March 31, 2004

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Guest Opinion: 'Traffic abatement districts' could solve private use/public property barrier

by Peter Carpenter

Citizens of a community are, in a very real sense, the collective owners of that community's public land and property. They delegate the stewardship of that land and property to their elected representatives.

So how should the community respond when a small number of citizens want to restrict, in whole or in part, the use of some of that public property to their exclusive benefit? That is an underlying element of a street-closure issue that has divided a north Palo Alto neighborhood. What is the value to you of a closed street in front of your house?

Giving some residents a right of exclusive or semi-exclusive use violates not only the concept of fairness but California law -- which says no government may make a gift of public property for private use.

Obviously the persons making the request are doing so because they feel that the grant of exclusive or semi-exclusive use of some property will be of benefit or value to them.

But to other members of the community, granting exclusive or semi-exclusive rights means the rest of the community loses what is being given away.

This is not a new dilemma. It has been around for centuries, and the conflict has been the subject of thousands of court cases and philosophical debates. Balancing personal benefit with the public good was something I wrestled with as a Palo Alto Planning Commission member in the mid-1970s.

The current Downtown North squabble is not the first such conflict in town, nor will it be the last. Evergreen Park blew up over barriers 20 years ago, and College Terrace struggled with the same issue years before that.

How then to accommodate such a request?

The fairest way is for those gaining something of value to pay those who are giving it up. If those obtaining the public asset are unwilling to pay for it then there is no logical or moral reason to grant their request1. And the citizens who are giving up the asset should consent to both the grant and the price.

The role of our local officials is to act on behalf of the citizen, so there should be a way we could go about granting the private use of public property, as in a street closure. It occurs to me that there is a well-established model: assessment districts. Such districts allow a subset of citizens who benefit from a public investment are charged in order for the government to provide that benefit.

Thus they receive a benefit that does not apply to all of the citizens of the community, and are assessed all or part of the cost, depending on the degree of special benefit they receive.

That same model could be used to create Traffic Abatement Districts, so streets could be closed off to create private-benefit zones and those most benefited would reimburse the city -- the rest of the citizenry -- for the extra benefit they receive. A neighborhood may petition the city for a "tentative designation" of a Traffic Abatement District, specifying the proposed boundaries and traffic-abatement methods.

The staff and Planning Commission would review the proposal, hold public hearings and submit to the City Council a specific proposal and fee structure. The annual fee would include (1) a private-benefit fee for the restriction of the current public use of the streets incorporated in the proposed plan, (2) an amount sufficient to reimburse the city for the costs of establishing and maintaining the district, including the capital costs of installation and a reserve fund for its removal, and (3) an amount sufficient to pay for capital and other traffic-mitigation improvements the city deems necessary in areas adjacent to the proposed district.

If the council accepts the district, it would be submitted by mail ballot (under provisions state Proposition 218) to all property owners within the district's boundaries. Each ballot would show the amount of the assessment for the property. If the dollar amount of consenting ballots exceeds the amount of opposing ballots, the assessment may be imposed and the district established. A tie kills the assessment.

Such a district would remain in effect for five years or until the property owners petition for a removal election that succeeds, whichever is sooner. The fee structure would be reviewed and adjusted at each renewal election.

A system such as this would be fairer and more rational than simply holding a shouting contest before the City Council each time one neighborhood wants to slice off its own private piece of the public pie.

Peter Carpenter served on the Palo Alto Planning Commission from 1974 to 1978 an now is a member of the board of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. He is the founder of the Mission and Values Institute, and serves on numerous advisory boards. He served as executive director of the Stanford University Medical Center in the mid-1970s. He can be e-mailed at petercarp@aol.com. 1 You covered this point up above, I believe.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.