Gramps:
Thanks for all your help and support last year.
I'll probably need it next year too.
Have a good week end.
Tell everyone on the blog thanks for all their support and happy new year.
jo
Dear Jo:
Jo, hats of to you for standing up for what is right. None of us can know of the stress you have been under for now close to 2 full years.
I am ashamed that the town I live in has treated you and the other citizens as it has. I fear that there may be a cause of a class action suit for the cummulative effects of the stress effect on the health and lives of the targets of the City's Actions. The blog's voice is a cummulative effort and from more than one point of view. All are appreciative that you held to your rights to have the power over the private use of your property. All hope you are restored to full rights in the near future. For your rights are my rights. We get the point of the importance of your struggle.
To all readers: I'll post any such concerns and issues that are cogent, just email the data...
Be safe this weekend. Drive Slow... in Town... Reduce your speed to 35 mph on MT. Vernon and Barton RD... and 20 on the side streets. Collective Slow Down Strike. Perhaps Folks will stay on the Freeway if Barton Rd is not "Faster".
Gramps.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Time Running OUT:
Vacancy Exists on the Grand TerraceCity Council
A vacancy exists on the Grand Terrace City Council with A term continuing to November of 2008. Anyone that resides in the City of Grand Terrace and would like to be considered to fill that vacancy should fill out an application. Applications are available in the City Clerk’s Department. All applications must be received no later than December 28, 2006. If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk’s Department at 909 430-2212.
Gramps Says:
I hope that the Council Selects a Person who will ask the tough questions, and provide the public all the information requested. Then the blog can retire.
Gramps.
A vacancy exists on the Grand Terrace City Council with A term continuing to November of 2008. Anyone that resides in the City of Grand Terrace and would like to be considered to fill that vacancy should fill out an application. Applications are available in the City Clerk’s Department. All applications must be received no later than December 28, 2006. If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk’s Department at 909 430-2212.
Gramps Says:
I hope that the Council Selects a Person who will ask the tough questions, and provide the public all the information requested. Then the blog can retire.
Gramps.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Question on Park Sale to CJUSD
In Brief = Staff Reports
San Bernardino County
Sun Article Launched:12/27/2006 12:00:00 AM PST
GRAND TERRACE Council approves joint-use agreement The City Council has approved an agreement with Colton Joint Unified School District for the joint use of Pico Park. As part of the development of a new high school in Grand Terrace, the council previously agreed to sell 23 acres of property owned by the Community Redevelopment Agency to the district.
The sale included 4.8 acres of the west half of Pico Park. (Was this actually part of the Public Meeting of the GT CITY COUNCIL/ PUBLIC MEETING?)
The district plans to rebuild the two baseball fields at the park for high-school athletics. The agreement gives the city priority to use all playing fields on the high-school property during nonschool hours.
(What is considered Non School Hours? Will it be OPEN ACCESS for PUBLIC USE after 2:45 including Restrooms, Parking, and all facilities?) Will the PUBLIC area be OPEN to the PUBLIC? The Playground Equipment/Snack Bar? We do have home-schooled children who use these facilities during the week. We do have non students who walk the parks and tracks daily. Was this all known at the time the City was holding "Negotiations" behind closed doors? NO I don't think so..... so the public was not able to provide informed comments at public hearings. I am not against the building of a High School. I am not against shared resources. I support a Shared Library Facility for example. I support joint use of facilities. However, look at how open the facilities are at Colton High School, and project the Public nature of the Facilities of Pico Park. Colton High School looks like a Jail Compound. Even the Football field looks like a Jail Yard, bars and all.
The compound being built is going to house to many students to be managed to best serve the students and or the community. We are building a "Factory School" not a school of the future. We are duplicating what doesn't work rather than building something that will work, and be forward looking rather than a repeat of the failed designs and compounds of the past.
City officials said the deal ensures that Grand Terrace Little League will have adequate playing fields during the baseball and softball season. The council approved the agreement at its Dec. 14 meeting, while the Colton school board did the same on Dec. 7.
San Bernardino County
Sun Article Launched:12/27/2006 12:00:00 AM PST
GRAND TERRACE Council approves joint-use agreement The City Council has approved an agreement with Colton Joint Unified School District for the joint use of Pico Park. As part of the development of a new high school in Grand Terrace, the council previously agreed to sell 23 acres of property owned by the Community Redevelopment Agency to the district.
