- Why Measure R Won't Work!
- It Creates an Unfair Game.
- It Scares The Players Away!
- Measure R isn't the worst measure I've seen.
Considering it had no input from elected officials, citizens, developers, or anyone except its Proponent and his many attorneys, that the City of Galt paid for!
- The City of Galt was billed Over $10,000.00 for the attorneys to prepare, draft, write, revise, review, and prepare it for the ballot.
- Over 50 hours from our attorneys. That does not include the hours and hour of City Staff Time that was not charged off.
- With Growth Ordinances being so popular, we should have copied someone else's!
After reviewing the bills, and seeing all the different employees involved in preparing it, I don't know who wrote it for certain.
- Consider this;
Can any private citizen walk into City Hall, and have an ordinance written?
- NO! Not a Chance! And no council member should either.
Especially when the city doesn't have a problem with growth. It is only in the imagination of ones future fears!
- Measure R has been a, "Scam," from the start.
The City of Galt Has Had, For Almost 10 Years:
- A 4.5% Average Growth Rate.
- A General Plan Update Planned.
- 4 to 5 subdivisions started or ready to go.
- All will be completed in 3 - 4 years!
- Not 28 like we had in 1992 - 1993.
- This was never about growth control.
This Is About Stopping Growth and
- "Stop the Delta Greens Project."
It is one persons idea, and he has failed to stop growth in Elk Grove, and failed to convince most of us, that Elk Grove's choices will hurt us.
He has gained quite a following, and they are loyal almost to a fault,
- and they are organized and working hard.
- A 7 hour council meeting last Tuesday night had many invited guests of the proponent.
And many local crusaders, saying the same things over and over, and attacking the same 2 people again.
- I'm tired of it! Are You?
- If my predictions are correct,
- They will have another "No Growth Member" Joining Them In December!
- My Seat Unfortunately, and I Am Controlled Growth!.
- And, I was here before the Growth?
- Not Enough.
- They want it all!
Most of the activists came into town in the late 1980's or early 1990's. That's when we did grow too fast.
Galt was only 5,500 people in 1982 when my wife and I moved here.
Then, inexpensive housing brought all these newbies here, and now a few of them, do not want to chance it that more might come.
- Guess we should have thought that way in 1982!
No, overall the new people have made Galt a better place. Even with the complaints of the overcrowded schools, my four boys are doing fine. Their friends are learning at a good level as well,
- So, Where's the problem?
As a, "Not quite old timer", but "been here longer than them," observer,
Here's what I have seen happen.
Galt was small, and land was cheap. Builders came in, and we started to grow. But, as we grew, there were new faces on the City Council. A ritual had started.
First they think, "I'm here now, I don't want my new town ruined."
Then they say, "I don't want anyone else to come." Unless it is on my level and my terms.
A little selfish some might say, but I wish I had thought of it sooner!
What I find more amazing is the time, effort and money that they are putting into the 2002 elections. Look at this!
Everything I hear from one side accusing the other side of doing, is being done by both sides.
- I am not on a side, but I am against what I see them doing.
- See The Ads in the Paper.
- The Web Sites.
- The Flyers,
- And People Walking and Talking so Rudely Everywhere I Go.
But, I have to wonder,
- If we don't have a problem,
- Why The Panic?
I get irritated when I hear them expound about the virtues of Lodi and what a good job Lodi did with, "Managed Growth."
Lodi did it the right way, and Ours is Being Done, the "Galt" Way."
Lodi, with community input, planned for a long enough time, that it has worked, so far, somewhat.
Galt's new saviors had one person spend city funds to have city attorneys write a very narrow minded, "Measure R."
Worked on from behind closed doors, secretly paid for, and no advice taken from the rest of the elected City Council.
The claim that it is based on Lodi's 2% growth is misleading at best, and the differences are very clear, if you take the time to read them both.
But, if you read the Lodi plan, you will see that even it is not perfect, and it has worked this long, only because so many projects were "Grand Fathered In", and Thousands of homes were not counted towards the 2% growth rate for the past 11 years.
When it was first adopted, it was challenged in court,
and the City Council was told to form a group and make something work. They did.
I don't know if we will!
Lodi had 40,000 or more people, and now they are over 50,000. They also had a stronger tax base for their source of revenues.
Galt is a little over 20,000 people, and very dependent on builder fees to pay for the costs of any growth.
Galt is a little to small, and a little to poor to be messing around with "Growth Control." Especially without the advice of builders and experienced citizens.
Lodi had builders working on their growth control.
We don't. Not a chance.
Dozens, so what, have done something?
- Galt's Growth has been about 4.5 % Very moderate and healthy!
- What is Galt's revenue base from sales tax compared to others?
