03/22/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

profltable to the areas where you allow development.??? Aren't you , or 'any group, of persons going to be subject to political pressures, :social pressures. ..appeals from friends, appeals from the media...? " How do we, ,the citizens, (Whose money is supposedly paying for urban services) investigate possible conflicts of interest? Dowehave to be at every hearing to check out who is getting the favors? Because.o.make no mistake about it...every decision means someone is winning tax paid benefits and someone is losing. Everydecision means some person's land values will go up and other person~s land 'v'alues will go do\m. ..~ - " r' What about the recommendation on Page 16 for opportunity areas? It, suggests that "a public, private or public-private partnership should be formed to acquire, lease or otherwise develop or hold existing large tracts for the wide variety or urban uses that require sites of such size and location." This suggests to me that anyone participating in this "partnership" would have a highly profitable venture going on for himself. This "opportunity" recommendation is an opportunity for vested interests..oif I ever saw one. It suggests private land can be bought with public funds...and then taken off the market to be held for, what amounts to, speculative purposes. 'It suggests politicians be given the power to invest public money in arbitrary ways. The arbitrary authority which this phm gives officials is alone sufficient, reason for the.. concept of an urban service area to be dropped. The proposal for having appointed or elected officials decide which areas may receive sewers, water, power, streets, curbs and gutters, without any pre-determined criteria for the acceptance of these areas is completely unacceptable to our organization. Such a policy is an open invitation for pressure politics to be used by vested interests. .. . I would also like to challenge the concept of preserving designated agricultural. (page 17) lands. The persons responsible faT the wording, in this plan are naive in the field of economics. It is apparent they think that if the ground is good for growing. ..it should be used for growing, They are not aware...evidentally...that the problem of agriculture in this country today is NOT finding the land....it is SELLING the crops once they are grmm. As a resident pointed out last week. . . it requires more than 600 acres for a farmer to make a living from agriculture. The use of land should be determined by consumer demand. If farming is profitable.. .people will be looking for land to farm. But if building houses is more profitable.. .and there is an oversupply of farm products in some areas...land should be used for houses...not crops. There is no way a group of citizens can anticipate the demand of the public in this respect. Estimating trends of housing and food demands, is the job of the builder, developer. andfarmer...not a group of NON-economists. I sincerely urge this group to look at this 1990 plan once more and remove the restrictive and coercive elements. Allow it to be what you say it is...a real guideline which allows local residents to determine where they want to live and what they want to do with their land. We have the necessary laws already to stop one citizen from damaging the property of another, if such can be proven. Let's not find our citizens guilty before they are charged with any crime. Let's not seek to prevent damage to the environment, or to attain orderly growth at the expense of the freedom of action which responsible Americans cherish so highly. Let's not ham-string our developers and entrepreneurs with restrictive 'and prohibitive policies which will only drive away innovation and progressive ideas. Let's work towards voluntary orderly growth...voluntary cooperatibn and voluntary guide- lines instead of restrictive and coercive plans. Thank you. Attachment B .' Presented by Ralph Barrett The Citizens'Committee in, ~upport of the ~9ge Plan Statement before the Joint Planning ~ommission Hearing on the 1990 General Plan -- January 26, 1972 ~:: T ,... ""~ ... The Oi ti.zens' 'Committee lD Support of the 1990 Plan would like to reiterate ,its recommendation for ~doption of the proposed 1990 General P Ian now.before you .In addition we s.hould like to speak specifically, to th.e__.~Ll:.:t~_~~--,- ~f th~~;.c.5:1usi~I!.._q:Lt,!1~LC~_are~Jro1T!..!h~ _urban service 7Z 3/22/72