Let’s set the matter straight. The southeast quadrant has the
eyes of the City Council and developers and is for the most part
not in the city limits. This is county land, and prime open
space.
By Mark Grzan
Let’s set the matter straight. The southeast quadrant has the eyes of the City Council and developers and is for the most part not in the city limits. This is county land, and prime open space. There is no demonstrated need to annex the property. LAFCO, the local regulating authority, will be hard pressed to allow such annexation without justification. There is enough land within the city limits to support residential needs for the next 30 to 50 years. There is enough land within city limits to support industrial/manufacturing needs for 25 years or more. We should not be focused on land outside the city limits, let alone begin to consider paving over prime agricultural land. We have infill issues that must be addressed before we start to sprawl and bargain away precious open space.
If we adhere to smart growth principles, we should be focused at the core of our community, building along and within public transit corridors. We should be building at the middle and up before out. There are many vacant lots even in our downtown, so why are we going to develop miles away? It makes no sense, or does it?
Farmers will likely find more profit in selling their land to developers than farming. Developers look at this pristine and level land and will make quick of it, if allowed. But the scheme is to zone the land for recreational purposes, such as cricket and polo fields.
Some council members may be looking at revenue assistance from the annexation. But I would never trade prime farm land for the meager revenue that such projects could possibly bring. If such an idea was viable, show me other area cities that have ventured into this risky undertaking.
Farmers will tell you that the land is not viable. I disagree. There is a tremendous local market for fresh produce. We just have been ingredient farmers for so long that we don’t know how to deal directly and locally. This is a different approach, but it can be done. It requires the city to take a leadership role to coordinate and organize.
Some have said that our annexation would protect the land. I would argue that there is greater protection under county zoning laws than with city laws. If this was true, every city in the Bay Area would have annexed remaining county land to insure the protection of open space. But none have done that. Once the land is annexed, it only takes three votes of the council to change the zoning. I envision the city annexing the property, building the supporting infrastructure and waiting for the projects to come. But I don’t believe they will come and I believe the developers hope for the same. Once these recreational ideas fail, the city will have no choice but to zone for residential to recover costs.
If and when we do annex and develop this property, there will be costs. Yes, we could pass along these costs to the developers. But in the long run, the cost will be ours to bear; to make sure there is drainage and sewer lines, a pumping station to remove groundwater to support the fields, that the sewer treatment plant is large enough to support the new development, that we hire additional police officers, and that the streets are maintained and lights are paid for. But there is a problem. We can’t maintain what we have. The street fund has a large deficit that can’t support or maintain the streets we have, let alone new ones. We are facing a multimillion dollar deficit, likely the city will be served by fewer police officers not more, less services and may even sell facilities to meet declining revenues. We have parks going brown and some pocket parks are already infested with weeds. And the outlook isn’t any better.
We have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the study of annexation. This was money foolishly spent when you consider the funds could have been used to preserve our current infrastructure and reduce the deficit.
There are so many arguments against the annexation and loss of open space, yet there is only one conclusion: wealthy developers and landowners exert far too much influence over our council. And that is just a shame.
If any council member would like to debate this further, name the time and place. My reputation has always been to stand up for what I believe, and I truly believe in preserving this open space.
