An idea worth having
By Matt Artz
Sunday, November 21st, 2010 at 10:00 pm in Uncategorized.
Bob Wieckowski has a lot of ideas. Sometimes they’re pretty good. When the council gave the green light to Patterson Ranch, Wieckowski suggested the Pattersons donate an additional 5 acres of open space west of Ardenwood Boulevard that the school district could trade to the city, to expand Ardenwood Elementary School onto City parkland.
The next week, the urban planner, known in city circles as Fris, sent this letter to the school district making the offer.
What does the school district think about the offer?
Too early to tell.
Here’s what the superintendent wrote:
I am appreciative that Mr. Frisbie is looking to find ways to help the District address the historic overcrowding in north Fremont. The Board of Education Members and I have held meetings with the community and we have heard a range of opinions about options that meet the needs to new and future residents of north Fremont. I can assure you that there is no easy answer to mitigate the lack of school seats in the Patterson communities of Forest Park, Villa D’Este, Ardenwood and the new Patterson Ranch. While I cannot comment on how the District will respond to the correspondence at this time because our Board has not taken a position on the offer, I know our Board remains committed to working with the community, the City, and the developers to finally address this long-standing concern.
And here’s the first paragraph of the letter, which I know is tough to read:
Patag, a California Limited Partnership with the General Partner, PFM, Inc., a California Corporation
(“Patag”) hereby makes an offer of dedication to the Fremont Unified School District (“District”) of up to
five acres of property generally located at the northwest corner of Ardenwood Boulevard and Paseo
Padre Parkway (the “Parkland Property”), which shall be adjacent to the eight acres Patag will be
dedicating to the City of Fremont as a condition of approval of the Patterson Ranch Project. The
property shall be used solely for purposes of an exchange of land with the City for up to five acres of
land in Deep Creek Park adjacent to Ardenwood Elementary School to be developed for school purposes
for the benefit of the Ardenwood Elementary Attendance Area as currently delineated.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
November 22nd, 2010 at 7:04 am
Matt -
Perhaps I’m missing something about the offer that makes it an offer worth having. Is this without strings or is it somehow intended as a quid pro quo for placing Patterson Ranch resident students into Ardenwood area schools? If so, how does it possibly mitigate the effect of removing contiguous green space from Ardenwood Elementary School, not to mention the countless negative effects of dropping many hundreds of new students into an already badly overcrowded school?
The City Council’s approval of this project is a disaster for the Ardenwood community, and is offer is the city planning equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Greg
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:11 am
Greg, the idea, as I understand it, is to expand Ardenwood Elementary School into the park space, which is owned by the city. City would agree to replace that park space with the acreage west of Ardenwood. City folks seem receptive to a swap, but school folks less so. The superintendent said that even if you add more classroom space at Ardenwood, you’d end up with a school whose population was too big for its multi-purpose room, cafeteria, etc.
November 28th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
The majority of the parents at Ardenwood Elementary do not want a “mega-school” there. Expanding the school into the park space would still in no way guarantee the children of Patterson Ranch a seat at Ardenwood. There are currently around 300 elementary children being sent to other schools due to capacity issues in that section of Fremont. With the addition of Patterson Ranch children, this will only further exacerbate the problem.
The last school board meeting discussed this issue with the community and amongst board members for hours at the last meeting. And the superintendent is correct. There isn’t room for more kids at Ardenwood – period. “Giving” the district 5 acres to swap with the city also in no way covers the funds needed to build a new school or an expansion. In case anyone was asleep last year during the FUSD budget talks, things are being cut because there is no money. The reserve has already been tapped into. Class sizes have already been increased. School programs cut. So the district has land to build on; then what? With what?
The City Council just continues to sugar coat the impact to the schools. One of these days, when it bites them in the rear … well after the damage has been done, maybe they will start to seriously consider Fremont schools before making a decision.
November 28th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
I’ll just say it again. Under state law, passed by an initiative several years ago (the same one that allowed bond issues to pass with 55%), a city council cannot, repeat cannot, reject a development proposal because of school impacts. They can only require a developer to pay school impact fees.
Prior to the initiative, a city council could reject a poposal only if the school district declared an impact. They could only declare such an impact if there were no classrooms available in the district anywhere. There are, and have been, classrooms available in the district. They never declared an impact. In fact, they have sold off several school sites over the years, Noll, Marshall, Linda Vista, Fremont ROP come to mind, but there are more.
So, don’t blame the council for this one. It is out of their hands.
