February 15, 2012
February 14, 2012
EL DORADO LAFCO
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
AGENDA OF MARCH 28, 2007
REGULAR MEETING
TO: Ted Long, Chairman, and
Members of the El Dorado County Local Agency Formation
Commission
FROM: José C. Henríquez, Executive Officer
PREPARED BY: Erica Sanchez, Policy Analyst
AGENDA ITEM #8a1: Consider a response to a probable change in the
Sacramento County General Plan that may affect the
preservation of agriculture in El Dorado County
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission receive the following information relating to a failed proposal for a change in the Sacramento County General Plan that would have affected the preservation of agriculture in El Dorado County. Although the proposal has since been denied by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, the Commission may consider submitting a response to the Board opposing the urbanization of lands adjacent to the El Dorado-Sacramento county line.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION
Given LAFCO’s responsibility to preserve agricultural and open space resources and to encourage orderly growth within El Dorado County, LAFCO has a role in submitting comments to other governmental agencies contemplating changes which may impact these two aspects of the Commission’s mission.
BACKGROUND
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors considered and approved a proposal to open more than 20,000 acres of land to development in its new General Plan. The area included large parcels of agricultural land in the eastern portion of Sacramento County along Jackson Road and east of Grant Line Road. These parcels are within Sacramento County’s urban growth limit and are adjacent to areas already planned for growth with its current General Plan and in SACOG’s Blueprint. This action will not affect El Dorado County and is not an issue of concern to El Dorado LAFCO.
AGENDA ITEM #8a1 Page 2 of 3 March 28, 2007
Also under consideration, however, was a proposal to include in the Sacramento County General Plan an additional 3,400 acres of undeveloped land for future development along the Sacramento-El Dorado county line. These parcels are located south of White Rock Road between Scott Road and Latrobe Road. The implication is, if this area were to be considered for development by Sacramento County, the landowner would then be free to develop the area to the highest density allowed by the zoning. According to a Sacramento Bee article dated March 3, 2007 (Attachment A), a representative for Angelo Tsakopoulos (the landowner) cited development of jobs and housing in adjacent El Dorado County as a reason for Sacramento County to build on its side of the border. Prior to final Board consideration, at least one Sacramento County Supervisor stated he was under the impression that there were many plans submitted to the County of El Dorado to develop along the county border and therefore, Sacramento County should coordinate its development with these plans. However, as noted in the attached map (Attachment B), most of the 3,400 acres abut undeveloped land that is currently under Williamson Act contract. This area south of the Southern Pacific Railroad is used primarily for agricultural production and is not slated for growth by either the El Dorado County General Plan or the SACOG Blueprint. Development has occurred north of this area within the Carson Creek Specific Plan and the areas designated Research and Development and Industrial, however, all development and infrastructure ceases below the railroad tracks. LAFCO staff is not aware of any planned growth that is considered south of that point. In addition, the El Dorado County General Plan calls for the protection of grazing land and limits the minimum size of agricultural parcels to 40 acres. The twelve agricultural parcels in question range from 40 to 495 acres, with a median size of 201 acres. A General Plan workshop to discuss the matter was held March 14, 2007. Because the hearing occurred before this Commission was able to consider the matter at its March 28, 2007 meeting and take a formal position, LAFCO Executive Officer José Henríquez submitted a letter to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors outlining various concerns to the proposed addition (Attachment C). The letter was intended to highlight the above information so that it may be considered by the Board of Supervisors before making a final decision. After considering all information, including Mr. Henríquez’s letter and testimony from more than 100 local residents opposing the proposition, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny the proposal to include the additional 3,400 acres in the area to be studied for development. Despite this favorable ruling, staff recommends that the Commission submit a letter formally opposing the urbanization along the county line because opening these additional 3,400 acres up for development would likely cause an adverse affect in neighboring areas of El Dorado County. The El Dorado County General Plan does not plan for development in this portion of the county, and it is staff’s opinion that urban development across the county line would introduce growth-inducing effects. Currently there is no existing infrastructure in the southwest portion of the county and development of the area would first require roads, water and wastewater transmission lines as well as other services that are desired by residential and commercial development. The adjacent portion of land in the southeastern portion of the County is zoned agricultural and approximately 2,593 acres are currently under Williamson Act contract. Of these, approximately 1,102 acres are in a non-renewal status with contracts S:\LAFCO Commission Meetings\2007\07 MARCH 28\Item 8a1 Staff Memo (Change in Sac County General Plan).doc
AGENDA ITEM #8a1 Page 3 of 3 March 28, 2007
scheduled to terminate in January of 2008. This expiration, along with the potentially incompatible land uses in Sacramento County, could encourage premature development of these agricultural lands and result in a loss of agricultural production.