The sale included 4.8 acres of the west half of Pico Park. (Was this actually part of the Public Meeting of the GT CITY COUNCIL/ PUBLIC MEETING?)
The district plans to rebuild the two baseball fields at the park for high-school athletics. The agreement gives the city priority to use all playing fields on the high-school property during nonschool hours.
(What is considered Non School Hours? Will it be OPEN ACCESS for PUBLIC USE after 2:45 including Restrooms, Parking, and all facilities?) Will the PUBLIC area be OPEN to the PUBLIC? The Playground Equipment/Snack Bar? We do have home-schooled children who use these facilities during the week. We do have non students who walk the parks and tracks daily. Was this all known at the time the City was holding "Negotiations" behind closed doors? NO I don't think so..... so the public was not able to provide informed comments at public hearings. I am not against the building of a High School. I am not against shared resources. I support a Shared Library Facility for example. I support joint use of facilities. However, look at how open the facilities are at Colton High School, and project the Public nature of the Facilities of Pico Park. Colton High School looks like a Jail Compound. Even the Football field looks like a Jail Yard, bars and all.
The compound being built is going to house to many students to be managed to best serve the students and or the community. We are building a "Factory School" not a school of the future. We are duplicating what doesn't work rather than building something that will work, and be forward looking rather than a repeat of the failed designs and compounds of the past.
City officials said the deal ensures that Grand Terrace Little League will have adequate playing fields during the baseball and softball season. The council approved the agreement at its Dec. 14 meeting, while the Colton school board did the same on Dec. 7.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
MEETINGS TO ATTEND: REMINDERS
Plan to Attend:
GT PUBLIC MEETINGS and EVENTS
GT PUBLIC MEETINGS and EVENTS
THURSDAY:1/04/2007 6:00 PM Blue Mt. Senior Villas “SCOPING MEETING”GT RDA & CFBH & PUBLIC at Council Chambers, (Recording and Presentation Equipment Available)
TUESDAY:1/09/2007 6:00 PM City Council/RDA Meeting Agenda TBA Council Chambers
Inclusive of CFBH Management of Section 8 Regulations and Impact on Availability of Apartments for Local Senior Population.
WEDNESDAY:
Court Cases:
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CEQA). Case SCVSS138113 – ESSCO
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 STATUS HEARING ON PETITION Case SCVSS144133 – Miguel’s Baron Road Grading: (Jacobsen and Staters?)
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 STATUS HEARING ON PETITION Case SCVSS144406 – Swertfergers Equipment Company/City of GT
PUBLIC MEETING POCKET PARK
01/10/2007 3 p.m. Pocket Park Public Meeting City Hall, 22795 Barton Road. Community Services Department at (909) 430-2201.
GENERAL PLAN REVISION:
THURSDAY
01/18/2007 7:00 p.m. General Plan Revision : Planning Commission in City Council Chambers City Hall, 22705 Barton Road. Planning Department at (909) 430-2247.
TBA
FIREWORKS on the AGENDA
GENERAL PLAN TO BE REVISED: START JAN 18
GRAND TERRACE
City to update General Plan
The city will begin the process of updating its General Plan at a meeting of the Planning Commission at 7 p.m. Jan. 18.
Residents are encouraged to make comments on changes to the General Plan, a comprehensive document that serves as a guide to future development throughout the city.
The process could take up to a year and involve several public meetings and workshops.
The Jan. 18 meeting will be in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 22705 Barton Road.
For more information, call the Planning Department at (909) 430-2247.
City to update General Plan
The city will begin the process of updating its General Plan at a meeting of the Planning Commission at 7 p.m. Jan. 18.
Residents are encouraged to make comments on changes to the General Plan, a comprehensive document that serves as a guide to future development throughout the city.
The process could take up to a year and involve several public meetings and workshops.
The Jan. 18 meeting will be in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 22705 Barton Road.
For more information, call the Planning Department at (909) 430-2247.
FIREWORKS in The NEWS in GRAND TERRACE?
Heat up for Fireworks:
Fireworks in GT will be considered again, and the recent article by Steven Wall in the Sun apparently reports both sides of the story. However, as typical the reporting fails to ask the tough questions.
As reported some of what Brian Phelps says as a person whose interest is not focused on safety of the entire community, but on the fundraising for the sports teams provide the opportunity to ask detailed questions that Mr. Wall fails to include in his reporting.
Mr. Wall did not ask what other Fundraising Efforts the Teams have used, in an attempt to raise money in a less dangerous, and disturbing way? He failed to ask or report that the Team has not made any effort to replace this source of fundraising and is assuming that the council will continue to allow fireworks. Prudent Team Management would suggest that an alternative method should be selected and worked at in the event the Council Bans Fireworks, or so that the Sports Teams could wean themselves off of this method of fund raising so that they can be more respected in the community.
Mr. Wall reported that the two sports earned about $ 8,000.00 each. He did not ask some important questions about the need for that $ 8,000.00 per team. For example, one of the teams spends almost twice that amount on trophies and certificates for participation. The City Charges the team to use the parks and lights. So the how the money is spent is as important to how it is earned and that question is not asked.
Mr. Wall reports that the city gets 3% surcharge on sales, to cover the cost to the city from the increased enforcement and other costs to the city. This is an interesting amount. Why did he not report how much the city receive, in whole dollars. Why didn’t he report the actual cost of increased enforcement? Why didn’t he report the cost of the protection of 200 houses from a fire that was most likely started by the use of fireworks? Did this 3% come close to even covering a part of these expenses?
Fireworks sales are not simple: The shed has to be placed and manned, and tended for about week 24 hours a day. The Activity Creates funds that are spent to benefit about 1000 children, and 14,000 people and pets are put at risk or at a minimum have their lives disturbed. Homes and Wildlife are put at risk.
Quite frankly if the real dollar amounts were known it may be apparent that the City could afford to Pay the Sports Teams not to sell Fireworks, and have a quiet 4th for the rest of the community, and flat out arrest all people who have so much as a sparkler and collect fines sufficient to offset enforcement.
Enforcement will be a continued requirement for a few years as the City’s Reputation for Hosting Fireworks and the Mayhem associated will have to be removed and that has proven to take a couple of years of strong enforcement activities post the initial ban. So the city has created a unsafe situation which will take more than one year to reverse and deal with.
Mr. Walls reporting of the situation is insufficient for an informed public, and it demonstrates either a bias or lack of professionalism.
The City of Grand Terrace does not allow Fireworks even the “Safe and Sane” kind in City Parks under the supervision of The Brook Church during a Community 4th of July Picnic. IF it is not safe in a green park, with cement buildings open spaces, ample water available, and in an environment where there is no alchole present, and sufficient adult supervision, WHY on earth is is “SAFE” anywhere in Grand Terrace?
There is a flaw in the justification to have fireworks, it is the easiest way to earn money. What is illegal for 51 weeks of the year should be illegal for 52 weeks of the year. We don’t say the Choir needs money, so one week a year we’ll allow the director and singers to burgle houses, and sell the stolen items on ebay for a week. We don’t say, we’ll allow prostitution for a week if the city can collect a 3% surcharge.
I do not buy fireworks, I do not support fireworks, I don’t like fireworks, I think all fireworks should be banned, and I think that the efforts to arrest folks last year were not sufficient and under reported as I observed the ineffective enforcement during last years bombardment. We would need 15 officers, and a paddy wagon to haul off the entire household where rockets were being launched. This did not happen.
It should not take a burnt house or death to cause a ban of all fireworks in Grand Terrace. I will support the sports teams if they don’t sell fireworks.
Brian Phelps reasons to continue firework sales were:
The rest of the article is:
GT considering ban on fireworks ,
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer ,
San Bernardino County Sun
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_4901107
Fireworks in GT will be considered again, and the recent article by Steven Wall in the Sun apparently reports both sides of the story. However, as typical the reporting fails to ask the tough questions.
As reported some of what Brian Phelps says as a person whose interest is not focused on safety of the entire community, but on the fundraising for the sports teams provide the opportunity to ask detailed questions that Mr. Wall fails to include in his reporting.
Mr. Wall did not ask what other Fundraising Efforts the Teams have used, in an attempt to raise money in a less dangerous, and disturbing way? He failed to ask or report that the Team has not made any effort to replace this source of fundraising and is assuming that the council will continue to allow fireworks. Prudent Team Management would suggest that an alternative method should be selected and worked at in the event the Council Bans Fireworks, or so that the Sports Teams could wean themselves off of this method of fund raising so that they can be more respected in the community.
Mr. Wall reported that the two sports earned about $ 8,000.00 each. He did not ask some important questions about the need for that $ 8,000.00 per team. For example, one of the teams spends almost twice that amount on trophies and certificates for participation. The City Charges the team to use the parks and lights. So the how the money is spent is as important to how it is earned and that question is not asked.
Mr. Wall reports that the city gets 3% surcharge on sales, to cover the cost to the city from the increased enforcement and other costs to the city. This is an interesting amount. Why did he not report how much the city receive, in whole dollars. Why didn’t he report the actual cost of increased enforcement? Why didn’t he report the cost of the protection of 200 houses from a fire that was most likely started by the use of fireworks? Did this 3% come close to even covering a part of these expenses?
Fireworks sales are not simple: The shed has to be placed and manned, and tended for about week 24 hours a day. The Activity Creates funds that are spent to benefit about 1000 children, and 14,000 people and pets are put at risk or at a minimum have their lives disturbed. Homes and Wildlife are put at risk.
Quite frankly if the real dollar amounts were known it may be apparent that the City could afford to Pay the Sports Teams not to sell Fireworks, and have a quiet 4th for the rest of the community, and flat out arrest all people who have so much as a sparkler and collect fines sufficient to offset enforcement.
Enforcement will be a continued requirement for a few years as the City’s Reputation for Hosting Fireworks and the Mayhem associated will have to be removed and that has proven to take a couple of years of strong enforcement activities post the initial ban. So the city has created a unsafe situation which will take more than one year to reverse and deal with.
Mr. Walls reporting of the situation is insufficient for an informed public, and it demonstrates either a bias or lack of professionalism.
The City of Grand Terrace does not allow Fireworks even the “Safe and Sane” kind in City Parks under the supervision of The Brook Church during a Community 4th of July Picnic. IF it is not safe in a green park, with cement buildings open spaces, ample water available, and in an environment where there is no alchole present, and sufficient adult supervision, WHY on earth is is “SAFE” anywhere in Grand Terrace?
There is a flaw in the justification to have fireworks, it is the easiest way to earn money. What is illegal for 51 weeks of the year should be illegal for 52 weeks of the year. We don’t say the Choir needs money, so one week a year we’ll allow the director and singers to burgle houses, and sell the stolen items on ebay for a week. We don’t say, we’ll allow prostitution for a week if the city can collect a 3% surcharge.
I do not buy fireworks, I do not support fireworks, I don’t like fireworks, I think all fireworks should be banned, and I think that the efforts to arrest folks last year were not sufficient and under reported as I observed the ineffective enforcement during last years bombardment. We would need 15 officers, and a paddy wagon to haul off the entire household where rockets were being launched. This did not happen.
It should not take a burnt house or death to cause a ban of all fireworks in Grand Terrace. I will support the sports teams if they don’t sell fireworks.
Brian Phelps reasons to continue firework sales were:
"We believe that fireworks are safe when properly supervised by adults and safety precautions are followed," said Brian Phelps, a committee member and vice president of Grand Terrace Little League. "It's extremely important to the Little League to continue to raise these funds to keep costs down for parents."
But Phelps said his group has tried other fundraisers and none has worked as well as fireworks. "Fireworks are one of the simplest and most effective ways to raise money with the least amount of volunteer work," Phelps said.
Mr. Wall provides information from an UN Named Official City Official:
The Little League and Grand Terrace Community Soccer organization have permission to sell fireworks from a single booth in front of Stater Bros. Market from June 28 through July 4. Each group raised about $8,000 from fireworks sales in 2006, officials said.
The city levies a 3 percent surcharge on fireworks sales that pays for increased enforcement against illegal fireworks on July 3 and 4.
The rest of the article is:
GT considering ban on fireworks ,
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer ,
San Bernardino County Sun
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_4901107
Sunday, December 24, 2006
From the Email Inbox:
Regarding the Scoping Meeting Jan 4th, 2006
1. Perhaps someone should tape or record the meeting "for the record"
and to prevent lies about this meeting being told to the court 1-10-2007.
This MIGHT stop a few lies by the Corp. for NOT better housing.
2. I heard that Judge Wade is upset about the EXTREME density.
Speakers should forcefully say this is NOT the part of town where this
density should be located.
3. This is a ZONING issue requiring public hearings for a zoning change first.
NO where in town is SUPER high density units OR three story buildings allowed.
If changed, how about some similarily zoned land elsewhere?
like nearer to the freeway, shopping and/or near the high school?
IF the Plans are Changed and Are 2 Story Buildings Only, WHERE are those PLANS?
4. All building code requirements should be met, wherever this is built.That means garages, parking, open space, drainage, noise etc.
5. I think there is a January 10 hearing on this case & others
Lots of residents should show up to listen & learn or rebutt
6. Questions for Corp. for Not Better Housing:
Why have you been paid $4 million dollars already? What was the money spent on?
Will you disclose a proforma analysis of the costs for this project to the public? If not, why not?
Do you do any of the apartment construction with your own company? If not, why not?
Do you do any of the leasing & management with your own company? If not, why not?
Does anyone in your company have a real estate license? a contractor's license? Who by name?
Do you maintain ownership in properties you arrange to have built? If so, why?
Will this project put Grand Terraces' housing element in compliance with the State of CA? How would it do that? If not, why is this not enough? How many low income units is enough?
DON'T Fall for IRS SCAM & KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
IRS e-Audit Scam Back to News Articles Page
All taxpayers should be aware of a scam designed to illegally obtain personal information. Some taxpayers have received an e-mail from a non-Internal Revenue Service (IRS) source indicating that the taxpayer is under audit and needs to complete a questionnaire within 48 hours to avoid the assessment of penalties and interest. The e-mail refers to an "e-audit" and references the IRS Form 1040. The taxpayer is asked for his/her social security number, bank account numbers and other personal and confidential information.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE IRS DOES NOT CONDUCT E-AUDITS, NOR DOES IT NOTIFY TAXPAYERS OF A PENDING AUDIT VIA E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL IS CLEARLY NOT FROM THE IRS.
If you receive an e-mail of this nature (the source may have the address: blesstheday.com), DO NOT provide the requested information. Instead, please contact the IRS office in your area, as this may be an identity theft attempt.
This information was provided by the Customs, Treasury office of the U.S. Government.
Taxpayers are urged to visit the IRS Web site for information on other tax crimes/scams:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/display/0,,i1%3D42%26genericId%3D50198,00.html
HOWEVER< IF YOU RECEIVED A NOTICE VIA MAIL USPO:
KNOW that PRIVATE COLLECTION FIRMS ARE USED BUT YOU HAVE RIGHTS:
Now that the program has been launched, and if you know you owe back taxes, you should take care not to be fooled by fake collectors. Here's some of what the firms are permitted to do and not to do:
The private agencies can't claim they have power to take enforcement actions such as filing liens, or making levies or property seizures.
Collection company employees are not permitted to call or write any third party, such as your employer, bank or neighbors, to ask about your financial condition.
Employees are allowed to speak to your spouse, or leave a message on an answering machine, for purposes of trying to contact you by telephone. However, once the collection company knows how to reach you directly, it can't continue contacting third parties.
Most important, the firms still have to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which spells out what debt collectors can and can't do. For example, they can't call you at all hours of the day or night.
If you're going to be contacted by one of these private collection firms, you will get written notice from the IRS first. The name of the company will be included in the letter. The mailing will explain that a taxpayer may request in writing to work with the IRS instead of with the private company. (For a sample of such a letter go to www.irswatch.org.) A second letter will come from the collection firm.
Here's something else that's important to note. When paying a collection agency, the check should be made out to the U.S. Treasury. Do not make it out to an individual or firm.
To make sure these private firms don't abuse the people they're trying to collect from, the IRS has created a special unit to monitor the companies, according to Brady Bennett, IRS director of collections. That unit will monitor telephone communications between collection agency employees and taxpayers, conduct taxpayer satisfaction surveys, audit collection agency records and periodically review agency performance.
All taxpayers should be aware of a scam designed to illegally obtain personal information. Some taxpayers have received an e-mail from a non-Internal Revenue Service (IRS) source indicating that the taxpayer is under audit and needs to complete a questionnaire within 48 hours to avoid the assessment of penalties and interest. The e-mail refers to an "e-audit" and references the IRS Form 1040. The taxpayer is asked for his/her social security number, bank account numbers and other personal and confidential information.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE IRS DOES NOT CONDUCT E-AUDITS, NOR DOES IT NOTIFY TAXPAYERS OF A PENDING AUDIT VIA E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL IS CLEARLY NOT FROM THE IRS.
If you receive an e-mail of this nature (the source may have the address: blesstheday.com), DO NOT provide the requested information. Instead, please contact the IRS office in your area, as this may be an identity theft attempt.
This information was provided by the Customs, Treasury office of the U.S. Government.
Taxpayers are urged to visit the IRS Web site for information on other tax crimes/scams:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/display/0,,i1%3D42%26genericId%3D50198,00.html
HOWEVER< IF YOU RECEIVED A NOTICE VIA MAIL USPO:
KNOW that PRIVATE COLLECTION FIRMS ARE USED BUT YOU HAVE RIGHTS:
Now that the program has been launched, and if you know you owe back taxes, you should take care not to be fooled by fake collectors. Here's some of what the firms are permitted to do and not to do:
The private agencies can't claim they have power to take enforcement actions such as filing liens, or making levies or property seizures.
Collection company employees are not permitted to call or write any third party, such as your employer, bank or neighbors, to ask about your financial condition.
Employees are allowed to speak to your spouse, or leave a message on an answering machine, for purposes of trying to contact you by telephone. However, once the collection company knows how to reach you directly, it can't continue contacting third parties.
Most important, the firms still have to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which spells out what debt collectors can and can't do. For example, they can't call you at all hours of the day or night.
If you're going to be contacted by one of these private collection firms, you will get written notice from the IRS first. The name of the company will be included in the letter. The mailing will explain that a taxpayer may request in writing to work with the IRS instead of with the private company. (For a sample of such a letter go to www.irswatch.org.) A second letter will come from the collection firm.
Here's something else that's important to note. When paying a collection agency, the check should be made out to the U.S. Treasury. Do not make it out to an individual or firm.
To make sure these private firms don't abuse the people they're trying to collect from, the IRS has created a special unit to monitor the companies, according to Brady Bennett, IRS director of collections. That unit will monitor telephone communications between collection agency employees and taxpayers, conduct taxpayer satisfaction surveys, audit collection agency records and periodically review agency performance.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
BMSV Jan 4, 2007
In the event you missed the article or do not Receive the Sun Telegram here is an article cogent to the upcoming Blue Mt. Senior Villas “Scoping Meeting”
I am concerned about two things. First of all as a Citizen, I am concerned that the Court Ordered Report has not been provided to the public or approved by the Court of John P. Wade to test his Approval of the Revisions and the report.
Secondly, the Public nor the Council has seen the Revised Plans that the City Manager Tom Schwab Speaks of.
Thirdly, without sufficient disclosure to make an informed decision or input by the citizens at the upcoming meeting, or the Court one must be suspect of the reason for the meeting and the outcome of the data gathered.
My fear is that the meeting is an attempt by the Corporation for Better Housing and the City Management to tell the court that the “People” have been included in the revisions and that the “Concerns” were addressed, and a “Meeting was Held and Consensus Achieved”. Consensus on What?
Putting of 120 units on 2 acres of land is a density problem regardless of the height of the buildings. A park with no additional Parking or a Public Restroom is a Traffic Problem and a Sanitation Problem, some would say not a park, and not public.
If there is a real intent on having the public informed, the City and or the Corporation for Better Housing could put forth the Documents and Designs and proof that they have addressed the Issues of the Court and Citizens. Roads, and Traffic, and Parking, what is new?
This being said: IT IS IMPORTANT that the Citizens Concerns are represented and voiced at the Jan 4 Meeting, so that the City nor the Corporation For Better Housing can claim to the Court that All is Fine and Dandy, and there are no further concerns and then have justification for the Appeal of the Court Decision, rather than Compliance with Judge Wade’s Requirements.
Yes, the Corporation for Better Housing has file an Appeal of the Wade Decision. None of this was disclosed to the Public.