November 28th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
So, don’t blame the council for this one. It is out of their hands.
I disagree, Gus.
New construction residential for purchase is generally good for a city’s economy as it brings in households with stable incomes and new property taxes — but not in the Bay Area.
The Fremont council passed budget after budget after budget that structured payments and future obligations exceeding the normally generous amount of revenue realized from bringing more earners to the city.
Instead of pacing city obligations with the revenue realized from actual growth, our city governments thought for about ten years that the near exponential increases realized from everyone selling their homes to each other for 100K more than last year would be something that would go on forever.
Fremont now owes more to their future pensioners than they are willing to invest in their children. This is not the fault of a developer. City governments in the Bay Area cannot provide an adequate education for their children — they are entirely to blame.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Marty,
The only point I was making was the one about the council’s legal authority to reject a development proposal because of schools. Nothing else.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Bottom-line is Fremont City council sucks and the voters keep voting the same jerks to office who keep approving housing developments citing some insane State law. Times have changed and with no. of foreclosures and housing crisis, is it prudent to approve housing everywhere at the expense of overcrowding in local schools. Do you expect school going parents to go from Ardenwood to Warm Springs so that their kids can go to Fremont Schools.
Time for rank-choice voting for fremont city council so that each candidate gets atleast 50% vote to be on City Council. Otherwise the proxy candidates are creating a big mess every election year aiding the incumbents who deserve to be sent home.
November 29th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Gus -
As you know, the City Council didn’t have to vote in favor of an amendment to the City’s General Plan to permit the larger development.
To suggest that the Patterson Ranch monstrosity, as approved, is somehow not the City Council’s responsibility, is disingenuous, at best.
Greg
November 29th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Gus Morrison Says: “Under state law … a city council … can only require a developer to pay school impact fees.”
These fees never seem to be sufficient to actually build a neighborhood school. Why is that?
November 29th, 2010 at 10:52 am
These fees never seem to be sufficient to actually build a neighborhood school. Why is that?
Union labor costs.
November 29th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Marty, I was looking for a real answer. Why are the fees insufficient to cover the actual costs of building and running a new school? Is there a legal maximum to the amount of school impact fees that can be collected? Or is the city simply not charging enough?
November 29th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Mike, my answer is still the same. Bay Area cities have too much money outgoing to labor that not much is left to build and sustain schools.
I don’t think a developer is responsible for the cost of educating. I would hope that fees help offset the initial costs associated with acquiring land, but beyond that a city should live within it’s means and be able to provide these things with the revenue coming in from one of the highest sales tax rates in the country as well as property tax revenue that has increased steadily in my lifetime despite Prop 13 and the recession.
Simply put, both of those revenue streams — sales and property taxes — increase when new homes are built. The city spends more than they get, primarily on labor ans the schools suffer because of it.
November 29th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Marty, you seem to be oversimplifying. We have both a city government and a school district, with separate boards and different sources of funding. We have both capital expenses (building new schools) and operating expenses (staffing those schools), with different sources of funding.
And you still didn’t answer the question. Why does the *city* charge a “school impact fee” that isn’t enough for the *school district* to build an actual school?
November 29th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Fees are set according to state law and there is a maximum fee which can be charged. Whether we agree with the law or not, we are obligated to obey it, regardless. The fee is not charged by the city, it is charged by the school district. When the fee system first came about, the fee was established as the amount it would cost to house the kids generated for the first year. It is higher than that now.
As for Patterson, true, the council did not have to change the General Plan to increase the density. Without the GPA they were entitled to 288 units across 428 acrea, plus a good deal of cash for selling unused density from an earlier open space dedication (too complicated to explain, but it was estimated to be worth about $30 million.) By changing the plan, the 30 mil problem went away and more than 300 acres will be granted to public use to the park district and to the city.
And, Marty, I did this stuff fr 25 years and the amount of property tax paid by any type of devlopment was never a factor in my decision, or a factor by council or staff. Sales taxes were considered, which is why new car dealers are cultivated. I was once told by our finance director that a large hotel generated more taxes to the city than our two largest sales tax generators.
November 29th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Gus, you keep talking about the open space easement potentially costing Fremont $30M but saying it’s “too complicated to explain.”
Taxpayer business shouldn’t be too complicated for someone who has been mayor for 12 years to explain to those taxpayers. Who caused that $30M problem? What exactly was the problem? I hear you’re going to be working for the Patterson family again soon, to help plan the new development. Is that true?
