Difference between revisions of "Shasta County Freeze on Zoning in Churn Creek Bottom, Measure B (June 2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Support)
m (Text replace - "ategory:Zoning, land use and development" to "ategory:Local zoning, land use and development")
(4 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}An initiative to '''Freeze Zoning in Churn Creek Bottom, Measure B''' is on the {{jun05ca2012}} in {{shasta}}.<ref name=redding>[http://www.redding.com/news/2011/dec/31/editorial-county-celebrates-direct-democracy-by/ ''Redding Record Searchlight'', "Editorial: County celebrates direct democracy by exercising it", December 31, 2011]</ref>
+
{{tnr}}An initiative to '''Freeze Zoning in Churn Creek Bottom, Measure B''' was on the {{jun05ca2012}} in {{shasta}}, where it was '''overwhelmingly defeated.'''<ref name=redding>[http://www.redding.com/news/2011/dec/31/editorial-county-celebrates-direct-democracy-by/ ''Redding Record Searchlight'', "Editorial: County celebrates direct democracy by exercising it", December 31, 2011]</ref>
  
If Measure B is approved, it will freeze the general plan in the Churn Creek Bottom until 2036. This will prevent any commercial development in the area until then.<ref>[http://www.redding.com/news/2012/apr/26/would-measure-b-have-unintended-consequences-for/ ''Record-Searchlight'', "Measure of uncertainty: Landowners, potential developers try to sort out consequences of ballot issue", April 26, 2012]</ref>
+
If Measure B had been approved, it would have frozen the general plan in the Churn Creek Bottom until 2036. This would have prevented any commercial development in the area until then.<ref>[http://www.redding.com/news/2012/apr/26/would-measure-b-have-unintended-consequences-for/ ''Record-Searchlight'', "Measure of uncertainty: Landowners, potential developers try to sort out consequences of ballot issue", April 26, 2012]</ref>
  
 
In August 2011, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors gave the go-ahead for a commercial development on Knighton Road in Churn Creek Bottom.<ref name=aug>[http://www.redding.com/news/2011/oct/29/churn-creek-bottom-resisting-development/ ''Redding Record Searchlight'', "Churn Creek Bottom: resisting development; more than 11,000 sign petition against shopping center", October 29, 2011]</ref> The motivation to put the zoning freeze on the {{jun05ca2012}} sprang from that decision.<ref name=redding/> That August 11 decision also inspired its opponents to put [[Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom Referendum, Measure A (June 2012)|Measure A]] on the {{jun05ca2012}}.
 
In August 2011, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors gave the go-ahead for a commercial development on Knighton Road in Churn Creek Bottom.<ref name=aug>[http://www.redding.com/news/2011/oct/29/churn-creek-bottom-resisting-development/ ''Redding Record Searchlight'', "Churn Creek Bottom: resisting development; more than 11,000 sign petition against shopping center", October 29, 2011]</ref> The motivation to put the zoning freeze on the {{jun05ca2012}} sprang from that decision.<ref name=redding/> That August 11 decision also inspired its opponents to put [[Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom Referendum, Measure A (June 2012)|Measure A]] on the {{jun05ca2012}}.
  
==Proposed development==
+
==Election results==
  
The proposed shopping center development would go on what is currently a 92-acre empty lot and would be known as "Knighton and Churn Creek Commons".<ref name=aug/>
+
{{Short outcome
 
+
| title = Measure B
It would be built by the Hawkins Cos., LLC, a development company based in Boise, [[Idaho]]. Jeff Hess, the development company's chief operating officer, indicated that they would spend $130 million on the development and that the development would generate $52 million annually in wages because of the roughly 1,600 permanent jobs it would create.<ref name=aug/> If the development goes ahead, the county is expected to receive about $1.36 million each year from it, in addition to $715,000 for the county's public safety fund.<ref name=aug/>
+
| yes = 12,678     
 
+
| yespct = 28.76
Hess said, "Where you have a significant amount of unemployment, people are going to be happy to have a job." The unemployment rate in {{shasta}} stands at close to 14%.<ref name=aug/>
+
| no = 31,398
 +
| nopct = 71.24
 +
| image =
 +
| unresolved =
 +
| state = Local
 +
| percent = 50.00
 +
}}
 +
::''These <u>final</u> election results are from the [http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Shasta/39813/86237/en/summary.html Shasta County elections office]''.
  
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
  
Measure B is supported by the Churn Creek Bottom Homeowners and Friends Association. Rod Evans is a spokesperson for this group. He says, "What we knew is that even if Measure A prevails (allowing Hawkins to proceed), it won't be very long until another developer is knocking on the door and wants to do the same thing. We looked at what could give the community some breathing room without this development pressure."
+
Measure B was supported by the Churn Creek Bottom Homeowners and Friends Association. Rod Evans is a spokesperson for this group. He said, "What we knew is that even if Measure A prevails (allowing Hawkins to proceed), it won't be very long until another developer is knocking on the door and wants to do the same thing. We looked at what could give the community some breathing room without this development pressure."
  
Randy Carter also supports Measure B. He says, "We're hoping for it to take the pressure off our leaders who have to make the decision that they've recently made."
+
Randy Carter also supported Measure B. He says, "We're hoping for it to take the pressure off our leaders who have to make the decision that they've recently made."
  
 
Marsha Burch, lawyer in Grass Valley, helped write Measure B.<ref name=debate/>
 
Marsha Burch, lawyer in Grass Valley, helped write Measure B.<ref name=debate/>
Line 23: Line 30:
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
  
Opponents of Measure B include Doug Juenke. He is the chairman of the "No on Measure B" committee, as well as being the president of the Shasta Association of Realtors. He says, "This is a pure, flat-out assault on private property rights. It's just not American that we are going to suffer no consequences one way or another and we get to tell another group of people what they get to do with their property."
+
Opponents of Measure B included Doug Juenke. He was the chairman of the "No on Measure B" committee, as well as being the president of the Shasta Association of Realtors. He said, "This is a pure, flat-out assault on private property rights. It's just not American that we are going to suffer no consequences one way or another and we get to tell another group of people what they get to do with their property."
  
