|
|
|
|
BACK to letters index
One such problem parcel is the apartment complex parcel next to the North Gate. The large pre-Arbors townhome area was another such problem. The architectural and exclusive-use accommodations given to the Arbors lots in exchange for annexing them and developing them instead as single-family homes was a compromise of another either-or morass, to avoid a large sea of ARC-exempted look-alike townhomes. Another is the Escuela school site parcel, which actually reaches down and touches Pera at one location (what looks like an empty lot on Pera is actually a "tongue" of Vail's land, where a developer could conceivably tie a street into Pera). The county would welcome a rezoning of any site out here to multifamily or high-density cluster units, and just adopted a moratorium on converting multifamily parcels to any other use, because of a lawsuit (Coleman v. County of Sacramento) by the poverty law types for allowing dissipation of "affordably" zoned land and failing to carry out their duty under state law to force developers to actually build affordable housing in exchange for approvals of single-family housing subdivisions. This problem has been building steam for several years. Here's a story
on the suit the city of Folsom was forced to settle this year by rezoning
land back to multifamily, requiring 15 percent of all construction
to be "affordable" and changing their code to state that
Folsom residents are grumbling the same NIMBY-ish things grumbled here, but those grumblings couldn't change state law. Here's a summary of some of the existing statutes counties are getting sued over: http//www.housingadvocates.org/default.asp?ID=167 Here's an analysis
of the new regional bill being carried by the powerful chair of Assembly
Appropriations which will prevent developers from boycotting Sacramento
County's restrictions by fleeing to Placer or El Denying these realities or dismissing them as a "scare tactic" fabricated just for us will not make them go away. These lands will be developed in coming years, and the risk that PTF will have to build some "affordable" units (though they, too, would rather not) is steadily rising. All of these unannexed lands in our midst, which are beyond RMA's control, have, since the 1970s, held express easement rights to use our entrances and streets (as has the school district). That's one of the most infuriating things about the years of secrecy; most of us thought these access easements were something recently cooked up, and it turns out they were recorded in the original Plat Maps ever since Unit 1 was created in the '70s, before any of our houses were built. But secrecy-obsessed boards never told us that simple fact, because they were so obsessed with not talking about such matters at all, lest nosy folks like you and me actually criticize past actions (gasp!). The school site parcel almost certainly won't grow tony custom homes, sited directly along Stonehouse across from a parcel whose destiny is so uncertain. That is comparatively cheap land which most likely will get cheap little homes on it because the location is less desirable. The pending map is 64 units on just 14 acres, including streets and all. Do the math. Tiny little boxes. http://www.ranchomurieta.com/localnews/schoolsite120402.html Those residents who are realistically pressuring the developers for traffic mitigations etc. and better architectural integration, in the "town halls" and through the DERA planning processes, are on the right track. "Just say no" is, by contrast, unrealistic and self-defeating. "No" is not an option. I stand by my
suggestion that killing the school plan may well result in something
else much less desirable being built on that ridge. Actions
have consequences, just as we teach our kids. We should remember that
whenever we are tempted, or solicited, to reject all compromises and
insist on things we can't have.
For starters, Brian Vail's potential school site has never been zoned for apartment dwellings. Although, you are right about parcel 1 (by the North Gate.) Of course, in theory, any piece of property can be re-designated, but is it fair to utilize such an unlikely scenario merely to punish several hundred North homeowners for caring about private access? Since I consider you to be the father of virtually all RM protest, :) kindly avoid adding mud to the already cloudy political waters by wrapping things up into the following simplistic argument: See, you naughty residents -- look what your petitions have caused. Now, here's your punishment for daring to speak up. Ta-da -- low income apartments. And right in your own backyard! Talk to the county, if you doubt my word. None of these proposals cross over to the other, and to imply they do may generate the unfortunate fallout of hindering successful community activism in the future. So, Creator of
the Homeowner's Bill of Rights, please take into consideration that
unfair loaded comments may inadvertently result in extinguishing your
neighbors' honorable desire to impact their own destiny.
But as I understand it, the law and politics have changed. Counties have been losing lawsuits over "exemptions" of affluent areas from the affordable housing component of state planning laws, and so now there's a serious concern that the county might have no choice but to push the issue and insist on building it rather than just extort the "mitigation fee" payoffs as they have in the past. I think Steve's
right and that the PTF's "trial balloon" proposal of 200
high-density units across the highway may be their hedge against this
emerging problem. Their other easy alternative is PTF's parcel all
along the eastern edge of the North Gate entrance, which is already
zoned (always has been) for apartment houses. Or buying Vail's school
site and putting apartments up there instead, since the school's opponents
seem to have scared off the district. Perhaps the folks on Pera who
threatened to sue the district will prefer living next to low-income
apartments to having a grade school up there.
