Something smells funny about Patterson’s plan to build houses instead of industry

Patterson leaders better think twice before starting down a road that could drop off a $20 million cliff.

On Tuesday, the Patterson City Council is to consider scrubbing part of a proven blueprint calling for industrial jobs on what is now farmland southwest of Sperry Avenue and Baldwin Road. Developers instead want to build a few stores and offices, plus 445 homes, and city officials don’t seem to mind.

They should.

Patterson, 16 miles southwest of Modesto, has prospered from an explosion of industry over the past couple of decades. The West Patterson Business Park’s proximity to Interstate 5 helped draw distribution centers for Amazon, Grainger, Restoration Hardware, Kohl’s and more near the 131 acres now in question.

It wasn’t all just a happy accident. Patterson’s good fortune was the result of calculated risks taken by forward-thinking former city officials and industrial developers who put the plan together with another indispensable partner: Stanislaus County.

The county’s main contribution was improving Sperry and Baldwin so they could handle the truck traffic that comes with an industrial hub. County officials at the time were happy to spend nearly $10 million boosting that infrastructure because of the promise of thousands of decent-paying jobs that would benefit Patterson and the rest of our area.

Promising one thing (jobs) and delivering another (houses) is called bait and switch, and such behavior is deservedly looked down upon in development and politics.

The rest of West Patterson Business Park has brought success. There is every reason to stick with the original plan for more jobs on this 131 acres, called Baldwin Ranch.

Patterson must convince the county and the rest of us that changing the vision is in everyone’s best interest. This demands complete transparency — not rushing through the city planning commission with a special meeting like they did last week. It didn’t help that the city issued hundreds of pages of last-minute documents that the public, including county officials, had little opportunity to study, prompting questions about the adequacy of its environmental review.

Patterson ignored the county’s request for a planning commission delay, and the proposal — to amend the city’s General Plan and rezone that property —will go before the council at 7 p.m. Tuesday.

But the county may hold the best cards in this hand, after all.

A 2004 agreement between Patterson and the county requires that the city reimburse the $10 million spent improving roads, plus interest — and another $10 million penalty — should Patterson ever try to change terms of the all-jobs, no-homes deal.

City documents state that Patterson would force the property owner, called the Michael Mazzucchi 2020 Trust, to cover that penalty. But the city would try to renegotiate terms with the county, the papers say.

Stanislaus County to Patterson: “No shenanigans”

Good luck with that.

County Supervisor Jim DeMartini, who represents Stanislaus’ West Side, publicly scoffed at the idea in a county meeting this week, using the word “deceptive” three times to describe the city’s approach. “The city of Patterson appears to be trying to get away with something,” he said. “After all we’ve done to help them develop that business park.”

The county’s chief executive office fired off a letter dated Oct. 30 to Patterson reminding the city of the 16-year-old agreement.

Patterson officials must be absolutely transparent and demonstrate they’re not trying to get away with something. Otherwise, this sure looks like classic bait and switch.

This story was originally published November 12, 2020 at 4:00 AM.