November 29th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Mike, I don’t think I am simplifying. If I am reading you correctly, you are expecting the fee to cover the entire cost to build a school or at least enough classrooms to accommodate the new students. Developers have never been responsible for such costs, and if they ever are the fee will be passed on to buyers with a markup. This could work out to tens of thousands of dollars per property.
Some people are advocating for new residents to pay for their kids classrooms in full, which is essentially what you are doing if the impact fee is enough to fund the entire construction cost. I think this is entirely unfair, and hypocritical considering that most of us have received a subsidized public education.
Back to my statement that ‘Developers have never been responsible for the fee’. Gus confirms the maximum is set by state law. Then WHY is our city operating within a budget that does not allow funding for the most basic service to it’s residents? I think exorbitant labor costs are chief among these reasons.
November 29th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Charlotte,
It was 14 years, but the issue happened occurred in the late 70′s. The 141 acre parcel was dedicated to open space and the density from the parcel became available to be transferred to any other development in town (density transfer.) In exchange for that transfer, the property owner would be paid, by the developer, a sum equal to 20 times the park dedication fee, then about $600, now $16,000 or more.
There has been a law suit pending, but tolled pending the resolution of the development proposal. I am not privy to the arguments in the suit. Part of the density on the new approved development is the density in question in the suit, rendering it moot.
I have no idea who thinks I would be hired by a planner to help plan an approved development. No one has approached me since I turned them down after the election in 2006 because I didn’t agree with the development as it was designed at that time with housing on the west side of Ardenwood.
My basic philosophy is that I will only work on things which I believe in and where I can be productive and contribute to the effort. Needless to say, I don’t do a lot of consulting. Most of the things I believe in are poorly funded.
November 30th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Gus, glad to hear you’re not currently planning on working on the Patterson development. But you must support it in its current form, because you spoke in favor of it at the City Council meeting where it was approved.
Question about the $30M. Was the density transferred to other developments in the city? If so, why weren’t the Pattersons paid at the time?
November 30th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Charlotte,
I am chair of Tri-City Ecology this year and I spoke representing them. I don’t think the project is much different as to density and design than most of what has been built in Fremont over our history and there is significant public benefit with the huge dedication to the park district, and to the city.
As to your question, a few units of density credit were sold, but only a small percentage of them. My recollection is that there are about 100 units of credit, which will be used in the development.
November 30th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Gus, thanks for explaining the situation. I think I get it – the Pattersons donated the open space easement in return for density credits that were never sold, so they believe they’re entitled to either financial compensation or the use of those density credits for their own development.
I think you’re right about the Patterson project being not much different in density and design from the rest of Fremont except that it is on the edge of the city, violating everything our Council talks about in the new General Plan with respect to lowering our carbon footprint and creating transit friendly development. Was all that talk about sustainability just window dressing? I guess so. Not to mention the financial problems that come with having to support a large development far from existing services.
November 30th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
…except that it is on the edge of the city, violating everything our Council talks about in the new General Plan with respect to lowering our carbon footprint and creating transit friendly development….far from existing services
Charlotte, you are wrong on this. The development is a pocket of undeveloped land surrounded on three sides by residential. It is not any further outside the existing developed boundaries of Fremont, nor is it any further from “existing services” than homes that are already built.
Please stop the hyperbole and debate this based on contingencies that exist in the real world.
November 30th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
“Please stop the hyperbole and debate this based on contingencies that exist in the real world.”
An otherwise fair request – - – if not for the fact it is made by the TCB grand master of ad hominem.
November 30th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Charlotte,
Two things, first, I somehow find myself agreeing with Marty and I worry about that. Second, you always seem to find a way to twist things to your own, preconceived, ideas.
“I think I get it – the Pattersons donated the open space easement in return for density credits that were never sold, so they believe they’re entitled to either financial compensation or the use of those density credits for their own development.”
30 years ago, the owners of the Patterson ranch made a business deal with the city. At the city’s request, they dedicated 141 acres of land to open space. To compensate them for the loss of value of that land, they were able to establish a density bank, which they could sell to other developers anywhere in Fremont. As I said, the price was set as a multiple of the park dedication fee, or about 12,000 a unit, probably a reasonable amount. They sold a few, but in the mid 80′s, the council began a process of raising the park dedication fee, which is supposed to be based on the value of the land, to the present value of, I think, $16,000 a unit, multiplied by 20, or $320,000 per unit, making the sale prohibitive and not likely to happen, and the owner of the density bank has no value.
