Sierra Club Wins Farmland Preservation Fee
Successful litigation by a Sierra Club chapter in California's Central Valley results in $17.5 million to purchase conservation easements in San Joaquin County, as well as the establishment of a farmland preservation fee in the City of Stockton.
"The Sierra Club in 2004 filed the lawsuit against the city, claiming the city illegally added farmland to the city's sphere of influence, planning to expand into more than 5,600 acres on the city's northwest side. The settlement would require the developers to pay $3,250 per acre to the Central Valley Farmland Trust, purchasing conservation easements in San Joaquin County, outside Stockton, provided the city grants final approval to the projects."
In addition, the settlement requires the Stockton City Council "to vote within six months on whether to levy a farmland preservation fee on developers citywide."
This is not the first victory of this kind for the Motherlode Chapter. It won a similar victory in October in three cities in San Joaquin County, resulting in a $2,000 an acre fee to preserve farmland. The club in that case had sued over a water pipeline project allowing the cities to expand.
"The Grupe Co., which plans to build 7,000 homes in a $3 billion subdivision on a Delta island west of Brookside, will likely be forced to pay nearly $6 million under the settlement, Grupe President Kevin Huber said. Huber, who said the lawsuit amounted to 'litigation terrorism to exact money from developers,' said the success of programs that call on developers to pay for farmland preservation are unproven."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Plenty Green But Too Tall? - Nov 10, 2008
ARB Climate Change Plan Criticized By Both Sides - Oct 17, 2008
Three Perspectives on CA's 'Smart Growth' Bill - Oct 09, 2008
Landmark Smart Growth Bill Close to Passing in CA - Aug 23, 2008
Rare Show Of Unity on Growth Legislation in CA - Aug 13, 2008
is the Sierra Club being honest?
Unfortunately, the article does not state whether there is a guarantee that the $$ will actually go towards a land trust.
It also leaves open the possibility that the Sierra Club may sue future development for which they've already collected the fee.
This chapter of the Sierra Club has a history of describing too many projects as "sprawl", even those done by some of the best planning firms in the state. Often they object to large projects until their price is met, and then they go away. What's up with that?!
The original mission of the Sierra Club may be noble, but this chapter's tactics manipulate the good itentions of CEQA, and are a significant factor why housing in California will never be affordable again.