Just as it is fiction to say that “Some of the 120 units” will be available for Low and Moderate Income Seniors. When it is known that 110 of the Units will be for Low and Very Low Income Seniors and that the likelihood that any of the “Interested Senior Grand Terrace Senior Citizens” would qualify or be interested in residing in the building or use the Park and Senior Center as planned, is now in question. So the Number of Seniors expressing “Interest” being 180 seniors (of nearly 1000 in GT), adds to the friction and fiction of the intended development. Yes this is a housing development. The opinions of 180 seniors is not a majority of GT Seniors, nor are the GT Seniors the guaranteed target market to be served.
It is also a bit of fiction when the City discloses it spent $45,000.00 to do a revised EIR Study and Report. Payments to Corporation for Better Housing have now reached close to 4 Million Dollars. The City Manager has not provided the details of what that 4 Million has paid for, or if it has been consumed by legal fees defending a non-defendable project. The City has essentially gifted the use of the property for a 60 years, and commited a Debt of 9 Million for the Development. That 9 Million will cost citizens about 40 Million to pay it off. The City will not be receiving any income from the operations of the Development to offset the Debt.
Do attend the Jan 4 Meeting. Revisit the site, and the issues, and evaluate your opinions and state the. I suggest strongly that you do so, and put it into writing and send it to the City, CFBH, and the Hornsby’s and to Ray Johnson.
******************************************************
Opinions invited, report awaited on senior-housing project
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:12/23/2006 12:00:00 AM PST
GRAND TERRACE - Despite approval by the City Council more than a year ago, plans for a 120-unit senior-apartment project continue to provoke debate.
Residents will have another chance to sound off on the proposal, known as the Blue Mountain Senior Villas, at a special meeting Jan. 4.
A group of residents opposed to the project filed a lawsuit late last year, claiming the city did not perform an adequate environmental study when it approved the plans in September 2005.
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge John P. Wade in August ordered the city to do a full environmental-impact report before proceeding.
Wade directed the city to study noise, traffic, parking and other potential environmental problems.
The city spent about $45,000 to hire an environmental consultant to produce the report. The new approval process is expected to take six to eight months.
If there are no further delays, the apartments should be available for rent in the summer of 2008, City Manager Tom Schwab said.
The Corporation for Better Housing, a nonprofit developer based in Sherman Oaks, has made several changes to appease residents.
One of the primary objections, the three-story building height, should no longer be an issue, Schwab said.
The developer has agreed to reduce the size of the entire structure to two stories in response to concerns about blocked views.
The latest proposal calls for 103 one-bedroom apartments and 17 two-bedroom units on about six acres on the south side of Grand Terrace Road just east of Mount Vernon Avenue. The developer also plans to build a 7,000-square-foot senior center to replace the smaller senior center on the property.
Four acres of the site would be set aside for nonactive park use.
Despite the changes, some residents still don't like the project.
Charles Hornsby, who lives just south of the site, said a high-density project isn't appropriate in the area.
"It's so far out of compliance with city zoning (codes) that it's beyond belief," Hornsby said.
Schwab said the project complies with all city codes and is desperately needed. About 180 people have expressed interest in living in the apartments, which would be reserved for mostly low- and moderate-income people age 65 and older, he said.
"It's been an extreme disappointment to have to have this delay," said JoAnn Johnson, the senior center's 75-year-old volunteer director. "It's meant a lot of unnecessary hardship on us. We are very, very anxious to get things started."
Contact writer Stephen Wall at (909) 386-3916 or via e-mail at stephen.wall@sbsun.com. ---------
IF YOU GO
Residents can voice opinions about the planned senior apartments and senior center at 6 p.m. Jan. 4 in Grand Terrace Council Chambers, City Hall, 22795 Barton Road.
Information: (909) 430-2247
I am concerned about two things. First of all as a Citizen, I am concerned that the Court Ordered Report has not been provided to the public or approved by the Court of John P. Wade to test his Approval of the Revisions and the report.
Secondly, the Public nor the Council has seen the Revised Plans that the City Manager Tom Schwab Speaks of.
Thirdly, without sufficient disclosure to make an informed decision or input by the citizens at the upcoming meeting, or the Court one must be suspect of the reason for the meeting and the outcome of the data gathered.
