d)) WHAT MUST HAPPEN Access is immediate and allowed at all times during business hours. (§ 6253(a)). Staff need not disrupt operations to allow immediate access, but a decision on whether to grant access must be prompt. An agency may not adopt rules that limit the hours records are open for viewing and inspection. (§§ 6253(d); 6253.4(b)) The agency must provide assistance by helping to identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to overcome any practical basis for denying access. (§ 6253.1) An agency has 10 days to decide if copies will be provided. In "unusual" cases (request is "voluminous," seeks records held off-site, OR requires consultation with other agencies), the agency may upon written notice to the requestors give itself an additional 14 days to respond. (§6253(c)) These time periods may not be used solely to delay access to the records. (§ 6253(d)) The agency may never make records available only in electronic form. (§ 6253.9(e) Access is always free. Fees for "inspection" or "processing" are prohibited. (§ 6253) Copy costs are limited to "statutory fees" set by the Legislature (not by local ordinance) or the "direct cost of duplication", typically 10-25 cents per page. Charges for search, review or deletion are not allowed. (§ 6253(b)); North County Parents v. DOE, 23 Cal.App.4th 144 (1994). If a request for electronic records either (1) is for a record normally issued only periodically, or (2) requires data compilation, extraction, or programming, copying costs may include the cost of the programming. (§ 6253.9(a),(b)) The agency must justify the withholding of any record by demonstrating that the record is exempt or that the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure. (§6255) |
Posted by Lon at 11:20 AM | Comments (4)
April 08, 2006
New Fish Lamps A Success!
The newly installed fish lamps in Big Chico Creek have been
a success. The lamps were put in place to allow chinook salmon more time
to make their spawning run. |
|
Posted by Lon at 08:01 AM
April 07, 2006
This Park Courtesy of the Redevelopment Agency
|
| In the latest CNR cover story City
Manager Greg Jones was quoted as saying
"There are a number of local citizens who regularly attend meetings and write letters to the editor who are adamantly opposed to the use of redevelopment funds--state-tax revenues diverted to local coffers--for capital projects, but Jones has no intention of heeding them. "I don't know where this community would be without redevelopment," he says. "It has so many infrastructure needs, and without that tool, we couldn't meet those needs. I look upon redevelopment as a gift from the state." I'm not sure who was quoting who here, but this is what I'm hearing... |
| The redevelopment agency (or RDA) is many things to Chico,
but it is not a gift. A gift is given freely with no strings attached.
That's not
to say that the RDA isn't a useful financial tool if used correctly. But
it does have a real cost associated with it. Think of it as a really, really, really, big home mortgage. It makes sense to take a second mortgage out to fix your roof today, instead of leaving a leak for a year until you can pay cash. Taking a second mortgage out to buy a jet ski... not so smart. This isn't a great analogy, but it gets to the point of when "debt" is good. The RDA, which today overlays much of Chico, does divert money from state coffers (as well as school and recreation districts, and the city general fund). And capital projects have included purchasing land to set aside as "open space" and buying new buildings for local businesses to use. In other words, some of the money has been spent on things that cannot be accessed, or that do not benefit, the community as a whole. I've been meeting with the City Council formed RDA Committee for the last couple of months (I am not speaking for members of this committee with this post). What I have seen in this group is a non-partisan approach to the RDA. We have worked hard to develop a common sense criteria for judging future RDA expenditures. |
| Intermission: What is the
