Document text
By Dave Helmich February 25. 2015 12:01AM Guest Opinion: Growth carries risks Mayor John Stromberg's Council Corner column and his earlier, Jan. 27, State of the City speech present a very positive message, but I would offer some cautionary notes. City documents and those published elsewhere are clear — Ashland’s growth rate has been and is projected at only 0.75 percent annually. The 20-year population increase would be about 15 percent — 3,150 souls — based on the current population of 21,000. There are allusions elsewhere to a land rush of Californians that could invalidate these studies. This does not seem realistic since we have the same drought issues as the state to the south. It is not justifiable to expect a change from the pattern of the last 15 to 20 years. But city government could accomplish it if citizens are unaware and inactive! The boosterism reflected in the mayor's February column, up-zoning the downtown to five stories and the apparent willingness of the current city parents to front the infrastructure for the new Normal Avenue neighborhood are perfect examples of   how this could happen. I do not understand this eagerness when I know that everyone I talk to here likes the town the way it is now. Further, according to the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory, there already exists an ample supply of various parcels/lots, etc. to accommodate growth associated with an increase of 3,150. This is well detailed on pages 17-19 of this city-commissioned document. Based on the data, I’m unclear why large-scale (read city capital investment) options are being considered at all now. The 2011 inventory is a good segue for the planning issue that concerns me the most. The cities of Fresno, Modesto and Stockton, Calif., relied on enthusiastic growth/economic assumptions in the late '90s and early 2000s that led to disastrous residential/commercial overbuilding. Unfortunate enough, but it was compounded by a routine absence of up-front infrastructure developer fees, leaving these cities holding the bag for these very important amenities after the projects failed. Property values quickly plummeted. These three cities are now either bankrupt or very close to it. These are much larger cities that would have been expected to have much more financial buffer against planning error than Ashland. I caution the mayor and other policymakers against private/public development “partnerships” that do not require developers to pay or bond in exchange for constructing the public infrastructure up front. This would also apply in my thinking to large increases of tourist visits necessitated by convention center business plans. This most certainly should include traffic mitigation measures for existing streets based upon developer-funded traffic impact studies. Any other arrangements place the cost and potential risk on the taxpayers — citizens who do not stand to share in the potential profits. When the music stops, citizens will find no chair. Ashland has creative vitality at many levels, but I believe its vulnerabilities should also be recognized. It’s my hope that Mayor Stromberg's vision for Ashland will become tempered by his awareness of these vulnerabilities. The city should keep its powder dry. If a population growth trend actually develops, its accommodation can be revisited. I think most Ashlanders would agree with me that they pretty much like what we have here now. That is one reason many of us moved here. Dave Helmich lives in Ashland. What do you think? Have an opinion on this topic? Send a letter to the editor at www.dailytidings.com/sendletter or email [email protected]. http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20150225/Opinion/150229917 © 2015 Copyright © 1995-2011 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement -->