Reply to PE Coverage of the Meeting

Sides spar over senior housing
12:20 AM PDT on Friday, August 12, 2005
By MASSIEL LADRÓN DE GUEVARA / The Press-Enterprise

Read Her Article on line or in Print: Here is my reply
Tom Schwab should also note that the support of 15 or 30 seniors does not necessarily depict the opinions of 13,000 other Grand Terrace Inhabitants.

Schwab did not explain that there has been a potential rejection of CRA Funds by the State of California, because the project only addresses the needs for seniors and not the all sectors of the population in need of low cost housing.

Schwab did not explain why the city can have high density apartments and other local developers are consistently denied the opportunity to build small homes and duplexes.

Schwab did not explain that there would be a retaining wall to keep the houses on the south side of the property in place during the removal of 10 feet of topsoil. None is planned. He did not explain how the water draining down out of the back yards of the homes on Brentwood could wash down to the senior center property, and erode under the current fences, and patios, causing structural problems to some of the houses which are set back close to the rear fence.

Schwab did not explain why the General Plan, has changed so dramatically and why the Plan to Have the Senior Complex part of Town Center was rejected or changed without public hearings.

Schwab did not explain that while the Developer met several times with the Seniors, Provided Contributions to the City’s Grand Terrace Days, Contributed Funds for a Concert in September, and Provided Punch and Cookies for Seniors in Support of the Plan before the Planning Commission Meeting, they did not meet with other Citizens in the Community. They did not meet with the citizens living on Brentwood. Nor have they met with the parents of children attending Terrace View Elementary School. Will the Criminal Backgrounds of the Seniors all living there be checked for Pedophiles?

Schwab did not explain why there was no competitive plan, alternative plan, or even a plan or proposal in agreement with the “General Plan” of the city. Schwab did not provide the full disclosure of the financial plans and obligations of the parties. Liability insurance, construction risk, and operations risk are all part of the calculations which he is unwilling to provide full public disclosure to.

Mary Silverstein’s assurance of giving Grand Terrace Senior Citizens first dibs may be great, but that is only if the person living there stays “an ACTIVE SENIOR” until they drop dead. Remember, if you live there and get sick, or impaired you will be required to move. This is not likely the final move you will make, if this is your choice for housing, consider it temporary.

She failed to mention how seniors would evacuate the building when the elevators are not powered. Events such as power outages, earth quakes, and fires require rapid evacuations of buildings. Are the “Active Seniors” on the 2nd and 3rd floor apartments going to pass a regular safety required physical, to make sure they can exit the building in a timely way? Perhaps the extra trash shoots could be designed as escape slides. Watch out for those hip replacements friends.

She failed to mention how carpet is difficult to clean, and will be a maintenance and health problem for seniors, not to mention the impediment for those using walkers, wheelchairs, and canes. Try to sanitize a rug.

Seniors helping in the school is a great idea. How many are currently doing that? I know that a few were readers at Grand Terrace School. There is need for Intergenerational activities at all our schools not just the Magnet School. If the center was near the Grand Terrace Elementary School, they could be of Service There. If the Center was on that strip of land along De Berry they could be of service to the young teens who are in need of much more supervision and interaction.

Wasn’t it odd how all those seniors for the center spoke first? In being “Fair” the speakers should have been mixed up and pulled from a hat. Many folks listening to the long meeting may not have heard the comments of those with concerns. The front loading of the comments with persons with only blind self interest and support is incredulous and not representative of the city’s residents.

The 3 minute rule restricts the consultative process. Perhaps the limit should be 10 Minutes, or perhaps Council Member Hilkey could have called Barney back to the podium during his time to speak and yield the floor to allow Barney to finish his contribution. Bill Hayes and others speaking of concerns about the plan aren’t against the provision of senior housing. They have real concerns not petty ones. Nor are the concerns of the property owners on Brentwood petty. To characterize their concerns as not representative of the community is unjust.

The persons in support of the senior center are promoting the plan purely for purposes of self interest. The persons on Brentwood are also concerned with self interest. Those speaking about other concerns are speaking for the “Remainder of the Citizens”.

Your back yard, your property may be next if the city is allowed to conduct its business this way. This is the issue all citizens should be concerned with.

The survey of seniors only, was poorly done and only sought out blind support, eliminating the concerns of others by the skillful method of writing the questions.

I hope that the residents are not allergic to any of those plants. The plants selected look like an absolute pollen fest.

Other important issues at the meeting but not covered in the Press Article

Include:
Zone Changes Must allow for a 10 day Appeal Period.

No Competitive Bidding Process Used

Possible Conflict of Interest during Closed Meeting Negotiation of a Land Purchase

Approval of Travel Expenses to be incurred by traveling City Council

Members. How MUCH??? Do they stay at motel 6?

The Painting of Curbs, to prevent parking of large trucks even when requested by the property owner is not done for the purpose of “Public Safety”, or for the Bus Stop as represented in the Agenda. Why the need to lie. The land owner doesn’t like truck drivers parking in front of his property. Don’t Truck Drivers have Rights? Don’t they pay road taxes, the very “I” funds which were “Planned” to be spent?

Where in the city can truck park? Shall we have all deliveries made by horse and buggy? Sorry can't park a horse in town either....

Old business was ignored. Requests for OAC information was not responded to. Other items previously listed on the blog also were not addressed.

NONE OF THESE ISSUES ARE FULLY DOCUMENTED ON THE CITY’S WEB PAGE, NOR ARE THEY ON THE DEVELOPERS WEB PAGE. INTERESTED CITIZENS HAVE TO PRY THE INFORMATION FROM THE CITY, AND THEN PAY FOR COPIES OF DOCUMENT INORDER TO MAKE A FULL INSPECTION OF THEM. THIS IS NOT FREE AND OPEN GOVERNMENT.

Great Civic Participation All!!!
Seniors For/Against/Concerned about the Projects being proposed in Grand Terrace.
Resist self interest, and keep an open mind.