The issue would have been decided in court, but, the density bank will be used in the development. The suit goes away and there is no longer any exposure for the city.
December 1st, 2010 at 6:57 am
…if not for the fact it is made by the TCB grand master of ad hominem.
Example please?
December 1st, 2010 at 8:43 am
I’m not sure how my summary of what happened is twisting anything to my preconceived ideas. I thought I was being pretty straightforward. If I wanted to add an evil twist I’d ask a couple more questions, like: wasn’t most of the 141 acres donated to open space wetlands and thus unavailable for development? And why didn’t the council take the possible legal consequences of raising the park dedication fee into account before they made the decision?
As for the Patterson development harming city finances due to its location, wasn’t that what the police said in their recent flyer?
December 1st, 2010 at 9:43 am
Charlotte, do you believe everything you read on a political mailer? The glossier the more truthier?
December 1st, 2010 at 10:10 am
Gus Morrisson says –
“I somehow find myself agreeing with Marty and I worry about that.”
You should worry, Gus.
History is full of seriously disturbed folks with curious motives who have, at one point in time or another, found it expediant to exploit an occasional rational thought . . . . . brilliantly so, in some instances. . . .
Gus Morrisson also says -
“Second, you always seem to find a way to twist things to your own, preconceived, ideas.”
Oh darn!!
And I had such high hopes for this discussion. Alas, once again, we find ourselves on that same bottom rung of debate tactics.
I can only surmize that Gus is feeling that perhaps he has lost control of the discussion on a purely factual basis, so now feels a need to undermine Charlotte’s postion by suggesting that she is the sole proprietor of “color” in this debate . . . . . . very odd coming from an experienced politician !
December 1st, 2010 at 10:28 am
Box, you are masterful at spinning a simple subject into such pseudo-intellectual garbage. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Charlotte’s post # 20 is her personal fantasy. Gus and I are calling her on that. No motives or underlying complexity to it.
December 1st, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Hi Friends,
There are going to be many appointments to the Fremont City Commissions and Board from January 01, 2011.
I request you all to go to City Website
http://www.fremont.gov to find the expiry of the terms of the present Commissioners and Board Members by December 30, 2010
You can get the applications from the office of the City Clerk,3300 Capital Ave, Fremont, phone #510-284-063, email- dabrahamson@fremont.gov
Please submit your completed applications by December 10, 2010.
Wish you good luck!.
December 1st, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Now Marty and I are an alliance – Oh God! But I’ll take all the help I can get.
Charlotte’s questions
“wasn’t most of the 141 acres donated to open space wetlands and thus unavailable for development?” No, it is part of the 520 acres included in the Measure K initiative, actively farmed for many years and clearly defined on the maps as one of the 9 parcels resulting if the initiative had passed.
“And why didn’t the council take the possible legal consequences of raising the park dedication fee into account before they made the decision?” I don’t know. I guess no one on staff thought it would be an issue and never brought the issue up in the discussion.
We have lots of parks and park improvements as a result of the increase in dedication fees. And, if we hadn’t raised the fee, we wouldn’t have been able to build the water park. (That part was sarcasm.)
December 2nd, 2010 at 9:42 am
Today’s hardcopy edition of the Argus has a full page ad on AA4 promoting the Livermore Valley wineries, including a map of their locations. I couldn’t help but compare what has been developed there verses Fremont. We had a winery*, Weibel, but it was given up for housing. It seems that’s our sole focus is housing.
Even in graveyards.
*The first American produced champagne came from Leland Stanford’s Warm Springs vineyard. Imagine what we could have had verses what we have now, one big, sprawling “burb.”
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Fred Weibel’s vinyards became infested with nematodes (I don’t know what they are, but we were told it was impossible to treat in an urban environment.) The vines would first stop bearing fruit and then they would eventually wither and die. The winery was still producing, but Fred felt it was inappropriate to produce wine in the middle of a dead vineyard.
Through a series of unfortunate circumstances (developer backs out, huge land purchase in Napa/Sonoma somewhere with attendent debt intended to be repaid from proceeds from deadbeat developer, land sold at ridiculously low price because of the problems to the family,) the property transitioned to housing as allowed in the General Plan (I actually voted no because I thought they were not paying Weibel enough for the land.) Fred swore he would never move off the property. He was right, unfortunately, as he died just before it was to transition.
As for Livermore,they did a very creative plan for South Livermore. I don’t remember the specific details, but there were requirements to dedicate land for vineyards for each home developed in Livermore and a larger dedication for acreage outside Livermore which was annexed to the city. This preserved and enhanced the viticulture of the area. Very creative and very effective.
