Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/12916
6A – Daily News – Saturday, July 3, 2010 Opinion Pulling the plug D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 on McGlynn Pool Editor: Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 After reading your article on the potential closing of the McGlynn pool I was left with one major question. What would be the cost to keep McG- lynn pool open to the public for its originally intended summer- time use? Being born and raised in Red Bluff means a lifetime of hot summers and the city pool has been a relief from the swelter- ing temperatures since I was a baby and for generations of other youth searching for a place to escape the heat. I took summer swim lessons and learned to swim in the McGlynn pool, so you can imagine that I have a great deal of memories in that pool. Watching the pool sit empty for so long just killed me inside and now that it’s back open and everyone is excited for a place to go and cool off with friends, the city is deciding to literally pull the plug again. It’s the community that uses the pool so why don’t they turn to us and ask us for help. This community is rich with people who care and are willing to volunteer and donate time and money to keep this commu- nity attribute open to the public. Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4-H and Young Marines are just a few organizations who, in the past, have given money to the community either from pocket or taken the time to fundraise. Before we take the easy and drastic step of shutting down the pool and leaving multiple teenagers working as lifeguards jobless and many families pool- less, let us ask the hard question of what it would take from the community to keep the pool open. Don’t give our pool up with- out fight. Ask us, the communi- ty that the pool belongs to, what we can do. Carson Dunbar, Red Bluff Your Turn I understand the pool sits pretty low on the totem pole in the scheme of Tehama County but in these hard economic times, small, cheap get-a-ways for families are huge burden lifters. The pool is affordable and fun and located in central Red Bluff. Virtually anyone can go to it. I live eight miles out of town and I have spent many a hot day riding my bike into town to swim with fiends. Yard groomers Editor: Couldn't hold it in anymore, does it bother anyone else that every so called land- scaper in the city of Red Bluff blows his trash and clippings out in the street that rarely gets swept? Seems to me a form of littering. Shouldn't there be a law against this? Certainly creates an eyesore until it decomposes. John Hacker, Red Bluff Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 4164 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento 94249; (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319- 2102 STATE SENATOR — Sam Aanestad (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 2054, Sacramen- to, CA 95814. (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 403-0100. Fax (202) 224- 0454. Who should pay for lunch? Commentary Locally there have been protests against the recommendations for developer fees presented in the 74 page report by PMC of Chico, the Developer Fee Impact Program Nexus Study. Builders, developers, and pro- growth individuals have gathered together to argue against the devel- oper fee structure being considered by the County Planning Commis- sion and ultimately by the Board of Supervisors. The Red Bluff Rebound committee appeared before the Red Bluff City Council. According to the Nexus Study, the fees are necessary to support the growth of infrastructure which, in turn, is necessary to maintain exist- ing services at our current level while population grows. The growth of fees by govern- ment agencies is a result of both the extremely limiting provisions of Proposition 13 on property taxes and the need to fund needed facili- ties over and above the normal operating costs imposed by growth. Normal tax sources do not cover the costs of facilities and infrastructure. One emerging belief is that those newcomers who require services, fire protection, etc. should pay their fair share, and not burden those who are already here. When our local schools started a growth spurt a few years ago, they began to see the difference between a few new students here and there and the need to add class- rooms and expand the schools’ own infrastructure. Schools were funded on attendance, but that funding was hardly sufficient to account for new buildings, wells, septic systems, and lavatories nec- essary to provide adequate facili- ties. Legislation was passed to allow schools to charge fees for new homes and new commercial buildings. Schools had to establish a nexus, or strong connection, between the new developments and the need for the school to accommodate the growth in stu- dent population. School fees were not without some controversy among develop- ers and builders because these fees added a new cost to residencies and commercial construction, but many local school districts passed development fees, and they have been in place for some time now; those fees are limited by a formula that accounts for inflation. The fees are restricted. Fees are not taxes; they are based on the calculated costs incurred by the development and growth; taxes are usually based