Posted by: Kim_Hamilton on 08/06/2010 03:36 PM
Updated by: thepinetree on 08/07/2010 08:13 AM
Expires: 01/01/2015 12:00 AM
:
Letter to the Editor~by David Tunno of Valley Springs
Valley Springs, CA...This is a story about the difference between the duties of a county government, indeed what it recognizes as its duties, versus how it performs against those measurements. In the end, the readers can determine if the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors (BOS), as currently constituted, reflects what the citizens of this county expect and need from that board. My wife and I chose Calaveras County as our new home last year partially on the view that it was a community one could feel a part of, including ......
involvement in local affairs. We also wanted to be part of a community that reflected our politics, so the fact that Calaveras showed up red on the map following the ’08 election was a plus. As part of our desire to become knowledgeable and involved, I attended my first Board of Supervisor’s meeting on June 22, 2010. There is work to be done.
The big ticket item on the agenda that day was the 2010 Housing Element. Positions taken by the Supervisors on this one position revealed a great deal about the make-up of the board and their political philosophies and prompted me to write this article.
In summary, the Housing Element promotes and subsidizes, to a degree, the construction of low income housing. It should be understood that a housing element is required by the state to be part of each county’s general plan and that both must be periodically updated.
I will return to the issue of the Housing Element a little later in this article. To understand where board members stand on this issue, I believe it’s important to first determine where they stand with respect to basic principles of business, the marketplace and the government’s role in both. What role does the BOS they have in mind for the county government? Specifically, do they see the marketplace being driven by supply and demand, or is the government to be in the driver’s seat? Do we own our property, or does the BOS believe it is essentially public property?
For the answers, I turn first to an April 20, 2010 story reported by KCRA. In it, Supervisor Merita Callaway stated that the county was moving from an agricultural and minerals based economy toward a “tourism-based” and “subdivision-based” economy.
I understand a tourism-based economy. Lake Tahoe has one. I get that, but, while Calaveras County has a lot to offer tourists, is it really enough upon which to base our economy and where did Callaway get this information? Is she deciding what our economic base will be?
That said, I’m fine with our county being a tourist destination. The scenic beauty here is one of the reasons my wife and I chose it. That’s what’s called a “marketplace decision” and like that decision, it is the marketplace that determines whether or not you are a tourist destination? Tourists don’t come because you say you’re a tourist destination. They come because you are one and when they do, the marketplace reacts. “Build it and they will come,” as the saying goes. If you are the government, you don’t have to do much except stay out of the way.
What I don’t understand is a “subdivision-based” economy. Will someone please explain that? Is it an economy that is based on the building of subdivisions, which involves jobs that are gone once the subdivisions are completed? That didn’t work out too well for Phoenix. People don’t make a living by living in a subdivision.
This concept of a “subdivision-based” or “tourism-based” economy is at least consistent with Callaway’s vote on the Housing Element. As stated at the board meeting, her position is that (here I am paraphrasing her comments) if we want stores and restaurants, we have to accommodate the low income people that work in those occupations.
If you are unemployed in Calaveras County, or care about those who are, you should pay special attention to this concept. By her remark, Callaway (perhaps as well as Thomas, Wilensky and Tofanelli who voted with her) must believe you first build low-income housing, then low income people will be able to move here. Then, and only then, will businesses, namely stores and restaurants that need that type of employee, locate here.
If that position isn’t transparently false on its face, consider this. The unemployment rate in Calaveras County, as of April 2010, stood at 16% (that’s if you believe the stats are that low). That’s two points higher than any state in the U.S. These are people who, by definition and by whatever means, already live here and presumably in some form of affordable housing or they wouldn’t still be here. Do they need new affordable housing units, or do they need jobs? I suggest it is jobs they need and they sure don’t need more competition for those jobs from new low income people moving into new low income housing subsidized by the taxpayers.
So, where does the county stand with respect to business interests who might employ these people? Why, for example, does Amador County, with a smaller population than Calaveras, have an abundance of shopping centers, big block stores, restaurants and a newer multiplex cinema? Does Calaveras lack these businesses because we lack available workers (remember our 16% unemployment rate), or does our county government inhibit prospective businesses from locating hear? Consider just a few examples.