However, the very low to extremely low income housing referred to (see Bee article) deals with individuals earning as little as $18,000 a year. For goodness sake, we are talking about folks who, at this point in their lives, don't qualify for a $70,000 home. Where, even in the worst part of Sacramento, can you find a house in that price range? The reality is, the county is most likely referring to constructing low-income apartment dwellings, not homes. What can I say? Another day, another threat. The developers have mentioned more than once that we should be thrilled with what they're offering, because if they don't "defend" us, the county may give us something far worse. Our response? One battle at a time. As far as the recent e-mail insisting our community should generate sub-par housing simply because it's the "right thing to do," may I suggest no one in life is guaranteed an easy journey comfortably transported on a ship of luxury? My husband and I worked our rears off to afford a home in Rancho Murieta. But, according to this e-mail, I should have the moral gall to pound on the gates of Los Lagos and demand someone construct a home for me within my price range. In fact, you've got me dreaming about a genuinely "compassionate" government taking notice of my rather lofty, yet frustrated, lifestyle goals. So, let me close my eyes and imagine how this scheme works. Yes, I see it now. We're all "moving on up" and none of us will ever have to foot the bill. Ahhhhh, the stuff dreams are made of. But back to reality... Although, I'd
like to see a perfect world where everyone can purchase their first
basic home, here's a reality check -- no one automatically deserves
a house located within an upscale private gated community, when they
clearly can't afford it yet, simply because they want one. And if
you honestly believe they do, then consider listing your home for
a mere $70,000 (probably a few hundred thousand below market value)
and give a struggling, minimum-wage family a chance to live in spectacular
Rancho Murieta before they've proudly earned the right to do so. After
all, according to your statement, it would be the "right"
thing to do.
Rancho Murieta is too far removed from employment opportunities and public services to be a viable location to suit the needs of the low-income housing the county is currently studying. It wouldn't make sense to think that a low-income person or family would even consider moving this far out. My gasoline bill alone is over $350 per month. This does not include the additional associated costs for new sets of tires and wear and tear to my vehicles. I'm not whining, just being honest and realistic in explaining my argument. I've met some of the many people who work in the businesses at the Plaza, and most live nearby. Not in Rancho Murieta, but in the surrounding areas like Wilton, Herald, Dillard and Sloughouse. Many of the folks working in the Plaza businesses are the owners of the small businesses and are probably not low-income wage earners. While a few of the employees might be and may indeed commute great distances for their "low wage" jobs, I seriously doubt they constitute a "great number" by any stretch of one's imagination. To commute a great distance to a low-paying job makes no sense, economic or otherwise. Furthermore, I recall that a high-density development was being planned for the undeveloped land across from the Plaza. Wouldn't that possibly negate any argument for additional "high density, low-income" housing in this development area / PUD? Just a thought to ponder. I seriously doubt that any sane developer would consider building low-income housing on this valuable land. My guess is they would pay the high mitigation fees, as they have for decades, or wait for a favorable building climate to emerge before proceeding with their development. I think an alternative to avoid both would be for the developer to offer the lots for sale to private owner-builders. What a concept! (I can dream, can't I?) In conclusion, pure economics alone drives development. I don't believe for one second that low-income housing will be built within Rancho Murieta. Developers are not in the business of financing liberal social-justice programs. They are not socioeconomic benefactors. They are first and foremost capitalist businessmen. They are in the business of building and marketing homes to generate maximum revenues on their capital investments. I'm not saying the requirement for low-income housing in Rancho Murieta could not happen, I'm just saying I sincerely doubt it. Developers always find ways to bend the rules. Is it a coincident
that this "scare" tactic was brought up on the same day
as the developer town hall meeting? Do the developers really think
we're so ignorant that we can't see what they're spinning? Bob Cassano
and others are trying to give Rancho Murietans the perception that
his construction project is in jeopardy and that only by supporting
his development will Rancho Murieta be "saved" from the
influx of low-income housing. This whole scenario plays like a bad
episode of "Dallas," with Bob Cassano playing the leading
role as "J.R." Perhaps we should start calling him "R.C."?
At any rate, I can hardly wait for the next twisted plot to develop. Editor's note: The interview with the developers was done April 28, after the Parks Committee meeting, several days before the the Murieta Holdings "town hall" meeting. It was done at the request of RanchoMurieta.com.
Now, it seems, the county is taking a long and hard look at that very issue. Great! My son might be able to purchase a home here! He's not low income by the county's standards, but he sure cannot afford a $300,000 home, about the average in RM right now -- actually, $300,000 is cheap here. We have a great number of employees -- at the Country Club and also at the numerous businesses at the Plaza -- who commute great distances to work here for low wages. It's the right thing to do regardless of where in the unincorporated part of the county you live, and I do not think a threatened lawsuit by any anti-development group will stand up to responsible public policy being enacted by local government. I
can't wait for the first RM resident who stands before the board of
supervisors to complain that a $500,000 "piece of junk"
is being built near his/her $1 million manse! He or she may well be
neighbors with the very low-income housing which will make that $500,000
"piece of junk" look awfully good. BACK to letters index |
|
In
response to: 
Negotiation is part of our development history -- and you need to
accept it for the future
