By Kent Dagg,
CEO Shasta Builders Exchange
2/3/2010
A good friend and a Shasta Builders’ Exchange member forwarded me a couple of pieces that appeared in the local newspaper while I was on vacation. One article was written by Emily Young, an opinion columnist and the other was a Letter to the Editor by Greg Parish, a Redding resident.
First of all, I’d like to congratulate both of these people for writing something, whether positive or negative, and actually signing their real names to it. Now, that’s refreshing.
Let me respond first to Emily Young’s piece. She writes a very good article regarding the Radical 10 concept and that the ideas don’t go far enough and offers her own Radical Four. She begins with creating a Federal Stimulus Task Force to review the stimulus legislation. I thought that was a good idea and it was created nearly nine months ago and is called the Shasta Stimulus Team (SST). The SST is made up of representatives from all three Cities and the County, plus representatives from the Smart Center, PG&E, and myself. Have we gone to the detail she suggests, probably not, but we should.
Emily’s second idea is to Set up a Maximizing Federal Funds Task Force. Another good idea, which would basically make sure that every possible dollar of State and Federal funds, available to Shasta County, is received. The funny thing is, 25 years ago I worked for Assemblyman Stan Statham and this was one of the things we would do as the elected representative for Shasta County. Actually this idea should be pursued with representatives from our elected officials, Cities, County and Schools.
The third idea, Be prepared to give away all of Stillwater Business Park. Yep, the Radical 10 committee discussed this and would agree again with Emily. The idea to give the first lot for free passed 4-1 in front of City Council. In the event we had another employer looking at Redding I believe the Council would approve a second lot.
And her fourth idea, Education beyond the physical kind and focus on the mental side. Another positive idea and one that I’m sure has been studied to death. Local colleges like Shasta, Simpson and National are doing this. To solve this problem requires more than just something local like the Radical 10, it would require the support of the State and Feds, and something I don’t expect to see in my life time.
The Letter to the Editor written by Greg Parish titled “Skip Dagg’s fee scheme”. Greg interpreted some of the ideas as a way to “enrich developers at the expense of taxpayers”. Actually, that’s not true and in referring to the first Radical idea it was to postpone the impact fees until the sale of the home rather than collecting them up front. In doing so the home was more affordable by $25,000. Greg feared there was no way to guarantee that the developer will reduce the price of the home. While being a legitimate concern, our recommendation included language to make sure the home was reduced by the cost of the impact fees; otherwise the Shasta Builders’ Exchange wouldn’t have supported it.
The entire Radical 10 in ‘10 was about creating jobs, pure and simple. Since our presentation to the City Council, I’ve received other radical ideas and support to keep it going nearly every day. One complaint has been that the Radical 10 ideas were all about construction, dah, that’s who I work for. Other professions/industries should not be discouraged to think of their own Radical 10.
