Paying for the sins of our fathers through the mistakes of the current administration: “Hercules has lost a $1.8 million wetlands restoration grant in the wake of a scathing audit by the state controller of the city’s handling of state and federal funds.”

Amateurs. (I said it.)

The rescinded grant was intended for the restoration of the Chelsea Wetlands, which in the big picture, is expendable in the short-term. What is much more disconcerting however is if this action will lead to a potential loss of grants for the long-planned-for and recently-rescued Intermodal Transit Center project.

UPDATE — A clarification appears to be necessary based on a few comments left on a Patch article that quotes this post. The immediate restoration of the wetlands is expendable, not the wetlands themselves. The city must prioritize its efforts. I have advocated for expanding the restoration in this area of Hercules. The subject archive is available here.

This is not surpising: “Hercules officials rolled out a real estate professor at a town hall meeting last week to bolster their case for selling two commercial parcels to residential developers in the face of skepticism from a vocal group of residents who want to include retail on the sites.”

The difference between what the city has to do and what the city can do does not need to be worlds apart.

Councilmember Bill Wilkins promised transparency in his campaign and solidified that goal in his remarks upon being sworn in on June 21, 2011: “My campaign was based on an open, ethical and transparent government process and I will keep that pledge. [...] It is important to me that I be available to everyone without reservation and [...] I will be setting up times and locations where I will be available to meet you all.”

Those office hours have not been established — eleven months later.

On his website, Wilkins stated that he “pledged to have a more open and transparent City government process, and this website will be updated so that I can openly communicate with you, the Voters.”

Wilkins’ official profile on the city website even states that “William is eager to listen and to learn from you, our citizens, about issues that concern you, and he welcomes your input. William or ‘Bill’ will be providing frequent updates about actions he has taken as a City Council member, at www.william4hercules.com.”

As it stands, Wilkins’ last update to his Weekly Actions was June 27, 2011. The site itself has not been updated since July 2.

The only communication outside of council meetings has been the recent missive, thrice published, against his constituency.

So much for transparency. So much for a conversation. So much for change.

The headline seems rather innocuous but it was quite the struggle to force the city to even hold a meeting and engage the community (after they already approved the deals). The new council seems to have a set-it-and-forget-it mindset when it comes to the city’s growth. That is where the general plan is supposed to come in, however the council has made unilateral decisions that outright conflict with the general plan and that have also handcuffed city opportunities. Case in point: entering into a PSA with Safeway for Sycamore Crossing even though there is a deed restriction that specifically prevents grocery stores being constructed on the property. But do not fret, the council has a plan; they just cannot let us know about it. (This sounds familiar.)

Tom Lochner reports: “Amid public criticism that is turning increasingly angry and personal, Hercules officials will hold a town hall meeting Thursday to discuss the planned sale of two city-owned commercial parcels for residential development that some vocal residents condemn as shortsighted and inconsistent with a pedestrian-, bicycle- and transit-friendly retail-residential vision for Central Hercules and the waterfront.“

Councilmember Will Wilkins released a fiery response to the criticism that the city neither negotiated the best result nor properly engaged the community when it sold off two parcels at first sale prices and for stated uses that conflict with the general plan and current zoning (the first criticism is opinion; the second is fact).

The councilmember’s response first appeared in the Contra Costa Times’ West County Blog on April 30. The exact statement was then published as a letter to the editor of the Patch the following day. (The 800-plus-word letter exceeded the Patch’s 300-word limit — although it is clear that is not a strict limit.)

Not only did Wilkins quote Madeleine Albright — correction, quote to the effect; in fact, Wilkins’ letter is the only search result for that, um, Albright quote — but he introduced his argument with an exclamation point. As in: “Here are the facts!” (That is a direct quote.)

This was the first paragraph in a letter purportedly to the community Wilkins serves (in the guise of a letter to the editor) and he introduces an argument in a debate that the majority of citizens probably have no idea exists with a shout — here are the facts!

Wilkins may be angry.

It is no surprise that when the same statement appeared again in the Contra Costa Times, this time as an editorial under the Your Turn heading, the introductory paragraph was axed altogether. The rest was copy-paste. Someone found an editor.

As to the rest of the letter, what do you expect? It reads like a staff report.

Penny wise and pound foolish.

