Commission Impossible

We saw the start of this with Karen Laslo's letter recently. It was a thinly veiled threat against Wahl, more or less saying shut up or we'll kick you out of office. Liberals don't like their agendas questioned and they always seek to censor dissenting voices.

Hey Dane,

I don't have a problem with people writing letters (even angry ones). I don't doubt people want Wahl out of office, I've heard that and worse from the back of the council chambers.

I think it is valuable for the public to know when an outpouring of angst is orchestrated by political groups and when it's not. And I also find it ironic that angry letters are the response to being upset over Wahl's comments, which were viewed by some as too negative.

It's also instructive to know when a PAC says "jump" who in the public responds with "how high?".

Lon

I did not find Wahl's comments negative but rather informative. I did not realize extent of the expendetures lately. Larry ownes a business, he understands that if you buy this you can't buy something else. He was expressing this.

City Employees are going to want raises, new equipment, better health coverage etc. Citizens are going to want faster leaf pick-up, streets cleaned, sidewalks downtown cleaned, better Police and Fire protection, the list will go on and on. If the council is spending the city's tax dollars foolishly there just isn't going to be enough money to get it all done! I appreciate Larry's conservative approach he was letting everyone know he is watching and holding the parties accountable. I think that he is frustrated with his fellow council persons. It has got to be tough to sit up there and not roll is eyes or say something.

Larry did encourage individuals to get involved. So I am. I am not happy with the way things are going right now.

With Scott's sustainability stance, if he was really interested in making a difference he would move to Willows and not commute every day.

Ann Schwab is clueless when it comes to this "task force" for energy savings. Most of the items she is suggesting the city has been doing for years. "Energy star" means nothing! It is a sales gimic. When products are given an "Energy Star" label they don't tell you the rating level. Was the heater rated in Texas or Alaska? Was the Air Conditioner rated in Texas or Alaska?

Then we have Andy I can make the simplist issue convoluted Holcome. "But what if the sky were bluer on a Tuesday Afternoon". Andy should make more of an effort to not over analyze things.

I encourage everyone to get involved.

Ms,

Wahl's comments were genuine and as an elected councilor he has every right to express them. I agree with much of what he said, particularly regarding spending without a plan.

I understand where some people feel he should have found a different forum to express his concerns. But I think that's being a little hypersensitive.

On the Gruendl front I don't think sustainability and driving to work are incompatible.

I'm looking at the regulatory infrastructure that's building in California, and I'm thinking that doing business here in the future will require additional environmental awareness. If sustainability can be defined in terms of economic efficiency I think more people would listen.

I'm sure the local "sustainability task force" will be stacked with ideologues, but I also know that Holcombe put at least one business minded person on it. So maybe something will come out of it that makes economic sense.

Lon

I think Wahl was just like he always is. I was not surprised with his comments nor did I find the EL email a call to "jump." Wahl has become (assuming he wasn't always) the ol' curmudgeon – frequently on a tirade about issues I am not certain he fully understands.

Do not take this statement as a reference of mine to his intelligence. But I think sometimes when people don’t have anything left they just complain that things just aren’t like they used to be.

Wahl does not often comment in the positive about anything (I say not often because my count is zero – but then again I don’t watch every council meeting). What should be more important for Wahl is to actually start accomplishing rather than besmirching. It is my belief he has even alienated himself from Bertagna in many respects and had alienated himself from Herbert. When you are way out there you are way out there.

I think maybe it is coming time to remove an ineffective councilmember. Even if we assume he’s dead on. I'm guessing some conservative council hopefuls are thinking the same thing. "If only there were a nice way to ask Wahl to step aside."

This gloom and doom message has been stated so many times last year - throughout the entire council campaign. The voters didn’t believe the message and even if they did they elected a group they thought could deal with it. Let’s move on lest yee suffer a similar fate.

Hey Randall,

Wahl recently made a very positive statement about the private-public relationship that supported a local art community event. He did this before voting $100,000 to help fund it for the next two years.

I think your post is a bit of the "pot calling the kettle black". I recall your email from the Democratic Action Club of Chico prior to the last election as being on the "doom and gloom" side of things. I could say the same about statements from many of the candidates

But whether or not Wahl or Bertagna can be effective in this new council really comes down to how you define effectiveness.

I don't believe shaking an angry fist at the other 5 council members every 4 weeks on a Tuesday night will lead to reelection. On the other hand, making strong statments about fiscal issues might serve them (and the city) pretty well.

