United we stand, and divided we'll grow
I saw another of those “well, duh” comments on social media the other day. The crux of it was “We need to keep Chico the same and not let it change. We don't need another San Jose.”
We hear that sentiment a lot around these parts. We've heard it about Valley's Edge, and the downtown renovation plan, and if you go back a few years we heard it about California Park and even that “new mall” (as us age-burdened citizens still call it).
I'll even wager the first to say “let's leave this area the way it is” were the Mechoopda, and we all know how well that worked out.
So, yeah. Welcome or not, people have been flocking here ever since John Bidwell signed the paperwork for Rancho Arroyo Chico. The days of the little college town almost entirely west of Highway 99 in 1970 (population 19,580) are long gone. So are the pre-California Park days of 1980 (population 26,716). And so, sadly, are the pre-Camp Fire days, when our population swelled from 92,000 to 112,000 overnight.
People are going to keep moving to the north state regardless of how badly some other people don't want them to come. The question is, where are they going to live?
That was much of the
argument both for and against Valley's Edge, which got boot-heeled at the ballot box this week.
Those of us who supported the project were impressed by the fact that thousands of people, of every political shade in our purple little town, had provided several decades worth of input — from the adoption of the green line and the General Plan (under leadership much more liberal than what we have today) to the seemingly never-ending series of public hearings, meetings, environmental reviews and approvals.
In short, an awful lot of people spent an awful lot of effort over a great number of years meeting the widely agreed-upon benchmarks as to what could
be built, and where — and the end result was a plan some of us viewed as likely as good as it was ever going to get.
But none of that mattered when an equally determined number of today's citizens took up opposition, for reasons ranging from “not enough low-income housing” to “climate change” and a dozen things in between. Smart Growth Advocates beat some tough odds by gathering more than enough signatures to place a referendum on the ballot about the the Specific Plan approval. Then, they did an even better job of helping to rally Chico's (mostly) progressive side of town to defeat it.
And defeat it, they did. All registered voters of
Chico had an equal opportunity to speak at the ballot box, and the 20,000 or so who actually bothered let it be known they were largely against this 1,449acre development on the lava cap east of town.
You have to give the opponents a lot of credit. They fought tirelessly and passionately for what they believe, and they rallied the voters in a way supporters of the project couldn't do, despite spending a good amount of time and money trying. The campaign did turn into another heated battle between the various sides of town that always seem to be battling each other over something or another — turning off a good number of would-be voters in the process, I suspect — and this time, the progressives won big.
It was a crushing setback for the proponents and a joyous cause of celebration for the victors. I can't help but suspect the biggest cheers of all were coming from out of town — say, in places like Orland and Biggs and Corning, where growth is happening and not being frowned upon to the same degree as on the outskirts of east Chico.
Because, again, people are going to keep flocking to the beautiful north state, just as they've been doing in ever-growing numbers for more than 150 years. Many of the people who move to the north state are going to work in Chico. That's going to mean more cars on already-overcrowded roads approaching from every direction. The defeat of Measure P will make it easier to achieve the City of Chico's climate change goals — an admirable fact championed by Smart Growth Advocates and others — but at what cost on a regional level?
“What about infill,” you might ask? “Build up, not out?” Infill supporters like to point out that Chico's projected housing need through 2045 is 9,500 units, and that 9,400 could be built without sprawling into the foothills.
OK, any predictions how many of those 9,400 infill units are actually going to be developed the next 10 years in Chico, where “not in my backyard” reigns supreme? Developers say much of that ambitious infill strategy simply doesn't pencil out anyway. That, and the wringer the Valley Edge developers just went through, has me skeptical about the eagerness of other developers to plan much of anything in Chico, much less low-margin infill units.
Anyway, back to my point, which is that I find the entire “we need to leave Chico just as it is” narrative fascinating. It's never worked. It's never going to work. Towns grow — especially great towns like Chico, where so many people fall in love with the area during that first college visit and just never go away.
For all the talk about keeping things the same, the best we can realistically hope to do is keep the best parts of our town intact and safe while planning wisely for future growth, regardless of what shape that ultimately may take.
I also can't help but notice that this entire Valley's Edge discussion actually did show our town isn't likely to change. It was a big reminder that Chico is the same way it's been for a long time, and will likely stay for a very long time to come.
Hopelessly divided.