Watson made it very clear, in the meeting, that he's established his own personal growth limit in northwest Bakersfield.

If a project is east of Greely he sees it as urban infill.

If a project is west of Greely he will consider it leapfrog.

Thus, he voted against the "leapfrog" Stonefield development but supported the other two projects - one on Driver Road at Rosedale Highway (verbally) and the Bakersfield Land Investment (with his vote).

The current plan for the General Plan Update puts Greely Road two miles beyond the edge of Bakersfield's urban core. Greely is actually one of two dividing lines between the "urban reserve" and "future planning reserve" in the northwest.

i.e. Land east of Greely (and west of Heath) shouldn't be developed until after 2035. Land west of Greely shouldn't be developed until after 2050.

 So tell us, who is behind Bakersfield Land Investment ?  Who owns this outfit?  My guess the answer to that question would help us understand this all-too-typical double standard used by politicians and developers in Bako.

And how about Burger's comment above where he reveals that Ray Watson has his own "personal growth limit"?  Once again, Watson illustrates his disrespect for established lines of administrative conduct. 

Do you get the fact that the visit from Sacramento is from the Attorney General's office and not a division of the environmental agency?  You're telling us that he want's to just "meet the wife and kids"?  Isn't it interesting that he's visiting three cities in the state which have the poorest air quality?  My guess is he's coming to Bako to investigate the local law scoflaws.  Maybe he can redirect their attention to the requirement of following the laws.

I know that Gordon Nipp is one of those nasty environmentalists, BUT, he definitely had it right when he contended with the Supes by asserting that they are already making planning decisions that are diametrically contrary to the proposed Metro Bako Gen. Plan.  Isn't that defacto approval of the same-o same-o misplanning of the past?  Too many of us "publicites" don't have a clue!  McIntosh's group pulls many strings and has many political relationships, and he has a lot of chips owed him. 

 

 Well, I took the advice of "Observer" and found that Bakersfield Land Investment" is registered with the State as a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) and from a Californian news article about campaign contributions, they donated money to Ray Watson's 2008 campaign for Board of Supervisors.  That story incidently, indicated that Watson was the only candidate for whom they gave money. http://people.bakersfield.c...

Checking with the California Secretary of State office, we find that Bakersfield Land Investment LLC is a Las Vegas, Nevada based corporation. http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/co...

Maybe I should have found more but my Google search didn't really provide very much in terms of any name of an individual.  I guess I'm not sure why anyone would be afraid of retribution from reporting on what Google has identified since it doesn't seem to lead to anyone specifically except that Ray Watson took a lot of developer's money but what's new about that, right?

Yes, Lois.  This development project slipped right by me....while I was fighting other zoning battles.  Of course no one showed up in opposition because the county does not actually post upcoming hearings on the actual land (like the city does).  Additionally, they only notified owners of property within 1000 square ft. of the property.  Guess what!  The only thing out there within 1000 ft. is farm land....   It might be nice if the county decided that it was worthwhile to post these things on the property, so that those living in the area that commute and use those roads might have known....

A correction to your article........the main land is actually off Wegis Rd...not that this info makes the idea any more palatable.  Gordon Nipp should be applauded for TRYING to talk sense into the Supervisors.  Note also that Rubio left just before this item came up and he would most likely have argued against.

What I see happening here is that Kern Co. needs a certain number of high density housing units to fulfill this environmental requirement.  The problem is...they don't seem to care where they put them, as long as they put them somewhere!  How does it make sense to build 300 high density homes on a plot of land miles away from infrastructure?  That just adds more car trips for just about everything!   I won't even touch the road system problem out here.  I don't want to make my blood boil on this lovely father's day.    This week the city council votes to increase traffic impact fees.   I am in favor of it simply because I am hoping it will be a deterrent for builders (although that is DEFINITELY not the intention of the governing body in Kern).  Saying NO to sprawl would be an easier solution.   Since Kern officials want to promote growth, it makes more sense to figure out how to produce incentives for  builders to focus building in areas THAT MAKE SENSE!   

In looking at the traffic impact fee schedule, it shows a "CORE" area where traffic impact fees are lower.  This is the only "incentive" I can find anywhere.  The problem is that this "core" map must have been devised in 1975!!!

The core area is roughly defined with borders of New Stine to the West, Fairfax to the East, 7th Standard/Panorama on the North and White Lane to the South.  Well guess what, folks....there aren't many undeveloped lots in that area.

