Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
The initiative to amend the land-use element of Grass Valley's General Plan or the Friends of Grass Valley advocate for "Managed Growth" is the wrong idea. If you listen to the pitch, the argument on the surface sounds noble and within the highest ideals of the American democratic process - allowing the citizens to be involved in the process.
But as has been said before, the devil is always in the details. And the details in this case are the unintended consequences that an initiative of this type would force on the community.
From an economic standpoint, a lock on land use for a period of 30 years would ultimately strangle the city's ability to act as an "economic hub," removing the creative process in land use required to meet the changes in market conditions.
If we take a look at the nation and Nevada County 40 years ago, the set of land-use standards used then are out of date for the current demands for mixed-use planning and curbing urban sprawl.
One cannot see what changes the dynamic and fast-paced future will bring. If energy supplies remain volatile and prices continue to escalate, the uses of land may well need to be modified. Periodic adjustments in planning will be necessary as these and other uncertainties come to light.
The city's General Plan is, by definition, a general plan -one that was based on land-use beliefs in practices dating from the late 1980s and early 1990s. If you hold to these uses until the year 2038, that could mean land assignments would be nearly 50 years old and woefully out of date by 2038.
The consequences of that kind of policy would be disastrous. Land uses change, just like economies change, and both will require periodic adjustment to remain current and viable.
You might argue that under the initiative the citizens can change the General Plan upon a vote. Yes, the voters are more than capable of understanding the complex and dynamic nature of land needs.
But a community that is required to take to a general election or a special election for an adjustment to a lot line, or to a redistribution of land use, or to correct a mistake in mapping or to issue a modified-use permit would add years to the process and progress would effectively cease.
This is what I believe the Friends of Grass Valley and the initiative truly hope to achieve.
The public does maintain its oversight control of the General Plan through public hearings, and the election of city officials. Public servants are trusted with the responsibility of listening to the electorate and administering to the greatest public good the value of the land within the city and its sphere of influence. And I see no good to come from a protracted process or the endless requirement for definitions demanded by this initiative.
The process for well-organized growth has worked well thus far. The City Council has been careful in any modification to the General Plan, and only after significant public input. I see no need to add complexity to the system, protracted time frames to development or impose economic hardship on the community by adding costly elections to an already overburdened city budget.
The initiative is ill-advised, poorly crafted, without merit and simply a bad idea for Grass Valley.
Gil Mathew, Nevada County Economic Resource Council.
But as has been said before, the devil is always in the details. And the details in this case are the unintended consequences that an initiative of this type would force on the community.
From an economic standpoint, a lock on land use for a period of 30 years would ultimately strangle the city's ability to act as an "economic hub," removing the creative process in land use required to meet the changes in market conditions.
If we take a look at the nation and Nevada County 40 years ago, the set of land-use standards used then are out of date for the current demands for mixed-use planning and curbing urban sprawl.
One cannot see what changes the dynamic and fast-paced future will bring. If energy supplies remain volatile and prices continue to escalate, the uses of land may well need to be modified. Periodic adjustments in planning will be necessary as these and other uncertainties come to light.
The city's General Plan is, by definition, a general plan -one that was based on land-use beliefs in practices dating from the late 1980s and early 1990s. If you hold to these uses until the year 2038, that could mean land assignments would be nearly 50 years old and woefully out of date by 2038.
The consequences of that kind of policy would be disastrous. Land uses change, just like economies change, and both will require periodic adjustment to remain current and viable.
You might argue that under the initiative the citizens can change the General Plan upon a vote. Yes, the voters are more than capable of understanding the complex and dynamic nature of land needs.
But a community that is required to take to a general election or a special election for an adjustment to a lot line, or to a redistribution of land use, or to correct a mistake in mapping or to issue a modified-use permit would add years to the process and progress would effectively cease.
This is what I believe the Friends of Grass Valley and the initiative truly hope to achieve.
The public does maintain its oversight control of the General Plan through public hearings, and the election of city officials. Public servants are trusted with the responsibility of listening to the electorate and administering to the greatest public good the value of the land within the city and its sphere of influence. And I see no good to come from a protracted process or the endless requirement for definitions demanded by this initiative.
The process for well-organized growth has worked well thus far. The City Council has been careful in any modification to the General Plan, and only after significant public input. I see no need to add complexity to the system, protracted time frames to development or impose economic hardship on the community by adding costly elections to an already overburdened city budget.
The initiative is ill-advised, poorly crafted, without merit and simply a bad idea for Grass Valley.
Gil Mathew, Nevada County Economic Resource Council.
