The Canyons will not be surrounded by a block wall. It will be several smaller subdivisions, some walled and gated and some not. It'll be several small rings, not one big one.

I'm going to stick up for my longtime friend and source, Dean Haddock. I consider him to be one of the most honest and honorable men I have met in this town. He brings a helpful attitude to his patients and the community when he is asked to explain the psychological basis for difficulties they face.

So I prefer to wait and see how he does on the commission rather than castigate him with some negative cloud before he starts his work.

P.S. With regards to walls around neighborhoods, I think they are great for both looks and sound control.

A needed planning tool for smart growth and controlling speculative development (including the leapfrog and sprawl that this areas voters have identified as a major problem) is to determine residential and commercial supply and demand.  Based on Mr. Weir's statements and actions we understand that Mr. Haddock shares Weir's "hidden" principles of growth and development and will be Weir's parrot for planning as usual.  The ~50,000 available housing units does not include a large amount (maybe thousands) of local "shadow inventory" that is just being recognized by area real estate industry experts.  This market skewing is "hidden"  by lending institutions who are not quickly putting notice-of-default properties up for sale.  The reasons are obvious for profit and market reasons, but it continues to confirm that local planners and elected officials have not been smart about growth.  And, it most assuredly indicates that the vocal "private property rights" advocates have facilitated political and business relationships by allowing and approving too much growth that is costing us immediately and will ultimately cost all of us a lot more in jobs, property values and City and County property tax revenues.  We would have been better to leave the land vacant and undeveloped.

Dean Haddock may be a nice guy, but if he conforms to the speak-but-no-action way we have seen from Mr. Weir, then the new Bakersfield Metropolitan General Plan with appropriate urban boundary controls and infrastructure constraints for overzealous development is dead in the water.  I can say this because of the declared war on anything Mike Maggard wanted from the Abernathy charge.  Guess we've forgotten that Maggard thoroughly trounced Haddock in the last election.

What do block walls and planning commissioner appointments have in common?  ABSOLUTELY NOTHING…  What is common to the appointment was a UNANIMOUS 7-0 council vote.

Gee, who might that one meeting attendee be that took the cheap shot at Weir by bringing up The Canyons development?  Oh, was that Michelle Beck?  No surprises here.  Just look at the August 29, 2006 photo of her and Craig Smith at:

http://bakersfield.mycaptur....  They are standing in an area called “Toads Run” on property owned by Canyons, LLC.  Did they (or the photographer) get permission from Canyons, LLC?  I doubt it.  Michelle Beck has used private property owned by Canyons, LLC (and others) for her personal recreational use without landowner permission.  That is known as TRESSPASSING.

Beck wants to have trails surrounded by open space, but does not own the property.  Take her words with a grain of salt (itty-bitty grain) when it comes to The Canyons development.  BTW, the block wall thing is WAY over-exaggerated.  Study the December 18, 2008 Planning Commission hearing presentation made by city staff and the applicant.

Rather than pick on Weir, question Mike Maggard, former Ward 3 Councilman, why he did not develop community standards for the northeast Bakersfield area.  Most, if not ALL of the development applications for “Active Tracts” in the northeast Bakersfield area were filed with the city and “DEEMED COMPLETE” during Maggard's EIGHT YEAR tenure as Ward 3 Councilman (1999-2006).  Check it out:

www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/devsrv/development_maps/pdfs_maps/active_tent_tract.pdf

Reformer

Your outstanding paranoia is showing once again.  You rant with run on sentences that are full of ridiculous statements. 

I find it absolutely absurd that you do not or cannot understand that the developers of The Canyons (for instance) are the parties at greatest financial risk in this situation.  These business people have invested millions of dollars in the land.  These same developers have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on Environmental Impact Reports.  Furthermore, these same people have invested thousands and thousands of dollars in attorneys fees.   The risk is all theirs.  The market will dictate whether or not their project sells.  If the project does not sell  -  these developers are out millions of dollars and the entire project will have cost you nothing. 

Let's get people in the trades back to work!  Jobs are created when homes are being built and sold.   When homes are built on fallow land more property taxes are generated.  When more property taxes are generated the City is able to offer better services.   What part of this does not work for you? 

Furthermore, why are you not obsessing about the Rio Bravo Project.    Mr. Johnson and the Planning Commission let that project blow through like a greased pig.   Rio Bravo is taking more than one thousand acres of prime/producing agricultural land and turning it into a neighborhood.   I would think that you would be outraged with Mr. Johnson  (Mr. Maggard's "parrot" ).  GUESS YOU'VE FORGOTTEN THAT MR. MAGGARD'S  EMPLOYEE APPROVED MORE DEVELOPMENT. 