RDA? Redevelopment agencies were created to allow local governments to consolidate blighted areas (such as failing high rise "projects" in inner cities), through eminent domain if necessary. These areas could then be redeveloped. Bonds are issued and to recoup the great cost of this social re-engineering the RDA are allowed to keep the tax increment until the bond is paid off ("tax-increment" is the difference between the old property tax and the new tax assessment after improvements). Our City Council and city staff act as the board of directors and management of the RDA. They sit on a structure parallel to city government that creates bonds and spends bond money without voter approval. City staff are also paid an RDA administration fee. The state demands that 20% of our RDA goes to affordable housing, the city has specified that 1% goes to public art. The remaining 79% is passed to other agencies or used for capital projects, studies, and a few loosely defined, regularly funded, accounts accessible by city staff. California Redevelopment law defines a blighted area as one that contains a combination of conditions that are so prevalent and substantial that they result in a physical and economic burden to the community that cannot reasonably be expected to be alleviated or reversed by private and or government action without redevelopment. California case law has so expanded the definition of "blight" that some now consider a lack of "open space" as blight (a big problem in Chico with only 4000 acres of park land). I believe Chico had four RDA bonds issued and then they were merged into 1 to allow tax increment income from one area to be applied to other less lucrative areas. The RDA cannot fund all city expenses. Some things that cannot be funded by the RDA include emergency services and regular maintenance costs. |
back to the topic... I hope it doesn't sound like I'm railing against the RDA. I'm not. In learning about this topic I've come to the conclusion that the city government could use some constructive criticism on the subject of RDA spending. No member of our committee has proposed that we ask the city to abolish the RDA. In Mr. Jones' previous quote it sounds as though the city staff are getting ready to "circle the wagons". I hope that's not true. Most of our talk is about fixing infrastructure in older neighborhoods (sidewalks, sewers, etc). I am sure there will be a series of reasonable suggestions coming from this group of people. I have found it refreshing to sit in a room full of very different interests, and see that we have so much common ground when talking about what the city needs most. When dealing with CEQA issues the city often adopts policies that protect natural resources above and beyond the letter of the law. Looking at historic and planned RDA projects the city seems to have pushed the envelope on what can be funded. I think they should pull back a tad and look at the original intent of RDA. After reading all of the comments in the CNR article I think the RDA committee members probably have a lot in common with the new city manager. I hope he realizes that. |
| Little
more info... how much money are we talking about? That's a tough question. From the documents at www.chicorda.com, and discussion in the RDA committee there is about $22 million on hand, and $5-6 million of tax increment income expected annually. The list of RDA funded capital projects can be between $40-60 million depending on the list you're looking at. The debt the city will eventually have to pay back is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This is big money of extreme importance to our neighborhoods. A lack of transparency is what has some citizens talking. Good government would listen. |
Posted by Lon at 04:05 PM | Comments (2)
April 02, 2006
The Future of Children's Playground
|
| In a 1-18-06 memo to the City Council Tom Lando sent his
recommendations for near-term redevelopment (RDA) projects. This list was
smaller than
previous lists of proposed projects
the city has published. I believe Tom's list accounts for some of the politics
in Chico, and so the projects have a greater chance of being approved. Nestled amongst multi-million dollar projects was a line item for Children's Playground. This is the little area across from Colliers that has been home to everything but children. A proposed $250,000 would be spent on this area, and stakeholders include the Chico Mothers' Club, downtown businesses, and the university. It also has the only officially placed disc golf target in Chico. The park is owned and operated by the City of Chico and Park Department (not CARD), and therefore falls under the influence of the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission. Many park projects are listed as RDA fund candidates. But there may be a problem with the RDA funding... |
From city maps Children's Playground does not appear to
fall within the merged redevelopment area. This doesn't preclude RDA
funds
for this project but it does contradict other city department funding
decisions. 
|
 |
| A little history: A couple of years ago Park Director Dennis Beardsley
brought forward the idea of banning dogs at Children's Playground. The
stated purpose was to provide law enforcement with a tool to remove unwanted
elements from the area. The Park Commission did not support this proposal.