Jay Lange was a co-owner of the Copper Business Park along Highway 4 at Rock Creek Rd (He has since given up his financial interest in the project, but still manages it). He built his light industrial park to provide opportunities for local entrepreneurs to open up businesses. He has a permit for three buildings, with each building having 10 units. He had 30 prospective tenants lined up when he started the project. That would be enough to fill all three buildings, but only one is completed and it has only two tenants - why?
A requirement of his project (as with any project), is that a water source be obtained that is sufficient for the fire-fighting needs of the development. In Copperopolis, the entity responsible for approving the water system is the local fire department. Lange drilled a good well at a reasonable cost and got approval from the fire department for his system. Subsequently, the County wanted Lange to pay for an extension of the city water main to the business park, instead of relying on his well. The cost of that extension was between $2 and $3 million dollars.
Lange speculates that the county pushed for the extension because Castle & Cooke, the major real estate developers in the area, had land further up the street from the park - land that was slated for a housing subdivision. The water extension would have put the water main $2 to $3 million dollars closer to that land at Lange’s expense.
During the time it tried to get Lange to pay for the extended water main, the county delayed his project. He had to repeatedly show that his permit from the fire department covered the water requirement, paying for a lawyer all the while. A one-year project became a three-year project. By the time the BOS relented, Lange’s prospective tenants and the extra jobs they would have brought to the county were gone. It gets more ridiculous.
Along one side of the park is a solid rock outcropping. Lange was required to blast the rock away and install a cement retaining wall at a cost of $300,000. I offer this tip to the building department. If an embankment requires blasting to prepare it for a cement retaining wall, it doesn’t need the retaining wall. To add insult to injury, Supervisor Russ Thomas (elected afterwards) complained to Lange that the cement wall looked “ugly.”
Material Ventures in San Andreas, distributors of building materials, planned to expand its operation with a new 13,000 square foot building and employ up to eight more people - that is, until it was presented with a bill for over $50,000 in County fees. Included in that price, was a $28,000 “road improvement mitigation” (RIM) fee.
RIM fees are imposed, ostensibly, to cover increased road repairs caused by increased traffic. In the case of Material Ventures proposed expansion, however, fewer net truck miles would have been traveled on county roads.
Supplies not trucked to building sites from Material Ventures (the only distribution company in the county) have to come from the valley. That means more truck miles and the wear and tear associated with them. Those additional miles are also coming from valley operations that don’t even pay taxes here. It also means employment for people in the valley, not this county.
Finally, included in the fees from the County was $2,400 to check the building plans. That’s a check on building plans for a steel pre-fab building that is already pre-engineered to meet all code requirements. After spending $35,000 on those building plans, but faced with the additional $50,000 in up-front fees from the County, owner Rico Oller backed out of the project.
RIM fees surface as one key component in the county’s approach to new prospective businesses. The rationale for the fee is simple. If you locate a new house or business here, that means more traffic, which means the county has to collect a fee for the resulting road maintenance.
At first glance it sounds reasonable, but let’s look more closely. In the Materials Venture example, I show where the proposed business expansion would actually reduce truck miles on the county’s roads, but set that aside for a moment. When a house is built in this county, a RIM fee is charged (around $4,000). That fee is based on an estimated number of trips to and from the typical home per day. Trips where? Trips to businesses, including stores, restaurants, etc. But, the businesses are also assessed a RIM. For what? For trips taken by residents to those businesses. Where do the residents come from? They come from their homes. In short, the county is charging twice for the same trip – a case of double dipping. In fairness to the county, it should be noted that RIM fees are charged by other counties in various amounts.
Remember Callaway’s remark about a tourism-based economy? Lee Shuemake of Top Sport Cycling, organizers of cycling events, applied for a permit last December for an event in March of 2010. It took him three and half months to get his permit at a cost of over $2,000. That’s two-grand just to apply for the permit, with no guarantee he would get it.
The event itself was a success, filling up all the cabana booths by merchants. Rooms at Saddleback and restaurant tables in Copperopolis were filled by attendees as well. Lots of tourist money for Copperopolis. Shuemake later told the Board of Supervisors, however, that had he known the price, the uncertainty of getting the permit and the delays, he would never have filed for the permit. He only did so because of commitments he had made to cycling clubs. He also compared his experience here with a similar effort in neighboring Tuolumne County where, after only one week and $350, he walked out with a permit.