on values and require a far different process to establish. School fees are based on the square footage of the new buildings. School fees assume a certain number of school age children per household and the creation of jobs, which, in turn, bring students to a district when a commercial building is construct- ed. Our various colonial, state, national, and local governments have had an intimate relationship with builders, land speculators, and developers since the early 17th century. Sometimes this relation- ship has been a blatant abuse of governmental discretion, and other times it is the natural result of com- mon interests…peace, stability, developing markets, growing an economy, and profits. A wise man once proclaimed “There ain’t no free lunch.” Whether it is our apparently insup- pressible desire for oil or simply our wish for someone else will pay for lunch, we seem to have diffi- culty facing the fact that eventually there will be a cost to our actions. If we build a house or many hous- es, those dwellings and their resi- dents will add to the wear and tear of roads, and the increased needs for waste disposal, fire suppression services, safety services, etc. For one household these requirements may be modest, but even while they might be incremental in nature, growth will have a cumula- tive effect over time. The nexus study projects growth and our needs from now until 2030. Using California Department of Finance data, the study projects a popula- tion increase of 32,783 in the next twenty years; this is about a fifty percent increase over our current population. This averages out to a growth of 1640 inhabitants per year. According to the Tehama County Planning Department the fees, if adopted, would be paid prior to the final inspection for the project. In the case of a new home, the home- owner would need to pay the fees. In the case of structures built on specu- lation, the developer/owner would have to pay the fees; the developer/owner would pass the fees on to the new owner or a renter (over time). Calculating that impact is an imprecise science, but there are some fairly objective for- mulae that are used in most estimates. I have read the entire compre- hensive Developer Fee Impact Pro- gram Nexus Study. The report is fairly straightforward; it presents the current status of the infrastruc- ture in the county, assumes we would like to maintain the same ratio of infrastructure to popula- tion, and extrapolates what that would cost given growth projec- tions. It does not require higher math to understand this approach. For example, the report uses the current square footage and number of volumes in the county libraries. Based on population growth pro- jections between now and 2030 the study estimates we will need 12,593 more square feet of library space and 63,293 more volumes in the library collection than we have now in the next 20 years. The study then estimates the cost for this and prorates that cost per each new household; in the case of a new sin- gle family dwelling the cost would be $439.94. This amount would only maintain our already inade- quate level of library services The study does similar calcula- tions for other portions of the infra- structure: Fire Protection, Sheriff and Corrections, Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and General Government. When all is calculat- ed, the impact fee per new single family dwelling would be $14,392.80. The largest share of that amount would be to meet pro- jected transportation needs, $8,522.35. One of the developers who Joe Harrop spoke to the Planning Commission declared that the study basically developed a wish list. A fundamental question is “what do we wish for our community? Do we wish to dilute the level of infrastructure we have now, allegedly to promote growth, or do we wish, at a minimum, to maintain the level of infrastructure and ser- vices we now have? I am sure that developers and speculators do not wish Tehama County to be an inferior commu- nity, overburdened by growth, and unable to support its citizens at least at the same level we currently enjoy. I would wish that we could maintain at least the same level of infrastructure as we have now; that isn’t much of a wish. One of the proposals by Rebound Red Bluff to the City Council was to either amortize impact fees, meaning to not charge them up front but collect them over time, or to suspend the implemen- tation of impact fees for fifteen years. Politically it may not be easy for our local government officials to adopt the pay as you go policy; that is, a policy for new developments to shoulder the cost of the impact they bring to the community. It takes a certain amount of backbone to guard our long term interests. The arguments against the fees are being clothed in the guise that fees are anti-growth; but the real argument is that developers and speculators want a concession from the government to lessen their risk and financial commit- ment to projects. They want to make their projects less costly to them. Our leaders need to consider the cost to all of us for such pro- jects, not provide favoritism to one section of our business community. Joe Harrop is a retired educator with more than 30 years of service to the North State. He can be reached at DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net.