| All candidates are in alphabetical order |
Land Use Policy - Affordable Housing |
|
| Amit Pandya | |
| What is your position on affordable housing? Please be specific with regards to policies you support or oppose. | Salinas has a huge unmet demand for affordable housing and workforce housing. With the demographics we have in Salinas, I do not see the need abating anytime soon. City's policy has decreased 20% to 30% affordable housing required, down to 10% to 15%. Montabella second phase was allowed to move forward with only 9 units out of about 250, a 4% affordable housing. This is not right. |
| Do you support modifying city policies to make it easier and cheaper to build housing? If so, what specific policy changes do you support? | It is necessary to have safety and zoning and such policies to make sure the new construction is clean and safe. Having said that, I believe that the city should be working proactively with builders and promote affordable housing. City has waived costs of permits, licenses and such for businesses before. If the city can forgive and give a tax break of $950,000 to build a new hotel on John street, then city can also give the same or more to a builder anywhere within the city for affordable / inclusionary housing. Workforce housing is an issue that we don't talk about enough. Our next mayor needs to make workforce housing a big part of the conversation on affordability. |
| Do you support requiring developers to actually build inclusionary units instead of paying an “in lieu” fee? | In lieu fees do nothing to alleviate the actual shortage of the affordable housing for our people. We need to promote more housing, not small fees for not building it. |
| Do you support requiring that “inclusionary housing” units be made permanently affordable, even upon resale? If not, please explain. | All cities go through their real estate cycles over 30 to 50 years. new development, plateau, decline and revitalization. If the affordable housing is not made affordable upon resale, for at least a short term of 30 or so years, then it is the first buyer who profits and benefits from the housing, not the entire community as a whole. I believe that if below market value housing was constructed to solve a housing problem, it should do so for at least 30 years or so. |
| Do you support requiring developers of hospitality, commercial and industrial projects that significantly increase demand for already scarce housing resources to also build workforce housing? | Absolutely. We have demand for inclusionary housing, affordable housing, low income - no income housing as well as workforce housing. By the way, my definition of workplace housing is not exclusive to farmworker housing only. Workplace housing in my mind also includes housing for teachers and others. |
| What other housing policies do you support or oppose? | |
Water Supplies |
|
| Amit Pandya | |
| What specific proposals do you support to ensure your community can meet its water demands without over-drafting groundwater aquifers? | There is re-using of the repurposed and cleaned brown water. scaling this million gallons a day project will cost some capital investment, but in the long run, it benefits all of us by not wasting that water. Recycling our current water is an environmentally low impact and beneficial solution. There is also a desalination solution, talked about by many. While it may be an economically feasible project, it comes with it's own environmental problems and issues. From my personal point of view, recycling and reuse is a far better approach than desalination plant construction and permanently sucking up new water, and using of resources of our oceans and such. |
| Do you support expansion of Pure Water Monterey as an alternative to building a desalination plant? | |
Sprawl Reduction |
|
| Amit Pandya | |
| Salinas recently approved expansion of low density development onto 500 acres of prime farmland, even though the the City currently has over 7,580 acres of land for potential economic development within its existing city limits and Sphere of Influence. Do you support this expansion? If so, why? | I spoke against this. I don't get it. We are an agricultural community, and Ag is our main economic driver. We have some of the best, prime land around us. Why turn that fertile prime land in to a concrete jungle? Even common sense dictates infill as a much better approach to growth. Infill has the advantage of increasing density, easier economic growth, conservation of resources and better management of services, than spreading out single file on land. When that expansion is on quality farmland, it not only hurts us locally, it hurts Ag and produce supplies all over the nation. To answer the question clearly, This is a policy aimed at benefitting developers and builders. No, I do not like this expansion policy. |
| Do you support the creation of “urban growth boundaries” or expansion of the existing boundary as a way to prevent urban sprawl, and to insure that future growth is compact, efficient, and protective of the environment? If not, what measures would you support to prevent urban sprawl? If yes, will you sponsor an urban growth boundary in the upcoming year, and make it one of your top three priorities | Boundaries have to be solid, and created to contain urban sprawl. Boundaries have to be maintained. Boundaries should only be modified under extreme circumstances, not at a whim of a political body or special interest groups. |
Transportation |
|
| Amit Pandya | |
| New commercial developments and hotels create more trips and additional vehicle miles travelled on already overcrowded roads and highways. Both residents and visitors pay the price of delay and increased pollution. What specific traffic congestion relief solutions do you support? | This is a good question. On one hand, you have economic growth and vitality that brings more businesses and jobs to the area. On the other hand, you have more car trips, visits, road miles travelled, and potentially more pollution to the region. There is a fine balance between the two, and there is some give and take between the two. To me, advocating for higher occupancy per vehicle, such as carpooling and buses and other mass transit present a viable solution. For a larger regional traffic pattern management, perhaps smart rail such as BART on smaller scale would help between cities and regions. |
| Do you support roundabouts on Highway 68 and other roads? What other transportation policies or practices have you seen that local governments should incorporate? | |
Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FOR A) |
|
| Amit Pandya | |
| What is your position on the Fort Ord Reuse Authority? Do you believe the Authority has achieved its original goals? If so, what evidence do you cite? | One just needs to look at recent developments or lack there of, to realize that FORA is not a well oiled machine. Deadlines pass, and FORA members continue to posture instead of uniting and focusing on results. As for the achievement of original goals, or any goals recently... You got to be kidding. |
| Which do you support: 1) sunsetting the Authority in 2020 as current legislation contemplates or 2) extending the Authority beyond that date? If you support extending it, please explain why. | I have seen FORA become a unmitigated disaster since it's adoption of a larger plan and idea in late 1990's. The group now known as FORA has become a political posturing and grandstanding hotbed. It has lost clarity in it's thinking, and ability to have clear vision and goals for the project. In business world, when a business becomes such a headbanging hot mess of inaction and grandstanding, there is only one solution. Close the business, clean house, and re-emerge with new employees, and clear direction. Here, we don't have such an option. However, I would argue that letting FORA fade away in 2020, would actually be beneficial to the region, and not a big hindrance. Let it go, clean house and let other groups and agencies chart a new course. |
| What is your position on the Eastside Parkway/Freeway/Road? | |
Leadership |
|
| Amit Pandya | |
| If you are elected, what will be your top three priorities? | Affordable Housing, Transparency and inclusion in Government. Safety of the people, Prevention and sports programs for youth, |
| What land use policies are you willing to champion for the community? | Infill and growth first before spreading out. As far as land, what we have is all we are going to get. No one is making more. We have to be good stewards of our natural resources of Land, Air and Water. Leave it in the same or better condition than we found it. |
| What accomplishments in your career or public service are you most proud of? | Able to purchase broken businesses, take them apart, fix them, put them togather and watch them thrive. I have done that multiple times in my life, and I still get a sense of satisfaction when it's done right and humming along as a well oiled machine. |
Background |
|
| Full Name | Amit Pandya |
| Occupation | Small Business Owner |
| Years Lived in Area | 25 |
| Education | Majored in Finance and Marketing at Calstate Hayward. Did not get a chance to finish. Business came calling first.... |
| Experience | I have sat on lot of different Boards in various capacities from President down. I have started non-profits, hired and trained employees, set and met business growth and profit goals, met payrolls and other financial obligations and grown several businesses in double and triple digit percentage growth. I have assembled and executed lots of community events as part of Oldtown Association, and as Oldtown Foundation, both as president. I am currently serving on Salinas measure V/E committee as the Chair. I continue to be involved with my community. |
| Joe Gunter did not respond. |