Marty: Growth mismanagement

You couldn’t find more perfect examples of growth mismanagement
over the last two decades than the City of Hollister and the
unincorporated areas of San Benito County.
You couldn’t find more perfect examples of growth mismanagement over the last two decades than the City of Hollister and the unincorporated areas of San Benito County. The cases are diametrically opposed, but directly related. It’s clear that our county, with one large city that has more than 63 percent of the total population, needs centralized growth management to be effective. Neither entity can or should go it alone. 

Twenty years ago, Hollister thought it found gold in rampant housing development. In the 1990 to 2000 decade the population ballooned from 20,410 to 34,413 a 68.6 percent increase. The development was poorly planned and managed – neither the infrastructure nor the city government could handle it. Eventually, it came crashing down. From 2000 to 2010, the growth rate fell to almost nothing, 1.5 percent, and the previously infused money was all gone. However, the bills for public services just kept coming to both the city and the county.

Having seen Hollister abuse development, San Benito County – pushed by the no-growth lobby – became “develophobic.” In a classic overreaction, the county passed two ordinances, the Growth Management System and the Potential Residential Growth Increase Ordinance, (PRGI), designed to stifle development. But the ordinances applied only to the unincorporated areas of the county, and those areas never had an overdevelopment problem. In fact, they were underdeveloped. The type of growth the county stifled – upscale and planned communities – was exactly the type of growth it needed for economic stability.

While Hollister exploded, the unincorporated county growth rate was only 13.7 percent – exactly the growth rate of the state as a whole. Where was the growth problem in the unincorporated areas the ordinances claimed to address? From 2000 to 2010, that rate fell to 8.1 percent while the state rate was 10 percent. The ordinance was supposed to limit annual growth to 1 percent or to the state’s growth rate, whichever was greater. It also allowed for 15 paragraphs of exemptions. Even with the exemptions added in, the unincorporated areas fell far short of the state’s growth rate. 

What’s the problem? The first problem is that during the same 20 years, the inflation-adjusted cost of a unit of government services increased enormously. A unit of service can be an hour of a deputy sheriff on patrol, a plan-check at the state, or workers trimming trees. The “why” is beyond the scope of this discussion, but it happened. The second problem is the city added too many people from socioeconomic groups needing additional public services and some of the added costs fell on the county.

To balance that, the county as a whole does not need more affordable housing; it needs the kind of developments that generate positive tax income and economic activity. That means some McMansions along with better quality retirement and planned communities that will attract professionals and others with stable and disposable income. Those belong in the county areas where the space and demand exists. Since Hollister’s Redevelopment Agency includes a mandatory affordable housing component, it is the natural manager of that program for the entire county. In exchange, the county has to supply its state-mandated support for affordable housing and get credit.

Yes, we need to control both the size and type of growth in the unincorporated areas, but we have more than enough tools without these ordinances. The county and city must coordinate growth plans and the county needs get rid of the two no-growth ordinances – for that’s what they are – or we won’t have the kind of growth we need to pay the bills.

Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.