Following a sometimes contentious exchange of opinions about whether Anderson should even participate in the state’s search for a new courthouse site in Shasta County, the city’s five-member council split 3-2 in favor of submitting a single South County site for consideration.
The north Anderson site being proposed is a 13.1-acre parcel with Sacramento River frontage that is located immediately east of Interstate 5 and just north of Riverside Avenue. According to Shasta County Assessor’s records, the mostly vacant property has been owned since Jan. 23, 2004, by developer Sam Tumino, who purchased it for $1.25 million.
Tumino has indicated his desire to donate 6.5 acres of vacant property nearest the river and freeway to the state for the proposed $211 million courthouse and adjacent parking. The remainder of the property — already zoned for commercial use — Tumino would retain, hoping to develop some high-density office buildings and commercial structures adjacent to the courthouse that could house attorneys’ offices, restaurants, shops and other ancillary businesses.
Two other sites, both in Redding, will also be submitted to the Judicial Council of California, which has administrative oversight of all court activities in the state. One is on the existing courthouse site and includes parking spaces on Yuba Street, west of Court Street. The second is west of Court Street, between Yuba and Butte streets, and extending east across Oregon Street.
However, both of those sites are smaller that the state desires and located in already heavily-congested areas with some existing developments that would need to be demolished, stated Anderson City Manager Scott Morgan, who is promoting what he contends is clearly a better, more cost-effective option for the state.
“On a cost basis, this site beats all the other sites hands down,” Morgan told the Anderson City Council prior to their discussion.
“One thing it doesn’t have is the proximity to the public defenders’ and attorneys’ offices, but we do have the additional property on which to develop these facilities,” Morgan noted.
Council member Keith Webster, using what he described as the vernacular of an appraiser, countered, “I’m not sure this is the hightest and best use of the property. It is zoned commercially for retail purposes, and with state ownership of the property, the City of Anderson would receive no property tax and no retail sales tax.”
Melissa Hunt agreed with Webster, but went on to note that having the county’s courts so far removed from the county’s administrative facility would place an extra cost burden on Shasta County taxpayers, as well as place additional vehicles on the region’s already clogged roadways with jurors, attorneys and courthouse employees all driving down from Redding to go to work or attend court.
“In California, there are 129 courthouses that are not located in the county seat,” Morgan said in response. “It is not at all unusual for a courthouse to be located elsewhere. And from a strictly parochial standpoint, our City of Anderson Police Department personnel have always had to take the extra time and drive to the courthouse in Redding.”
In noting some of Webster’s and Hunt’s objections, Vice Mayor Norma Comnick responded that “the decision (on where to locate the courthouse) is not made by the local folks, it is made by the state” and “we are pretty close to all of their recommended requirements” for property size and land cost.
“We would also likely see the Petrovich property across the street (to the south) develop much quicker,” added Comnick, noting the Petrovich parcel is also zoned commercial for retail development.
The Petrovich property is large enough to accommodate four stores the size and type of Costco in Redding, Morgan has previously said.
When the vote was finally taken, Comnick’s motion to recommend the Tumino property as a courthouse site was seconded by James Yarbrough and supported by Mayor Butch Schaefer.
Hunt and Webster voted against submitting the site by the March 31 deadline.
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 3
hankrearden writes:
Mr. Anderson does it again. Webster has absolutely no idea what is going on in Anderson. He coulnd't find his way out of a paper bag, I swear. Does he not understand that if the courthouse comes to Anderson that the commercial and retail will follow. At that point, the city will get their sales tax revenue. But to try and stop a HUGE project like this over a LITTLE amount of sales tax revenue is stupid. But I would expect nothing different from Keith. As for the new councilwoman, Ms. Hunt, she is doing everything she can to derail a project that would only help the south county. She needs to worry more about how to help Anderson than worry about the county's problems. Get your priorities strait lady. Thank God I didn't vote for either one of these idiots.
deaski writes:
It's really too bad all we can get down here is a freakin court house. Too many people getting into trouble out there.
Reflection writes:
Does it escape the Anderson City Council that when there are no jobs, people don't spend money and there are no sales taxes paid. We better create some real industry or go back to the old ways. Between the cities of Anderson and Redding and the Shasta County good ole boys, the only answers they have is to spend public money to help developers and their contractor friends. This same thing is happening in Redding to get them to develop the Oasis Rd. overpass and another shopping center. There is another mall plan for the truck stop area that will take up some of best farmland in our area. If all these plans go through, Dana Dr. will look like downtown Redding and there will be more urban blight throughout the county. Then the few people that have money will have more places to spend it, not more money. The new jobs "created" will only be employees transferring to the new stores from the ones that fail in the other areas, leaving empty store fronts behind them.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.