Specific Plans are insidious things

By Jerry Andrews

It has been suggested that my ideas about mixed use downtown were somehow embedded in the Blue Ribbon Committee report and the BRAID Committee report. If that’s true, that’s where the similarity stops. The overriding motivation of these staff-directed committees is to validate the use of Specific Plans to control the development of downtown. The City Council is setting up to vote a Specific Plan for the whole downtown area. They would have you believe that the dynamic free market approach is obsolete and should be abandoned and replaced with a Specific Plan.

When the laws about the use of Redevelopment under the Health and Safety Code were tightened up, a new method was necessary for city government to control property. Specific Plans were created and they are really about “control.” A Specific Plan is a special ordinance enacted by the Council that overrides all city codes for a designated area. The special privileges or restrictions are so detailed that they can control who the tenants are, the type of business they are in, the lease terms, the building colors and architecture, right down to the doorknobs. All of this is without any appeal process. At least now, with the Design Review Board one can appeal to the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council. With a Specific Plan you do what staff tells you to do.

A Specific Plan is one of the most insidious inventions to come our way. It allows the property owner to continue to have title to the land and buildings, but the city has full control over development and use. It takes away free market principles from the negotiation process and leaves the City and the City Council as the controlling authority in every deal. You have no leverage and the city has the final say.

It is being billed that the only way to revitalize downtown is through government control. In reality, the stigma and restrictions of being in a Redevelopment or Specific Plan area discourages outside investment. It makes a city less desirable and thus less competitive unless dollar incentives are given, thus perpetuating the cycle of tax giveaways. Every new business has to be subsidized at the expense of existing businesses. Take a look at our own city and the unequal treatment of auto agencies.

While the rest of the paper presents both sides of the issue, it is obvious that I share no such compunction. There are able voices out there preaching the rhetoric of “The government knows best.” There seem to be quite a few people in Russia and China who risked their lives to disprove that, as many people in the late 1770s did for us. When it comes to Specific Plans you either believe in freedom, or you don’t.




End Article as printed June 18, 1993