|
Bike riders: Watch for drilling rig on bike path! Canyons meeting under way... Bldrs Exchange drama... Recycling wackiness State's property values decline for first time since 1933... City seeking applicants for Board of Building Appeals Homebuilders v. city (and county): Latest buzz Council, Weds night: development "freeze?" Suing Bakersfield: Pork hits fan? And they're off! City Council seat beckons... City of Bako: Initial damage estimates from state budget deal November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 Get e-mail updates from this blog, and download to print on the go with the City Beat Printcast.
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
More fee wrinkles...
This whole issue might end up vanishing into the ether.
Or not.
And if not, wow. Implications for the city could be big.
For now, assertions the city has utterly botched accounting for its traffic fee program are just that.
But if homebuilders sue and if litigation delays the fee plan, that alone could be a major headache. The city needs five years of impact-fee data when it goes to bond the matching funds for the Thomas roads money, for example.
At the next level, if a suit successfully overturned or dramatically altered the program...gollee. More than a headache there.
Then the furthest reaches...what if the city actually had to refund existing money, as the homebuilders' lawyer says could happen?
Since so many of you commented at length on last night's fee discussion (you people are so wonky!!! I love it), I thought you might want to weigh in on this too.
Also, I've attached a 75-page PDF of a draft traffic-impact fee report for the city of Redding, which is supposedly a decent example of what these are supposed to look like. Click the blue box at left to download.
It's my weekend now; see ya Sunday!
- Gretchen Wenner, staff writer
7 comments from 5 users
1
posted by
adampayne
on Jun 25, 2009 at 08:17 PM
Thanks very much for the great up-to-date blow-by-blow reporting job. Some people in this little pond don't appreciate the hours and the work that goes into fully reporting the story. Stories like this are extremely important to let the community know what is happening. You do a great job, along with James Burger on the county beat. Reporters are not bots. And guest columnists who spin meaningless opinions in search of a fact are no substitute for actual reporting. Thanks again for all you do. posted by
tkozy
on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:01 PM
So what’s the builders point. They will buddy up to the council. Toss out the idea of a lawsuit, if the council lowers the fee. This suit would only lead to even greater impact fees. posted by
tkozy
on Jun 25, 2009 at 10:32 PM
posted by
sagefever
on Jun 26, 2009 at 08:31 AM
I want to echo adam's comments~ Thanks for real reporting ! You and James both do an excellent job on local issues. posted by
reformer
on Jun 26, 2009 at 08:35 AM
Gee, we have a banker, one CPA and one wannabe CPA/financial wizard on the Council now, plus a remarkably overpaid City Manager. Any accountant/administrator/attorney worth their salt has the ability to adjust the figures to fit any scenario in their favor, right? Maybe its time to propose another fee increase. Surely a justification for that "nexus" is out there somewhere. Where's Bill Thomas when you need him? I mean, just throwing a $700 million "gift" at us and letting the chips (cow-type?) fall where they may, and then strong-arming the players behind the scenes can't be the end of his responsibility. I also want to add my kudos to Gretchen and James (Geluso, too). posted by
tkozy
on Jun 27, 2009 at 01:28 PM
Observer, posted by
citybeat
on Jun 30, 2009 at 12:53 PM
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: |