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS "REFORMER"!!! 

I cannot say that I have ever met Mr. Haddock yet, I am willing to give him a chance. 

oh yeah and keep on trying

I know that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Maggard are certainly not perfect and have learned much about overall growth economic impacts on all of us in the last eight years as reflected in their public statements and votes.  You would be wise to do the same.  I presume you have a personal, political or monetary interest. 

Here is my take on this, and it might highlight my lack of knowledge but it wouldn't be the first time. The major issue that I have, and I believe others do too, is that Bakersfield does a horrible job developing infrastructure to support growth. Sewers, roads, irrigation, stoplights, gas stations, and other essential necessities. It seems that Bakersfield, and with the consent of the county, has just sold any open land that is wanted without regard for whether or not an area even needs or wants such development. Even acres of agricultural land that is being used and productive! How many instances have we heard of a housing development going up with the only access being a two-lane road without stop signs, inadequeate sewer and water supply, and no plans for connecting it to the community? For example: look at the disperity between the development of the neighborhoods west of Stockdale and Allen and the older neighborhood farther west on Stockdale where the big homes are. To expand Stockdale at Allen, and build the gas stations and restaurants took 5-10 years after the large homes were built, just in time for the newer neighborhood. Also, look at Brighton Parks along Stockdale and Jewetta; how long did it take to connect Jewetta to Stockdale? Only once Liberty was built? Also, look how long it took to develop services and facilities for that neighbor hood as well as the one on Buena Vista. Ah, that's right, still nothing except an eyesore of an unwanted Target. Sure there are some restaurants, but still no grocery store, gas station, or convienience anything.

Here is my take on what is happening: the city and county are more than willing to take any money offered by developers and the promise of property taxes, but very unwilling to spend that money on the infrastructure to support the development. Both planning entities should operate in the opposite fasion: have a plan of growth in which you know how you want the city to look and operate, build the infrastructure to support it, then offer up the land to development. Yes, this costs money. Yet, in the long run the costs will be less because instead paying for the time and labor of ripping up laid asphault to upgrade a sewer line (a la Gosford and Khols) you would be spending less just digging in bare dirt. This city should not be a free-for-all for developers. Yes they bring in money, but ugly city-sprawl will cost us in the long run.

Yes, Reformer you are presumptuous! 

Be crystal clear that I have absolutely no monetary interest in any of these development projects.  Furthermore, I do have  a personal interest in preserving private property rights as well as the rights of the free enterprise system.  That is exactly what makes our country the great power that it is.  Everyone has the same opportunity to achieve.  Anyone, through hard work or by inheritance can purchase land and develop it within society's parameters.

My political interest is that each politician's actions be measured by the same "yard stick". 

By your own admission - you know that past votes of Planning Commissioners (Mr. Johnson for example) and politicians (Mr. Maggard for example) have put us where we are today. If Mr. Johnson has learned so much from the past - why did he just approve further development of agricultural land (Rio Bravo Project)?  What has Mr. Johnson learned?  Reformer, you would be wise to realize that they have learned little.

Mr. Weir and other current City officials inherited the votes and promises of the past.  Apparently you are angry with the wrong people!   

jlocke - you are pretty much spot on.  Bakersfield has been a develop first -  infrastructure later City for many years.  I believe that the vision is beginning to change.  After attending a couple of "town hall-type meetings" for the Northeast and Northwest parts of the City - I believe that this kind of developing is coming to an end.   The new theory is an entire plan for roads, sewers, water and parks. 

The approach that has been discussed at these meetings has been "where are we going?" instead of " what happened? "  I hope they stick to this theory! 

Unfortunately I keep seeing it. I live in a new development that was created last January at Old River and Harris. It is just sprawl laid out in a grid pattern. The park that was scheduled to be built this spring hasn't even started yet, a half dozen accidents on Harris and Mountain Vista and there isn't even a sign, and there is an empty lot on the corner that would be perfect for some neighborhood emminities. I know it sounds like I'm just whinning, but what I am trying to do is point out things that could have been included with some forethought. 

On the positive side the water flows well, the sewer seems to work well, and we have fiberoptic cable/tv/phone/internet from the hub to the house which is beautiful on UVerse. (Brighthouse doesn't support fiberoptics, nor do they carry the NFL Network) 

keep trying

You are obviously not aware of Mr. Weir's BCSD Board work.  During his tenure he was a part of allowing a $200 million R&M and new construction deficit to accumulate.  His last official act was to approve the $100 million bond to be placed on the ballot in 2006 (public bond issues are the last resort of failed management and planning just like the recent $150 million County bond issue).  He did this while promising in his campaign to fix the then $160 million deficit of the City.  Mr. Weir carries just as much guilt as any elected official of the last 20 years.  For a CPA he has not shown totally competent fiscal sense. 

