Our View: Trying to overturn LAFCO vote is wrong

The building industry must be expecting a boom. Why else would it be so intent on lowering its cost of doing business in Stanislaus County?

The dust-up over how much should be paid when cities allow productive farmland to be paved over is a good indicator that builders are expecting to get busy. In one sense, that’s good news. Stanislaus County has long welcomed new neighbors. Builders help make that possible.

But one of the things that makes life here attractive is that we still value the region’s agriculture. We like the fact we can buy eggs fresh from the hens, cheese made on the farm, melons that grow sweet in the field and cherries, strawberries, tomatoes and apricots bursting with flavor. That’s true only because there are still a lot of working farms (and farmers) nearby.

To help keep them here, we require homebuilders to preserve as much land as they take out of production.

Stanislaus County has a policy that requires cities to choose one of three ways to do that. One is to set urban growth limits, requiring a vote of the residents for any subsequent changes. Newman has done that, and voters in Modesto might require it of the city in November. Another is to require a builder to buy development rights on an equivalent amount of farmland and then guarantee the land will be farmed “in perpetuity.”

The third, and now most controversial, is to pay a mitigation fee. It’s easier for builders to just write a check, and most prefer to do that. The problem is the size of the check.

Builders like a flat fee – a low flat fee. Those trying to protect the area want the amount based on the value of the land being developed. If top-notch farmland is being paved over, then top-notch farmland somewhere else should be preserved.

The issue came before the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission on March 25. The commission voted 3-2 to charge 40 percent of the sale price of the land. At current values, that works out to roughly $7,300 per acre. Obviously, builders would prefer it to be much lower.

Almost a year ago, Stockton’s John Beckman, CEO of the Building Industry Association of the Great Valley, sent a letter to Patterson’s city manager recommending a fee of $2,000 per acre – saying that would keep the city competitive with Tracy and Manteca. His suggestion was a bit off. According to LAFCO staff, actual mitigation fees in Manteca and Tracy are $2,500 – or 25 percent more than he noted. And they haven’t changed in 10 years.

Patterson, which has long been accommodating to builders, liked Beckman’s number. But LAFCO has authority over this issue, not the city.

Two county supervisors, two council members from the county’s nine city councils and one community member sit on the LAFCO board. Both supervisors – Jim DeMartini and Terry Withrow – are ag-friendly. So is Hughson Mayor Matt Beekman. The three voted to require cities to follow the formula for figuring in-lieu fees rather than allowing flat fees.

That Beekman would vote against their wishes so angered some of the mayors that they’re trying to kick him off the commission then force another vote. They’ve already started the process.

That’s shortsighted and wrong. Beekman has served on the state LAFCO and clearly understands that one of the commission’s core missions is to preserve farmland – which the in-lieu formula does best. He wasn’t just “voting his conscience,” as some are saying, he was doing his job.

A woefully low in-lieu fee encourages destruction of farmland.

Denny Jackman, who is leading the Stamp Out Sprawl initiative in Modesto, called the $2,000 fee suggested by the BIA “almost laughable.” In 2012, the city of Patterson itself said the fee should range from $3,500 to $15,000.

One sure way to lose political support in this county is to be seen as a lackey for builders.

There’s almost no other way to paint this ill-advised coup attempt. It isn’t about protecting a city’s prerogatives, it’s about courting favor with deep-pocket builders.

This story was originally published April 11, 2015 at 5:01 PM with the headline "Our View: Trying to overturn LAFCO vote is wrong."