The Jackson Hills fiasco is a case study in bad government.
In the end Monday night, all sides finally agreed on one thing: there were not enough details about the project to really make an informed decision. The Jackson City Council, the Jackson Hills developers and the public who have opposed the project all seemed to acknowledge that the development agreement, which hammers out the "nuts and bolts" of the proposed project, should have been negotiated in the beginning. I am still baffled as to why this did not happen. The public told the council many times that we need plans before projects, yet the developer and the majority of the council seemed intent on passing resolutions without having the necessary information about the costs and impacts of the project. (Councilman Andy Rodriguez was the lone voice of reason and voted against Jackson Hills from the start).
Last fall when the council voted 4-1 to pass five resolutions to move the project to the "next step," the city gave up all bargaining power to negotiate an advantageous development agreement. Now they realize that they put the cart before the horse. At every turn, the majority of the Jackson City Council did exactly as the developers had asked. In the beginning, despite overwhelming public opposition, the developers urged the council to approve the resolutions to move the project forward. And by a 4-1 vote, the council did just that. When the citizens opposed the resolutions with more than 750 signatures, the developer asked the council not to rescind their vote and to place the matter on the June ballot for the voters. Again, the city council complied with a 4-1 vote. After taking a telephone survey on their project, the developers flip-flopped and asked the council to overturn their vote and remove the measures from the ballot. Once again, the council voted the way the developers asked them to and thus denied the voting public the chance to be heard. Exactly who is running the city of Jackson? It sure seems to me like the developers are.
If the majority of Jackson City Council had just listened to their constituents from the beginning, this whole mess would have been avoided and a lot of time, energy and money would have been saved.
If you are unhappy with the way things have been going, 2008 is your year. Voters have an opportunity for sweeping change in leadership across the county. In November, a majority of seats are up for election on the Jackson, Sutter Creek and Plymouth city councils, the county board of supervisors and the Amador Water Agency. This is our chance to elect new leaders who will listen to the people, and to get Amador County on the right track towards a healthy and bright future.