« The Balancing Act | Main | All Day Budget Party Tomorrow! »
June 03, 2007
A Tale of Two Cities
|
| I mentioned (in passing) in a previous post
the fact that huge homes have been built along the Skyway leading up to
Paradise. This is no big secret. The homes aren't visible from the road,
but I've seen them from adjacent property. Taken as a whole they are not
very attractive, but this stems from the fact that they all have
discrete and different design styles. When lined up and seen from a distance
they are a hodgepodge of colors, sizes, and heights. Seen individually
they are large and well designed. Seeing the proliferation of expensive homes in the county made me realize that many of our local "movers and shakers" must be moving and shaking out of the Chico to have a freer hand in developing their dream home. It also made me wonder what discrepancy of income might be developing between Chico citizen's and our neighbors that live large in the nearby canyons, and the cliffs looking down on nearby canyons. While reading BCAG's 2003 regional housing plan I ran across a discussion that identified this demographic shift as a policy. Butte County also presented an argument that the income distribution in the December 18th RHNP for unincorporated Butte County was unfair, since the unincorporated area currently has a comparatively low percentage of very low and low-income units and should not be assigned a higher percentage of these units. The unincorporated area does not have the infrastructure capability (sewer system) to support the densities required to economically build lower-income units and, in addition, lower-income households should not, as a policy matter, be located in areas where access to public transportation services and social services is difficult. The other participants in the meeting agreed with Butte County in principle, and BCAG stated that they would examine the possibility of modifying the distribution of units by income group to each jurisdiction. The argument makes sense. High density populations that need additional social services should be built closer to those services. It's the same argument that caused the City of Chico to embark on its annexation explosion. The annexations intended to result in more efficient delivery of city services, but unfortunately have also caused a dramatic increase in unanticipated service needs (cost). The majority of growth in Chico has come from annexation in recent years. No development impact fees are generated with annexation, so they don't pay their own way, or even a portion of it. Our various local governments and agencies seem to support a distinct separation of income levels based on geography. I find it interesting that our poorest neighborhoods can't seem to shake loose any significant redevelopment money (Chapmantown), and our richest neighborhoods are relocating out of the city limits. Watching the endpoints of our housing/income demographic can be an indicator of where the mid-range (most of the population) is going. Today the endpoints seem to be stretching in different directions. |
Posted by Lon at June 3, 2007 08:27 AM
Comments
As far as design goes the house on the right wins hands down.
What's interesting about Chapmantown is how the city uses the neighborhood for its low income housing and programs. This makes the city the largest landowner and landlord in Chapmantown.
Mike Trolinder
Posted by: mike trolinder at June 3, 2007 10:56 AM