My Pledge Not to Take Developer Money

By Vinnie Bacon

Fremont politicians regularly take campaign contributions from developers that stand to profit from City Council decisions. Many decisions Council has made have benefited developers tremendously. Instead of well-planned, balanced development, we have seen individual developments that don't fit well together and collectively hurt our city's economy.

I pledge not to take campaign contributions from developers! I will base any decisions on what is best for the residents and businesses of Fremont.

At the local level, the main decisions elected officials make involve land use. Developers, and others associated with the home building industry, have an obvious financial stake in the zoning decisions that our city's elected officials render. Looking back at the campaign contributions in all of Fremont's recent elections, it is clear that these outside interests contribute heavily to local candidates.

In recent years, housing has proven to be the most profitable type of development in the Bay Area. With Proposition 13, taxes the City receives from housing developments typically don't pay for the police, fire and other city services these developments require. Added housing also brings more students into our school system, which is currently working to address overcrowding issues.

Below are some specific large scale development decisions that the City Council has discussed. Many of these were pushed through despite objections of a large number of Fremont residents, I believe there has been a consistent pattern where the Council has prioritized developers' interests over the interests of Fremont's residents.

Patterson Ranch: This is one of the more egregious examples of the influence of developer money in Fremont politics. The Patterson family descendents who own the land, none of whom live in Fremont, contribute regularly to Fremont City Council campaigns. In the 2008 election cycle, they donated a total of $19,000 to two candidates. They are requesting a change in the General Plan that would allow them to develop more homes than current zoning laws allowed. Our Council has indicated they will approve the latest Patterson Ranch proposal, which is almost exclusively residential development. (read more)

NUMMI: The closure of NUMMI resulted in the direct loss of 4,700 jobs as well as the loss of jobs at NUMMI's suppliers. Our primary priority should be to create new jobs as quickly as possible to replace those lost. Even before the plant closed, the City was working without public input to develop a baseball stadium at the site. An A's stadium would not have brought anywhere close to the number of living-wage jobs that new manufacturing would bring to the site. The City's ballpark concept plan contained more office space and retail at a time when we have plenty of office space to fill, many retail spaces are empty, and our existing retailers are struggling. (read more)

Centerville: This decision was literally a gift to the developers who will profit handsomely from the deal. The City will sell them 6.6 acres of land for ONE dollar. The City will also provide $13 million in site improvements and pay for any needed environmental cleanup. The project consists of market rate apartments and fourteen store fronts. At a time when our city needs jobs, our leaders decided to pay $26 million for a project that is primarily housing. The retail units are not likely to product a large number of living-wage jobs. (read more)

Oakland A's: The initial A's proposal involved taking a large portion of our land that is zoned for office / light industrial and re-zoning it to allow 3,150 homes to be built. The project likely would have been a drain on our City's General Fund, which provides police and fire services, and exacerbated our existing financial problems. The people who developed the 3,150 homes would have made quite a profit off of the deal. (read more and more)

Pacific Commons: Retail developers tend to like large, "big box" stores next to a freeway exit. They got their wish with Pacific Commons. While these types of development do bring in significant sales tax for the city, I would argue that the negatives outweigh the positives. There are many studies that show these type of developments hurt local retailers. This is one of the reasons our historic retail areas like Niles Boulevard, Irvington and The Hub are having so much trouble these days. Also, our city needs a pedestrian-friendly shopping area that is a pleasant place to shop. Pacific Commons is anything but pedestrian-friendly.

Sabercat Development: This development is similar to the story in Centerville. The proposal was originally to be a retail area. The project was changed to include over 150 condominium units on top of retail. The building would be up to eight stories high. The Planning Commission voted the project down. Scores of residents opposed to the project came to the Planning Commission and Council meetings to speak against the project. Yet the Council ended up giving the developers what they wanted.

Creekside: Like Pacific Commons, this is more big box retail by the freeway that will hurt our chances of establishing robust retail centers in the heart of the city. This area could have been a high-tech jobs center since it is right next to Silicon Valley. Not surprisingly, the project most favorable to the developer was the one that was approved.

Route 84 (East/West Connector): This is more of a transportation issue but there is a land use element. I was opposed to the roadway project itself since it is very costly, does little to resolve existing transportation challenges, and continues Fremont's reliance on the automobile. Some fancy funding techniques were proposed that allow some of the project's land to be sold off for development, probably more residential development. There was an organized citizen's group protesting this whose concerns fell on deaf ears. (read more)

My pledge not to take developer money does not mean I am `anti-development'. I am against development that doesn't benefit our city in the long run. I am for balanced development; a good mix of jobs, housing and retail that will give our City a sound financial future. I am for city government that is beholden to the residents that elected them, not to the corporate interests that financed their campaign.

I'm issuing a challenge to all City Council candidates in the 2012 not to take campaign contributions from developers or other outside interests that have a stake in Fremont's development decisions. Let's have a clean election where the residents of Fremont are the main participants.