Most of those cities used as an example had a good retail base, and a healthy Sales Tax revenue.
- Galt's is one of the lowest in the region!
Lodi has struggled with Retail/Commercial business for years, even with a population that doubled ours. Businesses went under. Shopping centers went into foreclosure. Small shops that I bought clothes at are all gone now. All closed due to lack of sales.
Proponents say, "We need to depend on commercial/retail and attract new sources of revenue." "Residential is a loser for the City." They don't tell you that commercial/retail follows the residential building.
- It doesn't believe that, "If You Build It, They Will Come."
That's Hollywood. Reality is, "They go broke."
Galt developers attracted a new Raleys for a long awaited Supermarket. Did Measure R proponents tell you that the developers gave them over a million dollars in rent reductions for the next 3 years, and the City Council deferred fees, just to get them to come here now?
- No, they didn't.
Do they tell you that if this initiative had been proposed and voted into law 2 years ago, they wouldn't have come here?
- No, they don't.
But, the developers have. No one is listening.
Now, they are worried about renting the empty spaces.
Even if Measure R doesn't hurt us, intentionally, it spreads fear amongst the business owners that will have to pay the rent each month.
Galt, unfortunately, is dependent on developer impact fees to provide parks, buildings, sewer and water facility upgrades and more. Our General Fund is safe, that is one of their truer claims, but where will the money come from to build new facilities if residential growth drops off significantly?
Citizens hate to see their rates raised $5.00 for garbage or water increases. Can you imagine paying for the new wastewater treatment plant that is going to cost around 15 million dollars?
To build a new home that is 1800 square feet in Galt, you pay the city about $15,000.00 (and I am being very conservative, to stop false accusations against me).
The school districts receive their fees separate from those above.
- Here Are Some Numbers -- Not All, But Some.
- Certain Fees Paid When A New Home Is Built!
The City of Galt gets
- $1,526.00 -- Traffic/Circulation Impact Fees.
- $2,109.00 -- General Government Impact Fees.
- $4,000.00 -- Park Impact Fee > Just Doubled <.
- $4,021.00 -- Sewer Connection Fee.
- $2,600.00 -- Water Connection Fee.
- Plus much more!
This is the basic plan. It doesn't cover all the up front subdivision costs.
- Were does the money go?
It pays for the new park, the new police station, the new sewer plant, and more needed facilities that are coming.
Galt puts the price on up front, so the rest of us do not pay later. Those funds are the ones we asked for studies to be done on, not the General Fund.
- The quick study on the General Fund is accurate. I'm not worried about that.
But, until we get a better revenue base from other sources than impact fees, you better hope that we maintain our current and normal growth rate. At 4%, that brings in well over $5,000,000.00 a year to pay for improvements. And We Need More!
- Delta Greens?
Supporters of Measure R oppose the Delta Greens Project, but they don't tell you that sewer hookup fees alone would be over ten million dollars. Total impact fees for all services will be over sixty million dollars.
And, they pay all of the cost to develop it.
Then, we sell the waste water to help offset the additional cost for the required upgrade.
And we collect the property tax each year along with the Fire District and the School Districts.
That sounds better to me than having a huge assessment put on my property tax bill each year to pay for costs that will have to be paid for.
- Yes, we have to vote before taxes can be raised.
- What are the other options?
- I don't know.
- Oh, the Measure R supporters say no new taxes, right.
But, if developers are not convinced that they can build, they will not come into Galt.
Who pays for the infrastructure that we have got to provide anyway?
- Not Lodi.
- Not Elk Grove.
- Galt pays for Galt.
Another Problem with this measure that I am concerned about, is the ability to modify it once it becomes law. There is no way to make even a slight or major modification to this initiative once it is voted in.
If the city needs to change one word, it will have to be done with a special election. There is no room for error or correction at a council level.
- I am not opposed to citizens having the right to vote on issues, but I know as a council member, every zoning change, ordinance change, and mostly any new subdivision creates a massive amount of reading material.
That is why we elect representatives to office. So they can read, study and evaluate the issue. Granted, we have not had the best luck with our councils,
- But, Some of us do read the material.
Are you, as a citizen, going to come into the City Clerks office and ask for all the material to be better informed? I wouldn't if I hadn't been elected to do it.
In fact,
- I believe that getting out of reading the material
- And Not Making Those Decisions
is the motive for some to want it.
Or the pressure of doing the right thing with the public breathing down your neck? That goes away as well! Maybe that part s better for some that run for office, but it is not responsible. If you can't do the job, Get Out.
- The East Area Specific Plan.
Those studies were over 12 inches high when they books were stacked flat.
- (No -- I didn't read all of it) But most of it.
