The bigger they are, the harder they sprawl

Connie Rogers’ guest column and Chris Foy’s article about the 700-plus-acre urban service area (USA) amendment request were very informative and quite disturbing. I, and most people I have talked to in Gilroy, treasure the small town character of our city. We hope for a focus on improving the town that we already have instead of growing it outward into the open space that we treasure as well. 
According to a report prepared by the city’s engineering department, we already have an inventory of existing parcels within the city that is capable of supplying over fourteen years’ worth of housing growth needs. Why add more land so much earlier than we need it?
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) had a presentation from Doug Svensson of Applied Development Economics on January 14^th.  In a slide titled “Fiscal Impact per Resident and Per Job” they saw these figures:
Job/Entity                              Annual Revenue to City
Residential                             -$63
Regional Commercial              +$1546
Office/Industrial                     +$200
Visitor-Serving                       +$3360
This means that a projected four thousand homes (with an average of 3.5 people per home) on the 700 acres would require services at a cost to the city of close to $900,000 per year more than the tax revenue it would bring in
Remember Proposition F in the last election? Why add more deficit spending when we have so many worthwhile projects that need funding? A better plan would be to develop the tax base in downtown and on First Street before adding more residential development.
Note also that the GPAC 20/40 effort is an important and very expensive exercise that will result in a revision of the general plan reflecting a broad spectrum of well-considered public input and involvement. The rushed and ill-timed application for the USA amendment looks to many of us as if the city council members that encouraged it consider the GPAC exercise a political sham. Can it be that only Cat Tucker, who voted against processing the application last October, is aware of and respects the importance of the GPAC’s efforts?
Normally, a proposed amendment to the USA boundary such as this one would be submitted to the Gilroy Planning Commission for analysis and consideration before it went to the city council. The initial proposal went directly to the city council in order to get approval for the cost-sharing plan proposed by the developer for the initial environmental impact report and plan development. Bypassing the planning commission at that point was bad enough; will the city council also ignore whatever decision the planning commission makes when the plan finally reaches them?
Lastly, I have heard councilman Woodward advocate for placing “active senior” housing in this remote northern part of the city if it were to be annexed and developed. When I qualify as an active senior in a few years, I’d like to find attractive housing within walking distance of a vibrant downtown or First Street. I’m looking forward to not needing a car to get to all the great restaurants and shops that we’ve been dreaming about in downtown! I would not want to live in the relatively remote development north of town. I doubt that any active senior would.
I urge my fellow citizens, the planning commission and the GPAC to instruct the city council to deny USA amendment application 14-01, which if approved would expensively and prematurely add over 700 acres to Gilroy, create northern sprawl in our beloved city and insult the multi-year efforts of the GPAC members.
(David Lima writes the Save Open Space Gilroy newsletter [so*******@gm***.com] and is retired from a thirty-three year career in hi-tech product design and development. He lives in Gilroy and wrote this piece for the Dispatch.)