Some people are still going to chalk the last election up to voters not "understanding" what the candidates stood for. I'm not one of those people.

I think Chico voters are anti-growth and pro-public spending. We want a nice town with unique parks, buildings, unclogged roadways, and dare I say "open space". There are some structural problems (financially speaking) with that. Primarily the fact that growth fuels much of the public spending.

It would be interesting to see if Chico voters are anti-growth, pro-public spending, and pro-tax increase. I doubt it, but I think that is a conversation that needs to happen. Scott Gruendl seemed to recognize the need to evaluate that during the campaign.

Lon

Well, my family held an intervention for me recently - they confronted me with my serial complaining and my "nag-ativity."

"Mom, can't you just relax once in a while?" they whined. I mean, asked.

My husband says I see everything in the negative. For instance, he says I should be overjoyed that my son is in an English class at Butte, and somebody else can red-pencil his special brand of spelling (eversince we read the declaration of independence, he's been telling me I'm a spelling tyrant and he can spell however he wants.)

But what do I see? I see that his teacher, another GD bleeding heart liberal college professor, has assigned the class to "study" SUSTAINABILITY this semester. All semester. Am I being punished by the gods?

Please, get that buzz word away from me.

During the "women's lib movement," my mom used to say, "I don't talk about women's lib, I live it." Boy, she was so "liberated," she had to support three kids. Now I say the same thing about "sustainability." No, we are not perfect, but I'll say it - if everybody tried as hard as my family, we wouldn't have to talk about it.

What gripes me the most is, the conversation is loaded. You have to be sustainable in their way (the GD liberals). You have to live in a sardine can on a lot so small the back wall of your house is the fence. You have to run out and buy a hybrid vehicle, even if your family does not drive sufficient mileage to warrant such expenditure. You have to have a lot of money to be their kind of "sustainable."

For example, the first assignment in my kid's class was to take a survey on an enviro website. He found that the selected answers almost never fit our real sitch - typical multiple choice. So he did the best he could. They didn't ask questions like, "Did your mom use cloth diapers on you children, wash them in a front loader, hang them on the clothesline, and then convert them into gladrags when you potty-trained?" or "does it drive you nuts that your mom won't buy anything in white cardboard?" They ask really loaded questions, like, "when did you stop raping the planet?"

So, my son, who learned to ride his bike everywhere by age 5, and at the age of 10 did a photo report on his mom's composter (From Trash to Black Gold!), received a poor score and a nasty remark: "If everybody lived like you, we'd need 2.5 Earths!"

Of course, I was very negative about that, I said, "What do we need with Butte College - does Billy Jack still run that Freedom School?". My son says to me, "Mom, you don't have to take it so personally, it's just a website."

That made me feel very positive. At 16, my son is not as naive as I was entering college at 18.

So today, I will try to be positive. For example - did anybody see the snowboard competition on the local news last night? My family took me on that course (terrain park at Sugar Bowl) all day Wednesday as the crews were setting it up - giant mountains! Little by little, my family has helped me to conquer my fear of heights, down, fast, and people. It took them a couple of years to get me to the resort, then a few more to get me on the lift, a couple more to get me off the "bunny hill," and now, they are dragging me up the black diamond runs and telling me, "Don't worry Mom, you can do it." How can you stay "negative" with a family like that?

Cow a bunga.

Good comments from both of you. I especially appreciated Juanita's mention of getting Mom on to a chair lift/snow trip. I too had a similar experience years ago with my Mom who is also scared of heights. Thanks for the memory.

As I recall my email on behalf of the D.A.C.C. was within 3 days of the same "budget deficit" mailers all three candidates sent out and funded 3 to 1 by developers. In particular my "gloom and doom" comments addressed the spending by developers for a smear campaign. While "gloom and doom" is (I guess now) in the eye of the beholder I will agree that the electorate does not always vote for what is *most* important (I even chuckled at my own words when I said the "voters didn't believe" the message). In all likelihood, the voters rejected the "gloom and doom" picture the D-slate was painting. The gloom and doom message was not accurate and was fairly transparent as to the overall objective. But I disagree that the voters were confused about the issue.

With regards to the dissenting voice I think it is only healthy for Wahl to voice his dissent. What is problematic is that Wahl is the dissenting voice more often than he is an approving voice (substantially more dissenting). This has been the case since he first entered office and seems to be getting worse. While it is understandable that Wahl would disagree with a majority that is systemically the opposite, I don’t believe his dissention is a close derivative of the liberal function of the council (read: the relationship is non-linear and crosses x at well over 50% of y assuming y is finite which it may not be).