So, now we let the people decide, and that takes most of the pressure off of those you elected. I suggested abolishing the council and having quarterly votes on all issues. Given the state of the council for the past year, it might not be a bad idea.
- Overall, Measures can be workable as ordinances.
I agree with most of Measure R. 2% - 5% controlled growth? We have barely averaged 4% for most years. What's to argue about?
With the exception of a few years when the entire state went crazy building homes, Galt has a good and healthy rate of growth. So, there is not an emergency situation taking place to resolve this in November. we have time to do it right. For A Change!
The scare tactics about massive developer money coming into town to buy elections and have Galt become another Elk Grove has not been proven to me. Every question I ask about it, some type of proof? I get a response that can't be substantiated, or I get a question asked back instead of an answer to my question.
And, Galt has physical limitations on how far the surrounding land will let you build.
- The West side is planned by the county for two acre parcels.
- The South is Dry Creek, and it flood San Joaquin County land every winter.
- The North has the protected wetlands, thousands of acres owned by government and nonprofit groups.
Skunk Creek is about it, with the exception of Highway 99. And that's a great place to put new commercial or retail, someday? It will keep the traffic out of the main part of Galt. Unless you want more?
- East of Galt. The last big fight.
- That is the logical place to grow.
But a developer spent around a million dollars and ten years worth of City of Galt ordered studies, and at the first public hearing to gain public input,
- The council killed the project deader than a door nail.
- The planning commission was told to kill it as well!
Only one member on the planning commission voted to kill it without further public input. Guess where that person is today? Guess where his replacement on the planning commission is today, and where will he be after the election?
- Strange Things Happen In Galt
I didn't like the plan either, but the applicant is entitled to have his day with the public hearings. So Christina and I argued for a couple more hearings, but the others wouldn't chance what the public might want. We got sued. Again! See a pattern yet?
At this rate, we haven't allowed in new project into Galt in many years, so where and when is the problem coming? The county will not let us build over the town of Herald. And that is our only unrestricted path that we could grow on and on. I don't want that, and I don't know to many people that do.
- We can really only build so far, and then we are done forever, someday in the future.
- Developers Need To Be Controlled
- We all agree on that!
And, we have done that -- three years ago. Seems that the proponent forgets about praising me for doing some rezoning of vacant land! By rezoning all vacant single family land in Galt, to a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.
- And, in 1999, we established an Architectural Review Committee.
I have been on it since it was created. If a developer wants smaller lots, they must get our approval. In fact, the committee reviews the type of homes that will be built and also has to approve the design.
This gives the city a big hammer to negotiate with.
- Example: Schmidt Family Project on Orr Road
In 1999, they came before the current council with a plan to build almost 200 homes on small lots. They had been working with councils for about 7 years by then.
I ended up being the swing vote, and after two months in office, so I got to do the negotiations with the developer.
To hot for some others.
After some serious negotiations, the new plan will be 126 homes on 10,000 plus square foot lots, and the average square footage of the home has to be 1922 square feet. It would be a beautiful move up housing project that Galt needs desperately.
- But the Council Keeps Jerking Them Around
Now, Developer Problems With Measure R
If Measure R is passed, builders are concerned about getting building permits. That is the biggest flaw in the measure. No project will be allowed more than 25% of the permits issued in a year (Unless some unusual things happen).
That means, in the best year possible, any project can only have a maximum of 75 permits (If there are only 4 builders).
That's not to bad for most projects, but what if there are 10 builders trying to get those permits?
Permits are given out on a first come, first serve basis. Would a builder spend the money and buy permits in March, and then hope you sell houses next summer or fall?
If you don't, you are stuck with permits you can't use, sell, transfer or any other method you can think of.
And with permits getting close to $30,000.00, how many can you buy and not use?
- Here's a hypothetical scenario to think about.
If an emergency situation like that did come up, and you had ten to fifteen permits you paid for, but the market turned, and the sales fell through, what would you do?
Appeal it to the council and ask their mercy? Not if this measure passes. There is no appeal at the city level. You can't appeal to the city council, because Measure R takes the control away from, "Sleazy politicians on the city council," according to the argument by the alleged author and Father of Measure R.
The council will be powerless to even think about helping. The city will schedule a special election, or wait a year or so for a regular election, and from now on, only the majority of votes from citizens can decide if the developer of that project can do anything with those permits.
Can you imagine any developer coming to Galt under those circumstances and starting a project? Who would spend the millions of dollars to put the infrastructure in and then not know if you can build.
- Go back and read the earlier paragraph about impact fees, and
- Who is going to pay for everything!