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Very interesting Gus. I wouldn’t have thought Fremont was exactly an “urban environment” at that time. I wonder how they’re keeping those darn nematodes out of all the Valley vineyards?
As for Livermore, “a very creative plan” kinda sums it up nicely. Also sometimes known as visionary thinking.
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I miss Fred’s winery off of Stanford and his Green Hungarian.
December 3rd, 2010 at 7:32 am
VOR, as nice as it would be to have some wineries in Fremont, the land they’d occupy hasn’t gone to complete waste. The residential up there is some of the best in the bay area. And east of that is preserved open space. I’d say that Fremont, with the help of the EBRPD makes good use of that open space as does Livermore.
I think there’s more to nit pick on in the Fremont development arena, such as the live-work crap stacks patched in around town.
December 3rd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Marty, I used the vineyards as just one example of what has occurred in Fremont. We had something unique and lost it – Gus says it was the nemotodes. Everything gets developed as housing or shopping malls. I agree with you about the stack ‘em and pack ‘em concept now in vogue. Unfortunately that is the future along public transit corridors.
Thank God our early city leaders had enough visionary thinking to create Central Park and Lake Elizabeth. If they had not set that aside it would have been housing. Stanley Davis was very close to filing the necessary permits to build homes there.
December 3rd, 2010 at 2:55 pm
The nematode discussion is timely. Yesterday the state either approved or failed to disapprove (I’m not exactly sure of the actual action) the use of Methyl Iodide to sterilize crop land, replacing Methyl Bromide.
Many years ago, a firm, Gladaway Gardens, used to grow gladiolas all over the tri-cities in large vacant fields, alongside city hall where the library now is, in the land preserved for the 84 corridor next to Brookvale, on the Patterson property, etc. They were beautiful when in bloom.
One of the steps in growing them was to sterilize the soil before they started. A layer of visqueen was laid to cover the land and Methyl Bromide was pumped under the visqueen to kill everything, including nematodes. Because Methyl Bromide is toxic, Chlorociprin (an ingredient of tear gas) is mixed with the MB so you know the gas is leaking, if it does.
In the area alongside Brookvale, the county authorized the use of the gas during a temperature inversion. It leaked and without any wind the whole area was soon inundated with the gas, creating a major evacuation of, I think, 1200 homes.
That was the end of gladiola growing around homes anywhere down here. They farmed at Patterson for a while, but I think the limited land available to them made it uneconomical to continue.
The transition from ag to urban is a difficult one. Once the support system for the farming (packing sheds, cooling facilities, etc.) start to become unprofitable because of diminishing crops, they close and the farmers must find alternate crops which will work in the changing environment. Gladiolas were one, but there aren’t that many that work.
Several years ago, I spoke with Mel Alameda, who farmed the Patterson Ranch for 50+ years, either as an employee of Gene Williams or as the operator of the farm. He told me that picked row crops have to be packed in ice within 4 hours of picking and things like cauliflower became infeasible when the last cooling shed in the area closed. He told me of his irrigation pipe being stolen, and then the replacement pipe being stolen along with the trailer it was on. There is a sump pump at the low end of the property to pump the drainage water. The pump is powered by an electric line stretched from Paseo to the park. Someone cut down the utility pole to steal the copper wire. He would run a tractor from the field onto the road, leave some dirt behind, and before he could clean it up, someone would call the city and complain.
One quote from the interview that I recall, was “It’s a lot easier to farm on a computer than it is in the field.” The original general plan for Fremont did not include an agricultural designation for any land, but the zoning text implementing the plan mad agriculture a conforming use in any zoning category.
It is said that a farmer’s last cash crop is his land. In the old days (way before my time), a developer would purchase the land from the farmer, design a project which frequently (often?) included a school site, transfer the site to the school district (sell or gift, I don’t know), and the farmer would get the job as the school custodian. This all could be an urban myth, but enough people have told me that it probably is true.
I’ve typed long enough. I need to save my energy for next week when the council vacancy melee starts.
December 3rd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Just a note about nematodes… back in the day that Weibel closed, the standard treatment was to lay down plastic sheets and inject methyl bromide, a dangerous and toxic gas that sterilizes the soil to kill the nematodes. This is too dangerous to use near housing, another example is that they no longer grow gladiolas in the fields in front of the Masonic Home in UC.
