These are notes, thoughts, and observations about a local measure in the election in Redlands, CA where I reside. So it's relevant locally, and only a curiosity to everywhere else.
I'm voting NO. I recommend you do the same if you like the architectural charm and history of Redlands, and like what's left of its small-town feel.
As someone said in earlier commentary, follow the money. Then think just a little bit. The reason the new train route is being built is in part for the purposes of ESRI. Employees can commute in, and some residents can commute out. The train will have some good consequences, and some bad. More customers for Redlands businesses will come in, at least in theory. Also, it will bring some undesirables that most Redlanders would not want here.
But the train will stand or fall on its own, economically. If the people behind the train are depending on the building of crackerbox towers and an "urban feel", aka "stack and pack", for riders, as a long-time Redlands resident I hope they are severely disappointed.
Is ESRI behind the push for Measure G? Several inputs suggest they are highly in favor of Measure G. ESRI is expanding at a rapid rate, which on balance is great for Redlands. But Redlands should be careful. I watched in Bellevue and Redmond WA through the 1990s and early 2000s, as Microsoft expanded from its initial "intended" campus to multiple campuses. Traffic, electrical and other utilities, taxes, building codes and even freeway offramps all had to be considered and changed to accommodate the company as it grew from 5,000 to 50,000 people going to work daily. Effects on quality of life were negative, almost everybody agreed, even if financial effects were positive.
If I were advising ESRI, I'd advocate multiple campuses, or "sub-headquarters". Site diversity is good! This is countered by most company's natural desire to have everybody together, and enjoy both real and imagined efficiencies. But if there is a bomb scare, a flood, a power outage (I experienced a case where someone forgot to maintain the backup generators! We all were sent home.), a fire, a riot, an earthquake, a terrorist act, or anything else, the benefit of having multiple "HQ-capable" sites becomes apparent. If Redlands is landlocked, as some say, go to other lands. North San Bernardino, by Cal State SB? Closer to the main train station; great freeway access (a negative would be a location essentially on the San Andreas fault). Moreno Valley/east Riverside? Freeways; land; housing; shopping. Menifee? Temecula? Housing and freeway access; potential employees, ex of Orange County.
A friend argued that Redlands is land-locked. Therefore, the argument went, Measure G is needed to increase Redlands' tax revenue. Redlands doesn't need more tax revenue, in my opinion, as much as it needs to spend what it has better, on some more basic things. The new city manager's emphasis on street repair is good, even if it's inconvenient at times now.
We pay high property taxes in California in general, and in Redlands in particular. Over the years I've watched as we voters have voted to pay for more and more stuff. The slow creep upward has not been fun to watch. At these heights, we should expect a sparkling, homeless-free, safe, well kept city with great infrastructure, with great education for our kids. The argument that the crackerbox towers will expand the tax base without expanding the city's cost structure sounds like a fantasy to me. Read the City Attorney's Measure G analysis where the developers get a sweetheart clause that no longer requires them to pay the normal fees supporting infrastructure for their developments.
The argument that Measure G will enable the Redlands Mall property to be re-developed, and that defeating Measure G will prevent that, is a lie. It is further an insult to people's intelligence. If an extra story or
two is needed for the mall to pencil financially for a developer, get a code variance on that specific property. If a law prevents a code variance, we can vote on a law for that property. But "Transit Villages"? Train stations? Sustainability? Housing policy? Dreams of an "urban feel"? None of that is relevant to the mall.
The land that the Redlands Mall improvements (the actual mall building) sits on is owned by the owner of the mall. Nothing unusual there. But the parking lot land, which surrounds the mall building, is owned by the City of Redlands. And that is a problem for developers who consider re-developing the mall. If this is still true, and if we in Redlands want the mall re-developed, Redlands should quit-claim deed the surrounding parking lot to the mall's re-developer, and negotiate a tax deal in return. Or something of that type. ( I just learned from a City Council member that the improvements and surrounding parking has been consolidated under single ownership. This is good.)
