Have you noticed that the same people who so effectively opposed the 80-unit so-called "affordable housing" project in Nevada City also take issue with the trend toward 5,000 square foot modern luxury homes? What gives? Don't these people want anyone else to have a home? For Nevada City Free Press readers new to the problems in Nevada City development (and that would be just about everyone who's had to rely on the mainstream press), a little background information will be useful: 

Q: What do an 80-unit apartment complex and a 5,000 square foot, modern-style luxury home have in common? A: In Nevada City, they are both illegal. 

If that sounds too simplistic, you've grown rusty on your California statutes and codes. Start going to our Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Go to City Hall and get a copy of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. Get transcripts of past meetings, and ask yourself why the people who oppose these developments are citing the law while our Planning Commissioners are often overriding it. Notice the fact that private citizens are now bringing their own video cameras to meetings. Instead of conducting rational, open discussions based on the land use laws they are entrusted to uphold, our Commissioners play an endless shell-game with the public by postponing decisions meeting after meeting, often citing as an excuse their own lack of preparedness, in an irresponsible effort to diffuse the impact of public scrutiny. 

Some Planning Commission members seem never to have heard the term "public servant," responding to public comment on their pet projects with patronizing hostility and vulgarity, such as we were subjected to during their six-hour long meeting on May 10th of this year. At the March 8th meeting, concerned citizens were told by Planning Commissioner Jim Rose that we should stop insisting that the city comply with state fire codes and just accept the fact that Nevada City has burned to the ground before and probably will again. Again at their May 10th meeting, Planning Commissioner Ruth Poulter made the
misguided statement that she would have a member of the public removed from a meeting if his comments questioned the official actions of a staff member. Those who have taken a high school civics class will recognize this as counter to the constitution (though in all fairness, Ms. Poulter genuinely does not appear to understand the difference between a realtor's license, which she has, and a law degree, which she does not). Stating one's belief that a city official has misserved the public in his professional capacity does not remotely constitute slander, as the commission claimed, any more than it would be slanderous to state an opinion that Governor Gray Davis has mishandled California's energy crisis. As the video tape of this incident clearly shows, it was the Planning Commission, not the speaker, which was way out of line. At the June 14, 2001, Planning Commission meeting, Conley Weaver, who can usually be counted on to provide a sorely-needed reality check for his peers, raised the issue of the Commission's recently impinged credibility with respect to their actions on the 80-unit apartment
complex. Ruth Poulter blithely shrugged and countered that as far as she was concerned, there is no problem at all with her credibility. What she doesn't seem to get is that her own opinion of herself is irrelevant. What is at issue is how her credibility is perceived by the public she has been appointed to serve.

Our City Attorney should be acting decisively to make sure our officials are correctly informed about the laws impacting their actions. In fact, in their March 26th meeting, the City Council agreed that Jim Anderson's presence would be required at all future Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Anderson was, however, noticeably absent from the most recent Planning Commission meeting I attended. When asked why, the Planning Commissioners unanimously agreed that his presence was entirely optional and left to their own discretion. If they ever start piping Muzak into our lovely new City Hall, I would suggest
the theme of the Twilight Zone. That psycho refrain should have been blaring at the May 10th Planning Commission meeting, which was filibustered until one o'clock in the morning. This was the hearing in which the ever-haughty Ruth Poulter accused the public of just being against affordable housing, sneering "... and you all know who you are..." as though thoughtful, researched participation in the civic process had suddenly become a crime. She's right, though--we do know who we are. We are teachers, artists, lawyers, homemakers, realtors, doctors, engineers, writers, business owners--people from every walk of life brought together by a shared determination to preserve our incomparable town. We are the property-owning, tax-paying voters of Nevada City. We are informed people quite capable of electing new officials.

For three nights in a row, on June 11-13, a standing room-only crowd packed City Hall as the City Council deliberated eight appeals concerning the 80-unit housing project. As one of the many eloquent speakers pointed out, not a single Nevada City resident ever spoke in favor of this development which the Planning Commission had hastened to approve with completely inadequate review. Affordable housing was never the real issue with this development. The real issue is whether our Planning Commission will be allowed to sell Nevada City out to big-money development.  

Our General Plan offers extensive design guidelines which take growth and the provision of affordable housing into account. But our General Plan also includes stringent rules intended to prevent much of the type of construction our City Planner and Planning Commissioners routinely approve. It outlines at length our need to preserve the "look and feel" of Nevada City. That look and feel is the foundation of our tourist economy, and one of the greatest pleasures in living here. It has everything to do with why you can still park your car. That look and feel is dependent on the strict upholding of our rigorous building codes and zoning ordinances. 

Local schools teach our children about the environmental devastation this area endured before hydraulic gold mining was banned. Our children will also eventually understand that the kind of greed that fueled the Gold Rush is still alive and well. Certainly our City Council did the right thing in denying Affordable Housing Development Corporation the needed variances to construct an absurdly large apartment complex within our city limits. Anyone present at those three nights of meetings, however, knows how tenuous a victory it is that has been won. That particular project may soon morph into something only slightly less offensive. Other area projects still abound. All the little laws and courtesies designed to preserve this beautiful place have been hard won and, unfortunately, must be vigilantly defended. So don't stop coming to those Planning Commission meetings! The show's not over yet.