An emergency moratorium of up to 9 months on gas station applications in Manteca until the city gets rules in place?

The City Council could make such a move when they meet Aug. 18.

They also could opt to work toward a “permanent” ban of some sort on new gas station applications.

The latter is highly unlikely.

The former isn’t.

One staff member crafting options for the council to ponder characterized it as a “pause” while the city got rules in place.

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Or does it?

What if the moratorium was for 9 months or so on new housing permits until all development fees were adjusted to make sure the city was getting its maximum fair share of what growth could be charged?

That’s different, Council members might counter.

The would be partially correct.

It’s different in that there would be huge risks to the city — and to elected officials politically.

First, there would be a firestorm of legal pushback from developers given they have secured entitlements that are conditioned on their paying the growth fees in place at the time building permits are issued.

State law and the courts would likely be on the side of developers.

Then there are the building trades that would likely howl how the city was putting jobs in jeopardy.

There would also be the issue of what type of message such a move would send.

However, there clearly is a “fairness” question, and more, at stake.

Is it fair to the community that the maximum possible legal growth fees may not be in place when building permits are issued?

Rest assured such a proposal would never be advanced with the current council or, based on the philosophical signaling of challengers in the upcoming municipal election, anyone trying to get elected.

Let’s be honest.

A moratorium on gas station applicants for 9 months isn’t a bold move for two reasons.

First and foremost, even if there is an additional application before new development rules are put in place, odds are that one or more of the 11 now in the entitlement process will not move forward for a variety of reasons.

Add to that the likely places for someone to propose new gas stations with the locations now on the table are likely to be away from residential areas or in spots that no one would likely object to such as on the southwest corner of the McKinley Avenue and 120 Bypass interchange.

The second reason is the lack of political risk, economic fallout, or even long-term damage to Manteca’s reputation as a development juggernaut.

Gas stations -— besides convenience stores, car washes and perhaps fast food places — seem to be the punching bag of a lot of people in Manteca even though it is clear by their success a lot of people in Manteca clearly want them.

A temporary moratorium on gas station applications is a great way to score political points without incurring political risk.

It also isn’t likely to inflict any economic pain on the city or consumers.

That is especially true since one of the pending entitlement that wouldn’t be impacted even if the council ultimately pursues a “permanent” moratorium is fueling stations at a new Super Walmart.

Why that is a concern to consumers is simple. Much like Costco, Walmart keeps fuel margins thin.

Having the proverbial 900-pound gorillas of near loss-leader retail sellers just over two miles apart along the 120 Bypass corridor that the majority of people in Manteca cross or use on a daily basis means there is a market force that helps keep prices lower even if it is only a few cents a gallon.

A 9-month delay in submitting applications for new gas stations isn’t likely to derail the potential for large commercial center projects that might need one to make their endeavor pencil out at “prime” locations that are currently available in Manteca such as the northwest corner of Union Road and Atherton Drive.

Rest assured, the city is fairly closed attuned to development industry chatter about such projects.

In short, there is no downside to a temporary gas station moratorium.

There is an upside as more palatable development rules for them will be put in place even though the proverbial barn door means the opportunity is lost forever to make sure 11 other possible stations that could be built comply to what should be more preferable rules.

As for a building permit moratorium for 9 months to catch up on growth fees for new homes to make sure existing residents aren’t burdened and the city secures the latest legal fees possible under state law, it is fraught with landmines.

The big one is whether it would even be legal in California for such a move.

But right up there is the long term damage it could end up doing to the local economy.

A “permanent” moratorium on new gas station applications might be bold, a 9-month temporary moratorium is anything but.