 |
Home | Issues & Actions | About |
Archive Page This page is available as an archive to previous versions of LandWatch websites. |
KUSP LandWatch
News
Week of July 26, 2004 to July 30, 2004
"Listen Live"
|
|||||||
KUSP LandWatch
News |
|||||||
|
ogo.gif" width="108" height="109" border="0"> "Listen Live" |
KUSP provided a brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio from January 2003 to May 2016. Archives of past transcripts are available here.
Week of July 26, 2004 to July 30, 2004
The following Land Use Reports have been presented on KUSP Radio by Gary Patton, Executive Director of LandWatch Monterey County. The opinions expressed by Mr. Patton are not necessarily those of KUSP Radio, nor of any of its sponsors.
| Monday, July 26, 2004 – The Code Rangers |
 |
|
About a year ago, I reported on a group of local residents who had banded together to try to improve code enforcement efforts in Monterey County. The group is officially titled “Advocates for Code Compliance.” Unofficially, they call themselves “The Code Rangers.” The Code Rangers have been trying to ride to the rescue of a system that seems to be in deep trouble. In Monterey County, the system to catch and correct code violations is just not working. According to the Code Rangers, the staff of the County’s Planning and Building Inspection Department recently took unilateral and unauthorized action simply to “close” hundreds of cases in which there had been a violation of the County’s laws, but without either correcting those violations or imposing any penalties. When laws are not enforced, of course, people tend to violate the laws even more. Earlier this year, the Code Rangers submitted a “state of the art” model code enforcement ordinance to County staff. They proposed an “administrative penalties” approach that seems to be working well in many cities and counties throughout the state. This coming Wednesday, July 28th, the staff’s recommendation (a much watered down version of the Code Ranger proposal) will be discussed before the County Planning Commission. The item is scheduled for 10:10 on Wednesday morning, at the County Courthouse in Salinas. If you’d like to talk about your experiences with code enforcement in Monterey County, you should make an effort to attend. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Tuesday, July 27, 2004 – The Highway One Tax |
|
|
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors has scheduled a special meeting this morning, to consider the so-called “Highway Tax,” a proposed ballot measure to increase the sales tax in Santa Cruz County to pay for the widening of Highway One. The Board meeting begins at 9:00 o’clock, and will be held on the Fifth Floor of the big grey building at the corner of Ocean and Water Streets in the City of Santa Cruz. You can get more information about the proposed Highway Tax by clicking on the Land Use Report link at the KUSP website, www.kusp.org. The passage of the proposed sales tax increase would have very significant consequences. First and foremost, Highway One would be turned into a six-lane freeway all the way from Santa Cruz to Watsonville. As you travel the highway, think about how that would look. It would be different. The question, of course, is whether traffic flow would be different. Transportation experts validate what we’ve all experienced ourselves. New highway widening projects actually “induce” demand, which means that the new capacity is quickly absorbed as more cars take to the wider road. From San Jose to Los Angeles, widening a congested roadway has almost always led to the same level of congestion after the widening as existed before. It seems clear that the people of Santa Cruz County are going to have the right to vote on the proposition this November. If you’d like to get a head start on the debate, don’t miss the meeting this morning. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Wednesday, July 28, 2004 – Salinas Affordable Housing |
|
|
The City of Salinas has been carrying out what seems like an unending review of its inclusionary housing program. Currently, the City requires housing developers to make 12% of the housing they construct affordable to low or very low income households. The program includes a “like for like” rule, which means that an inclusionary unit is exactly the same home that may be purchased on the market for $500,000 or so. At the time that the Salinas City Council adopted its new General Plan (almost two years ago, now), the Council directed a review of the City’s inclusionary housing program. A very reputable study found that it would be feasible to require 40% affordable housing in new developments, if the “like for like” rule were eliminated. The leading affordable housing developer in the City, CHISPA, verified that the 40% figure was achievable. Developer and landowner representatives, of course, have disagreed, and no action has yet been taken. Mostly, the City has spent its time on a series of bureaucratic meetings and “edits” of the original report. The latest wrinkle is whether inclusionary housing should be made permanently affordable, or whether it should be allowed to revert to market rate housing in some relatively short time. The stakes in this debate are very high. The next meeting to discuss the program will be held this Thursday, July 27th, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Salinas City Hall. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Thursday, July 29, 2004 – Should We Privatize Our Ocean Waters? |
|
|
Water belongs to the public. It’s important to remember that while the community may grant individuals the right to “use” water, for beneficial purposes, those individuals don’t actually “own” the water. Efforts to “privatize” water, and to turn it from a communal good to a “commercial” good, are ever more pervasive. This is happening because water is absolutely necessary to life itself, and it’s starting to get scarce. If water can be “owned,” then the “owners” of that water are going to be able to get ever higher prices as demands for water increase and as supplies go down. Desalination opens up a whole new arena in the water ownership debate. Does the California American Water Company “own” the water in Monterey Bay? No they don’t. However, this company does propose to use that water (without paying a cent to the public) in a massive desalination plant, and then to sell the desalinated water at a profit. The environmental and other impacts of the proposed desalination plant are significant. But think about the ownership issue, too. In Felton, residents may be able to reassert public control over their water supply, to avoid future commercial profit taking. In the desalination debate, the question is whether the public should allow privatization of our marine water resources in the first instance. A desalination workshop is set for 7:00 p.m. this evening, at the Monterey City Hall. Details are at www.kusp.org. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
| Friday, July 30, 2004 – Architectural Review |
|
|
If you’re in the mood for a meeting, and particularly if you work or reside in the City of Monterey, you might want to attend a “retreat” to be held by the City of Monterey Architectural Review Committee. It’s scheduled to go from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. this afternoon, and will be held at the Dana Boardroom in the Monterey Conference Center, One Portola Plaza in Monterey. The City of Monterey is not unique in having established an Architectural Review Committee, but requiring a separate “architectural review” of selected projects is not something required by all cities and counties. In fact, this kind of review is probably more unusual than not. The only topic on the agenda this afternoon is a “general discussion of the role of the Architectural Review Committee,” and ways to improve the process. The so-called “regulated community,” those who must obtain approval from the Architectural Review Committee before being allowed to build their projects, will have a particular interest in attending. However, members of the public at large have a big stake in how the Committee operates. The City of Monterey has character, class, and charm, and lots of historical buildings and places. That’s undoubtedly why the City has decided to provide a separate level of review over the architectural details of certain projects. It costs project proponents money, and takes time, but the City has thought that this extra work and expense has a positive payoff for the public. If you want to be heard on the issue, or listen to the discussion, this afternoon’s meeting will be worthwhile. For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.
|
|
Archives of past transcripts are available here
|
CONTACT 306 Capitol Street #101 PO Box 1876 Phone (831) 759-2824 Fax (831) 759-2825 |
|