Stop "trying" to justify Mr. Weir and blaming this fiasco on Johnson and Maggard.  We all share the guilt in this if we elected these folks.  Now is the time to change course and get this mess straightened out -- to listen to the non-political and vested interest voices who are not going to profit, but who have the best interests of Bakersfield and Kern County at heart.

Reformer

It is nice to know that Maggard and his side-kick Johnson, both of whom appear to be favored by the Californian, were incompetent going into office and/or appointment as the case may be, and somehow are now “polished” economists.  Looking back on Maggard’s EIGHT YEAR stint on the city council and a plethora of favorable Californian articles (political COVER, not coverage), one would get the impression the Californian is pleased with their performance.

Johnson’s quick vote on Rio Bravo Ranch project during the December 18, 2008 ONE HOUR Planning Commission hearing gives rise to questions like “Does the city really need to change the agricultural use of this remote, environmentally sensitive land right along the Kern River to support 4,688 residential units and 65 acres of commercial use?” Or, how about, “How can the city do this in view of the MANY Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts, each one requiring a Statement of Overriding Consideration by the City Council?”  Psst… The Canyons project has no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts…

Why was the Californian so quiet about the behemoth Rio Bravo Ranch project?  Maybe the CALIFORNIAN does not want to step on the Nickels toes - you know, that “too close to home” thing.  Why was Will Winn so quiet about the Rio Bravo Ranch project?  Maybe Mike Maggard put a choke collar on him.  Why were Michelle Beck and Craig Smith so quiet about the Rio Bravo Ranch project?  Maybe it’s because the Nickels never let them or anyone else TRESSPASS on their property.

Given Maggard’s and Johnson’s past voting record, it appears the Californian has an agenda it is pushing, using Maggard and Johnson as their political puppets.  They didn’t like Weir becoming Ward 3 Councilman and now Haddock as Ward 3 Planning Commissioner.  My bet is that Weir and Haddock will not sell their souls to the Californian (the DEVIL) like “you-know-who” did.  The constant whining about Mark Abernathy is a Californian obsession only because THEY want to control city and county government because THEY believe they can do a better job pushing THEIR agenda.

Let’s move on to the statement “overall growth economic impacts on all of us.”  Sounds like political babble.  What exactly does that phrase mean?  Certainly not fiscal impacts to the city because:

1)      The city does NOT pay for the infrastructure required for new development.  New development pays for the new infrastructure.

2)      New infrastructure maintenance costs are paid by a portion of the property taxes generated by NEW development, not the existing taxpayers.

3)      New development spurs spending on taxable items, providing tax revenue to the city.

4)      New development pays fees to the city to improve parks, local and regional transportation infrastructure, etc.

What other economics impacts are there on all of us?  Well, I can think of a FEW:

1)      New construction jobs (framers, roofers, electricians, plumbers, city inspectors).

2)      New demand for consumable supplies (food, beer, wine, margaritas, Tums, Alka-Seltzer, Excedrin, etc.).

3)      New demand for home-related purchases (furniture, blenders, shot glasses, toilets, carpet, landscaping, etc.).

4)      New demand for support related jobs (Wells Fargo, Starbucks, Lowes, Vons, Mercy Hospital Urgent Care, etc.).

5)      New city fees to help offset fiscal costs to keep the city from raising sales taxes.

Last, but not least, what’s this about “… as reflected in their public statements and votes”???  Are you speaking about TALKING and VOTING out of both sides of their mouths?  Give me a break.  I will give you an example of how absurd your statement REALLY is.  S.K.Y. Companies and Affiliates (“SKY”) received approval for a ONE SQUARE MILE development adjacent to and north of Mesa Marin Raceway (fronts Highway 178) in less than a one year period (2005–2006).  SKY proposed more than 1,408 units on 600 acres (74 more units than The Canyons which has 890 acres).  The SKY EIR excluded evaluation of environmental issues like:

1)      Hydrology and Water Quality

2)      Land Use and Planning

3)      Population and Housing

4)      Public Services

I can’t imagine how 1,408 units will have no impact to police, fire, and schools.  Why?  How did they get it done in less than ONE year?  Maybe it’s because SKY, in 2004, gave Mike Maggard $12,000 in political contributions (the Californian NEVER made a BIG DEAL over the fact Maggard took a measly $12,000 from an OUT-OF-TOWN DEVELOPER).  SKY failed to report the contributions as required by Government Code §84200 leading to an $800 fine levied against SKY by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC No. 2006-0127).  That story was NEVER printed by the Californian.  Why?  Maybe political COVER (not coverage)…

oh really 

You have spent a lot of time putting together your points.  For that I will commend you.  Unfortunately, you have so many errors in those points that I am not going to take the time to unravel the truths and half-truths.  I will say simply this, if growth and development has paid for itself then why are, and were the City and County in 100 of millions of dollars of deficits, just in transportation alone.  And, anyone with a little urban planning common sense (and a little research) will find that over a hundred studies show that development demands much more from the government that oversees it than no development at all.  Consequently, government assesses development impact fees.  Locally, those fees have just been raised, but the increase has been far to little, too late, thus the need by our government AND SO-CALLED PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS CONSERVATIVES to try and get the voters to raise our sales tax.  Mr. Weir tried to help by voting to raise our P.G. & E. bills by 1%.

Reformer

New development does pay for itself.  Two separate transportation impact fee programs exist: The Metropolitan Transportation Impact Fee Program (“RTIF” Program) and the Local Mitigation Impact Fee Program (“LMIF” Program). 

The RTIF was adopted by both the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern in 1992.  Participation in the program is required of all new development and includes a Regional Transportation Facilities List and a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule.  The Regional Transportation Facilities List includes those improvements needed on the regional transportation network.  Improvements required beyond those identified within the RTIF Program are categorized as Local Mitigation and are covered by the LMIF Program.  Implementation of the RTIF and LMIF Programs with each new development ensures the incremental and cumulative impacts to the local and regional transportation system from new development is reduced to a level of less than significant.

The county and city cannot establish development impact fees without meeting the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000-66025).  Look it up on the Internet.  Put simply, the county or city cannot establish a development impact fee (say transportation for instance) and place the burdens of past sins on new development.  For example, a new development project is analyzed for current background traffic, current background traffic with project, 20-year background traffic and 20-year background traffic with project.  This establishes a proper “nexus” between the project and its traffic impacts on existing facilities (LMIF Program).  The new project also pays the current RTIF with each building permit.  Those fees are established by ordinance and increased every two years.  The RTIF goes towards Regional Transportation Facilities identified in the List.

The city and county are short of funds to meet state and federal contributions to transportation projects, because the voting citizenry has failed to pass the special half cent sales tax that raises money for county and city transportation programs (“self-help” program).  California counties involved in the “self-help” program have significantly more influence over delivering transportation projects.  California law authorizes the state’s 58 counties to enact such programs with the approval of 2/3 of the voters in the county.  Fresno County for instance is a “self-help” county.  Been through Fresno lately?  Great freeway system…

State and Federal transportation grants pay the lion’s share of most local transportation projects.  To receive a grant, a city or county typically must provide 10% to 50% of a local project’s cost.  Kern County and City of Bakersfield have not been able to compete for grants to fund many local projects because we do not have a transportation tax to generate the local funding portion.

The question regarding the adequacy of traffic impact fees established by the county and the city lies solely on their political, engineering and legal shoulders.  Don’t blame new development for the sins of the past or expect new development to pay for existing problems.  The law does not allow counties and cities to be arbitrary and capricious in this regard.  And don’t forget, new development does pay for itself.  I am not talking about past development. 

Reformer-  It appears, at times, that you have  personal issues with Mr. Weir.   I am only trying to bring both sides of the coin to the table.  You are right - there is plenty of blame to go around and I am so glad that you are willing to accept some of it.

First - I am aware of Weir's school board tenure as I had students attending overcrowded schools in the BCSD at that time.  As I recall the BCSD was operating in the black during his tenure.  I was grateful to hear that the bond was proposed.  Overcrowded schools are unhealthy for children and the bane of any decent educator's existence.    In the years prior to Weir's tenure BCSD sold off school sites as they could not /did not anticipate the housing boom and consequent increase in population.  Extra classrooms and new campuses cost money - bonds were a good solution and the space was definitely needed.

You are apparently unaware of the fact that most schools are built through bonds.

Furthermore, Weir is one of the few Council members that is willing to discuss the overwhelming PENSION BENEFIT DEBT that the City must meet.   Such benefit debt drove the City of Vallejo, CA.  into bankruptcy.  Weir is trying to avoid the pension benefit debt train wreck in Bakersfield. 

I am not trying to blame Mr. Maggard or Mr. Johnson for anything.  I am trying to bring to light the fact that you hate sprawl, tell me that Maggard and Johnson have learned so much, and yet,  you turn a blind eye to the fact that Johnson in December just approved more of the sprawl that you detest.