Collision Nears on Growth Proposal: Supervisors to Weigh Tsakopoulos Bid to Transform Rural Area.
March 11, 2007
Mar. 11–Along White Rock Road in eastern Sacramento County, pastures abruptly give way to tiled rooftops at the El Dorado County line.
On the Sacramento County side, the scene has changed little in the past century. Cows graze in gently rolling, grass-covered pastures. On the El Dorado side, however, office buildings, houses and retail stores have replaced the cattle.
Developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos and his partners have spent the past decade accumulating ranches on both sides of the boundary. They control a swath of ranch land that straddles the county line and stretches south from White Rock Road about eight miles, beyond any land contemplated for growth by El Dorado County.
Now, Tsakopoulos is arguing to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors that it ought to take the first step toward urbanization of his property on the Sacramento side of the county line. The justification: the thousands of new homes and jobs in El Dorado and the planned expansion of Folsom into land north of White Rock Road.
Tsakopoulos’ proposal to potentially include 3,400 acres of grazing land in the new Sacramento County plan is the most controversial issue facing the supervisors as they gather Wednesday for a workshop on the general plan, which will serve as a blueprint for growth until 2030.
His land is about four miles outside the urban growth boundary adopted by the board as part of its 1993 general plan. Environmental groups view this line as inviolate and are rallying their members to attend the workshop.
County planners also oppose moving the boundary, as does Supervisor Don Nottoli, whose district includes the land.
In a staff report, the Planning Department says 1.4 miles of Tsakopoulos’ Sacramento County land abuts planned or existing development in El Dorado County. The remaining seven miles border farmland also owned by Tsakopoulos and his partners, which remains zoned for agriculture in the El Dorado general plan.
Tsakopoulos argues that there’s no reason for the county not to include his land in the environmental review being conducted for the general plan. The actual decisions about which land will be opened for building won’t be made until the environmental analysis is done more than a year from now.
“What we’re saying is that it is prudent for the community to examine all of its options,” he said. “If we don’t examine them, we may miss them.”
He calls the eastern edge of Sacramento County “an exceptional location for future growth.”
“Often you hear that we should preserve prime agricultural land; this isn’t agricultural land,” Tsakopoulos said. “It’s grazing land, and it’s the poorest.
“We don’t have any trees. Whatever trees we have will be preserved. We don’t have endangered species. We don’t have the vernal pools you find in other parts of the county. It does not flood,” Tsakopoulos said. “This property is on the boundary of the El Dorado Hills Business Park and Folsom, which have an enormous amount of jobs.”
He held out the possibility that he would set aside significant open space land to offset development. That could help the Sacramento Valley Conservancy accomplish its goal of creating a permanent belt of ranches and oak woodlands connecting its Deer Creek Hills preserve — which abuts the Tsakopoulos land — to the Cosumnes River and the American River Parkway.
Tsakopoulos’ enthusiasm is not shared by environmentalists or government planners. They view the proposal as the first step by an influential developer to put growth where it is inappropriate.
His land, now served by a few rough gravel roads, lacks groundwater to serve potential residents, they say. Miles of ranch land separate most of it from the county’s urbanized portions.
