« One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other | Main | Opening Day »
July 08, 2007
Inside Scoop
|
| Yesterday I had a chance to talk with someone that works
on the 2nd floor of the city building and asked them what the feeling is
amongst employees. The general opinion is that the Planning Department
is an awful place to work because of the new Planning Services Director
and
the politics
involved in being a planner. Working with the Planning Commission and Council is seen as a hardship. This is especially true when other city jobs exist, in the same line of work, that don't require dealing with politics (public works for example). Planner's efforts are continually second guessed and changes are made "at the podium" by politicians or their appointees causing frustration in the department. What makes the whole situation worse is that there are really only two planners left at the city with the experience to deal with the political bodies at public meetings. There is also a widespread belief, even among senior staff, that the Planning Services Director Steve Peterson will be fired. Morale problems, including the losses of two senior planners, are being blamed on his management. While "politics" sometimes causes hardship for planners, that is not seen on the 2nd floor as the "straw that broke the camel's back" as far as recent departures are concerned. Peterson's position may be made more precarious because of politics. If let go he could easily be scapegoated as the cause of all problems with Chico's planning apparatus. The reality is that all three legs of the planning process (Commission, Council, department) have problems. All three legs also seem to be working towards solutions. The Planning Commission work plan is prioritizing predictability and streamlining of the appeal process. The Mayor has sent two letters to the commission clarifying their role, and the General Plan update should address planning inconsistencies. And finally, the Assistant City Manager, Dave Burkland, is camped out at the Planning Department trying to get a 3rd party perspective on problems there. It will be interesting to see which solutions succeed and which fail. |
Posted by Lon at July 8, 2007 10:15 AM
Comments
Lon, do you think it's just "politics" when a whole town is told that their quality of life is about to go from A to D, and I mean literally in the case of the traffic studies concerning Meriam Park, and they protest the decision of the planning staff that is trying to shove it through?
It seems to me that there's a group of people that find any protest against city planning to be out of line. We the people (and yeah, I borrowed that) are just supposed to sit back and do whatever the "planning experts" tell us. All hail the developer gods and their toadies down at city hall.
since when is development the most important American Freedom? Gee, whatever happened to Freedom from Want? Freedom from Fear? When did Freedom to Pave Everything That Can't Run Away enter into this? You act as though it's a developer's constitutional right to put his big foot right in the middle of a hard working neighborhood or town and change everybody's lifestyles forever. Just to make money for himself, and revenues to pay all those ridiculous salaries and perks the staff gets.
But if I protest on my family's and my town's behalf, I'm just being "political." I'm just supposed to take a screwing for "the public good"? No, that's not American. If you're the patriot you claim to be, you'd be right in there with me.
Posted by: Juanita at July 11, 2007 07:55 AM
Juanita,
Here's where we start going off track and I end up just not posting your comments.
How you conclude that the discussion of "politics" in this post has anything to do with you is beyond me. And the fact that you end your comment questioning my partiotism is absolutely pointless.
The "politics" that was described as a hardship on city planners was based on interpretations of the General Plan. For example, city planners worked on a project that met all of the General Plan guidelines. When presented to the Planning Commission, they rejected it for reasons not based on General Plan failures, but because of personal opinions. I think there's probably plenty of examples of "politics" pulling planners in different directions. But the main point of this particular post was that even assuming that hardship, that is not the reason city employees cite for recent departures.
If you've got a problem with growth in Chico go point your finger at the people that make the decisions. My opinion is that private property rights should be respected, being a developer doesn't make you evil, and the General Plan requirements for development should be followed regardless of whether you're a liberal or conservative.
Lon
Posted by: lon at July 11, 2007 08:26 AM
I AM pointing my finger (you know what finger too) at the people who make the decisions - the planning staff. I'm saying they make those decisions based on financial gain, their own, and not in the public's best interest. I'm saying that if the planning commission or the council overturn decisions made by a corrupt and incompetent planning staff, it's not politics, it's their job. That's why they are there, to give the citizens the opportunity to say something.
The planning staff told my neighbor when he went in to see about subdividing his property, "the general plan and the code are JUST SUGGESTIONS." That's how they see it. They do whatever developers want.
But when another friend went in a with a little project that was well within the zoning and code, Steve Peterson just said "no." My friend's architect said that happens to her alot, because she brings in small projects that don't amount to any real revenues for the city. That's corruption, treating people differently based on how much money they've got.
Frankly, after a conversation with my insurance agent about how Allstate is not going to write policies for houses over 40 years old anymore, I think cities like ours just want older home owners to sell to developers. Call that a conspiracy theory now - wait til you want to do something to your old crapper.
And here's the problem with your philosophy, Mr. Personal Property Rights - your rights end where my rights begin. Don't forget that. When you're talking about, like I said, putting your big foot right in the middle of my lifestyle that I've paid for, you better get ready for some opposition. You can't just have your way all the time Lon, your mom never seemed to get that across to you.
No, being a developer doesn't make you evil - being an evil developer makes you evil, Dear.
Finally, loosen up, get off your high horse will ya, it's a blog.
Posted by: juanita at July 11, 2007 03:37 PM
Juanita,
And there you go again, dear.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at July 11, 2007 04:30 PM
Juanita,
I rarely lash out but all I read here from you is a bunch of crack-pot assumptions and propoganda. None of what your saying is remotly true about economics of development decisions by staff or others. Do you and I even live in the same world? Where is your proof, friend of a friend of a friend talk is worthless.
As for your comment "But when another friend went in a with a little project that was well within the zoning and code, Steve Peterson just said "no." My friend's architect said that happens to her alot, because she brings in small projects that don't amount to any real revenues for the city. That's corruption, treating people differently based on how much money they've got. "
How many developments has your "friend" brought forward in last 7 months since Steve Peterson has been here. If it happens alot they must be one hell of a motivated evil developer.
Posted by: Jason Bougie at July 18, 2007 08:57 AM