Poorly Located Train Station a Costly Mistake for Dixon

Dear Editor:

At its February 22, 2012, meeting, Solano County Taxpayers Association (SCTA) approved a resolution to present SCTA concerns to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) about the large commitments of tax money, both past and future, required to bring a Capital Corridor train stop to Dixon.

In addition we believe that the Dixon City Council January 24, 2012, staff report and resolution to approve the pending Dixon Priority Development Area (PDA) application failed to include recent, relevant information to the Council and to the public regarding future ownership of the train station.

The train station was completed in 2007 using State redevelopment money and is central to the intent of the PDA. 

The State dissolution of redevelopment agencies late last year did more than just stop the flow of money from Sacramento; it also allows the State to appropriate redevelopment assets (buildings, parking lots and leases).  As the city attorney informed the Council on February 14, 2012, “. . . the City’s obligation is to sell (the train station).”

Although SCTA would argue that the City knew or should have known of the potential sale of the train station at the time the PDA application was approved by the Council in January, it is but one additional reason that the Dixon PDA application is premature and should not be approved at this time. 

Contrary to the Council’s official position, the actions of the Council in these matters have been neither unanimous nor without significant public disagreement since before the construction of the train station.

The unfortunate location chosen for the train station will force the City to make a number of very costly and disruptive changes to the historic section of downtown (Old Town).

The most costly and disruptive of these is the West A Street grade separation tunnel that is required to provide space to construct some future rail passenger platform.  The City’s application for the PDA acknowledges that a funding source for this project has not been identified.  This project is expected to cost $25 to 30 million tax dollars. 

In addition to the high cost, the construction of a grade separation tunnel of a major cross-town street, West A Street, the only east-west crossing now in the city limits, would disrupt traffic and Old Town businesses for a very long time.  Many businesses in Old Town are already struggling economically and the effect of this kind of disruption on these businesses is not expected to be positive.  The existing post office seems sure to suffer major, if not permanent, disruption of public access. 

What will be the effect of selling the train station?  Shouldn’t the PDA application at least be tabled until this question is resolved?

The PDA application also states “. . . the City hopes that many of the existing buildings in Old Town . . . will be renovated and reused.

The City hopes that the upper floors . . . will again be used for residential.”

The SCTA is concerned that many historic buildings in Old Town were constructed before modern earthquake and other building standards were in effect and that “renovation” may be extremely costly.

Instead of renovating the former Veterans Hall in Old Town, for example, the County recently elected to purchase a new facility in another location at a lower cost.

The “hopes” of the City in the PDA application may prove illusory and may become the taxpayer’s most costly approach to the stated goals of the PDA.

Again, what will be the effect on the proposed PDA of selling the train station? 

Another smaller, but costly related project for which money has been approved by the Council is the construction of a pedestrian tunnel to replace the West B Street pedestrian grade crossing near the train station.

In addition to the high cost (over $6 million), SCTA is concerned about this project because the City’s portion of money required for its construction has been diverted from a development impact fund (intended to mitigate growth related issues) to a transit capital fund that contained less than half the money required for the City’s portion of this project.

In addition to not clearly identifying the method of repayment of the money loaned (diverted) from the development impact fund, the Council majority focused mostly on a purported pedestrian safety issue at the site.

A significant number of citizens and a minority of the Council have suggested a lower-cost alternative to address the supposed safety issue (the addition of crossing arms) and have repeatedly questioned the cost, need and wisdom for this project at all.

Opposition to this project includes significant safety issues (lack of visibility, potential for loitering and crime and the attendant risk particularly to students), aesthetics (odors, potentially poorly maintained lighting, dampness, vandalism) and taxpayer costs. 

Citizens and some on the Council have repeatedly urged the Council to consider other, more suitable sites for a future train stop that would not be burdened by most of the mitigation measures, and costs, that the train station at its current location requires before any passenger train can stop.

One of these proposed sites is within the city limits to the northeast of the subject location (East H Street) and has been offered by the owner for this purpose.  This site is relatively free of development at this time and would offer a clean slate for future central transit development. 

SCTA believes that ABAG and the Council should step back from their headlong rush to spend large amounts of tax money on a poorly-located train station and the pending approval of the PDA application until effects of the likely sale of the train station are made clear.

SCTA also believes that alternative nearby passenger train platform sites exist that do not come burdened with the large costs and undesirable consequences for Old Town associated with the current location.

The Dixon Chapter of SCTA is currently circulating a petition stating the foregoing objections to further expenditures of tax money at the current train station site, and asking that the PDA application be halted at this time.  Copies of these petitions will be available for review after March 14, 2012. 

Earl Heal, President, Solano County Taxpayers Association