Dog's Breakfast

In this perfervid election season, attention has been scant for Councilor Andy Holcombe's proposal to establish an al fresco refuge for the homeless on city property. Most folks I know who would likely be opposed to establishing a permanent base camp for derelicts tend to laugh off the suggestion as absurd. Those who would tend to favor it are more focused on the upcoming city council campaign than getting behind the campground idea.

And yet it may well be the single most important issue of the campaign. While we've all been handwringing and armwrestling over the typical issues of growth, spending, safety, and infrastructure, the homeless campground could be the stealth issue that defines the outcome of the election.

If, for example, the incumbents are re-elected, as expected, and the third open seat goes to, say, Mary Flynn, the so-called progressives will retain their majority on the council. Scott Gruendl will term out as Mayor in January, and the council will elect a mayor from among their number. The likely next mayor would be Andy Holcombe. Gruendl could not succeed himself, Flynn would be far too junior, as a rookie councilor, and Ann Schwab has not distinguished her two years on the council by leadership. Indeed, her principal contribution in office has been the degree to which we are all much better informed about the process of managing the city, inasmuch as she asks so many questions of city staff. Holcombe has been well-informed, activist, and effective in pursuing his legislative priorities. If the current majority is sustained, Holcombe is the presumptive favorite for the mayoralty.

Even though he's not running for office this season, his ascendancy to Mayor can be favorably compared to, say, Nancy Pelosi's ascendacy to Speaker of the House, should the majority if the Congress change hands. While he would not represent as radical a shift in ideological direction, he is, nevertheless, as likely to exploit the role in pursuit of his agenda, which is unapologetically, and arguably nobly, centered on the disadvantaged. He's a labor lawyer, after all, and has participated in demonstrations against locally-owned businesses by out-of-town union organizers. Whether you agree with them or not, his biases have never been obscured.

Personally, I like Andy. I think he's smart, committed, and increasingly influential. As mayor, with a majority made up of Gruendl, Schwab, and Flynn, he could be very effective in achieving his policy goals, including the establishment of a permanent homeless encampment in Chico. This would be an environmental disaster of profound proportions.

It may be useful to contrast Holcombe's proposal with the program Mayor Gavin Newsom has implemented in San Francisco. The scope of the problem in the Bay Area is substantially greater than here, so it is worth noting that his "Care Not Cash" program has resulted in a signifiant reduction in homelessness on San Francisco's streets. The San Francisco Chronicle has published two parts of a three-part analysis of this program, and the outcomes are largely encouraging.

There are indeed fewer homeless people on the street today than there could be -- at least 4,200 fewer, according to city data on people who have left the general assistance rolls, accepted bus tickets out of town, or moved into addiction recovery centers or one of the city's growing number of supportive housing complexes...According to the most recent street count, more than 6,200 people are homeless on any given night, compared with more than 8,600 in a count in 2002.

The "Care Not Cash" program operates on three fundamental principles:

Chico has made great progress in furnishing group shelters, but they are not suitable for many types of clients. Those with behavioral disorders are not able to participate in either the Torres or Jesus Center programs. Rather than establishing a permanent public nuisance, mightn't it be more cost-effective to simply contract with local motels to take these clients in while they seek recovery and rehabilitation services?

Currently, the Chico Police Department seems to be functionally vision-impaired when it comes to the vagrants loitering on downtown streets, unless a specific complaint is lodged. Rarely are aggressive panhandlers reported, since they vanish before the police can arrive. As a consequence, downtown patrons are subjected to verbal abuse and confrontational encounters without remedy. There are any number of causes of downtown's vacancy rate, but this problem must rank very highly on that list. Perhaps if the CPD were more proactive in intervening with the derelict population, directing them to social services resources, some of the chronic abusers of downtown's hospitality might find less inconvenient surroundings elsewhere.

