Kevin Spease running for Mayor of Elk Grove

This topic contains 31 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Bainc 2 years, 2 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #177102

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Local businessman and Elk Grove Planning Commissioner Kevin Spease has thrown his hat into the ring to run for Mayor of Elk Grove, challenging incumbent Gary Davis in the election this November. A Facebook page and website has been set up. No official announcement has been made yet.

    The bio on Spease’s Facebook page states:

    Kevin Spease grew up in Elk Grove. He rode his bike to Pleasant Grove Elementary School and was active in 4-H. Today, he’s a local small business owner – running his own cyber-security firm as well as Spease Bees Honey Company.

    As a member of the Elk Grove Planning Commission, Kevin has championed efforts to bring more transparency and public input into the planning process.

    Kevin and Angela have been married for 26 years, and one son – Jeremy. They both are active in Rotary, and are passionate about improving child-literacy. In fact, they donate a portion of the profits from their local honey operation (Spease Bees) to the Laguna Sunrise-Elk Grove Literacy Project.

    Kevin was Honorably Discharged as a Combat Veteran in 2000, but remains active in support of Veterans. He serves as Mentor for the Sacramento County Veterans Treatment Court and is active with American Legion Post 233.

  • #292466

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    It’s nice for there to be some competition. Good luck to Kevin!

  • #292478

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    Good to see so some opposition. Not sure about his politics. Growth, no growth, stances on civic center, swim complex, soccer stadium, etc.

  • #292475

    Julia
    Member
    • Topics - 4
    • Replies - 61
    • Total Posts - 65

    Know almost nothing about him, but SO glad to see a fresh name! I look forward to learning more about him.

  • #292476

    Ila
    Participant
    • Topics - 87
    • Replies - 1,458
    • Total Posts - 1,545

    I know Kevin and consider him a very good friend so I am very happy.

  • #292469

    violarose
    Member
    • Topics - 106
    • Replies - 2,959
    • Total Posts - 3,065

    I know nothing on him. I want to see what they both say on growth. Maybe we can have some better ideas than a water park his kiddies wanted.

  • #292474

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    Great news.

  • #292467

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    I wonder how many more police officers we could have on the streets if we didn’t pay all that money for the MLS team lobbying, the design of civic center, the water park, and all those other projects to make Elk Grove a “destination city” for people outside the city but that make it undesirable for the people that live here.

  • #292470

    violarose
    Member
    • Topics - 106
    • Replies - 2,959
    • Total Posts - 3,065

    Thank you NewMom, Great question!

  • #292454

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Now toss in possibly $1.8 million more for a roundabout for one intersection. Then come back and ask for a sales tax increase. That won’t fly well.

  • #292479

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    I’m concerned with the expansion of the city to the south. The last SOI application wanted land all the way to Eschinger Road. How clogged would our roads be with more homes and few jobs?

  • #292473

    egca95624
    Participant
    • Topics - 1
    • Replies - 84
    • Total Posts - 85

    Mark, the city’s SOI Application barely went to Eschinger – no where near Lambert…

  • #292455

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @egca95624 124183 wrote:

    Mark, the city’s SOI Application barely went to Eschinger – no where near Lambert…

    ya know, these darn activists, always exaggerating! 🙂

  • #292480

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    Yikes, you are correct. That was off the top of my head. I don’t like disseminating misinformation. I’ll edit my prior comment in case anyone else read it following this thread.

    I’m cool with some growth at a reasonable pace and I would hate for the county to develop it instead of the city (see Cordova Hills). But I have yet to see current residents interested in growth to the south. At the last PC/Council meeting I pointed out the only group that had responded to the city’s outreach wanting growth were the developers. To me that’s a red flag. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ever grow but I’ve learned what’s best for the development community isn’t always best for the city so proceed with caution.

  • #292464

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Would you expect a room full of residents to be yelling “oh hell yes, grow!” in ANY jurisdiction? If you put it to a binary vote, grow/no grow, you’d probably have 90% with no grow because they have made it through the door and now want it shut behind them. That’s like saying developers are the main contributors to politicians so that’s a red flag. Who else contributes in mass, other than unions? This applies to any jurisdiction, anywhere in the country for the most part. These are pretty universal expectations.

  • #292481

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    @lc 124187 wrote:

    If you put it to a binary vote, grow/no grow, you’d probably have 90% with no grow because they have made it through the door and now want it shut behind them.

    They can do exactly like I did…buy an existing home for another homeowner.

    As for growth, growth, growth. How has that worked out for Florin Road, the Parkway, Valley Hi, Antelope, North Highlands, Citrus Heights, South Natomas, Vintage Park, Churchill downs etc, etc?. You could even throw in north Laguna.

  • #292482

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    @EGL Admin 124184 wrote:

    ya know, these darn activists, always exaggerating! 🙂

    Like those doing polls with loaded questions like do you want a round a bout for an extra $1.8M? :stir:

  • #292456

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @bainc 124194 wrote:

    Like those doing polls with loaded questions like do you want a round a bout for an extra $1.8M? :stir:

    You can’t ask the question without mentioning the additional cost though. Cost is a huge factor in the decision.