I don’t know what is being done now in Livermore, they may be using newer methods like steam injection. In California we use a lot less methyl bromide than we used too, but strawberry growers still want to use it. This is why I only buy organic strawberries, I don’t want farm workers getting poisoned for my fruit.
Come to think of it, I should find out what they do in Livermore before I buy my next bottle of Concannon
December 3rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Napa valley growers have been experimenting with variants of “biofumigation” as an alternative to chemical fumigants including methyl bromide.
THis “biofumigation” isn’t a true injection process as with steam or chemical fumigants but which involves the periodic planting of Brassica crops which are high in glucosinolate.
These brassica are then manured and turned into the soil in the spring which, as they decompose, release a natural gas capable of actually killing off the nemotodes and other unwanted weed stock . . . Fallowing the field produces best result but isn’t requisite.
Some pretty reputable labels have reported success with these efforts including Far Niente, Chateau Montelena, and others. . . . .
December 3rd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Box, I’m impressed. Instead of wasting so much time on the internets portraying yourself as a college professor with a head injury, perhaps you should follow your obvious aptitude and passion for organic agriculture.
December 3rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
You can learn all kinds of interesting things on TCB. Sorry folks for taking the Frisbee letter post and twisting it into talking about nematodes. Eh, I’ll blame it on Gus. He’s the one that mentioned them. Mmmm, Richard Frisbee, nematodes.
December 3rd, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Come on Marty . . . . *college* professor – who are you kidding ???? !!!!!
Now – if you’re talking about the *topics* discussed herein, well, fortunately for me, there certainly isn’t anything in this silly BLOG which gets too far beyond an effective High School level education.
But, to the point you make (and just between us two head damaged types) I can certainly understand that you might feel differently.
And, when it comes to the social interaction herein, you above all others, earn high marks for having keept us all so solidly rooted on the elementary school play yard.
December 3rd, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Profess on, Mr. Box.
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Gus, Do you know if there any truth to this fireside story:
I heard the story of Newpark Mall (in East Bay) from someone. There was a publisher in San Francisco who used to sell encyclopedia. People who used to buy encyclopedia got a piece of land in Newark (land was cheap back then). It was a very tiny piece of land (probably 10ft x 10ft) and almost unusable unless you buy adjacent properties. Those tiny pieces of lands were passed one generation to another generation while the whole lot was sitting empty – full of weeds. Then City of Newark decided to make use of land and asked a developer to buy those tiny piece of lands and build something on it. But it was a difficult process. First, the developer had to find the people who inherited those properties. They were all over USA. Secondly, if one owner agreed to sell, another owner backed out. Developer gave up. Eventually City of Newark condemned the land and Newpark Mall was built.
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Gus & BBox, that’s really interesting background and info about the farming techniques. BBox, is the natural gas produced using biofumigation not toxic if it gets to the surface? Or just less of a problem?
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Folks…Much of Fremonts natural gas problem was solved when the voters sent Vinnie & Kathy to Siberia…now it’s time to get on our hands and knees and beg Lew Wolf bring the A’s to Fremont. San Jose and Oakland are not going to pull it off. This is our best hope to put Fremont on the map. Baseball will save us all so all you blockheads suck it up and do what’s right for ALL the people!
December 4th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Charlie C = GAS BAG
December 4th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Having taxpayers get on their hands and knees is pretty much what MLB counts on when it comes to stadium “deals.”
Also, I just checked a map and Fremont is still there.
December 4th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Marty,
The land that became Newpark Mall was known as the pots and pans because people were given little chunks of land as a reward for purchasing cookware. After it proved too difficult to trace down all the landowners the City of Newark placed the land under redevelopment and a developer came in and built the mall. Now, years later, the mall is not providing the retail tax revenue the city needs so part of the mall has been placed under a new redevelopment plan area. The new plan area consists of the location of the new Burlington Coat Factory, the movie theater and adjacent vacant parcel.
December 5th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
That’s interesting Margaret. Thanks for responding.
December 5th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Kathleen -
I dont have first-hand data on the toxicity of these naturally occurring gasses but I infer that they represent far less of a threat to human organisms than other manmade chemical fumigants since their use is being explored as an ALTERNATIVE to chemicals known to be a threat.
Also, the resulting gasses and their sources occur naturally and are not characterized as any kind of a threat to human activities, e.g., we dont run around warning folks to avoid brassica fields and (2) there does not appear to be a need to provide the same prophylaxis (“tenting” the effected fields – for example) required with chemical fumigants like methyl bromide – - -