When the city council inexplicably approved land sales last month contingent upon development approvals that conflicted with current zoning and the city’s long-held vision plan, councilmember Will Wilkins asked the buyer of the Victoria Crescent property, zoned for commercial but sold with the expressed intent to construct 60 single-family homes, if he had planned to sit on the property or build immediately.

“As soon as possible,” the developer responded, who had obviously guessed at the right answer in an attempt to please the questioning councilmember, an individual that would soon become his partner in a promised streamlined development approval process.

“Good,” Wilkins replied.

No one said a thing. Not even the obvious.

At this past Tuesday’s meeting, as the five councilmembers labored over the idea of a town hall meeting¹ to engage residents over the long-term impacts that changes to the (as of yet unchanged) General Plan would have on a community — a community that only recently teetered on the edge of sanity as it witnessed a reckless council and renegade staff pillage and plunder, lie and defame — I asked Wilkins why he would support the immediate construction of single family homes (in this market).

In a seething response, Wilkins explained that the sale of the land for single family homes was greater than the sales price for retail uses on the property, and that the homes once built would generate property taxes in a greater amount than the undeveloped parcel, all of which would help the city’s budget right now.

This was his logic. This is our councilmember.

The city is amidst a foreclosure crisis. The Bayside community in particular is awash with underwater homes. There is absolutely no demand for new single family homes in this city that would not only further exacerbate the very problem with foreclosures (by adding more competition to the glut of real estate listings) and vacant properties, but tax city strained services even further (since an expanded retail tax base is the key to healing the structural deficit). There is no market study to suggest otherwise. Any property taxes collected will be offset by corresponding losses elsewhere in the city.

The councilman (and the council as a whole) simply looked at the individual property — Victoria Crescent — in a vacuum and made a foolish decision, absent of a city-wide perspective on build-out, absent of community input, and absent of common sense. The laws of supply and demand do not surrender for the convenience of a city with a budget shortfall.

Wilkins chose to gold plate his right arm at the expense of losing his left. And worse, it was fool’s gold.

The very last remark from Wilkins on the subject on Tuesday evening was in defense of a purported claim that there was an “ulterior motive” to his decision, an allegation that has never surfaced (in any way), and in turn, highlights the councilmember’s current unease with a community clamoring for transparency, accountability, and plainly better results that are at the very least reflective of the city’s values.

Wilkins wants none of that. He is a staffer’s councilman. We pay the taxes so he can play the game.

I spoke at last week’s city council meeting and commented on councilmember Gerard Boulanger’s remarks that the Central Hercules Plan — the guiding framework for the New Urbanist buildout of the city established in 2000 — was a “fantasy” (which he made at the previous meeting).

On its face, it seems quite alarming that a councilmember who lives in the waterfront — a district that was envisioned and delivered because of the Central Hercules Plan — would consider the 2000 charrette and its findings to be a mere fantasy. In fact, it’s insulting. Thousands of residents now call Promenade, Baywood and Bayside home, and a dozen businesses operate along Railroad Avenue.

Boulanger responded to my comments during the councilmember reports at the end of the meeting, noting that he did not mean to suggest he thought the waterfront was a fantasy in his previous statement, but that projects like Cinema Town were (which is now the evidence being conveniently used to prove the plan must be changed).

I wish I could be sure that our council has actually read the Central Hercules Plan. Not to understand or value it, mind you, but to have at least read it. Not only is it a public document, it’s the regulating framework for the city’s development (which Boulanger is advocating to be changed). Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. Here is why: Cinema Town is not in the Central Hercules Plan.

(You may want to read that again.)

Cinema Town contains “approximately 300,000 SF [square feet] of retail including a 30,000 SF, 12-screen cinema as an anchor.” None of that was in the Central Hercules Plan. Three hundred thousand square feet? Twelve screen cinema? Nope.

In fact, Cinema Town represents a deviation from the plan (a detour, a left turn), and the reconfiguring of the project to make it work in today’s economy does not require abandonment of the plan itself — which would be reckless since the community established the plan and the public has not been engaged to discuss any proposed changes.

The Central Hercules Plan was designed to be flexible; implementation required interpretation. And public acceptance is critical. The plan could and should still be used as a basis for sound development practices that coincide with the community’s vision. It’s real. Anything said to the contrary is fantasy.