Finally, the mother of all examples of the county putting the kibosh on a business venture, and a tourism business at that – the Trinitas golf resort. This story has been extensively covered in the media, so I’ll attempt a brief synopsis.
The resort exists near Wallace. It exists because the county and the Board of Supervisors favored it. So much so in fact that to persuade a bank to loan the funds, the county told the bank it would receive county approval. Naturally, that would not only be important to the bank, but to the developer, Mike Nemee and his investors, who would then be on the hook for a $2.5 million loan. Mr. Nemee proceeded to build the course.
Then, a group called Keep It Rural (KIR) stepped in with funds from the Tides Foundation, a San Francisco non-profit group that states on its website it is“working to advance progressive social change.” Progressivism, as we know, is a form of socialism. The Keep It Rural folks, I submit, are among those who have located to this fine area, but want to shut the door behind them.
Faced with pressure from KIR and Tides, and notwithstanding their previous support, the board voted 3-2 to deny the project (votes against from Wilensky, Callaway and Tryon). The project, now in bankruptcy, is out nearly $8 million so far, plus legal fees for the suit they have had to file against the county. Speaking of which, the county is spending $.5 million on legal fees to fight the suit, in spite of a denial by a federal judge of their motion to dismiss the case. Also of interest, ever since the course was completed five years ago, the county has been charging the Nemees increased property taxes for the fact that it is now a golf course.
At stake for the county are nearly 50 jobs at the resort and an additional 12 or so ancillary jobs for a total payroll approaching $2 million, plus as much as $1 million in potential sales tax revenue - and those might not be the biggest losses.
Trinitas was the only project in Calaveras County named specifically in the Federal Stimulus package. It was to be the anchor tenant for a $30 million pipeline from New Hogan Reservoir to Lake Camanche to be used for agriculture in Calaveras County and to alleviate dependency on wells. Rights to the water from those reservoirs, as it turns out, is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. Water we don’t use goes to the East Stockton Water District, which sells it to the bay area for millions of dollars a year. Unknown at this writing are the numbers of jobs lost on the pipeline project and in county agriculture. For those interested, more can be learned about this matter on trinatasgolf.com and golfjunkys.com.
In addition to the “tourism” statement by Callaway, consider the county’s actions in light of its own mission statement: “To provide service, infrastructure and leadership necessary to advance a safe community, maintain a high quality of life, and to protect personal liberties for all of its citizens.” “Personal liberties” don’t appear to extend to the property rights of golf resort developers, unless perhaps you are Castle & Cooke, have plenty of lawyers, and want to build Saddleback. Furthermore, consider the county’s views toward golf courses as stated in its General Plan: “Golf courses provide significant social, recreational and economic benefits to the county.”
Back to the issue of the Housing Element. As part of their research for the writing of that component of the General Plan, the county, through its paid outside consultants, looked at the potential for new affordable housing units. That is, they looked at available bare land and zones ripe for redevelopment into apartment units. An obvious question arises. Did they also investigate the inventory of existing vacant affordable housing units? As mentioned above, we know we have a great many unemployed and therefore low-income residents already living here, but what about the potential to accommodate even more, should that need arise? A quick check of the local want ads will reveal many affordable rentals up for grabs.
Additionally, the housing market crash, while a disaster for many, has been a benefit to others, namely people who can now afford to buy a home, either as their own residence, or as an investment. With respect to the investors, this means more rental properties have come on the market and will continue to do so until the market stabilizes. That won’t be soon, as statistics show a new flood of foreclosures is upon us. As these homes are being bought for relatively modest sums, the pressure on rental rates will be downward. That’s a natural market dynamic and it is already being felt here.
What should also be noted is that, while prices of existing dwellings have crashed, new construction costs have not. So, developers of new multi-family units, who have to make a profit on their investment, will have to compete for renters with those recent buyers of low cost single-family units and condos. If you are a developer, do you really want to do that right now and if the only way a developer can profit from such an investment is with government subsidies, is that fair to those who made their investments without subsidies or favoritism of any kind from the county? For that matter, do we really want to go back to government intervention in the housing market?
Haven’t we just seen the results of that in the form of a national, even worldwide economic meltdown?
