DEAR EDITOR:
I’ve been watching with mixed dismay and amusement the attempts
being made by those who feel that more government is the answer to
all mankind’s problems and their interest in extorting more money
from those who are crazy enough to want to build commercial centers
at such an unlikely place as the intersection of Highways 101 and
152.
DEAR EDITOR:
I’ve been watching with mixed dismay and amusement the attempts being made by those who feel that more government is the answer to all mankind’s problems and their interest in extorting more money from those who are crazy enough to want to build commercial centers at such an unlikely place as the intersection of Highways 101 and 152.
As I understand the plan, it goes something like this: In order to build on land which someone in government has decided should be “protected,” the entrepreneur will have to pony up an extra $5,000.00 per acre. This money, in the hands of some official city governmental agency, will then be used to go some distance from town and buy up the development rights to some farm land that wasn’t going to be developed anyway, at least for 20 or 30 or 50 years.
The owner of the land, most likely a farmer or rancher, will realize a nice windfall, which will perhaps pay off some of his debts and possibly leave him a little something for his old age. In this country and time, the farmer can certainly use every and any penny he can recover from any source, since farming is anything but profitable. What with garlic from China, cherries from Chile, apricots from Turkey, tomatoes from Mexico, and a 27 percent surcharge for every hour’s wage he pays his employees, going to our ever benevolent and beneficent government, the farmer is faced with bankruptcy at every turn.
But I digress. We don’t want to get into the plight of the farmer in this article. That’s a subject for another time. Besides, he’s so rich, sitting there on that big plot of land, for which he is mortgaged to the armpits and can little afford either to work or to sell, we care little for his problems, anyway.
Let’s get back to our greedy developer, who has to pay that $5,000.00 per acre premium on the land. Let’s soak that dirty guy for wanting to build on our precious land, (it isn’t really ours, but we have placed some kind of a claim on it) here in our town providing us with nothing but commercial centers so that we don’t have to drive to San Jose or Salinas to shop. Is he going to pay that big premium?
Of course he is. He’s done the math over and over again, and realizes full well that the extra $50,000 or $100,000 he must pay will be passed along to the owners and managers of the shopping centers and they, in turn will pass the cost along to you-know-who, the consumer.
So who loses? Not the politician, who created this solution. Not the original seller, who got out when he could with the disposing of the only negotiable commodity he had to his name, his land. Not the “greedy developer” who is in business to turn a profit, either for himself or for his stockholders. No, in the words of the poet, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” Guess what, guys, we soaked ourselves, again.
We get a warm fuzzy feeling when we get the opportunity to make someone pay extra for something we don’t want him to do, whatever the reason, but in this case the “someone,” as is often the case, is us.
Now, if it is any consolation, this is not a tax, that dirty word that we fight every election day to resist. This is not a fee. This is not a levy against our home, nor does it give our children and us smaller class sizes, better roads, more police, or better libraries. It does give us a better place to shop, but we could have had that without the circus and the higher prices.
Am I missing something, or does this seem like a political boondoggle? Well, let’s turn it over to the city council. I’m sure they can straighten it out.
Bob Winter, Gilroy
Submitted Thursday, Feb. 5 to ed****@****ic.com
The Golden Quill is awarded occasionally for a well-written letter.
