What do YOU think?  

 At least these houses will be far enough from town that when the homeowners default and move out, there won't be anyone bothered by the kids partying and trashing the vacant houses.

 The SIERRA Club?  Now it's involved in housing development plans?  What's next...The Ladies Geranium Club filing a lawsuit for building too far out?

Suing the city for being stupid is a dirty job but someone's got to do it. Too bad we have too many simpletons in government who can't get past the idea that property rights isn't a free pass for every developer to come in and do a project that is going to cause those living here grief down the road. The "Property Rights" bunch in their simplistic "it's 1840" mode of thought forget a developer is going to build or use an infrastructure that becomes the city itself and it's the taxpayers and residents who have to deal with the outcome.

I've seen other areas where badly planned neighborhoods deteriorate into instant slums, others like in our northeast have houses with structural problems because of poor soil and we have all seen entire neighborhoods burn from wildfires all due to short sighted simpleton thinking on people who can't get past the "property rights" thing.

Now we have a stupid proposal that will put an entire neighborhood near a mosquito breeding area with other problems that won't become apparent until people have lived there for a while. But by then the developers with their property rights will have taken their profits and split for greener pastures. That's why the city needs to do better and think these things through. The message is it's about good urban planning, not some simplistic concept of a complex issue.

 But the Sierra Club?

You'll get no argument from me that the planning commission in this city just doesn't exist and that the city is a mess when it comes to new developments.  But the Sierra Club?

Lawsuits may not be for the money in a case like this...maybe more to make a point, but in the end you know who pays the bill.  Is that what you want?  Another long drawn out court case that the taxpayers will have to fund?

 Nancy, I'd rather that than long, drawn-out roads and sewer lines that we have to pay for.  The lawsuit is not for money, it's probably just to stop the building.  The reason the Sierra Club would get involved:

State wildlife officials objected because the land is prime habitat for endangered species and was targeted for conservation in a 1994 plan to protect endangered species.

 Tom...I'm not sure those lawsuits accomplish anything except years and years of litagation.  As I said, I can't argue that the uncontrolled building around here is totally irresponsible, I just hate seeing the Sierra Club getting involved.  And couldn't imagine why they should get involved.

If, as you say, that land was previously designated a habitat I can understand why conservationalists would protest.  Personally, I protest because they need to fill the empty new homes they already have before allowing ANY new construction.  Of course, what would they do without all the money for permits and taxes lost?  Jobs lost.  Bah... I don't know how they'll ever stop the runaway snowball that they created by allowing that growth.  I guess sooner or later all the construction companies will run out of money just like City In The Hills.

 Nancy, I pulled the bit in blue from the article.  Lois Henry also has a blog up today that goes into the same issue.  Right now, the lawsuits accomplish little except to delay or stop some of these developments because the city planners are willing to stamp anything that comes across their desks.  In most cities, these lawsuits result in changes in policy so that the city doesn't approve things that violate the law and they don't skimp on required surveys.

 the tree hugger club is a complete waste of space, they all need to pack up in a bus and go away, these poeple do nothing but cause trouble.

 Building houses. What a waste of space. We should be building another prison on that land.

 We are quickly losing our pasture, crop, and other ag-productive ground.

When it is all gone, and we are like other  "areas urbanos"  with no means of supporting all the peeps in those crackerboxes, we will be scratching our heads saying:  "Whuuuuh happened?"

 City In The Hills is just one example of sprawl for sprawl sake in this city. Approved in the mid-1990s as a "planned" development with 11,500 homes, but only 439 have been sold to date, and this is 12 years after approval. With the recent story in the paper only a little more than  a week old, the issue of  unbridled sprawl throughout this city has created many unintended consequences, and need to be addressed. 

The Southwest area has several huge approved tracts and no buyers, but the grading and dust sit there as an eyesore for all to see, and will continue to see for many, many years.

I guess I don't understand why anyone would hate for the Sierra Club to be involved in environmental issues. Litigation is virtually the only mechanism that works, short of marching and confrontation on sites, in America to set the boundaries of policy between the private sector and the public. This is an organization that has worked tirelessly on behalf of nature since it was founded in 1892.  Issues like urban sprawl threatening habitat certainly fall into the Sierra Club's purview. 

At this point in time where home values are now at roughly 2003 levels and dropping, I do not understand why any homes are being built. If the Board of Supervisors and City Council do not realize the staggering loss of equity that every homeowner has endured for the past two years, and that the growing surplus of  vacant unsold homes only further erodes value, these people need to find some other group of folks to hoodwink. No more development of single family homes for Bako, please!

 Adam, ever go North up 65 esse? Little ranchos bein sold (20 acres) all over the place.

I don't blame the farmer-ranchers as in this state of cornfusion (CA) sometimes its the only way ta make a real buck off the ground (with all the CA regs and taxes and all) -- highest and best usage and all that heifer dust ya know........

But someday we are gonna be outa productive land. Then what?

Oh.......... that's right. I forgot. We can blame Bushco...............

 Does anyone see the irony here?  We have people complaining that we don't have enough stores for shopping, enough restaurants, enough chains and yet they complain about urban sprawl.

Right here on these very blogs I am always seeing the demand for more commercial gratification and then they pull the "no growth" card.  I know what's coming next though.  Use the stores we have, don't build more.  Use the resouces we have, don't create more.  OK, so put your high end pots and pans store smack in the middle of Baker Street and watch it flourish.  Put it in one of the empty stores on 19th east of Chester..you know..the ones that are empty with expanding gates across them.

Criminy, there's enough wishy washying here to make tidal waves on Lake Ming.

 Highly ironical

Is that right sf?

Just sayin Nan

Good arable land -- they ain't makin it no more..........

