Beckman: It’s cheaper here

John R. Beckman, Chief Executive Officer, Building and Industry Association of the Greater Valley, writes:

“As you recall on June 12th I responded to comments regarding a study about “sprawl” with questionable relativity to California due to our unique tax and mitigation laws.  Since my rebuttal there have been no further attempts to refute my position that the study was mostly inapplicable in California and where it was applicable it misrepresented the facts.  I stand by my position that “sprawl” is not financially harmful to cities in California.

“Apparently giving up on this argument I see the opposition to “sprawl” is now attempting to claim Stockton is a “less affordable” place to live than the Bay Area because of “sprawl”.  I will give credit to this approach in that it uses real numbers from California as opposed to extrapolating data from other states and attempting to apply it here. 

“On its face the premises sounds good.  Residents in valley communities spend a higher percentage of their income on transportation compared to Bay Area residents.  Both the Bay Area and valley residents pay a similar percentage of incomes on housing.  This is a very simplistic analysis for the bold assertion that Stockton is a less affordable place to live than the Bay Area.

“This simple analysis excludes the discussion of real wages, real cost of living including food, entertainment, utility costs and taxes.  It excludes a discussion about the highly restrictive policies in the Bay Area which force people to live in the valley and work in the Bay Area.  Using this simple analysis the valley communities could adopt a Bay Area philosophy and force those who work here to live up in the foothills and commute down to the valley for work while those who live here continue to commute to the Bay Area for jobs. 

“The percentage of a person’s annual income spent on transportation in valley communities may be higher than the percentage spent by residents of the Bay Area but in isolation that one fact proves nothing.  I look forward to additional analysis on this new approach to demonize “sprawl”.

I appreciate Beckman’s willingness to engage, and to defend his position with facts. I am amused by his implication that his opponent in this debate, David Garcia of Stockton City Limits, has retrenched. Beckman is saying bring it. If Garcia does, we will benefit from the debate between two fine minds.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Rules. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or fill out this form.
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • RSS Related Content