Moratorium fails, but citizens deserve clear answers on the cost of development

Reflecting on Wednesday's rather spirited City Council discussion, two things are clear:

• We do not, in fact, need a 45-day moratorium on development.

• We do, in fact, need to examine how much new development costs taxpayers and, if necessary, make changes.

Mayor Susan Hitchcock, perhaps the most expert local elected official regarding planning matters, called for the moratorium. Her rationale: Lodi is poised for a tidal wave of growth for which we are ill-prepared. Hitchcock was typically articulate in her argument. At the end of the day, though, she failed to persuade that we are in imminent danger of growth-induced trauma.

As Councilman John Beckman pointed out, the city granted only 264 building permits last year and has granted a measly 42 so far this year.

And as Councilman Larry Hansen pointed out, the city of Lodi, in the form of its 2 percent per annum growth cap, already has a safeguard against unfettered expansionism.

Add the fact that the real estate market is cooling faster than an ember on an ice cube, and we simply are not alarmed.

Yet Hitchcock is quite right in one regard. She questions whether development over time creates, perhaps incrementally, yet another burden for Lodi taxpayers.

There was a day when virtually all growth was broadly accepted as beneficial. Sort of like the old du Pont motto, "Better Things for Better Living Through Chemistry." With chemicals, that has only proven true to a point. Much depends on what kind of chemical, where it is applied, and how.

The same may be true of growth.

Times have changed. The cost of asphalt and city pensions, among other things, has risen steadily.

So what makes sense for taxpayers? What is, in fact, smart growth?

Should we be charging more for a purely residential subdivision versus, say, the Reynolds Ranch project, which boasts a mix of jobs, stores (which equal sales tax) and homes?

Shouldn't the costs of new schools be stirred into these calculations, too?

While she fails to raise the spectre of a developmental calamity, Hitchcock does raise questions critical to the city's financial future.

No business, especially one that already has cash-flow issues, would roll blissfully along without examining its operations.

The city should do no less, and the upcoming revision of the general plan presents a strategic opportunity.

Farmers show good faith with compromise

We were pleasantly surprised to finally see a plan this week from farmers and other landowners for low density development in the a "greenbelt" zone between Lodi and Stockton.

It's clear that group was listening to urban Lodians' concerns when they asked for the right to develop one-acre home sites on every fifth acre. And yet they didn't abandon their position that they rightly should share in the economic benefit of urbanization that is sweeping California.

There are still differences between what the city wants and what the landowners will settle for. The city would like to pull the land half a mile south of Armstrong to Harney under its planning umbrella to assure that Stockton doesn't annex it. In addition, the city wants to start with a one acre per 10 formula and grant the one to five rights in 20 years. The farmers would prefer to stay under county planning jurisdiction and have their one per five development rights up front.

Considering the sides were close to an impasse as recently as last spring, this is a terrific turn of events. We hope the proposal builds trust between the two sides and that remaining differences are ironed out with minimal shouting.

A good compromise is clearly doable.

— Lodi News-Sentinel

First published: Saturday, August 19, 2006