I think this “pro-public spending� statement is inaccurate and I think that’s what the voters rejected. The pro-public spending council existed long before any “liberal� majority. It is the classic “tax and spend liberal� label that is beginning to peal and fade (incidentally the label was erroneously applied – but that’s too long a discussion). I could just cite the fiscal conservatives dissatisfied with W for an immediate reference. The D-slate chose to focus on Bidwell Ranch which was doomed to failure.

Now don’t get me wrong. There is a capital expenditure problem (euphemism) going on that will get worse before it gets better. But to say that growth fuels the spending is a bit of cart before the horse. What is not happening is growth is not paying for the infrastructure improvements required from the growing pains. Surely none of us want to see anymore people destroy our small town feel. If we could cap the population at where it was 10 years ago that would be great. Just cap someone else and not me. And keep increasing my income and my services to the city while you’re at it. It just doesn’t work like that (as we call know).

The math is pretty simple – unfortunately the solutions are a tougher sell. If growth does not pay its net increase in growing pains there will be an infrastructure shortfall, traffic problems, and a whole host of social problems including homelessness and the rest of the issues de jour. And quite simply that budget shortfall was not the fault of the liberal council. In fact it could be said it was the fault of under funded developer fees and a number of other development related costs. Guess who overwhelmingly would push to reduce those fees? It goes back to “Cap the population…. Just cap someone else and not me.�

I’ll have to let someone else in on this as I’m sure I’ve exceeded a reasonable amount of words. My apologies.

Randall,

The "pro-public spending" wasn't a reference to tax-and-spend liberals. It was in relation to the desires of the Chico populace that I see. Chico will need to cut spending or increase revenue. I don't think cutting services will be palatable. Development impact fees and RDA can't pay for everything we need. That leaves... taxes or other bonds.

In relation to development impact fees, all Nexus updates included uncontested and agreed upon amounts for development impact fees, etc. The last Nexus update occurred under a liberal majority. The next one will as well. While you can say that development impact fees have been artificially low for political reasons, that argument fails for our current state of affairs.

If development impact fees are too low today, then the liberal majority failed to raise them to appropriate levels when they were last updated. If they are not too low today then development is paying its own way as we move forward.

Which is it?

An additional problem occurs because it is not legal to retroactively levy development impact fees. If it were you could simply collect fees from "Avenues" home owners that never paid their fair share to get streets and sewers up-to-date. It is home buyers that pay these fees.

As a final point, many of our infrastructure problems are not related to new development but to other growth issues. Annexation of substandard county properties has created financial problems. The City Manager has estimated $100-$200 million to bring these areas up to standards, and services provided to these new Chicoans are costing more than expected. Also, many of our future traffic problems will not be derived from growth in Chico, but from growth in Orland, Paradise, and even Gridley.

Lon

I disagree Lon - it is new growth that causes the problems we are experiencing. You can't blame annexation, they aren't doing anything to fix up those annexed areas. Developers need to pay more, more in line with developers elsewhere in California. And they can do it without increasing the price of housing - that's gouging, and they've been getting away with it for too long.

As for the Avenues and other old areas - we pay property taxes, those taxes are supposed to fix our streets, instead they go to road improvements for new subdivisions. And Dancing Trout.

Wayne from CalTrans says developers in San Jose pay around $15,000 per unit in road fees alone. Chico developers pay like a third of that, total.

I'd say most of our Old School developers paid their way, and they built at a rate that was (excuse me) sustainable (every time I use that word, I make that sound Lurch used to make). They offered us a reasonable range of prices. Now these new developers build way more houses, way less infrastructure, get more variances and pay lower fees (especially given inflation), but you'd never know that given what they charge for these dinky, yardless houses they flop out.

Merle Webb and Sons put in sewer lines at their own expense, etc. Now you got DiGiovanni and Greening expecting the public to pay their way - like the improvements on Hwy 32 - required solely because of their plans - that's coming out of the RDA (the city seems to disagree with you over the limits of the RDA). And DG wants the public to foist him a new parking structure so he doesn't have to provide parking for those "live-work units" he's planning downtown - that will be a bond on my prop taxes, what the hell's the diff between the bond and the RDA - I still pay! Again, whose idea was it to get rid of the in-lieu of parking fees downtown? Eric Hart paid thousands when he built that thing next to the Senator, and Cook had to buy spaces in the existing lot for his pink hotel. Now DiGiovanni gets to build high density housing right smack dab in the middle of downtown, eliminating existing parking lots, but he doesn't have to pay? Go figure.