Another opponent is Bob Moore. He owns Moore's Flour Mill. He owns 75 acres in Churn Creek Bottom. He wants to build a water-powered mill on that property that would grind flour and also be a tourist attraction. He would not be able to do this is Measure B is approved. He says, "My position is that I woke up one morning to discover that my neighbors put my farm on the ballot for the people of Shasta County to vote on what I can or can't do with it, and I think that is a very strong property rights issue." He also says, "[Measure B is] being represented as being supportive of agriculture, but it really is only supportive of a really narrow interpretation of agriculture."
+
Another opponent was Bob Moore. He owns Moore's Flour Mill. He owns 75 acres in Churn Creek Bottom. He wants to build a water-powered mill on that property that would grind flour and also be a tourist attraction. He would not have been able to do this if Measure B had been approved. He said, "My position is that I woke up one morning to discover that my neighbors put my farm on the ballot for the people of Shasta County to vote on what I can or can't do with it, and I think that is a very strong property rights issue." He also says, "[Measure B is] being represented as being supportive of agriculture, but it really is only supportive of a really narrow interpretation of agriculture."
  
 
Reporting on a debate over Measures A and B held at the Destiny Fellowship church in Redding on April 30, a local newspaper wrote, "private property rights punctuated much of the night, with audience members applauding those who called it un-American."<ref name=debate>[http://www.redding.com/news/2012/may/01/debate-gets-heated/ ''Redding Record Searchlight'', "Redding debate gets heated
 
Reporting on a debate over Measures A and B held at the Destiny Fellowship church in Redding on April 30, a local newspaper wrote, "private property rights punctuated much of the night, with audience members applauding those who called it un-American."<ref name=debate>[http://www.redding.com/news/2012/may/01/debate-gets-heated/ ''Redding Record Searchlight'', "Redding debate gets heated
Line 32: Line 39:
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
==Path to the ballot==
  
The initiative is on the ballot because county residents who want zoning frozen in Churn Creek Bottom collected over 11,000 signatures on petitions to force a vote on the development.<ref name=redding/>
+
The initiative was on the ballot because county residents who wanted zoning frozen in Churn Creek Bottom collected over 11,000 signatures on petitions to force a vote on the development.<ref name=redding/>
  
 
The same residents also qualified a [[veto referendum]], the [[Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom Referendum, Measure A (June 2012)|Referendum on Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom]], for the {{jun05ca2012}}.
 
The same residents also qualified a [[veto referendum]], the [[Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom Referendum, Measure A (June 2012)|Referendum on Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom]], for the {{jun05ca2012}}.
Line 45: Line 52:
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
  
[[Category:Zoning, land use and development, California, 2012]]
+
[[Category:Local zoning, land use and development, California, 2012]]

Revision as of 10:22, 13 October 2012

An initiative to Freeze Zoning in Churn Creek Bottom, Measure B was on the June 5, 2012 ballot in Shasta County, where it was overwhelmingly defeated.[1]

If Measure B had been approved, it would have frozen the general plan in the Churn Creek Bottom until 2036. This would have prevented any commercial development in the area until then.[2]

In August 2011, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors gave the go-ahead for a commercial development on Knighton Road in Churn Creek Bottom.[3] The motivation to put the zoning freeze on the June 5, 2012 ballot sprang from that decision.[1] That August 11 decision also inspired its opponents to put Measure A on the June 5, 2012 ballot.

Election results

Measure B
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No31,39871.24%
Yes 12,678 28.76%
These final election results are from the Shasta County elections office.

Support

Measure B was supported by the Churn Creek Bottom Homeowners and Friends Association. Rod Evans is a spokesperson for this group. He said, "What we knew is that even if Measure A prevails (allowing Hawkins to proceed), it won't be very long until another developer is knocking on the door and wants to do the same thing. We looked at what could give the community some breathing room without this development pressure."

Randy Carter also supported Measure B. He says, "We're hoping for it to take the pressure off our leaders who have to make the decision that they've recently made."

Marsha Burch, lawyer in Grass Valley, helped write Measure B.[4]

Opposition

Opponents of Measure B included Doug Juenke. He was the chairman of the "No on Measure B" committee, as well as being the president of the Shasta Association of Realtors. He said, "This is a pure, flat-out assault on private property rights. It's just not American that we are going to suffer no consequences one way or another and we get to tell another group of people what they get to do with their property."

Another opponent was Bob Moore. He owns Moore's Flour Mill. He owns 75 acres in Churn Creek Bottom. He wants to build a water-powered mill on that property that would grind flour and also be a tourist attraction. He would not have been able to do this if Measure B had been approved. He said, "My position is that I woke up one morning to discover that my neighbors put my farm on the ballot for the people of Shasta County to vote on what I can or can't do with it, and I think that is a very strong property rights issue." He also says, "[Measure B is] being represented as being supportive of agriculture, but it really is only supportive of a really narrow interpretation of agriculture."

Reporting on a debate over Measures A and B held at the Destiny Fellowship church in Redding on April 30, a local newspaper wrote, "private property rights punctuated much of the night, with audience members applauding those who called it un-American."[4]

Path to the ballot

The initiative was on the ballot because county residents who wanted zoning frozen in Churn Creek Bottom collected over 11,000 signatures on petitions to force a vote on the development.[1]

The same residents also qualified a veto referendum, the Referendum on Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom, for the June 5, 2012 ballot.

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References