It seemed like it might be a worthwhile conference when the opening speaker quoted Yogi Berra: "if we don't know where we're going, we'll end up someplace else."
Three government agencies - our County, the Local Government Commission, and the County's Air Quality Management District - supported by PG&E, the Savings Bank, and the Bank of Willits -- did themselves proud in producing the 1996 Living Communities Conference held in Boonville. Walt Allen and David Faulkner of AQMD and Supervisor Charles Peterson accepted the laboring oars.
The conference was part of an effort to draw self-selected representatives from the community to begin the process of a comprehensive revision of Mendocino's General Plan. That document is essentially the "constitution" that guides the establishment of zoning laws and "blueprints" what countywide growth and development should look like over the next century.
The process began with last year's similar convocation, during which over 170 participants asked and tried to answer critical questions such as, "What do we want for the future of our county?" and "How can our county achieve our desired future?" Much of the momentum for that meeting came from Billy Cornett and the Farm Bureau. Mr. Cornett served ten years on the County Planning Commission.
Telescoped somewhat, the focus this year addressed both nuts and bolts ("The costs of development") and broader issues ("Thinking globally and planning locally"). Unfortunately, it was attended by only half as many participants. Fortunately, it was carried over the airwaves by KZYX. The keynote speakers were especially "hot."
Rutgers University Professor Robert Burchell analyzed the costs of development and how ineffectively we as a society have addressed and distributed such costs. We are facing an influx of 10 million people in California over the next few years; our county will likely receive at least 8000 of those. Their presence will put a demand on government services and natural resources: schools, police, roads, housing, water. Who will pay?
The reality, stated Burchell, is that we cannot presently afford the cost of our so-called "infrastructure," causing us to respond unevenly and inappropriately to public service needs and development demands. Government agencies "back-burner" projects and defer what cannot be afforded, deflecting the problem into the future where it grows larger and uglier. Part of the answer, he said, involves using "design densities" and "compact development" to manage and direct growth. Some regulated commercial growth must be embraced, because it can provide a critical tax base that can help us all maintain quality of life standards, accomplishing this far better than the construction of new housing units.
Guest speakers, Professor James Nicholas (University of Florida) and Escondido City Council Member Jerry Harmon followed, interspersed with shorter presentations reporting on the Habitat II World Conference, and discussing the planning process on the Pinoleville Indian Reservation as well as funding efforts for the revision of the Mendocino County General Plan.
Nicholas discussed "user charges" versus "impact fees." Do we fund the need for expanded library services and books by charging current users or newcomers by way of development charges? Who fairly should pay and how? Our state highways, for example, are funded by pennies taken from gas sales, presently about 35c per gallon. But we have refused to build an inflation adjustment into the tax, meaning that we should be paying at least $1 a gallon. We refuse to acknowledge real costs and hope somebody else will pay them. The solution involves imposing real time development fees that permit immediate payment for infrastructure tied to specific projects.
Jerry Harmon described the implementation of such a scheme in the San Diego County community of Escondido. After building and reaching a community consensus about "Quality of Life" standards, the city began setting developer fees based on an analysis of what the "cost" of such a development in terms of it not diminishing the standards. A new $164,000 home, for example, is assessed a $24,000 upfront fee. Developers can understand that such a fee must be included as part of their production cost; otherwise that home and its occupants impose a strain on the community infrastructure which is born unfairly by existing taxpayers. The result of true fee assessments is that homes reflect actual costs and raw land values decrease proportionately in response to market demands.
Food for thought; as the conference brochure put it: "How would you feel if we lost the rural nature of Mendocino County? Families must plan. Businesses plan. Mendocino has to plan, too." Citizens must engage. Some answers may be found by cooperation through dialogue. The time is now.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1997
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited