Right time to rethink county growth ordinances
There is no need to regulate a problem that doesn’t exist, and
the only detriment in San Benito County when it comes to growth is
that there hasn’t been enough in recent years to get the area’s
economic indicators moving in the right direction.
Right time to rethink county growth ordinances
There is no need to regulate a problem that doesn’t exist, and the only detriment in San Benito County when it comes to growth is that there hasn’t been enough in recent years to get the area’s economic indicators moving in the right direction.
San Benito County supervisors, however, appear poised to take two of the most progress-inhibiting laws on the books and turn them into potential magnets – instead of deterrents – for development.
The moves are necessary and a step toward making this county more viable in the marketplace for growth in the industrial, commercial and retail sectors of the economy.
Leaders established a 1 percent growth cap and separate affordable housing restrictions for unincorporated areas of the county early in the decade when the area had been experiencing extraordinary construction levels and the coinciding, inflationary effects of the artificial housing bubble. County officials at the time over-corrected in a sense.
They leaned too far in favor of the anti-development advocates – the two iron-fisted laws locked the door on builders – and neglected to anticipate the consequence of promoting a stagnant growth level. It has earned the community an anti-development reputation when it can’t afford one, and it has prevented the county from establishing a gradual, smart growth rate and population trends that look more attractive to big industry and chain retailers.
San Benito County is working from the bottom up. But the two proposed changes before supervisors are a step toward gaining back some needed leverage – which has disappeared – with developers.
Regarding the affordable housing law, the proposed reform would eliminate a requirement that 30 percent of units in developments are designated as low income.
Planning officials have talked of choosing an arbitrary, middle-ground number for such a requirement, which is not required throughout the state.
It makes more sense, though, to eliminate it completely to not only let the marketplace stabilize before predicting the unpredictable, but also because it’s time San Benito County made some serious attempts to get a head up on the neighboring competition and send a message to developers and industry that this area is open for big business.
The same goes for the growth management ordinance, which caps annual development at a maximum of 1 percent. It has never served a purpose other than to act as a potential deal killer. Its only real intention was to shun development – which stunts economic progress.
The changes would align the county’s cap with the state growth rate, while larger developments that get voter approval would be exempt from the yearly allocation constraints. Using the state number allows for flexibility in favor of rigidity, especially necessary in treacherous economic times. And the exemption for voter-approved developments sends a message to builders that those projects won’t face an overwhelming barrier of bureaucracy.
County leaders in particular have talked of focusing on economic development and changing the local government’s anti-business reputation. Addressing the growth and affordable housing ordinances are an aggressive step toward succeeding on both fronts.
Editorial Board member Gordon Machado is a county planning commissioner and did not take part in the debate over this opinion.