I think this was a bad proposal since it would restrict even law abiding
citizens. But it did strike at the heart of the problem, which is how to
remove a bad element from a public space. Didn't Lando Retire?: Tom Lando, the recently retired City Manager, is still working at the city as a "Special Projects Worker" helping with the complicated issues of the redevelopment agency. |
|
| The problems in Children's Playground are threefold. 1. There just aren't that many kids in the downtown area. And parking for the site is difficult to find. However, when I lived in the "streets" side of town I did take my son there as well as my dogs. 2. Drinking, littering, and vandalism at night cause so much debris (including broken bottles) that parents don't care to visit again after a couple of bad experiences. After cleaning shards of glass and dried spit off of a slide I quit going there. 3. The city has at times turned down proposals that might have generated more positive activity in the area. Solving these problems are difficult. They can be solved by getting more people to the area, and keeping the site clean and safe. A specific play area should be identified and fenced. And passing an ordinance similar to Caper Acres (no one over 13 allowed unless accompanied by a child) should be enacted for that play area. Night time lighting can be improved and clean up crews can be sent to the area on weekend mornings. If the city can afford a 3.5 million dollar Plaza Park they can afford to care for their only downtown playground. More activities should be directed to the site that are external to the play area. The City Council turned down an opportunity to allow amplified sound at the adjacent amphitheater (concerts and movies in the park). One day my son and I arrived at Wildwood Park early on a Saturday morning to find two drunk and very loud "dudes" hanging out. No other families were there. I was pretty annoyed by their behavior. Within a half hour other families had shown up and were playing (kids can be pretty loud at play). The "dudes" were pretty annoyed by our behavior. Shortly thereafter they left, and we kept playing. The moral of the story is that if you give a good element a reason to be in a park, the bad element will go somewhere else. The city can help make Children's Playground a place for kids. Funding improvements is a great start. But we have to be sure the money goes to solid solutions backed by a reasonable policy. This cannot become the newest high-end-art project, nor can the funding be allowed to get sucked into the consultant vortex. |
Posted by Lon at 10:36 AM | Comments (4)
Old Fords and City Planning
What is a charrette worth? A recent downtown planning charrette ("new-agey" public planning meeting) was estimated to cost somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000.  The
1964 Ford Fairlane Thunderbolt shown above is listed on eBay for about
$150,000. It's a classic car with a long racing history. I recently
paid $5,000 for a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500, which is a similar model. |
What is a Ford Fairlane? The Ford Fairlane was an automobile model sold between 1955 and 1971 by the Ford Motor Company in North America. It was also used by Ford Australia from 1960 to the present day for a large luxury automobile in its range, with only a brief absence in the mid-1960s. The name was taken from Henry Ford's estate, Fair Lane, near Dearborn, Michigan. (from wikipedia) |
As much as I would like to drop $150K on a classic car I think it
might be irresponsible for me to do that. I've got other obligations
in my life that require me to spend my resources more thoughtfully. I
think this is where old Ford cars meet city planning. I'm astounded
that it would cost more than $5,000 for full-time city staff to meet with
the
public. |
| What is a charrette? A charrette (often spelled charette and often called design charrette) is an urban planning technique for consulting with all stakeholders. Charrettes are typically intense, possibly multi-day meetings involving municipal officials, developers and local residents. A charrette promotes joint ownership of the solution and attempts to defuse traditional confrontation between residents and developers. However, charettes tend to be small groups and the resident representatives may not represent all the residents nor have the moral authority to represent them. Residents do get early input into the planning process. For developers and municipal officials charrettes achieve community involvement and hopefully avoid costly legal battles. (from wikipedia) |
Posted by Lon at 10:24 AM | Comments (2)
April 01, 2006
Parking Commission Increases Bicycle Parking Fee
Parking Commission to hike bicycle hourly parking fees to $2.00
Income into the city treasury has been significantly reduced since the farmers market riots early last year. Automobile traffic has been impossible downtown due to the destruction of most road infrastructure.
The reduction of income has been so significant that the "Whether or not to buy new staplers" charrette funding has had to be reduced to $125,000. The consultants hired to run the charrette have suggested that it might not be as feel-good as was originally planned. Some smirking and eye-rolling during the exercise can now be expected. Lastly, the cookies and kool-aid supply has had to be reduced as well.
The new metered bike racks (shown above) have been generating some income, but not enough to cover the new state-of-the-art-community professional chess complex being installed at Children's Park.
An additional reason cited by the Parking Commission for increasing the hourly bicycle parking fee has been the cost of removing bicycles from downtown. Many people have been parking illegally. Bikes have been seen leaned against trees and in some cases people have had to be cited for walking their bikes (which was recently made illegal in the downtown pedi-zone).
Chico parking enforcement has had to remove an average of 2.75 tons of bicycles daily (see photo below). Most of these bikes were parked at expired meters. Some were also abandoned or parked illegally.
Happy April 1st.
Posted by Lon at 03:04 PM