Based on that alone, if Measure R passes, once the existing developments are finished, in about three years, you won't have to worry about growth. There won't be any. And the argument that commercial/retail development is not restricted, and all this money will be coming in from massive increases in sales tax and other sources, it just flat doesn't hold up.
Again, retail and commercial projects follow residential building. If their argument is true, then we should have every name brand store right here in Galt. But we don't. Commercial project developers are concerned, about
- Measure R and its Impacts.
Even though some feel like I do, that overall it isn't a bad measure, it sends a signal to the development community, that causes some hesitation about dumping millions of dollars into Galt.
- Commercial and Retail Developers Are Concernned About Measure R
This measure came before the council at one meeting, with minimal discussion for a token, "Make It Legal," presentation as an ordinance. It then turned into a "citizens initiative" with enough signatures to place it on the ballot. Sounds reasonable at first, but guess what? By allowing Measure R to become a "Citizen Initiative," the ordinance turned private initiative now, was allowed to skip all of the required studies that would have to be done to make this an ordinance by the City Council. That law protects the citizen from getting into something without all the facts.
And, by presenting it at a token meeting, you can argue that it is not a misuse of public funds, because it was an ordinance originally. But,
- It's against the law to use public money for a Private initiative!
So, it gets introduced at a meeting as an ordinance, wait for a short time period, then declare publicly that you are now a private citizen taking this measure to the citizens. Admirable? Sounds that way. But,
- The City of Galt pays $8.000.00 to $10,000.00 to have one persons input, to tell the attorneys to write it, and you are not required to have it studied for fiscal and other problems that the State of California would require an Elected Council to do!
- THAT BOTHERS ME!
At this same meeting under "token discussion," one of the partners in the new Raleys Center told us that, "This measure concerned him!"
The concern was not that the measure was as bad for him as it was for restricting his ability to get new stores to come to Galt.
The real fear was that even talk about growth control, will scare people away from investing and renting spaces at the new Raleys center.
Developers hear rumors about controlling growth, and they have a hard time putting in their money!
You can't get your investment back with empty spaces. Passing this measure, sends a signal that there is a problem working and earning in Galt.
People have wanted a Raleys in town for years. Raleys wanted to come. But, from a financial view;
- The homes aren't here yet.
In all likelihood, we are all fortunate that this Measure didn't come up sooner.
We wouldn't have a Raleys coming at all.
So, contrary to the newest rumors going around, I am a strong supporter of good quality, and well planned growth.
But, no one is good enough or sharp enough to put the right plan together alone.
- And that is Measure R in a nutshell.
- One council members idea of how Galt should control growth
with no provisions to change or modify it. And placing it on the ballot and voted on by the citizens, claiming it is better than any other plan that he has seen.
- But, What if,
- Here's a good example:
Over two years ago, the council adopted a campaign finance ordinance. The attorneys prepared it, and it was presented to council. We discussed it and modified it over two or three meetings, and we thought we had it worked out perfectly.
That same ordinance has now had over a hundred hours of changes and modifications at a total cost to the city of approximately $20,000.00.
About $15,000.00 were just the changes made from the time it was started until it the November 2002 ballot.
Changes were still being made minutes before the vote by the proponent.
- I finally voted yes just to stop the changes
My main point is,
Laws were enacted by the state, paranoia about developers buying council seats, and the attorneys just love this and keep the process going.
The final version of Measure Q, even after $20,000.00 to work on it -- isn't perfect. Things change, and some things will have to be modified.
If that measure passes, the council will not be allowed to modify or change "Campaign Finance Laws" anymore. Only a vote by the people. Regardless of the need.
So, you tell me, Measure R was put together in a three month period with virtually no input except the attorneys and one council member.
Do you think that they got it perfect. I don't.
- Measure R went
- To fast,
- To soon,
- And with a hidden agenda that no one hears about.
In addition, Measure Q evolved over a two year period and over a hundred hours of attorney modifications and rewrites.
- Do you think Measure R will need to be modified like the campaign finance ordinance?
You bet, but if it passes, every slight modification will be at the ballot box. You won't be able to come to a council meeting and express your concerns to the people you elected.
You will have made them powerless to do anything about it.
- Something for you to sleep on before you vote.
There are better ways to go, but it is with a select committee of citizens and builders working together, and then bringing a draft version to the council as an ordinance for public discussion and input.
I know what you're thinking, but some of us listen. I will, if I'm still there!
- Another decision for the voters to decide, but I'm told that they can't be trusted to elect a council. I Still can't figure out the logic of the argument there!
- Have Any Questions?
There's more than meets the eye! So, please call me, if you think I'm way off base, call me and tell me. I am always learning. Maybe you can help me understand this a little better.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope enough people will. Pass it around , before the election.
Updated 10-27-02 at 7:00 AM
|
