It seems to be on everyone’s mind. Over at Sanjoseinside.com, “Single Gal” switches from discussing the dating scene in San Jose to lamenting how Coyote Valley backers are ready to turn San Jose into “Becoming Los Angeles“.
At Loma Prieta Sierra Club, they’ve sent a letter about the fiscal report for Coyote Valley development that shows a significant deficit in the first 10 years. The letter says “Our primary concern is how fiscal mitigations will compete with environmental mitigations. The environmental impact of the proposed project is huge and the cost to mitigate is not insignificant.” CGF shares this concern.
And not be outdone, we sent in our own letter on the fiscal issue, reproduced below.
-Brian
—-
April 24, 2006
Re: Comments on the Draft Fiscal Analysis for
Dear Members of the CVSP Task Force:
The Committee for Green Foothills submits the comments below on the Draft Fiscal Analysis for
Our comments include the following:
The analysis excludes considerations of costs to other agencies funded by
Keeping triggers while adding 2:1 concurrence was not analyzed. For the last year, environmentalists said that a carefully managed 2:1 match of jobs to housing would be appropriate AFTER the 5,000 jobs trigger was reached. This would keep the housing matched with jobs so people living in Coyote would be more likely to be working there, and establish an appropriate policy that the City should not develop farmland when it doesn’t have to. This would be the most environmental scenario short of not developing Coyote, but was never analyzed.
Negative fiscal effects from “cannibalizing” retail sales away from
Negative fiscal effects from cannibalizing office space were omitted. Over the last year, Committee for Green Foothills has pointed out the risk that the concurrency scenarios would subsidize businesses to locate or relocate away from
Assumptions about property tax revenue are unrealistic. The analysis relies heavily on steadily increasing property tax revenue to achieve an eventual surplus, and it has three flaws: first, the 20-year trend line used to justify a post-inflation real growth of 3% annually is skewed by the significant housing bubble over the last 5-10 years. If one made a similar analysis of 20-year trends for the NASDAQ market from 1980-2000, the result would have no resemblance to the current market. Incorporating a bubble into your fiscal analysis is a mistake.
Second, no comparison is made between the 3% growth figure and median household income increases in
Third, no market correction analysis was conducted, to consider realistic worst-case scenarios if the housing bubble bursts. A fiscal analysis should be done to determine the revenue scenarios assuming a substantial drop in housing prices, a period of stagnation, and then a return to a steady rise.
Present value of the $1.2 million annual costs for lake maintenance should be calculated. This is a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere, and the lake area could be used primarily for athletic fields and secondarily as flood storage, eliminating the stated need for playing fields north of Tulare Hill. City staff had previously told us that the commercial amenity value of the lake would exceed its cost; this statement needs justification.
Details on housing can better define the extent that
These are just initial comments; we have had little time to review the document. We hope to send additional comments later.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Schmidt
Legislative Advocate,
Leave a Reply