Lastly, I was sitting at many of the meetings where the council UNANIMOUSLY voted to lower the nexus for fees again and again. It's not JUST the liberal council's fault, they are all to blame. They seem to think developers are some charity organization that provides housing for people out of the kindness of their hearts.

And don't tell me I'm negative - it's just the facts, Ma'an. Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player.

Juanita,

Quit being so positive!

The point I made is that the Nexus fees are uncontested (meaning agreed to by all). You can say that builders did not pay their way historically, but if they are still not paying their way then these fees were agreed to by a liberal majority City Council.

Increasing development impact fees while stopping growth will not generate income for Chico. And new developments aren't liable for paying for things not listed in the Nexus study.

My estimate is that fees and permits add about $30,000 to a new home. Is there a number that's too large? Should it be $100,000? $200,000? All of that cost is passed on to the home buyer. What is not passed on to the home buyer is the risk of capital investment (except that profit is based on risk). It's not gouging, it's business.

Now none of this is aguing that development impact fees are too low or too high. None of it is arguing that annexation was a good or bad idea. I just want people to understand the following...

1. current development impact fees were agreed to by a liberal majority City Council
2. development impact fees are accrued over time, if you don't build you don't get the fees
3. if development impact fees were historically too low, increasing them doesn't compensate the City for specific traffic impacts of past development
4. growth due to annexation is 50% of our growth and has negatively impacted our general fund because of the cost of city services
5. annexation has incorporated sub-standard neighborhoods with no funding mechanism to bring those areas up to standards and yet the City is making committments to do this(development impact fees cannot be applied here, redevelopment money would require additional bonds to pay for this)

FYI: I don't know of any reduction in the parking fee for downtown development. The charrette consultants said it should be reduced to $2000, DPAC said $16,000 was a fine number.

I predict that you and I will argue until we turn into a golden stream of melted butter. We will be found by a passing wood cutter and carried to his home in a big pot. We will be eaten by his family on a big stack of pancakes.

1. the conservatives agreed to it too

2. if you don't build, you don't need the fees.

3. yeah, doesn't that stink? Who can we sue?

4. what services? why don't you come over to my house and try to get a cop to listen to a complaint? Check out my lack of sidewalks, my pitted street, my decrepit above ground wires - WHAT SERVICES? The only thing that has changed in my neighborhood since annexation is badly planned development and increasing traffic.

5. Quit calling my neighborhood "substandard" - it's "old". Is "old" against the law now? Are you going to put your grandma down? I pay $5000 a year in property taxes on my "substandard" home Lon - you figure the annual 2 percent "incremental screwing" - and in the four years I've been annexed, I haven't seen a dime of that at work in my neighborhood.

Enjoy your pancakes.

I was eating pancakes when I read this. Has your new positive outlook unlocked some form of ESP? I don't think we're arguing.

1. the conservatives agreed to it too

See my whole "uncontested" comments, and you'll see we're in full agreement.

2. if you don't build, you don't need the fees.

Again, we're in complete agreement. Most people think you can use these fees anywhere you want. If it's not in the Nexus study it's not covered. There are some things funded by development impact fees like "Bidwell Park expansion" that would suffer from no new developments.

3. yeah, doesn't that stink? Who can we sue?

Nobody. It's the City's problem now.

4. what services? why don't you come over to my house and try to get a cop to listen to a complaint? Check out my lack of sidewalks, my pitted street, my decrepit above ground wires - WHAT SERVICES? The only thing that has changed in my neighborhood since annexation is badly planned development and increasing traffic.

Imagine what it would be like if you didn't pay for the "services". City officials were annexing in part to consolidate "services" to make delivery more efficient. There has been an acknowledgement on the part of some officials that the cost to deliver the "services" was quite a bit higher than expected. Don't shoot the messenger.

5. Quit calling my neighborhood "substandard" - it's "old". Is "old" against the law now? Are you going to put your grandma down? I pay $5000 a year in property taxes on my "substandard" home Lon - you figure the annual 2 percent "incremental screwing" - and in the four years I've been annexed, I haven't seen a dime of that at work in my neighborhood.

I was told your property taxes paid for the downtown access charrette. If your neighborhood would not pass the scrutiny of the Planning Commission today (sidewalks, bike routes, parks) then it is not up to current standards. Don't be the "word police". The politically correct term of today will not be the politically correct term of tomorrow.

It's nice to see that every topic has to turn into a discussion of growth at some point.

Lon