| HOME :: OUR POSITIONS |
|
Bidwell Ranch - The Never-Ending Struggle For Preservation Election cycle after election cycle Bidwell Ranch is the defining issue in Chico City Politics. As frustrating as this is for those who have worked for decades to preserve this land, Bidwell Ranch does serve as a potent symbol of the difference between "our" candidates and "their" candidates. To our opposition and their backers in the building industry open space is nothing but wasted economic opportunity. Such is their thirst for "developable land" that they are willing to sacrifice the entrance to Upper Park. To the Esplanade Leagues and its supporters, preserving open space represents maintaining the balance between civilization and nature that makes Chico such a livable community. Such is our love for Bidwell Park that we labor year after year after year after year to protect it from urban sprawl. The history of that fight is long and complex. A quick version of the story goes like this: The land in question is a 750-acre parcel off Wildwood Ave, to the northwest of Upper Park. In 1986, the Crocker Development Company purchased the land and proposed a 3000-unit development, known as "Rancho Arroyo." After the city council unanimously approved the project, Chico environmentalists collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot The Sacramento based developers vowed to defeat the locals by out spending their opposition, ten to one, and lost anyway. On June 7, 1988, 58% of Chico voters cast their ballots against the project. The land parcel continued to entice developers and in 1994, a 1500 unit project known as "Bidwell Ranch" was proposed. Again, concerned Chico citizens sprung into action, filling the chambers at city council meetings, and raising thousands of dollars. This city council recognized that public will would continue to prevent the land from development. Right before Christmas '97, they voted to purchase the property. In the 2002 the concept of calling open space "surplus land" was popularized by the developer community. A proposal came forward to sell the land, in order to raise money to fund new city parks. The fact that developer fees should have paid for these parks made necessary by their developments was never mentioned. Fortunately, in 2004 the Chico Chico Council held a slim progressive majority On April 5, 2005 Andy Holcombe, Ann Schawb, Scott Gruendl and Maureen Kirk voted to rezone the property open space. In this complex world open space needs a management plan, and that contract was granted to the local organization River Partners. Their job is to determine whether the land can be used for mitigation banking, and how to restore and preserve the biological integrity of the land. The plan will consider the impact of public access and ultimately arrange for the stewardship of the land in perpetuity. However the "developer slate" seems to feel it is politically expedious to keep the concept of houses on Bidwell Ranch alive. And so, once again, we must respond to their argument that developing the gateway to Upper Park would actually benefit our community. The developer slate continues to argue that: The city of City can make an easy 30 million by selling the land. This may make sense, if you believe like Dan Hurbert does, that "open space has no intrinsic value." Aside from the basic conflict of valuing profit over the environment, this argument has fiscal flaws. This estimate is potential one-time top-line revenue, not net income which factors in costs the City would incur to pay for infrastructure and traffic impacts in surrounding neighborhoods. When you're discussing selling and building on the 200 developable acres, you've got to consider up to 1,500 residential units and the corresponding infrastructure and traffic impacts within the development itself and the surrounding neighborhoods and access roads -- i.e. the possibility of widening Vallombrosa, access bridges over Sycamore diversion channel, additional East Avenue improvements, and other costs. The General Plan demands that Bidwell Ranch be developed. The "lost" housing from rezoning Bidwell Ranch as open space has been compensated by proposed development in other areas and slightly greater density in upcoming subdivisions. Although Bidwell Ranch is supported in the General Plan, using it as open space rather than development is also supported. Buying the property created a strong urban development boundary between urban and rural areas, and its use as a mitigation bank makes it easier for other projects in Chico to be approved. Strong urban/rural boundaries and wetland preservation are supported in the General Plan. Bidwell Ranch is an opportunity to provide the people of Chico with affordable housing. It is very likely that even pro-develop Bidwell Ranch advocates would argue for less residential units and less density in that location. The infrastructure costs to develop Bidwell Ranch would be significant for any developer and those infrastructure costs can either be shared by the costs of 1,500 homes or 800 homes (or pick another figure). The likely scenario of developing Bidwell Ranch, would be: (1) citizens and a City Council reducing the number of homes to lesson the impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, (2) a developer having to build and price expensive homes (affordable to Bay Area equity refuges who would love to live near Upper Bidwell Park) to cover the infrastructure costs since those costs would have to be borne by fewer, expensive homes. We will only build a few houses. In the first place, that flies in the face of any notion of so-called affordable housing. In the second place, even one house would require a bridge over Sycamore Channel. No developer could make a profit without building hundreds of houses. Even if no house was any closer then 1400 feet from the park, that is far too close, when we have the option to stop development at the channel. The houses on the west side of the channel already give the uneasy feeling of encroachment on the park. The city spent 7.5 million on the land, money we didn't have. The majority, if not all of the money was paid back by selling the sewer capacity. Isn't ironic that on one hand our opposition fusses about 7.5 million, while on the other hand. they claim the land is worth 30 to 50 million. Shouldn't they be proud of the city for getting such a bargain? As a mitigation bank, the land could generate millions of dollars for the city. The community will be paid back time and again, both in environmental and financial terms. The infrastructure is already in place. It is true that the city is building the Eaton Road extension, which will serve those headed out of town. However, for the vast majority of trips they will use the already overcrowded East Ave, Manzanita, and Highway 32, which will be impacted greatly by Oak Valley and other up and coming development. By Preserving Bidwell Ranch, the City of Chico has:
|