Latest news RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail StoryHillside wins by a landslide
| Wednesday, Oct 25 2006 11:02 PM
Last Updated: Wednesday, Oct 25 2006 11:02 PM
Bakersfield City Council unanimously approved the revised hillside ordinance Wednesday night, following years of reshaping the original 1999 ordinance and fierce debates regarding northeast development, property rights and safety.
Our readers recommend:
Loading Stories
Related Stories:
The 7-0 vote came two weeks after four councilmembers voted to postpone their decision after Councilman and ordinance advocate Mike Maggard proposed what he called a compromise.
The future
Ultimate approval of the ordinance, which limits development in the hills of northeast Bakersfield, still needs to go through what is called a “second reading” at the council’s Nov. 15 meeting. If approved, the ordinance would likely go into effect in mid-December.
Attorney Scott Howry, who represents the three landowners most affected by the ordinance, said the battle wasn’t over.
“There’s a few legal options that we may have to seek,” he said after the vote.
The debate
The public debate at the meeting was shorter than two weeks ago; both proponents and opponents were limited to a combined total of 15 minutes to state their case.
Resident Joanne Newberry criticized landowners General Holding, the Tarabino family and the Downs family.
“(Ordinance advocates have) been called liberal communists,” Newberry said. “Why is this issue dragging on and on?”
Howry said he was unable to support even the compromise, saying that it didn’t address two of his clients.
If the ordinance was enacted, he told Council, General Holding would lose about $5 million, Gordon Downs would lose about $1 million, and the Tarabinos would lose a “seven-figure” amount.
Howry said he was frustrated that the city never tried to sit down with his clients and discuss the ordinance or the compromise.
The compromise allows Downs to build 25 houses. Five to six houses that are closest to the future Morning Drive to the east would not be allowed.
The initial ordinance would have only allowed about eight houses to be built by Downs on his 40-acre property.
The compromise was a “much better improvement,” Downs said after the vote, but “there are still issues with other people involved.”
Reaction
Michelle Beck, of the Bakersfield Bluffs and Open Space Committee, said she was surprised at the unanimity of the vote.
“Wasn’t it fabulous?” she asked.
The three council members who hadn’t stated a position previously — Harold Hanson, Jacquie Sullivan and Zack Scrivner — described for the first time their definitive feelings on the issue during the meeting.
Hanson said that although he is a big advocate of property rights, “I don’t think anyone intends to shut (the developers) out or take money from their pockets.”
He also alluded that the ordinance might need some refining by bringing up the Carpenters’ song, “We’ve Only Just Begun.”
Sullivan said that it was a shame that the public didn’t understand that the opponents of the ordinance still liked 90 percent of it.
“The ordinance is good,” she said. “It will end up to be a beautiful area.”
Scrivner — who was subtly jabbed by Newberry for receiving campaign contributions from General Holding’s political action committee and Downs — said, “I don’t think this ordinance is perfect.”
He added, “Public policy shouldn’t be decided by ... who shouts the loudest, (but in the ) best interests of the community.”
Planning Commissioner Russell Johnson, in attendance, said he was glad the council voted unanimously, just as the commission did.
“Good policy is good policy,” he said.
While the fight may not be over, some of the parties that fought over the issue said they needed to move on after years of back-and-forth.
Beck, a teacher, said now she had other things to do.
“I have to grade some papers,” she said.