The council once again extended it's legendary generosity to developers at the March 16th council meeting by granting an automatic two year extension to projects in the development pipeline. The vote increased the time required to start building after an approval has been granted from three years to five.
Before the vote, council member Nora Davis noted the move will not only benefit the developers, but residents as well, "Some of these developers are experiencing extreme financial hardship in this bad economy and this will help make sure we get the development that was approved" she said. "This is in the resident's interests" she hastened to add. Some residents however expressed concerns that the time extension will keep land fallow that could be developed by other developers with more resources. The vote was unanimous by the council.
Why do we keep allowing this to happen? The citizens of Emeryville should be outraged. There has been very little reward for residents these past few years. The developers on the other hand have continued to walk away with their pockets and bank accounts stuffed!
ReplyDeleteThis is prudent policy in these economic times. I have worked on both the public and private sides of land development, and believe me, no vacant land is going to be developed today without entitlements in place. It is very expensive to obtain entitlements and it is the most uncertain part of the development process. This policy does not does encourage land to stay "fallow." Developers with less means can still sell their entitled projects to developers with more means. It actually increases the likelihood that land will be developed. No one is going to try to re-entitle a project in this market. It makes zero economic sense. If you have the means to develop and sell a project, you will choose from the surplus of entitled projects sitting on shelves.
ReplyDeleteI'm always suspicious when someone calls for degrading the public commons by using "in these economic times". Truth be told, this kind of thinking never leads to public policy that enhances the commons.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the commenter's ideas about selling entitlements, he's negating any ego on the part of the developers. I've found developers value being able to do THEIR project, not someone else's. Also the commenter fails to quantify the two year extension; if two years are good and benefit the public, then why not ten or twenty?
I agree that this is a prudent policy. Any projects which still have active entitlements were approved at or near the peak of the market. This was a time when developers were willing to make MUCH larger concessions yeilding much more benefit for our community. Reopening entitlements would lead to far worse projects in today's market. This is simple economic sense. I have a background in economics, but you don't need one to realize this.
ReplyDeleteThe 7:09 and the 12:06 sound like the same person, posing as two people to give the impression of a groundswell.
ReplyDeleteI AM the 10:30 commenter and I'll add the mischaracterization of the first point in 7:09 about the 'difficulty' of getting entitlements. Emeryville is by far the easiest town in the Bay Area to get development projects OK'ed. There's nothing uncertain or expensive about it. It's the most sure thing in any (especially large) Emeryville development proposal. It's not an exaggeration to call it a "lock". Can you name even one large proposal that got shot down?
The pro developer guy thinks our city council gets 'concessions' from developers! Man, that's rich! He must be new to Emeryville or had his head in the sand.
ReplyDeleteThe California Legislature has already extended the lifespan of approved Tentative Subdivision Maps during the economic downturn, so this just brings the rest of the entitlements in line with what the state has already done. It's not a big deal.
ReplyDeleteIf the state of California has traded away the citizen's interests to help developer's interests, then that's good enough for us. Let's us do it too.
ReplyDeleteYou never answered the question: If there's nothing wrong with extending these contracts for two years , then why not longer....a lot longer? If resident's interests are not bound up in timely entitlement rights then why not increase them for a hundred years?