 Adam, we're in agreement about the no more houses thing.  The problem there is that home construction has been on of the major employement areas for quite a while now.  I have to wonder what would happen if that industry was halted or severly curtailed.   The city has created a monster and I don't know how they can get it under control without adversly affecting our local economy.

As for the Sierra Club getting involved, once that land has been graded and just sitting, it's o longer of use to agricultural interests not is it hurting anything environmentally.  It's just ugly.

At the risk of getting the envronmentalist tail in a know here I have to say..that getting in bed with the Sierra Club is like making love to a gorilla.  You aren't done til the gorilla says your done.  Kinda like I always say about the government.

 Chico..you're on the money about not making any more arable land.  When it's gone..it's gone and in it's place a cracked asphalt and concrete jungle.

 ya see......

we don't pave over the right stuff

like

Vietnam

Iraq

Iran

Cuber

etc................

 Where are we going to house all the unemployed homeless now that the recession is only going to be a "mild" blip in the economy?

 I've got rentals Mags

 Me too, and planing on purchasing many more 2Q 2009,  I think we should build UP instead of out....

Saudi Prince Plans Mile-High Tower In The Desert

Plans for a mile-high tower in the desert, which would be twice the height of the world's tallest building, have been unveiled by the multi-billionaire owner of the Savoy hotel in London.

The building, masterminded by British-based engineers, will be constructed in a "mini-city" near the Red Sea port of Jeddah. The project, almost seven times the height of the Canary Wharf tower, will overtake skyscrapers planned or under construction in Dubai and Kuwait. It means the Middle East has opened a strong gap over east Asia in the race for the world's tallest building.

The Mile High Tower is the brainchild of Prince al-Walid bin Talal, 51, a member of the Saudi royal family, who has a fortune estimated at £11 billion and is the world's 19th richest person, according to Forbes magazine. Al-Walid's Kingdom Holdings has appointed a joint venture set up by Hyder Consulting and Arup, the London enginerring firms, to build the £5 billion tower..

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

 Chico, you are perceptive, as usual. We do live in a perpetual state of cornfusion. The land use policies locally cannot be put on GWB, although he always helps his base to clear cut while promoting business interests over the objections and analysis that the EPA has argued for. I do not fault small farmers and their families for trying to get out from under the crush of our corporate agricultural complex. We have failed our farmers, and allowed giant distribution and processing giants to replace vital and ecologically sound farming practices with petrol fueled corn as our only source of nutrition. 

And Nancy, we're in agreement. Revitalizing Chester and Baker should be the City Council's first priorities within the city limits. Old Kern on Baker Street has been on the docket for a decade, and really it is still a dream. We are almost a decade into the Vision 2020 Downtown goal with very little progress visible except median trees and some sidewalk brick works. No growth, or anti-sprawl, does not mean no gentrification or redevelopment. Bakersfield is closer than many can imagine to remaking itself into a vital and vibrant city. We have trails for bikes and under utilized areas of commerce just waiting for new tenants and improvements. 

I read the local statistics on vacancy rates and I'm always surprised at what a low percentage of commercial space there is, because when I drive through the city there appear to be spaces available everywhere.

everybody should hate the tree hugger club, they are wothless. anybody that would like to take off road green sticker fees away from the off roader to "rehabilitate the land" is a moron. they need to find another cause to fight for, as it stands right now it seems to me they just like the publicity

 Chico, you are perceptive, as usual. We do live in a perpetual state of cornfusion. The land use policies locally cannot be put on GWB, although he always helps his base to clear cut while promoting business interests over the objections and analysis that the EPA has argued for ~Adam

Ad, its like my mother in law driving my new Cad over a cliff -- the hrons of a dilemna

On the one hand I'm pleased but on the other -- I'm losing my new Cad!

I've lived under no zoning, land use control, etc. (well not much=>Tejas) and its not good either.

I just hate to see all our Ag land going to development. The developers don't care. The way for me to maximuze my utility value on some sections would be to sell to them.   Won't do it !  <George Bush Sr. by Dana Carvey voice> 

A man's gotta have some principles, right?

Has anyone asked what animals (and rodents) are protected under the Endangered Species act of 1994? I'm assuming it's kit foxes, blunt nosed lizards, kangaroo rats, and perhaps a few predatory birds. Around 4 Kit foxes make their home at the CSUB campus and roam the parking lot of the Marketplace. Apparently, some of these species can make their habitat inside the city and thrive fairly well.  I understand the cycle of life is important to protect, but I think the Sierra Club often steps into areas that really don't concern them. Personally, I've seen the Sierra Club protest a family run business over the argument that we need to preserve our precious plant life...'the beautiful green-gray bushes.' Which, for the record...are TUMBLEWEEDS. I don't feel the tumbleweed is a habitat that needs protecting in Kern County. If a business is trying to make a go of it (I'm referring to the family run business which I supported at the Board of Supervisors meeting), what sense does it make that the Sierra Club throw their weight around to save a "tumbleweed?" It's complete nonsense. Freedom of speech, Sierra Club...sure! Freedom to sue and throw your weight around so you can stop a city, or a business from growing? That is out of control!

 I wouldn't say kit foxes thrive in the city given the number of them hit and killed by cars, but they certain do try to adapt to city life as well as possible. As for the monster of construction, perhaps we could retrain them for jobs to build the transportation infrastructure to support the urban landscape they've created. Or even just retrain them to repair roads worn ragged by excess traffic would be an improvement. After having lived for many years up north where there are expressways, freeways, bike trails, light rail and so forth criss-crossing large urban areas, this place is sorely lacking on good transportation infrastructure for both cars and alternative transportation. I have no issue with growth, but it needs to be supported by a good infrastructure, not just added on willy-nilly where there's a bare patch of land.