Yes, I asked for rain, I admit it. You don’t always get what you wish for, but when you do, watch out.
I see the organizers of the referendum to stop the proposed Valley’s Edge development have got what they wished for. And now I’ll ask, what next? The city of Chico can either pull approval and send this “city within a city” back to the drawing board, or they can hold a special election to let the voters decide. Sean Morgan complains this will cost about $100,000 – do you notice, Council and Staff always cry poormouth when it’s something the voters want, but they sure throw that American Rescue Plan money around like it’s just manna from Heaven.
I’ll note that this is just what I was saying in my last post – the city of Chico, like most California public agencies, wants to be able to do whatever they want without any fuss from the voters/taxpayers, or, for that matter, laws they made themselves.
I think the main thing I don’t like about Valley’s Edge, is that they are trying to change the General Plan to shoehorn this mess in, while telling us that Brouhard and his partners had stuck with the process and adhered to the General Plan. Let me tell you something about the General Plan – it’s completely worthless. They change it whenever they want, holding a public meeting here and there to make it look like the public was involved, and then they let a developer (Tom DiGiovanni) write a “parallel code” that allows all the stuff developers want to do that DOESN’T fit the General Plan. In other words, the General Plan isn’t worth the digits it’s written in, it’s a hoax.
Yes, we have a “parallel” code that allows variances to everything in the General Plan and the building code, including setbacks. In my neighborhood, it meant houses built right out to the property line to increase square footage ($$$). One day you have a big back yard, a year later, you have windows staring down from your neighbor’s McMansion, right into your house. They offer to buy you new curtains, but that’s about it.
You also heard about the Golden Rule – he who has the gold, makes the rules. Dan Walters wrote an interesting piece about that here:
Walters describes the “pay-to-play” system, which of course is how it works in Chico. The public employee unions, of course, have always been big contributors. But look at the campaign contribution reports, printed in the paper and available from the clerk’s office – local developers and their cronies also contribute heavily. In fact, in Chico, where an individual donor is limited to $500 per campaign, a relatively new PAC called “Citizens for Safe Chico” provided most of the funding. These folks are supposed to provide reports regarding how much money they collected and from whom, but state law allows them to file with the secretary of state, which makes it hard for voters to look at the reports. For one thing, you have to know EXACTLY how the group is listed, what acronym they chose, etc, or you won’t find the report, and nobody is going to help you. CSC organizer Teri Dubose is very secretive about her reports, and she was the biggest donor in the last election.
Walters explains that “The new law went into effect on Jan. 1 (2023), essentially prohibiting contributions of more than $250 to any local elected official from anyone seeking contracts, permits or licenses from the board or council on which the official serves. It would be retroactive, requiring the official who received such contributions in the past to give the money back.“
Yeah, like Ethan Edwards said repeatedly, “that’ll be the day…” Don’t expect any forthcoming investigation into Bill Brouhard’s or Doug Guillon’s or any local developer’s campaign contributions. It’s the voters who need to enforce the rules, by doing their homework, and then rejecting candidates that are supported by these big money investors.
Chico Taxpayers Association 