|
A dialogue currently taking place between the Chamber and City Hall best illustrates the role your Chamber plays in looking after the best interests of business and the economy.
The issue in question is a recommendation in the current General Plan process to raise the fees charged developers for each home in Petaluma from $37,415 to $73,072, costs which would be passed on to the purchasers of new homes.
This money would be used for parks development, new roads, city buildings, and other infrastructure in Petaluma.
The substantial increase in fees caught the eye of members of our Government Affairs/Economic Development Committee, who felt that increasing the costs of new homes by another $40,000 or so could easily have a negative impact on new home construction, and in this challenged economic climate could shut down construction altogether for years. Of course, if that happened, the city would defeat its own objective, which is to raise badly needed revenue to provide goods and services our community needs.
The Chamber acknowledges the city’s policy of assessing these fees. The question is, what is reasonable and proper?
With committee member and former council member Mike Healy taking the lead, a subcommittee working with realtor Clark Rosen studied the assumptions upon which these fees were based.
They learned that the fees were based on a consultant’s recommendation which was itself based on the cost of land if the city needed to purchase same for parks development. The subcommittee then reviewed the parcels selected to determine potential land costs.
It turns out the consultant was using a code from the assessor’s office for undeveloped land that was obsolete, and that a number of these so-called undeveloped parcels actually had million dollar homes, and one parcel was even on the Sonoma Coast, at Goat Rock.
Armed with this information, the subcommittee of Healy, Rosen, Gary Imm, J.T. Wick and Onita Pellegrini met with city staff members and shared their findings. The meeting was very productive, and staff indicated a willingness to revisit the issue.
At this writing, another meeting is planned between the two groups near the end of April. We are hopeful that this process will result in a fee schedule that will not pose such a threat to our local economy.
We at the Chamber are proud of the fact that we are able to work with those at City Hall on an ongoing basis of mutual respect, and that when we have concerns, those concerns are given proper attention.
Your Board, your staff, and your volunteers are always working behind the scenes to help keep our local economy as vital as possible for the benefit of our entire community.
Prop. 98, which is opposed by the Petaluma Chamber, has stirred up a statewide ruckus. The measure, which aims to restrict government’s right to seize property, has drawn sharp criticism from many of the same groups it should have been designed to help.
Like many initiatives, this one seems to have used the issue of eminent domain as a stalking horse to get other ideas written into the State constitution, among them repeal of mobile home rent control and revocation of renter’s rights laws.
Although the measure did get the support of the California Farm Bureau Federation, it also drew the opposition of the Western Growers., which, in a letter to the Farm Bureau, raised the concern that one provision in the initiative could be an excuse “to block future development of surface water storage and conveyance through litigation.”
The provision in question, as stated in the ballot measure, says:
“Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use” and defines private use as “(ii) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of national resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner.”
The Western Growers letter stated the case as follows: “Virtually any major state surface water storage or conveyance project must involve the taking of some private property for pumps, pipes, canals and other infrastructure necessary to effectuate the operation of a major dam or conveyance system.”
According to the Los Angeles Business Journal, the measure could jeopardize acquisition of land for reservoirs, groundwater and surface water storage, construction of conveyance systems, etc.
Governor Schwarzenegger’s office has weighed in on the matter. A spokesman said that “we are very concerned about this issue,” going on to say that anything that would undermine the state’s ability to build new water storage would be a “major problem. “
The Association of California Water Agencies has said that Prop. 98 “could literally derail efforts to build the infrastructure and other water projects we need to ensure an adequate supply of safe, clean drinking water.”
Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill said that “there’s certainly reason for concern for what it means for the future water projects in California, especially as it pertains to new water storage,” although he has not officially taken a position on the measure.
Meanwhile, Prop. 99 is a simpler measure, dealing primarily with the eminent domain issue, requiring that government cannot use eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. It has drawn support from many of the same groups opposing Prop. 98.
The guest editorial in the Los Angeles Business Journal, from the Association of California Water Agencies, concludes that “This measure is at odds with ensuring a reliable water system for California, and should be opposed by those who care about our economy and our environment.”
The Chamber agrees, and recommends a no vote on 98, a yes vote on 99. |