It seems that CVS likes its location and has a lease in the mall building. But they can't be made to move? I'm sure the right terms in a new building would convince them to move. They're a business, unlike the legendary or proverbial last homeowner in an eminent domain case!
Now for some arithmetic. When my family moved here in 1963, Redlands population was around 40,000. I even remember the number 36,000. I read that our population had reached around 70,000. Redlands feels full. We shouldn't go north of there. But what do the numbers in Measure G indicate? My guess would be that Redlands could grow to 100,000. Here's how.
First let's find the theoretical maximum of new residents within the Measure G area.
The Measure G "Transit Village" area is over 780 acres. The measure says the residential unit density can go up to 27 per acre. Using an average of 2.03 residents per household, Redlands could add over 21,000. (2.03 x 27 units x 780 acres) / 2 = 2c,375. We divide by 2 because not all of the acres would have any such density. So if you add population growth outside the "transit villages" area to the 21,300 inside, you see a Redlands with a population over 100,000. I don't want that. Do you?
Reading the "WHEREAS" clauses of the Measure G text indicates the mindset of the authors. It's certainly not about preserving the unique architectural heritage and experience of Redlands. It seems to be about inflicting an urban high-density dream on Redlands to achieve some notion of environmentalist and "cosmopolitan" buzzwords to make the authors feel better.
It won't work. It has no chance. And people who value classic Redlands won't be happy. The developers of the "transit villages" will profit, and return to their yachts in Newport Beach and Marina Del Ray.
If a group wants to develop a cosmopolitan/urban "transit village" utopia, they should buy land in the desert and start from scratch with a completely new design. Osaka, Japan, for example, has concentric subway belts around the city center, on which one can get from most places to most other places in the city.
I close with a cautionary tale from personal experience. Across Lake Washington from Seattle is Bellevue. It had a small-town charm in ways somewhat like Redlands. Some people in the region can still remember when the upscale mall at the center of town was a raspberry farm. In the late 1990's Bellevue decided that it wanted a more "urban feel" like Seattle. They changed the orientation of the downtown parking places to parallel so they could stuff more lanes on the roads, and put meters on all of them. Bellevue's downtown is now a forest of towers. People who moved to Bellevue to get away from Seattle's problems have taken their money and moved again. This began long before Seattle suffered from its problems with homelessness.
If you've read this far that's great. Thank you. Here are my final high-level impressions:
- Redlands is deciding whether it wants an "urban feel" or wants to remain what it is: a unique, upscale suburb.
- Mayor Foster and most of the City Council cautions voters about a future threat of dictates from Sacramento ruining our city with ham-handed housing units building requirements.
- I haven't heard the Redlands is making any effort to fight the State's over-reach into municipal affairs that supposedly makes it prudent to adopt Measure G. California cities like Redlands, Claremont, Woodland (a suburb of Sacramento) and many others should band together and tie up the Sacramento nonsense in court. All of these cities have historic architecture and a suburban feel that is to be treasured.
- The City Council is basically asking us to trust them to exercise restraint and good judgement, after we vote away hard-won restrictions on over-building. As a side note, this is the same group that brought us Redlands Mall in the first place. The Mall replaced the beautiful (and very solid!) La Posada hotel and shops complex.
- Even if one was in favor of some increased residential and commercial development downtown, Measure G reads as a gross over-reach of anything that makes sense for Redlands. For example, go to the intersection of Alabama and Park, and take a good look at the 2-story concrete tilt-up light industrial park being built. Now multiply the height by 3. Six stories? Really? Good for Redlands? No on G! The gross over-reach means the City should go back to drawing board and do it again, if anything is to be changed from existing law.
- The City Council has been working on this awhile. The City let an RFP for an "urban feel" city plan in 2017. An architectural firm out of Pasadena was hired whose website says they are "Architects and Urbanists". What's that? Why would we want to pay to import big-city problems to Redlands? No on G!
//////////////////////
source for 2.03 avg persons per household, by income.
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/04000US06-california/