“This is a bad idea, and it really needs to be put to rest now,” said Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the regional transportation agency.
SACOG, made up of all the local governments in the region, hosted more than 5,000 residents at workshops before its 2004 approval of the Blueprint, a regional plan to contain sprawl, revitalize existing neighborhoods, and accommodate growth over the next half century.
“We really don’t need the wasted energy and the political controversy that will ensue from including this on a study list,” McKeever said. “This region has way more important land use and transportation priorities.”
Tsakopoulos took Supervisor Notolli on a drive to show him the property, but he remained skeptical, saying he wasn’t persuaded to vote yes.
Most of the land Tsakopoulos seeks to bring into the urban area is “very rural,” Nottoli said. He said maintaining ranches helps preserve the county’s varied character.
“You’ve got a thriving urban center, you’ve got suburban communities, and then you have rural communities with a strong history,” he said. “I think it’s important to do our best to try to balance that.”
Supervisor Roger Dickinson said he is not inclined to move the growth boundary because it would be expensive for Sacramento County to serve. “For us in Sacramento County, it’s like going to Pluto,” he said. “You sort of wonder why should we spend a lot of time on this when it’s not at all clear how you provide water and other necessities.
“I think what Angelo wants is a chance to be in the game, and then make his argument, thinking he’ll be able to persuade enough people to his point of view,” Dickinson said.
In his nearly 50 years in the development business, Tsakopoulos has played a key role in transforming rural Sacramento into suburban communities such as Elk Grove, Folsom, Roseville, the Pocket, North Natomas and — most recently — Sunrise-Douglas.
Through myriad real estate partnerships, he controls about 40,000 acres in the Sacramento region and neighboring San Joaquin County — far more than any other individual.
Tsakopoulos donates millions of dollars to Democratic candidates on the local, state and national level. Last year, supervisor candidate Jimmie Yee was among the candidates he supported. Tsakopoulos and his family members held a fundraiser for Yee and donated several thousand dollars.
Now in his new supervisor’s role, Yee said last week that Tsakopoulos’ proposal to look at developing along the El Dorado County line might be worth examining in further detail. He was joined by his colleagues Susan Peters and Roberta MacGlashan, making a potential majority on the five-member board.
But Friday, Yee said he was developing doubts about whether the Tsakopoulos land should be included in the environmental review. He said maps published in The Bee showed that most of the land along the county line was slated to remain in agriculture.
“If that is all correct, my feeling right now is I wouldn’t go any farther down than what El Dorado is doing, and even that would be questionable, because Folsom hasn’t even done anything yet on their land south of Highway 50.”
—–
Copyright (c) 2007, The Sacramento Bee, Calif.
Stakes high as developers pressure growth boundaries
By Mary Lynne Vellinga and Stuart Leavenworth
Bee Staff Writers (Published April 9, 2000)
Sixth in an occasional series
Bee Staff Writers (Published April 9, 2000)
Sixth in an occasional series
Seven years ago, Sacramento County supervisors declared a large expanse of the county off-limits to new suburbs. But that hasn't squashed the hopes of land speculators and developers such as Angelo Tsakopoulos, John Reynolds or Enlow Ose.
Since 1997, Tsakopoulos has placed options on 2,800 acres south of Folsom and outside the official growth boundary adopted by the county in 1993.
Reynolds is betting on a tract he bought next to the proposed Lent Ranch shopping mall in Elk Grove, and Ose hopes to cash in on 1,060 acres he owns in North Natomas.
Across the region -- from Sacramento to Placer, Sutter and El Dorado counties -- speculators are placing multimillion-dollar wagers on the region's next phase of growth. They aim to buy low and sell high, and they aren't just leaving the outcome to chance.
In many cases, these developers and speculators are lobbying elected officials to back off their land-use restrictions, extend sewer lines or take other steps that will boost the value of their properties.