  • #292457

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @bainc 124192 wrote:

    They can do exactly like I did…buy an existing home for another homeowner.

    As for growth, growth, growth. How has that worked out for Florin Road, the Parkway, Valley Hi, Antelope, North Highlands, Citrus Heights, South Natomas, Vintage Park, Churchill downs etc, etc?. You could even throw in north Laguna.

    You mean old, poorly built homes? If not for growth you wouldn’t have been able to buy your home in east Elk Grove that was built after 2000. You couldn’t afford it. You would be living in south sac with bars on your windows

  • #292483

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    I agree. I’m just stirring the pot. Be careful, someone might label you an activist.

  • #292458

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I’m not an activist. They are idiots. 🙂

  • #292484

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    @EGL Admin 124197 wrote:

    You mean old, poorly built homes? If not for growth you wouldn’t have been able to buy your home in east Elk Grove that was built after 2000. You couldn’t afford it. You would be living in south sac with bars on your windows

    Not necessarily. Our home we bought in Laguna would have been worth more after owning it for 11 years. Instead, we broke even from 2002 to 2013. Other slower growth cities like Folsom and Davis weren’t even between those same years. They were up. That’s the problem with too much growth. It devalues existing homes.

    But it’s a fine line. No growth isn’t good either.

  • #292459

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Growth actually caused your home’s value to go up. The market crashing is what caused it to go down.

  • #292485

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    To bring this back around to the original post. I look forward to hearing Mr. Spease’s view of this and the other matters Newmom brought up.

  • #292468

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    Supply and demand. Economic growth caused people to buy and sell homes-not having so many homes available. There was so much supply available, our houses didn’t see as huge an increase as in cities that didn’t have the same rapid growth. But because EG grew so quickly and there were so many thousands of homes available when the market crashed, the homes were worth even less than cities that didn’t have the high number of foreclosures. Slower growth doesn’t harm the prices of houses if people want to live in the community.

  • #292460

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Elk Grove’s home prices grew at a faster rate than other cities. Homes almost tripled in price in a few years. Our first home we paid $118K in 1992. In 1999 we sold for $127K. In 2004-5 that same model sold for $330K. It was only 1105 square feet. My wife’s business partner paid $1.4 million for a home at The Ranch. That went to foreclosure at $550K I think. Prices got way too inflated and there was nothing to back it up. Prices are more in line now with where they should be.

  • #292465

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    There is no good answer to growth. Roseville and Folsom have both grown very well. Neither started as what anyone would call “good” areas, but they were out far enough from the core that the concentric circle theory of growth, for which California more than any other state in the West exemplifies, caught up with both, and both have prospered with quality housing. Many of the areas you mentioned were never good to start with, Citrus Heights being an exception. CH is far from desirable now, but it stopped growing in the early 80s. It was simply regional expansion that went beyond it, leaving it less desirable.

    We are experiencing something similar in Fair Oaks. When we bought our house in the mid 80s our neighborhood was in the top three or four most desirable places in the region with prices to match. Now Fair Oaks is tired, not really well kept, and although our houses do sell fairly quickly as there is very little turnover and most have some land, most people pass it by for a bigger, newer house on a smaller lot for the same money. Fair Oaks stopped growing in the 80s, but people kept breeding. Soon, we’ll be doing as others have done, and leapfrog out in the country which at some point will have subdivision homes, but not in our lifetime (probably).

    Oregon has a structure called Urban Growth Boundaries, and to expand it has to go to a public vote. You can of course predict that outcome. The result has been positive in that some decaying areas have been gentrified, but very negative in that the prices have become astronomical, pushing lower and even middle income people out of the market. Now the growth is to the north, in SW Washington, which is still affordable. Commutes are longer, budgets are stretched, roadways are heavily taxed and in constant gridlock, and the government regulation is unprecedented.

    No growth–unchecked growth–neither are good solutions, but proposed growth in Elk Grove is a long way from being unchecked.

  • #292471

    kindrlindr
    Participant
    • Topics - 34
    • Replies - 2,374
    • Total Posts - 2,408

    I think its time our home development stopped. Our roads are ridiculously impacted. Anyone who thinks we need more homes built needs their head examined. I’m only half kidding too. I would question their intentions.

  • #292461

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Stop as in right now? That’s not going to happen. Too much at stake for the city to halt all home building.

  • #292472

    kindrlindr
    Participant
    • Topics - 34
    • Replies - 2,374
    • Total Posts - 2,408

    Have you seen our streets these days? Someone seriously screwed up if they think that is normal. EG Blvd is a total parking lot.

  • #292477

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    I think even more of an issue are the lack of natural resources.. like water….

  • #292462

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @kindrlindr 124248 wrote:

    Have you seen our streets these days? Someone seriously screwed up if they think that is normal. EG Blvd is a total parking lot.

    I think you’re exaggerating just a little. Of course I have seen the streets. In order for the mall to be successful and attract new businesses that area needs to be developed.

  • #292463

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    In case you missed the official announcement speech on our FB page, here is a link to Spease’s speech

    https://www.facebook.com/doc.souza.5/videos/10207503355396311/

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.