Finally, it must be recognized that many of the "regulars" in the panhandler ranks are serial beggars. We see them around for a few weeks or months, then they disappear for awhile, only to return in the future. These folks cycle in and out of communities that are relatively tolerant, such as Santa Cruz, Arcata, Berkeley's Telegraph Avenue, etc. The reason they wash up here (not literally of course; although that would be an improvement), is because those locations "crack down" from time to time. The problem with Chico is that it never cracks down. If we were to create a city-owned campground, we would be inundated with refugees from less congenial locations as they perform periodic street-cleaning operations. If Chico were to supply these folks with one-way bus tickets out of town in exchange for a promise never to return, this revolving door might be effectively closed.

Condider this when you go to the polls next week. A vote for the self-described progressive field is a vote for Andy Holcombe for mayor, and a referendum on a refugee camp on our outskirts. Perhaps this is what they have in mind for Bidwell Ranch, although I suspect they would simply return Edgar Slough to its former glory as a homeland for the homeless.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 07:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm still getting the hang of this blogging software. My understanding is that I would be notified by email of comments posted to my entries so that I could then approve them for publication. The fact is that I was not notified of many comments over the past few days, and I only just figured that out. I've approved and published all comments to date, and I apologize for not doing so sooner. I would have done, if only I had known. The tipoff was a comment from Mark Sorensen last night at the DPAC meeting, when he said he'd posted comments, and I could only recall the one. Thanks, Mark, for the heads-up, and your thoughtful observations.

Thank you, all, for your remarks. Whether in agreement or not, a dialog must have multiple viewpoints to be worthwhile, and I very much appreciate that each of you has taken time to respond. Thanks, also, for self-identifying.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 06:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This evening, Wednesday, October 25th, the Downtown Parking and Access Coalition is hosting a public forum to discuss the recommendations of the planning charrette the city conducted last May.

Why should anyone but downtown merchants care about downtown? After all, there are 6000+ business licenses in Chico, and less than 500 are located in the 50 square blocks that currently constitute the city center. With 9 other commercial corridors in Chico, does it really mater whether or not downtown thrives, or even survives?

I believe it matters a great deal, and not just because my office is located downtown. Chico’s commercial, cultural, and historical center integrates social, civic, and economic domains to connect commerce, the academy, and city government with the residents of the city and region. Unlike other commercial districts, downtown offers an inclusive environment to serve as a public commons, with numerous events to bring people together.

And while most commerical districts tend to obstruct and divide residential neighborhoods, downtown serves many residents in and around the district. In addition, a great many social services agencies and non-profits have their offices and operations in downtown, including the Butte Economic Council, Chico Conservation Voters, the Peace and Justice Center, the Hooker Oak Alliance, the Chico Economic Planning Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce and of course the Downtown Chico Business Association, among others.

With the University and the student community to the west of us, Bidwell Mansion to the north, and Bidwell Park to the east, downtown Chico is surrounded by historic landmarks. With the city offices located downtown, we have a large and growing population of city staff working here. The city plaza, whether you like the recent improvements or not, is the community's family room. All of these elements combine to create a uniquely dynamic cultural, social, and commercial center for Chico, Butte County, and the entire region.

We must work together to preserve and enhance the health of our city center. For far too long, the civic deliberation bas been characterized by polarization and division. It is time for all stakeholders -- city workers, University students, faculty, and staff, the arts community, the social services networks, and commercial interests -- to collaborate to define and achieve a sustainable vision for downtown.

Downtown is in trouble. The vacancy rate is disturbing, and growing. There are too many "missing teeth" at street level, and there is a glut of empty office space on upper stories. There is no incentive to develop and build new buildings in downtown when so much commercial space remains unleased. Street crime is increasing, and the derelicts cluttering every street corner are an obnoxious nuisance. The renovations to Tweaker's Triangle (er, Ringel Park) notwithstanding, Children's Playground has become a haven for drug dealers and users. These are the symptoms of decay, and we ignore them at our peril.