The vote on the Housing Element saw Tom Tryon cast the sole “No” vote. His position took into account the state’s requirement for a Housing Element in the county’s General Plan, including the requirement that the county make some effort in the area of affordable housing. Tryon’s position was that the county should do the minimum to meet the state requirement. To do more, according to Tryon, was to further the efforts of those favoring wealth re-distribution, a key Marxist-socialistic concept. In this case, the wealth redistribution comes in the form of taxpayer subsidies for low-income housing. Mr. Tryon asked the planning department, present at the hearing, whether this Housing Element went beyond the state’s requirements. At this writing, that question has yet to be answered; however, Supervisor Steve Wilensky’s response to Mr. Tryon was very revealing.
Mr. Wilensky began by offering that the Housing Element issue was about a “legal mandate (as referred to above) and an ideology.” He then offered that he was brought up by “deeply religious parents” which formed his opinion that “We are our brother’s keeper.” He went on to talk about homelessness in the county and people living under tarps and chided Tryon for even mentioning Marxism.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with deeply held religious convictions. “We are our brother’s keeper” is such a conviction. I say there is no problem, unless you consider the separation of church and state, a foundational element of our Constitution.
Mr. Wilensky is free to use whatever resources are available to him personally to further his religious convictions. If he is lacking in resources, he is free to band together with others who hold those convictions to sponsor that effort. That would be an honorable thing to do, but that is not what he wants. He wants to force everyone to pay for the furtherance of his religious convictions by getting the government to step into that role. In the end, as if no one was paying attention, he said his vote for the Housing Element was “not about ideology,” even though he made that connection in his opening remark; however, he did proclaim that those who opposed his position were, indeed, acting on their ideologies.
Now, about the person Mr. Wilensky mentions who is living under a tarp. Is it the lack of low income housing that is keeping him there? If a new apartment building went up, subsidized by the county, does he now have a home he can afford? No. If he could afford it, even at a subsidized price, he would have a roof over his head now. A quick check of the want ads, as mentioned earlier, would show that. So, what is Mr. Wilensky really talking about? If he’s talking about getting people out from under tarps, it’s going to take more than roofs. Welfare is going to have to pay the rent. Is that the ultimate goal of Mr. Wilensky, to subsidize the building the low-income housing, then pay the rent of the occupants with welfare dollars?
A couple of other interesting components of the Housing Element, questioned by Mr. Tryon, bear mentioning. The document redefines a “family” as more than one person living together. Webster disagrees, but what do they know? Really, any two people living together are now a “family,” according to the county? Where does the county get the authority to redefine a word whose definition has been well understood for thousands of years (It comes from the Latin familia) and did the state require that new definition?
The document also imposes a new anti-discrimination category on landlords. If this document is ultimately enacted, a landlord, in addition to the anti-discrimination factors already in place, could not discriminate against a potential renter for his or her “source of income.” Was that a state requirement?
Questioned by Mr. Tryon about the new factor, Planning Director, George White, said it was there to keep landlords, for example, from discriminating against renters on social security. As Mr. Tryon pointed out, landlords are not likely to do so, since SSI is one of the more stable sources of income. Next to the ability to pay the rent in the first place, income stability is what landlords want most.
It is standard practice for a landlord to ask a prospective tenant what is his or her source of income. They have a right to know and to verify that source. Does this new factor preclude a landlord from obtaining that necessary information, and does it open up the landlord to a possible discrimination law suit if it is obtained? With that information in hand, does the landlord then have to be able to prove source of income was not the reason for refusing to rent to the prospective tenant?
In connection with the statement about low income housing and employees for new businesses mentioned earlier, Ms. Callaway complained that some people in the county persistently argue against the building of apartments, which the county favors. I’m not one of them. If the zoning for a parcel permits an apartment building and the landowner wants to risk capital to build one, so be it. That’s a property right, but what investor in his right mind would build or buy rental property in this county with such a requirement in place? Is it possible Mr. White really had a different example in mind that he would rather not mention? Where does the authority come from that would permit the county to change the civil rights codes? Perhaps the above questions can be added to the one that Mr. Tryon is still waiting on.
I am not completely disillusioned with the county I’ve chosen for my new home, but I am somewhat surprised to find it a microcosm of the dysfunctional government entities that hale from Washington D.C. and Sacramento. I am encouraged that America, as a whole, has awakened to the threat of the ideologies encamped at those two capitals and I hope that awakening is felt here in Calaveras County when the next Supervisor seats are up for election.
|
