Political Games: Redevelopment Wins You Lose

by Douglas Adams McNea

There is a high stakes game of chicken being played out in the state Capitol
with your tax dollars as the prize. If we the people do not take action,
redevelopment wins, we loose.

The three proposed plans are as follows:

A) Original Local Gov. Agreement
B) Local Government Compromise
C) SCA 9 - Democrat Proposal

So what plan do we support?

Dan Weintraub laid out our best course of action when he said:

"Instead of making a mistake that will haunt California for years to come,
the governor should return to his original proposal, shift local money to
the state for one year only, and let the cities and counties make their case
to the voters in November.

If the public likes their solution, state officials will have to live with
it. But if Proposition 65 loses, Schwarzenegger can begin the next day to
put together the kind of real reform worthy of his power and prestige, a
reform that would cement his legacy on an important and difficult issue. "

For full text:
Govenor is Missing a Chance to Enact Big Reform

We need to tell the Governor to flex his muscle by returning to his original
proposal. Tell the Governor to oppose Proposition 65. Then start forming a
strong alliance to defeat Proposition 65. We need to say no to the
California Redevelopment Association and their plan to use Proposition 65,
the Governor, and the Legislators to protect tax increment from being
shifted to education.

What is more important corporate welfare or the welfare of are children?

Contact the Govenor

Techniques Used To Silence Neighbors of New Developments

By Dale Warner
SOS Secretary
June 2004

The "Save Open Spaces In North San Jose" coalition has been collecting
various techniques that are used to intimidate and silence neighbors of
new developments. The coalition wants all our readers to understand these
techniques now that North Capitol Avenue, the BART "node," and Alviso have been designated a super-rush, hyper-dense development area by the city planning department -- and without any kind of plan in place!

"You're Lucky To Have This High Density,
The City Wants This Parcel For Affordable Housing"

This tactic shuts up neighborhood opponents who fear, perhaps unnecessarily, that the possibility of "affordable" housing might be the alternative to the high density development being slammed into their neighborhood. Residents need a better understanding of what "affordable" housing is, but it is unconscionable for an elected politician to whisper this "threat" into the ears of development opponents to silence them.

"Raising Density After Approval"

This bait-and-switch happens often in neighborhoods. A recent
development, for example, was supposed to be compatible with the surrounding
dwellings per acre. On completion, it was announced that density was increased by 40%. This bait-and-switch is a very frequent occurrence in North San Jose. The rhetoric that accomplishes this phenomenon is frequently the use of "gross
density" at the beginning of the project, and "net density" at the end of the
project.

"Ah, But The Plan Says..."

It is amazing how easily people are intimidated by a mystical or even a
phony reference to a plan. The city changes plans, zones, and subareas as
easily as we change clothes. And often, if the "plan" is looked into, it doesn't
say what we are told it says. Just because a plan says that an invisible
BART station will exist on the Union Pacific Railroad line between Berryessa
Road and Mabury Road, doesn't mean it will. And just because a plan says that
very high densities may be built for 2,000 feet around light rail stations and
for 3,000 feet around a BART station (a "node"), doesn't mean that it's
wise or inevitable.

"The City Wants Much Higher Density"

This rhetorical tactic is used to scare neighbors into accepting a new
development against their better judgment because they have been
persuaded by the developer or consultant that rejection of a a proposed development may result in a much more dense development. Interestingly, we mentioned this tactic in our most recent emailing on 6/24/04, and it brought a call from a consultant who explained that the city was, indeed, pressing for higher development based on a planning department proposed General Plan amendment last fall which called for "downtown" standards (45 dwellings per acre) in place of the "suburban" standards (20 dwellings per acre) we have now at North Capitol Avenue light rail stations. His is a good faith argument, but it can be defeated by reference to the fact that the department's proposal was withdrawn and now the only number used in "transit corridor" density in our neighborhoods is the minimum figure of 20 dwellings per acre which is more dense than almost all other developments in North San Jose. To seek 27 dwellings per acre, for example, is to seek a 25% higher density than is necessary under "transit corridor" guidelines.

"The City Standard Is 150 Square Feet Of Park Per Unit"

The minimal regulatory parkland for neighbors is based on expected
residents, not on dwelling units per se. And be aware that the city ordinances on parklands provide a minimum area to be dedicated or financed. Somehow
both the planning department and developers have come to the conclusion that the parklands ordinance formula is the maximum requirement, whereas it is really the minimum amount. The more dense the development, the larger the associated nearby public parklands should be.

The standard in the Park Impact Ordinance and the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance is three acres of park per 1,000 new residents.

The formula is: minimum acreage dedication = .003 x average number of
persons per dwelling unit x number of dwelling units. The formula requires .34
acres for developing 50 apartment units. That's 15,000 square feet.

Something is very wrong with the way the city administers the Parkland
Dedication Ordinance and the Park Impact Ordinance -- the areas west of
North Capitol Avenue should be bristling with new parklands, but we don't see
any. We believe that these parkland moneys are being diverted to other areas
than where the new subdivisions are being constructed. For example, North King Road between Mabury Road and Berryessa Road should have at least a five acre park from all the new development there. We cannot see it.

"Look At the Wonderful Plans For Parks"

We have a real problem with "disappearing" parklands. We know of twelve
developments in which buyers were promised nice parks, but at the end
of the day the parklands just disappeared. This frequently happens when buyers and neighbors are promised a park that runs beside a road slated for
widening or beside a creek slated for major flood control measures. Disappearing parklands is a very common problem in North San Jose due to broken promises and failure by the city to act. The biggest example, of course, is River Oaks Village home owners who appear to have been simply ripped off.

"You Will Still Have Your View Of The Hills"

Promises like these are rarely realized. What recourse do the
residents have who believed these promises? They have no recourse. They learned a valuable lesson about whom to trust, but it is now too late.

"Your Home Value Will Not Decrease"

This is the biggest whopper of them all. The priciest neighborhoods in
North San Jose need to keep an eye out for future shanty towns creeping into
their areas, and depreciating the value of their properties. The rush to
build future shanty towns is assuming huge proportions and will cut existing
services, reduce water pressure, reduce police and fire protection, crowd
classrooms, and increase traffic congestion for established residents. The new
residents won't know how pleasant our "suburban" communities were, but buyers won't be attracted to your home in the future in the way they would have been had development in North San Jose been accomplished in a measured, thoughtful way.

The North San Jose Development Plan provides apt evidence that the
planning department does not care about the damage it inflicts on our
communities, and the damage will be irreversible when they have finished jamming as many dwellings and people around Alviso, the invisible BART station, and along the North Capitol Avenue light rail as they can. You will pay the price for this ignominious rush to high density development for at least the next 30 years.