"That's the nature of the business," said developer Ose, 75, who has been sitting for 15 years on his North Natomas farmland.
"You have influential developers who promote their interests wherever they own land," said Ose, who has lobbied the regional sanitation district to build the new North Natomas sewage tunnel big enough to accommodate development on his land, which sits outside the growth boundary. "The same thing is going on west of Roseville now, at Deer Creek (in eastern Sacramento County), at Lent Ranch. ... I think it boils down to what politicians are willing to go along with."
Critics say elected officials are going along with far too much. Rampant speculation, they charge, is confounding efforts to plan for growth, adding to problems of traffic congestion, smog, lost open space and overcrowded schools.
In Sacramento County, planners estimate there is enough land within the 1993 growth boundary to accommodate 50 years of growth. But since land is so cheap and available on the region's outskirts, speculators see little incentive to invest in established communities.
Sacramento County Supervisor Illa Collin is one local leader who worries about the clout of various speculators.
"They have the money to give to campaigns, and they also have the ability to shut money off to campaigns," said Collin. "They just have a very powerful influence, and anyone who says they don't isn't really being honest with themselves."
To be sure, land speculation has long been part of the Sacramento landscape. But in recent years -- with the population surging and many farmers getting out of agriculture -- the potential jackpots are growing bigger than ever.
Around Sacramento, agricultural land generally sells for $2,500 to $4,500 an acre, depending on its quality. Land approved for development fetches $75,000 to $80,000 an acre, said local land appraiser Doug Elmore.
Eastern Sacramento County offers a classic example of the modern land grab. Starting in the mid-1980s, investors began snapping up pasture land that rolled south of Folsom and Highway 50, and east of Prairie City Road. Back then, buyers such as Tsakopoulos and C.C. Myers routinely bought land from ranchers for $6,000 to $10,000 an acre.
Then came the recession and the county's growth boundary, which restricted development east of Prairie City Road. Land values dropped to less than $2,000 an acre.
But not for long. Within a few years, Tsakopoulos, his associates, and brother George Tsakopoulos had bought or optioned more than 12 square miles of land. Since then, Folsom has signaled that it plans to eventually annex some of that property, and land prices have returned to about $8,500 an acre.
Environmentalists cite a simple reason for the rising property values in the east county: Developers don't believe supervisors will "hold the line" and stick with the growth boundary.
"Sacramento County historically has been among the worst jurisdictions in terms of upholding plans they've adopted. ... The norm has been that the plans are changed," said Mike Eaton, director of the Nature Conservancy's Cosumnes River Preserve, which has saved thousands of acres of open space in the Cosumnes River watershed.
As a recent example, Eaton cited the way in which county supervisors have backed off from plans to concentrate dense pockets of housing, stores and offices along future transit lines. That provision was once seen as key to improving the region's poor air quality and reducing pressure to gobble up more farmland.
Yet even when the county holds the line, it finds itself outflanked by other local governments that are more responsive to real estate developers, Collin said.
For instance, when the Sacramento County Planning Commission rejected the Lent Ranch Mall, developers Martin Feletto and M&H Realty threw their financial muscle behind the successful incorporation effort in Elk Grove, contributing nearly $32,000 to candidates for the new City Council.
The new council is expected to approve the mall, and that can't come soon enough for speculators such as Reynolds, who spent $2 million on 319 acres south of the mall site two years ago.
"Land next to a shopping center is an awfully good bet," said Reynolds, an East Bay investor whose land is outside of the growth boundary.
In the eastern part of the county, developers are also trying the sidestep the decisions of county supervisors.
Last year, the board rejected Myers' proposal to build Deer Creek Hills, a gated senior community outside the growth boundary north of Rancho Murieta. Now Myers is working to qualify a measure asking voters to move the boundary.
Meanwhile, developers are lobbying members of a regional board -- the Local Agency Formation Commission -- to let Folsom extend its planning authority over 3,584 acres south of Highway 50 that is off-limits to growth.
Lauren Hammond, a Sacramento City Council member who is a LAFCO member, said Angelo Tsakopoulos and his daughter, Eleni, have both contacted her about Folsom's expansion plans.
"I think it is odd," Hammond said. "Why am I getting all the pressure?"
County supervisors, in turn, are now meeting with Folsom leaders to work out a deal that would allow Folsom to expand and still preserve some of the neighboring grassy plains and oak woodlands as open space.
Tsakopoulos, undisputed king of local land investors, is one person who stands to gain the most from these talks. Since fleeing poverty in his native Greece as a teenager, Tsakopoulos, 63, has built a fortune buying properties in the Pocket, Laguna, Folsom, Roseville and North Natomas, winning government approvals, building streets and sewers, and selling lots to home builders.
Tsakopoulos doesn't like the label "speculator," but others say he is a master at knowing when to buy and sell, and at what price.
"He's the biggest. He's the best. He's the guy," said Reynolds, the East Bay developer.
Some environmentalists and rival developers see Tsakopoulos, a leading political donor locally and nationally, in a more negative light. They grumble that he has used his clout and campaign contributions to bypass the planning process, adding to the trend toward leapfrog development.
During the debate on Sacramento County's 1993 general plan, for instance, Tsakopoulos stepped up to the dais and showed the supervisors how they could move the urban services boundary to take in all of an 1,800-acre parcel he owned in the east county rather than a third of it. The line was moved.
Other property in the east county in which Tsakopoulos had an interest was also included. Landowners to the north and south complain that more of their land was excluded from development as a result.
"It was a political move; it wasn't even studied from a rational standpoint," said Cameron Doyel, who represents a group of North Natomas landowners in the unincorporated county whose land was left out of the plan.
In the mid-1980s, Tsakopoulos was at the center of a fund-raising scandal that involved his Laguna development and then-Supervisor William Bryan.
Bryan was fined $290,000 by the California Fair Political Practices Commission for secretly accepting $256,700 -- through a number of intermediaries -- from Tsakopoulos for repayment of a loan. At around the same time, Bryan voted in favor of two of Tsakopoulos' major Laguna projects. Tsakopoulos has consistently denied any wrongdoing in the case, and no charges were ever brought against him.
Tsakopoulos says stories of his political influence have always been overblown. Cogent arguments, rather than political persuasion, won the day in the debate over drawing the 1993 growth boundary line, he said.
"That kind of gossip is unfounded, because what they're suggesting is our political system is corrupt, and that is nonsense," Tsakopoulos said.
Local leaders, he said, realize that new territory must be opened to development to keep housing costs low as the population grows. And he brushes aside claims that the rolling, oak-studded east county, home to hawks and other raptors, is important open space that deserves protection.
"I'm astounded at the myopia of the environmental community," he said. "They should be promoting development in the foothills because it is the area that is the least sensitive. Over there, jack rabbits carry their own lunch. ... There's nothing that's productive."
Even so, Tsakopoulos and other developers haven't shied away from building in Natomas, a floodplain of farms, pastures and wetlands. In North Natomas, environmentalists point to Fisherman Lake as one place where speculators are complicating their goals. Fisherman Lake isn't the prettiest place. A century ago, it connected two natural lakes, but now it's just a wide place in the West Drainage Canal. Yet biologists say it provides some of the most important habitat in North Natomas for the endangered giant garter snake and the Swainson's Hawk, along with many other birds.
A person strolling along the lake can see any number of creatures, including great horned owls, great blue herons, swallows, egrets, moorhens, mallards, a cinnamon teal, coots and red-tailed hawks.
The Natomas Basin Conservancy -- set up by the city to preserve habitat in the area -- has been shopping for land along the lake. Thus far it hasn't been able to pay the steep prices asked by speculators who have control of the land, said John R. Roberts, the group's executive director.
The eastern shore, which is within the city limits and thus eligible for development, is owned by George Tsakopoulos, Angelo's brother. He told the conservancy he would sell -- for $150,000 an acre, Roberts said. On the other side of the lake, outside the urban services boundary, landowners are asking $10,000 an acre, still more than double what the conservancy customarily pays.
Meanwhile, Angelo Tsakopoulos has asked the city of Sacramento to annex 133 acres he owns on the northeast side of the lake, land that now sits outside the county's urban services boundary. He wants to build a gated community with 464 houses surrounding a new artificial lake.
"I assume (the city) will go along with it; it's reasonable," he said of his plan.
For the Sacramento region, battles over land speculation will likely rage for decades, or at least until the next recession. If built, road projects such as the Marysville Bypass and the Placer Parkway will open new lands to development. Decisions on sewer extensions and other infrastructure could determine the expansion of cities from Elk Grove to El Dorado Hills.
Some think the region should accept the inevitable, allow development on the fringe of cities and not cling to growth restrictions that were approved before employment centers sprang up outside of downtown Sacramento.
"The urban services boundary had its usefulness a few decades ago," said Bob Fountain, a retired urban planning professor at California State University, Sacramento. "But it doesn't fit with our current economy, with the way we are growing now."
But environmentalists say the rapid consumption of open space has to be slowed down, and that local officials must be firmer in their resolve.
"Our view is that just because speculators are willing to pay prices that are high for the land considering its zoning and current use, that shouldn't drive policy," said Alta Tura, a member of the Environmental Council of Sacramento. "They're choosing to take the risk, and we don't think that just because they're willing to take the risk it should guarantee land use changes."
From The Mountain Democrat
Report to JPA: Projects mostly on track
Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor JPA
Rackovan reported that on Oct. 11 the Folsom City Council, as one of the members of the Joint Powers Authority, denied the request from El Dorado County to remove rails from a portion of the Rail Corridor in western El Dorado County. The other member agencies are Sacramento County and Regional Transit. Under the JPA’s Reciprocal Use and Funding Agreement, the JPA “shall not transfer any interest in the rail corridor without obtaining prior written consent of the member agencies.”
The Mountain Democrat
Rails and trails once again on county’s front burner
The Mountain Democrat’s No. 10 story of 2011 came roaring back with renewed vigor at Tuesday’s El Dorado County Board of Supervisors meeting. Two agenda items dealing with rails and trails pushed the board discussion and public testimony to nearly 8 p.m.
A license agreement to authorize an excursion train project for five years on the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor was defeated “as proposed” by the supervisors. The agreement would have included the Joint Powers Authority that “owns” the corridor and the Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad — a non-profit excursion rail organization.
The license agreement proposal was recommended by a majority of the county’s Parks and Recreation Commission. Bob Smart is the commissioner for supervisorial District 3 appointed by Supervisor Jack Sweeney. He has often represented a middle ground between the rails and trails factions and is generally a proponent of compromise. He got some credit for the commission’s endorsement of the license agreement.
On Wednesday, Smart also spoke by phone to the Mountain Democrat and noted that ”the commission said to the two sides, ‘You get credit for working together’ (on behalf of El Dorado County, not Folsom or Sacramento County, where the excursion train groups are located).”
Supervisor Ron Briggs recommended that the county withdraw from the JPA, which so far has prevented the county from dismantling railroad infrastructure in order to continue development of a multi-use El Dorado Trail from Diamond Springs to the Sacramento County line. His motion never made it to a vote and he characterized it later as a “shoot-first thing.”
Deputy county counsel Paula Frantz reminded the board that “We don’t own the (rail infrastructure) in the corridor; the JPA owns it, and if we withdraw from the JPA we’ll have no control over the use of it… (However), within the scope of your agreements with the JPA, you can say ‘no train.’ That’s within our rights as the easement holder.”
Briggs has led the board in its effort over the past 18 months to extend the trail and limit rail use to approximately nine miles between Missouri Flat Road and Shingle Springs.
“Part of my frustration in the last year and a half is that we’ve had the same meeting four times,” Briggs said in a phone call Wednesday morning. “I viewed the license agreement as an end-run by the train guys,” reiterating a comment he’d made during the meeting.
“I believe the will of this board has been clearly in favor of the trail, and I’m not in favor of further cluttering use of the trail. We’ve voted four-to-one (to keep the trail as the primary use of the corridor), and yet I’m seeing more train proposals. My recommendation to withdraw from the JPA isn’t about the JPA. It’s a message to the train guys to stop with the excursion trains (issue) that are just getting in the way of the trail,” he said at that time.
County Counsel Lou Green followed on Frantz’s description of the county’s interests and further clarified the issue of the license agreement.
“If you OK the license, they’ll have the right to run a train, and you will have to take that along with whatever else you want to do,” Green explained.
Board Chairman John Knight several times reminded the audience that the topic at hand was the license agreement and not the merits of rails versus trails.
“Stick to the item. And I’ll jump on anyone who slams the other side,” Knight threatened.
Late in Tuesday’s session, Briggs made the motion to deny the license agreement. He and Supervisor Ray Nutting were outvoted by Supervisors Norma Santiago, Knight and Jack Sweeney. Later, the board unanimously passed Knight’s motion, which rejected the license agreement as written and instead directs county staff to “work with the train people on a ‘Shingle-Up’ project,” Briggs noted by phone.
That refers to the right of way between Shingle Springs and Missouri Flat which the board designated as multi-use including rail use — known generally by the trail advocates as the Shingle Plan or the Shingle Compromise.
Frantz clarified by e-mail Thursday: “The board voted to deny the license as proposed, but send the JPA a potential revision, limiting the excursion rail use within EDC to the area they had identified (e,g, the area between South Shingle and Missouri Flat).”
In a second directive also passed unanimously, “the board voted to have John Knight work with staff to explore the possibility of dissolving the JPA, rather than having the county withdraw while leaving the remainder of the JPA intact,” she explained.
When rails and trails hits the board agenda next is uncertain at this time. But it may repeat as a top story of 2012.
Short URL: http://www.mtdemocrat.com/?p=140683
Posted by Chris Daley on Jan 26 2012 Last Login: Sun Feb 12 17:55:35 2012
Filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
MTDEMOCRAT.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You have spelled it out so simply. Sign of a good man.
The excursion train would at least bring in tax revenue. A bike/hiking path brings in zip & only costs the County taxpayers money. The right away is large enough for all uses, but the trails people refuse to live & let live alongside an excursion train. The “trail only” people look entirely selfish to me. (my opinion) And then there are the completely corrupt people who want to make money on land that has an attractive hiking trail & no chance of a whistlin’ train blowing through, like it did for generations & generations up until recently. Those Supervisors who are hell bent on killing the excursion train, will face one hell of a time getting re-elected. So if you’re against an excursion train and you’re running for Public Office, get ready to spend a whole lot more on your campaign than you anticipated.
Just a wild guess, campaign monies promised somewhere down in the South County? Ie: get rid of the tracks, get nice campaign fund padding?
This mind set surprises me from Ray coming from the logging industry, large rural land owner, and a bit of a history buff.
To answer your question in plain English, I guess money, and promise of political support?
It’s fun to watch how they explain their stance on the issue.
As I see it, it would make the most sense to allow the train guys the first opportunity to utilize the tracks. It’s a relatively simple methodology. The track are there. The track, the track bed, etc is there and paid for. With a small investment a rail business could be up and running.
On the other hand, to build a trail (Class 1) as you seem to insist El Dorado County needs more of, a major project would have to be undertaken. Removal of the tracks, ties, hazardous material, environmental impact reports and so on. I realize you work for corporate America, but you must comprehend these things cost money? A lot of Money.
Why don’t we do the responsible thing and give the rail guys an opportunity to make it work first?