New Posts/ Not By Grandpaterrace

Anonymous said in a comment directed to Grandpaterrace, However, the posting being responded to was written by a different writer. Please read and write factually.

"well if your so miserable .. leave. quit your whining. just because you don't like some things, does not mean you represent Grand Terrace population. Fine you want to get the information out there, do it professionally, do it respectfully. Name calling is not pretty, and either is crap-talking. present more than one side. But you are not Grandpa Terrace nothing .. you do not represent Grand Terrace Citizens, you are a person with an opinion."

was in response to the following post:

Educate Yourself I'm compelled to respond to the gracious writer that "watches City Council meetings. Point by point, of which there are few. To make you aware other local cities and the Board of Supervisors have people arrested for speaking out against projects they don't agree with.The folks you demean for exercising their Constitutional rights, have a right to do so. I have met and talked to them and they just don't take the Citys word on things. They have found the staff and council members to be lest than honest. The $13,000,000 portfolio is an excellent example of the city manager lying to the citizens at several council meetings. The council at any time could have told the truth and choose not to. The woman who disrupted the meeting was defamed along with her family in a public document and won a lawsuit against the city and the people they asked to write an opinion in the voters pamphlet. So who is the "ass"?The folks you want "to get over themselves" have researched the OAC better than anyone. They have brought to light the malfeasance of the city and the true cost of the project . I looked at the true cost of the law enforcement cost to the city one of them presented at at council meeting. We will be going over one million three hundred thousand dollars over what the city says the OAK will generate. But you sit at home and you watch the meeting. You call the city and you believe everything they tell you. Now how do you think the business' at the OAC will be supplied every day. Trucks. In and out all day and night long. These are the people whose lives and homes will be affected. Some have lived here over 50 years. I don't know what information you brought from the city, but from your response you should have someone who understands it exlpain it to you. Its apparent you don't. At least this people participate in the process. What do you do?'- posted by duelynoted @ Monday, May 09, 2005 1 comments

This is an example of what, asks Grandpaterrace? Let's use this to share ideas, concerns and hold a public discourse. Let's try to keep it issue based, if individuals are to be singled out it should be in relation to a particular public statement, public action, or public practice. Grandpaterrace does not care if you eat with your mouth open.


New Post not directly related to the above:
Posted by Anonymous:

By law the city clerk must release copies of any "DDA" =Development disposition Agreement, for copy costs. Basically the 2-15-05 one says the CRA/city has agreed the developer MUST construct 250,000 square feet of new buildings on 16 acres @ Barton Road & Michigan. The "library" is just the excuse for the eminent domain, otherwise nothing on the site could be considered really "public" and how would they assemble the 16 acres of land for the market & other big box tenants? Perhaps the library will be located next to the proposed new MOVIE theater, or the Pet store, Home Improvement center, or office supply. "Agency acknowledges that the Developer intents to convey a portion of the Site to one or more Anchor Users prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion for such portion and Agency hereby consents to such conveyance." page 18. (read corporate welfare for State*r Brothe*rs & other BIG BOXES). "Developer shall pay when due all real estate taxes & assessments assessed IF ANY" page 18." The master city development land/site INCLUDES the lot in front of retirement home at Canal street, so--will the city suggest that these nuisance, displaced seniors later move over to the new senior housing built by the same developer? Just like the trailer park residents are being asked to relocate, perhaps to Grand Terrace Road at land SURPRISE acquired by the same deveoper (for what was it? $1/year LEASE?) thereby subsidizing this same developer. Very cozy, & with no actual money trail to trace! The $10,000. Deposit of the developer in escrow "Such funds may be transferred to any other such interest bearing account or accounts." page 9 The worst part is that the intention is for the ESTIMATED $450,000./year new revenues (?!)(report page 21) but quoted by TSchwaby to the San Bernardino Sun on 4-14-05 at $600,000./year "and 200-250 jobs? If such money is generated to go to the CRA/city, it will be spent by those trusted CRA redevelopmeant" "public servants" but NOT on schools, public safety, city services, roads, sewers or people etc. --We are going to need a whole new cityCouncil/CRA to beat this one over the long term! The big push for the current land purchases NOW is to beat any decision by the Supreme Court expected by 6-30-05 that could rule in favor of property owners who just want to be left alone, since their property is being taken by THREAT of, but not actual eminent domain merely to give private property A to private property owner B! Wow. --Posted by Anonymous to