<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#">
    <channel>
        <title>Suing Bakersfield: Pork hits fan? - City Beat - citybeat&apos;s Blog - Bakersfield.com</title>
        <link>http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/citybeat/48050</link>
        <description>&amp;nbsp;As expected, homebuilders are suing the city over traffic impact fees.
&amp;nbsp;
(Click on the blue box to download a PDF version of the 23-page complaint.)
&amp;nbsp;
Technical aspects of the state Mitigation Fee Act &amp;nbsp;form the heart of allegations the program isn&#039;t legally sound.
&amp;nbsp;
The revised fee schedule, for example, is based on traffic/growth projections through 2035, but the city and county&#039;s existing metro General Plan &amp;mdash; which is supposed to be consistent with the impact fee program &amp;mdash; only goes to 2020.
&amp;nbsp;
Why do you care?
&amp;nbsp;
The city needs the money to cover matching funds for the Thomas roads money.&amp;nbsp;Some councilmembers have admitted in public meetings that if locals had passed a half-cent sales tax, the fee dispute wouldn&#039;t be going on.
&amp;nbsp;
State law, though, lays out requirements for collecting impact fees specifically so cities and counties DON&#039;T use them as a &amp;quot;special tax&amp;quot; &amp;mdash; which requires 2/3s voter approval.
&amp;nbsp;
If homebuilders successfully torpedo the higher fees? That&#039;s a long way off, but it could cut seriously into local general fund dollars.
&amp;nbsp;
Developing...
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
- Gretchen Wenner, staff writer
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&amp;nbsp;As expected, homebuilders are suing the city over traffic impact fees.
&amp;nbsp;
(Click on the blue box to download a PDF version of the 23-page complaint.)
&amp;nbsp;
Technical aspects of the state Mitigation Fee Act &amp;nbsp;form the heart of allegations the program isn&#039;t legally sound.
&amp;nbsp;
The revised fee schedule, for example, is based on traffic/growth projections through 2035, but the city and county&#039;s existing metro General Plan &amp;mdash; which is supposed to be consistent with the impact fee program &amp;mdash; only goes to 2020.
&amp;nbsp;
Why do you care?
&amp;nbsp;
The city needs the money to cover matching funds for the Thomas roads money.&amp;nbsp;Some councilmembers have admitted in public meetings that if locals had passed a half-cent sales tax, the fee dispute wouldn&#039;t be going on.
&amp;nbsp;
State law, though, lays out requirements for collecting impact fees specifically so cities and counties DON&#039;T use them as a &amp;quot;special tax&amp;quot; &amp;mdash; which requires 2/3s voter approval.
&amp;nbsp;
If homebuilders successfully torpedo the higher fees? That&#039;s a long way off, but it could cut seriously into local general fund dollars.
&amp;nbsp;
Developing...
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
- Gretchen Wenner, staff writer
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;</itunes:summary>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:08:01 PDT</pubDate>
                
                    <item>
                <title>Aug 5,  2009 at 11:08 AM : Why are we still...</title>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Why are we still building new homes when there are 1 or 2 homes on nearly every street in town for sale?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
                <link>http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/citybeat/48050/#c_430562</link>
                <guid>http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/citybeat/48050/#c_430562</guid>
                <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Why are we still building new homes when there are 1 or 2 homes on nearly every street in town for sale?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>     
            </item>
            </channel>
</rss>