While the focus of tonight's meeting is on circulation and parking, it is more than simply a rehash of the charrette. It is a process for deciding, as a community, what we want our downtown to be. Because of a lack of leadership in city government, and a reliance on outside consultants to advise our policy makers on fashionable planning trends, stakeholders are at risk of becoming the guinea pigs in a social engineering experiment. This forum is an opportunity for ordinary citizens to step up and create a sustainable vision for the future of our downtown, and our community as a whole. Come to city council chambers at 6 PM, and find out how you can help.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 07:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

One of the recommendations of the parking and access charrette was to increase available on-street parking by re-striping to provide diagonal (as contrasted to parallel) parking. This is a pretty good idea, all things considered, inasmuch as it provides about twice the parking per linear block. It is estimated, by the charrette facilitators, that by restriping just Wall, Salem, Orient, Flume, and Normal Streets, an additional 496 (why they didn't just go ahead and round up is left as an exercise for the reader) parking spaces in the downtown core.

This would be a genuine boon, and provide much needed near-term relief for downtown merchants' patrons. It's not a meaningful solution to the larger issue of providing employee parking for new businesses locating in downtown, but it is something we can do right away, at a relatively low cost, and perhaps stimulate more visitors to come downtown during normal business hours.

The one gaping flaw in this strategy, alas, is that in all of the planning illustrations, the cars are backed into the spaces. This is not exactly a new or novel idea, but it is profoundly misguided. We currently have back-in diagonal parking over by the Amtrak station, and it has not been a problem, because of the lack of vehicular traffic in that area. But as the veil is lifted on the new city plaza, back-in parking is one of the features of that design. And in downtown, it introduces latency, no less than parallel parking.

Latency is a data networking term that describes the conduct of data packets when they pass through a network segment experiencing congestion. Packets are delayed in transmission while waiting for other packets to complete their journey, and sometimes packets collide, forcing all hosts to back off and resend. These metaphors used in data networking theory find their origins in street network jargon.

On a corridor, such as the Broadway-Main couplet, or on Second Street, latency occurs when someone stops to back in to a parallel parking space. This latency backs up traffic for however long it takes for the motorist to move out of the traffic lane. Latency also occurs when someone tries to make a left turn at an intersection with left turn yield control, and other cars stack up behind it. Unfortunately, many of these cars are also intending to make the one or perhaps two left turns that can occur when the light turns yellow. Latency is also introduced by motorists waiting for a crosswalk to clear before making a right turn, jaywalking pedestrians, or a Critical Mass demonstration. The end result is increased frustration on the part of the delayed motorists, and an erosion of the good will that marks good citiizenship. That person holding up trafiic might be your florist, hygienist, accountant, or neighbor, but while you're delayed, that motorist becomes instead "that *&^% moron":

The great advantage to head-in diagonal parking is that it reduces latency. You see the open space, you turn your wheel, suddenly you are out of the traffic lane, and others pass freely. The chief disadvantage, according to bicyclists, is that motorists backing out of head-in diagonal parking present a hazard to bicyclists. And this is a true fact, if the bike lane is assumed to be in the through traffic lane adjacent to all those auto rear ends.

But suppose instead that the head-in diagonal parking was stopped by a curb that was 60" from the sidewalk edge. This would provide an ample bike lane that would be protected from vehicular traffic by a rank of parked cars. Re-engineering downtown streets to accomodate diagonal parking would certainly encourage motorists uncomfortable with parallel parking to come back to the city center, and a genuinely useful bike lane strategy would encourage those so inclined to use human-powered transportation when visitng downtown.

There are some good ideas in the charrette findings, but they are unmoored from a central strategy, and reflect nothing so much as a catalog of planning trends. We can find some useful suggestions therein, but we must animate them with a vision and shared values for them to find meaning.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 09:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've been participating on a couple of other blogs here at norcalblogs.com, including Dan Nguyen-Tan's Bullfight and Lon Glazner's Commission Impossible. That participation is what led me to start up Dog's Breakfast, in fact, and I thank my friends and colleagues for both their indulgence and their inspiration. Some folks have commented on my observations in those spaces, and a couple them chose not to be indentifiable. One person, "Ann", took offense to a comedic simile, and another, "Chuckles", presumed to refute my argument. I ignored them both.