If we want to create incentives for builders to build in our NEW "CORE" area which extends west to HEATH RD (Proposed Metro General Plan)......don't you think  they could extend the traffic impact fee "core area" out even as far  west as Allen Rd? We might actually get some REAL infill as well as  the number of high density units we need to meet the state environmental criteria!  Imagine if they moved the "core" traffic impact fee boundary closer to Morning Drive.....maybe builders would have incentive to build on the east side, rather than on prime farm land!

With regard to those folks out on Buckboard who are going to meet with developers about the project proposed out there (which comes back up again in August before the Board of Supervisors)......do remember that DENYING THE  REZONING&nb sp;

is still possible if you are willing to fight the fight.  No one says you have to "compromise" and have high density out there.  You can still find local backing on this project..Rosedale residents don't want it!  Residents just are not informed about these projects going in until it is seemingly too late.

Thanks for your article, Lois!

 

 WHAT IS THE BAKERSFIELD LAND INVESTMENT II LLC, AND WHO ARE THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES/PEOPLE INVOLVED?  THE NEVADA PARENT CORPORATION,  C.T. CORPORATION SYSTEM IS IDENTIFIED AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION OUT OF DELAWARE.  THE PRES AND VP ARE THE SAME GUY FROM NEW YORK, AND THE SEC & TREASURER HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS IN ILLINOIS.  A QUICK ON LINE CHECK SHOWS THEY HAVE STRONG TIES TO THE HUGE PETER KIEWIT CORPORATION, OMAHA, NE, AND HAVE CONNECTION TO WARREN BUFFETT'S GROUP.

 

Why is it that everyone is so concerned about figuring out who these LLC corporations are..................when in reality, what we need is for people to be physically present at Planning Commission meetings and Board of Supervisors meetings to actually present an oppositional position?  I see people willing to Blog.........but not willing to actually get involved.  So frustrating!

 

Excellent point  alexlvr.  However, most folks won't can't afford to take time off in the middle or latter part of the day to appear, and also most of us don't really know what is going on anyway which allows alot of stuff to fly by on the consent calendars of "public" meetings without any possibility of substantive public discussion .  City and County political transparency is nil and the public notification process for the County is a joke (albeit the City puts up a sign 20 days before hearings) unless you are one who scans TBC every day finding and wading through all the published notices (I think the Sierra Club does), or put a request in for a personal email (and who do you ask for that!).

In a way, we are ultimately responsible because we are the ones who put the B of S and City Council in their positions.  Anyone who challenges the status quo is doomed for lack of funds and name recognition, or .....? 

 

 

Although the Board of Supervisors meetings are scheduled at 9am and 2pm respectively, the Planning Commission Meetings are scheduled at 7PM on Thursdays.  Most everyone could attend the Planning Commission Meetings.  All specific plans and zone changes are heard by the Planning Commission at least 3-4 weeks BEFORE the Board of Supervisors hears them.    Anyone can go the website of the county: www.co.kern.ca.us and look around. The Board of Supervisor's page lists all the agendas, minutes and past videos of the meetings..  The Planning Department page has a link to the Planning Commission Page which lists agendas and minutes.  Additionally, it is on this website that you can subscribe to e-mail notifications that will tell you that new agendas have been posted..triggering you to go to the website and see what is going on.  If you can't find the subscriber link, you can e-mail the Clerk of the Board (link on site) and ask her to put you on the list.    It really isn't all that hard....it would be nice if it was more convenient..but it IS available.    Additionally, if one wanted to see the whole package of materials on any pending project, you can go to the Planning Department (2700 M Street) to view them Monday through Friday.  If you can't make it down there, you can call the Planning Department and request to speak to a Planner.  The Planner will have the documentation available so that he/she can answer your questions. They may also send you additional info.   FINALLY......find out who your Supervisor is.  Call their office and ask them about your concerns.  If you don't seem to know....they will find out.  You can schedule an appointment with your Supervisor to discuss any upcoming project.  REMEMBER:  We pay their salaries and it is reasonable (an expected) that we go see them and bring our views to the table on hot button issues BEFORE any Planning Commission or Board Meeting.   OK NOW.........no more excuses..........GET INVOLVED!  

 

One more comment.........

If one is afraid of having their name in the paper because they voice their opposition with regard to urban sprawl AND  the seemingly blatant disregard of following our General Plan................that is ridiculous!   If anything, the majority of Bakersfield will be applauding.

TAKE A RISK!