Patrice Baker, community outreach director for Groundwork San Diego-Chollas Creek, a nonprofit tasked by the city to restore the creek’s watershed, said that the old framework has prevented improvements in historically underserved areas, often referred to as “communities of concern,” from receiving much-needed funding. Known as Build Better SD, this new policy also changed the rules to limit the spending to four types of infrastructure: parks, mobility issues such as improving sidewalks, fire stations and libraries. They include the mayor and members of the San Diego City Council, which voted in August to change the policy starting next summer to allow money collected through impact fees to be spent anywhere in the city regardless of where it’s collected. Cris Negrete coaches a soccer player through drills at Pacific Highlands Ranch Community Park, Aug. As a result, $222 million is currently sitting in the 44 communities’ accounts.Ĭritics have said the system is broken and unfair. Some communities with more development have raised more money while others have missed out.Īnd because that money could only be used to pay for projects already approved in those communities, many have had to wait to collect more fees before being able to spend the money and complete projects. (Zoë Meyers/inewsource)Īn inewsource analysis also found that the money raised through the fees is concentrated in wealthier neighborhoods, forging disparities along income and class lines, too.ĭriving that disparity is a decades-old requirement that money raised through developer fees be spent on public projects in each of 44 planning communities collecting them. The playground at the Paradise Hills Recreation Center is shown on Aug. Meanwhile, the whole community that includes the Paradise Hills park has collected just $1.8 million from the same fees since its fund started in 1988. However, over the years, one community has collected vastly more money through those same impact fees than the other.įor example, roughly $30 million in development fees helped pay for just the park and recreation center in Pacific Highlands Ranch, which has raised $199 million through the fees, collected since 1998. “I feel like the only thing that could be different is just more shade, but I feel even silly complaining because I feel very fortunate.”Īt a glance, the parks could not be much more different, but they do share something important in common:īoth parks were paid for in part with the same fees the city charges for new developments to offset any negative impacts of building. “I do walk around here sometimes, and I feel like it’s really hot because there’s not enough shade,” she said, adding she sometimes goes to a different park so she can walk on pavement instead.Ībout 30 miles north, a newer park in Pacific Highlands Ranch, built three years ago as part of a $40 million investment by the city, hosts updated playground equipment, more accessible turf padding, a soccer field, two dog parks, a skate plaza and a cycling track.Ĭristina Rotenburg enjoys the park and would hardly change anything about it: it’s clean, safe and even offers musical elements in the playground for her three kids. San Diego leaders have vowed to distribute revenue from development fees more fairly across the city, but critics question whether the plan will work and wonder whether it will lead to high-growth neighborhoods missing out. Developers paid $1.8B to San Diego, but few areas reap benefits Close
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |