Infill vs Sprawl – how the city of Chico could encourage infill but how they don’t and why they won’t

I have tried to follow the discussion regarding housing, I get the gist of it – it’s another “infill” vs “sprawl” argument. Again. We’ve been here so many times I think I should start making hash marks.

Infill makes sense for my neighborhood. We have big lots of an acre or more that would accommodate more houses. We are in the central part of town and we have many traffic arteries. We have sewer and water. And it would be good for the neighborhood, providing that the city provide street maintenance, sidewalks, drainage, and other amenities promised when we were annexed over 20 years ago.

But, in past, infill has been controversial, because it wasn’t done right. When we had a liberal council, infill was a shoehorn deal – New Urban – shove as many houses as possible in somebody’s back acre. The city adopted the Planned Use Development ordinance, by which developers were given variances to just about everything in the code – things like density, set-back, parking requirements, and other land use restrictions that the “big” developers are held to. These “flag-lot” developments were usually serviced by one tiny driveway sandwiched in between two existing houses. One minute it’s your neighbor’s two-car driveway and garage, the next minute it’s a road with cars cruising in and out at all hours of the day and night. Street lights on your bedroom windows – great!

Infill is a problem when it’s not compatible with the neighborhood. Another problem is when the existing neighborhood gets absolutely no benefit. In Chico, neighbors oftentimes protested these developments because they created traffic and parking problems, and encroached on neighboring properties. Suddenly your quiet street was super busy and there was a second story window staring down four feet off your fence. But there was no “upside” – the city didn’t make street improvements, in fact, the sewer hook-ups resulted in shitty patch jobs that became serial pot-holes.

After a few successful protests from neighborhood groups, it seems like infill went out of fashion. Like if they had to take the neighbors into consideration, they just didn’t want to do it.

That’s the city of Chico’s fault. I believe infill could work, and be accepted by the neighbors. It’s the city who has a poor attitude toward infill because it doesn’t generate as much in property taxes as the big subdivisions. They don’t encourage infill developers and they provide no assistance to property owners who want to make their property more development ready.

In my neighborhood we have 1.5 to 2 acre properties with a house in front. If these owners want to split their home off and divide the rest into simple lots for development, they are on the hook to pay all the fees – according to the state board of realtors, anywhere from $50 – 80,000. Just to split the property into lots for sale. On the city of Chico website it says that just the application fee is over $4,000. Just to have them tell you whether they’ll let you do it or not.

So we go on the sprawl, while the center of town and what used to be grand old neighborhoods fall into the usual abyss of neglect and abandon.