Piepho defends study beyond urban limit line Around Town, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Aug 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Contra Costa County's approval to study a development of 193 homes outside the urban limit line in the Tassajara Valley, east of Danville, has sparked a wave of controversy. But District 3 Supervisor Mary N. Piepho maintains the study is for clarifying county policy.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, August 8, 2007, 3:56 PM
Posted by Vince Kreigher, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Dear Contra Costa neighbors,
It should be quite frightening what lame-duck supervisors might do during their remaining days in office. Without a campaign to win, current supervisors could use their absolute power to support special interests, including developers, and define their next positions in the private sector. One does not have to struggle to imagine the role of ex-supervisors in 2009 as they join the developers they supported while in office.
Posted by Call me Mike, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Sep 28, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Assuming infrastructure such as water, sewer, electricity, roads, schools, shopping, etc. are available, the valley should be opened up to development.
People want to move here and there is no reason, except selfishness, that they shouldn't.
Property owners want to sell their land to developers and developers want to build houses. They will make profits, as they should.
Houses will become more affordable for teachers, policemen, firefighters, merchants, etc. as more homes are built (supply & demand).
The current government model of mandated "affordable housing" and urban limits is a joke.
Posted by Samantha Robinson, a resident of the Walnut Creek neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2007 at 6:25 pm
The fact of the matter is, 64% of Contra Costa voters approved an urban growth boundary under the impression that NO URBAN OR SUBURBAN GROWTH would occur outside the ULL until at least 2030, at which time the General Plan will be reevaluated.
The purpose of the rural housing clause in the CCC General Plan is to allow for families to live in more removed areas, to keep small working farms, etc. . . HOWEVER, this policy requires that "ranchettes" be built on a MINIMUM five-acre parcel with the understanding that no public utilities need be provided by the County or City.
New Farms not only circumvents the policy by doing away with minimum parcel size and "clustering" development on 40 of the 770-acres, it includes the construction of water and sewage lines, thereby categorizing the project as "urban" and necessitating an expansion of the ULL.
Simply put, it's against the law to define this project "rural". In order to legally move forward, they must find another path.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