I have been an active participant on the Well, the pioneering online community founded by Whole Earth Catalog editor Stewart Brand, since 1988. The "prime directive" of the Well is "you own your own words", which means that participants are responsible for their content. No one is permitted to participate anonymously, and one of the results of this is that it is one of the most literate, controversial, and penetrating public discussions to be found in any medium.

Back when I first joined the Well, it was hosted on a time-shared Unix-based computer. Users dialed up to it with 1200 baud modems, and interacted through a command-line interface. Email was transferred through the internet (at that time only educational, government, miltary, and research institutions were connected) via the UUCP protocol. This required the user to specify a "path" to the intended destination, by including specific host names in the address. The Well's machine would then dial up the hosts it had reciprocal UUCP privileges with (such as Stanford, or HP Labs), using the same 1200 baud modems, and transfer the mail to them, which would then forward the mail on to their network of reciprocal hosts, and so on. It could take a week for a message to get across the country in those days.

Over the next couple of years, dialup speeds improved. In 1990, Tim Berners-Lee introduced the first web server and browser, and in 1991, Netcom in San Jose (since acquired by Earthlink) became the first commercial internet access provider. By 1993, the world wide web was growing. I developed and launched the first web presence for SynOptics Communications (subsequently acquired by Nortel) that year, and have been hacking away online ever since.

Over time, the restrictions on the use of the internet have devolved. There used to be a convention called "Terms of Service" which required users to comply with specific conduct standards, including being identifiable. As the net has become increasingly promiscuous, responsibility for content has eroded. Anyone can get an anonymous email account, and everyone's mailbox fills up with untraceable spam. Thousands of blogs disgorge terabytes of nonsense and outright lies, and no one is held accountable for mistakes or misrepresentation.

As broadband access enables increased video content, we can expect to see more and more identity hacking, maliciously edited video, and virtual mischief of all sorts. Even though I am largely optimistic about the future of the net and the possibilities for enhanced digital communications, I continue to to be dubious about anonymously contributed content. I don't believe it, for one thing, and I am suspicious of the motivations of the contributor. I cannot compel anyone to self-identify when they post, but I can disregard it as malicious mischief, and filter it from my consciousness.

A founding member of the Well, Howard Rheingold, imminent author, infonaut, and internet pioneer wrote; "attention is the currency" of the online world. You, the reader, decide what to give your attention to. You get to choose what content is valid, and what content is not worthy of your time. Even if the message itself is congenial to your perspective and predispositions, I encourage you to view anonymously posted remarks with a high degree of skepticism. Anyone who is unwilling to say "I wrote this" and be accountable for its accuracy and fairness, is, by definition, an irresponsible correspondent.

For one thing, it can backfire. I could, for example, using the library's computer, go over to Bullfight, post a scathingly vicious racist diatribe, and sign it "Chuckles". I wouldn't do that, of course, but if someone did, "Chuckles" would be, for all intents and purposes, properly and unanimously despised. When you self-identify, no one can spoof and discredit you.

If, for whatever reason, you cannot have the courage of your convictions and stand up for your views, please consider keeping them to yourself. My name is Alan Chamberlain, and I approved this message.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

With the imminent closing of the Tower Records store, the vacancy rate in downtown is going to take another uptick. Right now, in a six-square-block area bounded by First, Third, Salem, and Wall Streets, there is about 60,000 square feet of space currently vacant or underutilized.

According to the city parking requirements code, if that space were leased at its most recent or most likely projected use, 300 parking spaces would be needed, which tends to help explain why there isn't more demand for that space.

Every time I encourage a business to locate in downtown, the first, and I mean the very first question is "where are my people going to park?" Think about it, a small, office-based business (a legal office, say, or bookkeeping, web services, graphic design, etc.) with 10 employees needs 80 hours worth of parking spaces every business day.

One of the frequent comments I hear from people who oppose investment in new parking facilities is "I never have any trouble finding a place to park downtown!" This may be true; even at 85% saturation, that still leaves a space or two every block. Unfortunately, that doesn't really address the concern of the business operator whose staff need to park all day. There are only so many 10-hour spaces available in the area, and even if you have a city parking permit (the so-called "hunting license"), if you aren't parked by 10AM, you will likely do without, or feed a two-hour meter (illegal, but unenforced).

