Growing Awareness, Part One
There is a company out there that will take a USGS topography map of your region and turn it into a 400-piece jigsaw puzzle, with your address in the center.
My wife and I received one this year has a holiday gift.
Despite using the most recent USGS map available, the entire vicinity of 8th Avenue, 11th Avenue, 12th Avenue and Henshaw is depicted as orchard. East Avenue from Esplanade to Nord isn't even shown. After some research, I found out that the information on the map is from 1978.
A lot has changed in 30 years.
In 1978 I was six years old, and I played in remnant apricot orchards in the South Bay that look a lot like parts of Chico today, with its small stands of walnut or almonds trees that stand defiant in the face of a Chico's growing population.
Until someone decides to build another block of houses.
The "growth' issue is tumultuous territory for a sustainability blog, but one that must be addressed nonetheless.
Let me begin by saying that I truly believe growth is inevitable. I also believe that infill is the way to go, and that Chico's "Greenline" and the farmland it protects should be respected. I think that tasteful, well-planned, well-thought-out, high density, green developments can and should be part of the future of Chico (and many other cities, for that matter). Denser communities are more energy efficient--New York City is considered by some to be one of the most sustainable cities in the country for that reason.
But new construction within the city limits must be balanced with the recognition of what may potentially be lost as a result. I am talking about open spaces, remnant orchards, lingering valley oaks and black walnut trees, and unobstructed views to the hills. Before we let the developers build, we as a community must take the time to understand the true value of these spaces even as we consider building on them, and we must ask, is there a way for both to co-exist?
The development on 8th Street and Forest, though not perfect, is perhaps one such example of this, as the builders have fenced off oak trees as well as (so I am told) a unique variety of walnut to protect and even incorporate them into the building plan. There have been criticisms that the heavy equipment is still operating too close to the trees that they are trying to protect, and is potentially impacting the soil around the roots. Nonetheless, I am impressed that any effort is being made to protect the 1-2 foot diameter oaks in the first place, which are a small enough size such that another developer might have chosen to eliminate them altogether.
Again, perhaps not perfect, but its a start. I have high hopes that New Urban Builders' Merriam Park Development will improve further on this example in the upcoming years, protecting and respecting the Little Chico Creek riparian area while at the same to adding additional vibrancy, both human and natural, to what is presently a vacant field between Humboldt Road and East 20th:
Comments
Many cities, too late of course, have adopted maximum growth percentages, say one percent a year. That limits building permits, meaning, limited growth. If you mention something like that to the city of Chico, they act like you just hit them in the mouth.
Growth of a town is NOT inevitable. Development is not intended to house a growing population, it is intended to create population growth. "Build it and they will come." And boy, did they, with all their money.
When people stop mouthing that mindless chant "Growth is inevitable," and stand up and demand a moratorium on new development, we'll really have a discussion.
Good luck Mr. Miller. I'm glad I homeschool my kids.
Posted by: juanita | January 1, 2008 07:55 AM
Juanita,
I am a bit confused. On the one hand, you seem to be advocating for maximum growth percentages, while on the other hand you seem to be in favor of a moratorium on new development. You write "Development is not intended to house a growing population, it is intended to create population growth." Can you clarify this statement?
You also seem to bring up another issue, which is, what kind of growth are we talking about? There are, or course, lots of different ways a city can grow.
Accepting the inevitability of growth (in this case, residential infill projects) while at the same time advocating for a maximum yearly growth percentage are not, in my opinion, mutually exclusive. I will be the first to admit that I am not an authority in this area, however a quick internet sweep reveals that, as you mention, many cities are in some stage of discussing or adopting maximum growth percentages, including Davis, Carson City , and Santa Fe--all western towns that, like Chico, have experienced a tremendous population increase in the past couple decades, especially in the retirement sector.
Just to clarify my position, yes, I believe that in increase in new residential construction inevitable (especially infill projects), but I most certainly believe that controlling how and to what extent this construction occurs is paramount to building a sustainable community.
Posted by: jeremy miller | January 1, 2008 11:27 AM
If you don't have houses for people to buy and move into, they won't come, simple as that. (and if you build them, they will come, like lemmings running off a cliff)
The city told us they were permitting new subdivisions to make housing more affordable - prices went up from around $100,000 to around $500,000 over that building boom (and that affected the price of everything from groceries to daycare). These prices were unaffordable to people who had lived and worked here a long time, but they seemed crazy cheap to people in Oakland. So they moved here instead of sticking around their own cities to fix them, driving the price of our housing up further and further with every purchase. My friend, who saved for years to buy a house, was outbid by a couple who offered more than asking price, that was unheard of around here. It was dog eat dog.
They used that false panic to excuse the approval of all that New Urban crap that is not selling now. Even Gruendl admits, people want R-1, not R-3. We screamed that during the approval process, but they gave us the back of their hand. They said we had a housing crisis.
Well, now we have a different kind of housing crisis - too many houses! Too expensive! And here's a side they don't talk about - if you fix up your house, they reassess you to current home values. Our taxes went up over $2000 a year.
Yesterday I found a New York Times article from 1990, about Butte County, of all things. It says we were going into bankruptcy, because the cheap housing here was a "poverty magnet." They said we needed to attract more rich people here by rezoning, getting rid of "blight" (poor and working class people and their old houses) and bring new residents with money into the area. Look back that far into county politics, into the general plan process, and you will find Scott Gruendl and Tom DiGiovanni, pulling strings in our general plan to set up this whole New Urban nightmare, all the way back in 1990. That was their scheme, get rid of poor people in Chico, if not Butte County, and it looks like it worked. They've raised property values, and property taxes, and the cost of everything in town, to a level no working class family can afford.
So, as yuppies move in, the people who built their houses and maintain their infrastructure are pushed to Hamilton City and Orland. Better move fast though, developers are raising prices in those areas too, even in the face of this bad loan crisis.
Read for yourself, I think this is the link:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CEEDE1139F933A2575AC0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Posted by: Juanita | January 20, 2008 08:26 AM