A civil lawsuit filed against the City of Redding by the Redding Rancheria was decided in the Tribe’s favor last week. That case relates to a small parcel of land that provides important road access for the site of the Rancheria’s proposed casino development. Back in 2020, Michael Dacquisto was the only city council member who voted against vacating, declaring surplus and selling the land. He spoke to Shasta Scout over the weekend about what drove his decision then, and how he sees things now.
Redding’s riverfront development was last planned decades ago before the Sundial Bridge, Turtle Bay Museum or the Redding Arboretum existed. Funding an update to the 30 year-old plan would be the city’s first step in deciding how to utilize riverfront land after the council voted against declaring the land surplus last month. The city could take advantage of $1 million or more in federal COVID relief money to fund the planning process.
Redding’s City Council voted to utilize funds to begin a city-led planning process instead of declaring prime riverfront properties “surplus.” The vote followed months of discussion, public workshops, and community surveys about public land close to the Sundial Bridge. The land issue has provoked significant community conversations about who represents a city stakeholder and how local government engages the community in planning and decisions.
The land we now know as Redding has been a part of Wintu people’s vast homelands for thousands of years. Today, after surviving state-sponsored massacres, violent removals, and discriminatory legal doctrines, Wintu tribes remain almost entirely landless. For some Wintu people, the proposed sale of riverfront land is inseparable from the need to reckon with this often-suppressed history.
The Council is scheduled to vote Tuesday on whether to “surplus” approximately 45 acres of land including the Redding Rodeo grounds and Redding Civic Auditorium grounds in preparation for a potential sale. Legal Counsel for three local environmental groups say doing so would violate the California Environmental Quality Act and be inconsistent with the city’s own General Plan.
After a break of several months, Redding council members will again discuss whether several key parcels at the Redding riverfront should be declared surplus, paving the way for the land to be sold to a consortium of developers and non-profits. If the properties are declared surplus, the city must first make them available to affordable housing developers and a list of public entities that includes ten local tribes, before they could be sold to the consortium.
A focus group of 12 stakeholders has met biweekly over the last four months to provide advice on how the Community Development and Design subsection of Redding’s General Plan will be updated. The plan broadly addresses land use in the city, including how the Sacramento River and the riverfront can best be utilized by the community. Half of the city’s chosen community stakeholders are architects, builders or developers.
After a proposal to develop key riverfront land was brought to the city council in September, staff solicited public input. Shasta Scout collected and analyzed data from emails, survey responses, and public workshop comments to provide a summary of what the public has said so far. Here’s what we found.
What you need to know about how California’s Surplus Land Act might impact a potential sale of city riverfront property, what options the city is exploring, and why a vote on riverfront land has been delayed.
Native people presented a united front against selling riverfront land to private developers at Thursday’s Redding City Council riverfront development workshop. They invoked their responsibility to protect their homelands and the remains of their ancestors and pledged to prevent further erasure.
A series of public workshops, surveys and social media posts by the city haven’t reassured many community members that they’re being included in the riverfront planning process. Shasta Scout looked at how the city’s process compares with best practices in community engagement.
As Redding considers selling riverfront land for redevelopment, news archives from the 60’s and 70’s provide insight into how the city became owners of the land. Another public workshop on the possible sale and redevelopment of the land will be held tonight.
Despite recent losses, Advance Redding hopes to manage events at the Civic even after the new Bethel Church campus opens. Some in the Redding community worry about their connections to Bethel Church. Their contract renewal for Civic management is being negotiated and is likely to come back before the Council in November.
In the first of four public workshops on a proposed riverfront land development, the Council will hear a presentation on the process for declaring city land surplus in preparation for sale. A report from the City Attorney indicates that the City could declare the properties as “exempted surplus land” and sell to a developer ready to build at least three hundred housing units, with 25 percent of them meeting affordable housing requirements.
In this Building Democracy column we’re sharing the strategies that are shaping our coverage of Redding’s riverfront land development proposal and other news stories. And we’re welcoming your feedback.
Marge Cantrell emphasized the importance of keeping Redding’s natural beauty and small-town feel front-and-center. “Every town doesn’t have to have a Disney,” Cantrell said.
The discussion centers around a proposal by two developers and two non-profits to develop key riverfront land.
The proposal from Populous, K2, Turtle Bay and McConnell to buy prime riverfront land will be discussed as part of an open session of Tuesday’s City Council meeting. At that meeting the Council could decide to enter into a non-binding agreement with developers or declare almost 200 acres of riverfront land surplus.
During a tense end to Tuesday’s meeting Council Member Dacquisto called for the disclosure of the K2, Populous and McConnell Foundation proposal that was submitted to Council. Shasta Scout followed up with city staff and others. Here’s what we found.
A lawyer specializing in Brown Act violations said the city’s lack of transparency should be seen as a “red flag.”
This is a developing story. Shasta Scout is reaching out to relevant parties for comment and further information.