But even that is academic; the city lot at Second and Wall (Parking Lot #1) only has 173 spaces, and 10% of them are leased on a monthly basis, so it offers no meaningful relief for 300 additional autos per day.

This is not about new development. Currently, anyone developing a new building in downtown must either provide the required parking as part of the plan, or pay the city a $16,000 in-lieu fee. But if one of these existing empty spaces is leased, provision of new parking capacity is not required.

And that's why downtown occupancy is stagnant. It's a chicken-egg thing; employers will not locate operations in downtown until there's sufficient parking, and the city doesn't invest in new facilities because there's not enough demand. Meanwhile, there's a prime piece of dirt at First and Main, the gateway to downtown, that could support 50,000 square feet of new retail, commercial, office and residential space, but who's going to build something like that when there's 60,000 feet sitting empty all around it?

Wishful thinking to the contrary notwithstanding, abundant parking must precede occupancy. If downtown Chico is to compete with the malls and other commercial corridors, the city must invest in new infrastructure.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

The October 11 edition of the E-R featured an editorial praising the city council for denying developer Steve Schuster's proposed amendment to the General Plan. This decision, while perhaps procedurally defensible, is nevertheless a disaster of uncoordinated planning. True, Schuster would have probably saved himself a lot of time, trouble, and money had he pursued his amendment before getting so far down the path, but that's not really how things work, at least not in Chico.

The thing that many people fail to grasp, the editorial board of the E-R included, is the confused coordination between politically-motivated council members, policy-motivated city staff, and market-motivated investors. The E-R makes it sound as though Schuster had no reasonable expectation of an approval for a rezone, but in fact these things happen all the time. Developers are advised by the Planning Department to seek rezoning, and the current council majority's prediliction for higher density projects made the recommendation of a rezoning application perfectly reasonable. The city council did not suddenly develop common sense regarding higher density progams adjacent to lower-density existing neighborhoods; they were mau-maued by the neighbors (not entirely without justification) and they caved to public pressure.

The editorial's observation - "the project isn't hard to fix. Take 42 homes out of the plan, sell the homes for a bit more because they have larger lots, and the problem is solved" - betrays an astonishing lack of understanding about the process that produced this result.

The first thing to understand is that real estate development is not a wildly profitable pursuit. While a lot of money does change hands, most of it sticks to various participants in the food chain. Capital is tied up for a very long time, at considerable risk. It can take many years to acquire the parcels, design the subdivision, and get it entitled, before the individual lots can be sold to builders. If all goes well, a developer might realize a 20% profit on the land (the "dirt deal"), which is not a bad return, although the net present value of the original capital investment might have appreciated nearly as much by simply sinking it into an index fund.

The reason someone chooses a particular line of business is because he or she has a passion for it. Local developers in Chico are animated by a vision of something that doesn't exist, and they literally move the earth to make it happen. Certainly the prospect of yielding a return on the investment is a prerequisite for any speculative venture, but if all they wanted to do is make money, there are plenty of easier ways to do that. To put substantial sums at risk for years, something more than a 20% return must inform a choice of a career in real estate development.

And the community benefits in many ways because some people make that choice. Jobs are created, the resulting wages chase goods and services, revenues are raised by local jurisdictions to fund services, etc. And, of course, housing, commercial and industrial space, are made available for people to live and work in. This is what follows from private investment. With the population projected to top 135,000 in the next twenty years, it's a good thing some people are willing to take that risk and make those investments.

One thing I find interesting is how many local activists mobilize to oppose Wal-Mart's expansion, and justify this opposition in support of "local businesses". This is noble in its intent, if arguably misguided in its reasoning. But the idea that we should support our local merchants and home-grown businesses is a sound one. The money stays in town, we support our neighbors, and it strengthens the local economy. CEPCO has for many years extolled the economic development benefits of the "LOBLE" -- Locally Owned Base Level Employer. Not to besmirch chain stores, pattern restaurants, and big box retailers, but a healthy economy depends on strong local businesses that export value to other markets and provide sustainable employment opportunities in their own back yard.

So why isn't there more of a movement to recognize the contributions of the local development industry? It is estimated that one in four jobs in Chico is dependent upon real estate development and construction. Our local developers have strong ties to the community, and have a personal stake in the future of Chico and Butte County. We know them, they participate in the civic deliberation, and they donate time, money, materials, and labor to countless pro bono projects that benefit everyone in Chico.

One of the reflexive objections to development is "urban sprawl". The magic totem of "Fresno" is invoked to depict the spectre of runaway rapacious real estate speculation. But Chico is not exhibiting any signs of unchecked metastasizing development. My home was constructed in the mid-fiftes (when I was constructed, actually), and at the time it was on Chico's northern frontier, the Lindo Channel. Since then, half a century later, the northern edge of town has crept about fifteen blocks.

The truth is, we have a good General Plan, although it's overdue for a revision. The process that produced it can be relied upon to produce a sound revision, and issues of density, land use, infrastructure, and compatibility will all be revisited with the knowledge gained from experience. However, in the meantime, the current process is broken, and developers are subjected to significant hardship as a consequence.

If you travel to, say, Yuba City, you will see what out-of-control development looks like. One of the factors driving this rapid expansion and certifiable sprawl is the presence of large, well-financed, out-of-town development firms, such as Roseville-based Dunmore Homes. Visit Orland to see similar expansion by Santa Rosa-based Schellinger Homes. These are both very capable firms with significant capital and existing subcontractor relationships. They are powerful merchant builders who are vertically integrated, making money on both the dirt deal and the homes themselves. Their subcontractors are able to furnish substantial fee differentials because of the volume involved. They can very efficiently acquire land, design the subdivision, build the homes, and market the results, because they have lots of money and plenty of manpower.

What they don't have is any sort of meaningful commitment to the communities in which they operate. Once they're finished extracting their revenues (which will not be hiring local subs, buying local materials, paying local labor, or driving the local economy), they move on to the next opportunity. I'm not saying that what they are doing is a bad thing, but it does explain how sprawl happens.

At this time, some out of town developers have been making some overtures concerning some property acquisitions near (and not so near) Chico. Fortunately, our local developers have managed to exercise some prerogatives regarding the developable land in the area. But if they continue to encounter setbacks due to a broken planning and permitting process, meritless environmental challenges, and vexatious litigation, I could certainly understand some of them giving up, putting their money in T-Bills, and abandoning the industry. Whatever valid concerns there may be about development, I still think we're better off with our home town developers building our future.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Thanks for visiting my new blog. As the name suggests, it will be somewhat unspecific in its focus, more or less random observations about local current events, philosophical musings, cranky complaints, fulsome praise, and, hopefully, some interesting give and take with you, dear reader.

A few ground rules; anyone is welcome to post a response, subject to the usual contraints of decency and accountability. Certainly libelous or otherwise malicious commentary will be elided. But in general I am willing to take it as I dish it out, so feel free to advocate for your point of view.

However, if you are not identifiable, I won't engage with you. You won't provoke a response from me unless you self-identify. Fair enough?

Okay, a little background on myself; I moved to Chico in 1998, and have been involved in the civic deliberation since then. I have a management consulting practice in downtown Chico (www.axonometrix.com), and serve on the Board of the Downtown Chico Business Association. I served for four years on the Chico Transit Advisory Commission before it was moved over to BCAG, the last two as chair. I am on the steering committee of the Hooker Oak Alliance, and participate in the Chico Chamber of Commerce and CEPCO. I am a frequent contributor at the Chico City Council podium, the letters to the editors columns, etc., and generally favor economic development, job creation, and investment in public infrastructure that encourages commercial enterprise.

One would be as mistaken to conclude that I am a "conservative" as to suppose I am a "liberal". In terms of local policy, I don't think either designation is very meaningful. I am registered "Decline To State", and examine each issue on its merits, not some ideological litmus test.

I look forward to a spirited and hopefully entertaining dialog. Thanks again for visiting.

Posted by Alan Chamberlain at 05:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)