My fear is that the meeting is an attempt by the Corporation for Better Housing and the City Management to tell the court that the “People” have been included in the revisions and that the “Concerns” were addressed, and a “Meeting was Held and Consensus Achieved”. Consensus on What?
Putting of 120 units on 2 acres of land is a density problem regardless of the height of the buildings. A park with no additional Parking or a Public Restroom is a Traffic Problem and a Sanitation Problem, some would say not a park, and not public.
If there is a real intent on having the public informed, the City and or the Corporation for Better Housing could put forth the Documents and Designs and proof that they have addressed the Issues of the Court and Citizens. Roads, and Traffic, and Parking, what is new?
This being said: IT IS IMPORTANT that the Citizens Concerns are represented and voiced at the Jan 4 Meeting, so that the City nor the Corporation For Better Housing can claim to the Court that All is Fine and Dandy, and there are no further concerns and then have justification for the Appeal of the Court Decision, rather than Compliance with Judge Wade’s Requirements.
Yes, the Corporation for Better Housing has file an Appeal of the Wade Decision. None of this was disclosed to the Public.
Just as it is fiction to say that “Some of the 120 units” will be available for Low and Moderate Income Seniors. When it is known that 110 of the Units will be for Low and Very Low Income Seniors and that the likelihood that any of the “Interested Senior Grand Terrace Senior Citizens” would qualify or be interested in residing in the building or use the Park and Senior Center as planned, is now in question. So the Number of Seniors expressing “Interest” being 180 seniors (of nearly 1000 in GT), adds to the friction and fiction of the intended development. Yes this is a housing development. The opinions of 180 seniors is not a majority of GT Seniors, nor are the GT Seniors the guaranteed target market to be served.
It is also a bit of fiction when the City discloses it spent $45,000.00 to do a revised EIR Study and Report. Payments to Corporation for Better Housing have now reached close to 4 Million Dollars. The City Manager has not provided the details of what that 4 Million has paid for, or if it has been consumed by legal fees defending a non-defendable project. The City has essentially gifted the use of the property for a 60 years, and commited a Debt of 9 Million for the Development. That 9 Million will cost citizens about 40 Million to pay it off. The City will not be receiving any income from the operations of the Development to offset the Debt.
Do attend the Jan 4 Meeting. Revisit the site, and the issues, and evaluate your opinions and state the. I suggest strongly that you do so, and put it into writing and send it to the City, CFBH, and the Hornsby’s and to Ray Johnson.
******************************************************
Opinions invited, report awaited on senior-housing project
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
Article Launched:12/23/2006 12:00:00 AM PST
GRAND TERRACE - Despite approval by the City Council more than a year ago, plans for a 120-unit senior-apartment project continue to provoke debate.
Residents will have another chance to sound off on the proposal, known as the Blue Mountain Senior Villas, at a special meeting Jan. 4.
A group of residents opposed to the project filed a lawsuit late last year, claiming the city did not perform an adequate environmental study when it approved the plans in September 2005.
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge John P. Wade in August ordered the city to do a full environmental-impact report before proceeding.
Wade directed the city to study noise, traffic, parking and other potential environmental problems.
The city spent about $45,000 to hire an environmental consultant to produce the report. The new approval process is expected to take six to eight months.
If there are no further delays, the apartments should be available for rent in the summer of 2008, City Manager Tom Schwab said.
The Corporation for Better Housing, a nonprofit developer based in Sherman Oaks, has made several changes to appease residents.
One of the primary objections, the three-story building height, should no longer be an issue, Schwab said.
The developer has agreed to reduce the size of the entire structure to two stories in response to concerns about blocked views.
The latest proposal calls for 103 one-bedroom apartments and 17 two-bedroom units on about six acres on the south side of Grand Terrace Road just east of Mount Vernon Avenue. The developer also plans to build a 7,000-square-foot senior center to replace the smaller senior center on the property.
Four acres of the site would be set aside for nonactive park use.
Despite the changes, some residents still don't like the project.
Charles Hornsby, who lives just south of the site, said a high-density project isn't appropriate in the area.
"It's so far out of compliance with city zoning (codes) that it's beyond belief," Hornsby said.
Schwab said the project complies with all city codes and is desperately needed. About 180 people have expressed interest in living in the apartments, which would be reserved for mostly low- and moderate-income people age 65 and older, he said.
"It's been an extreme disappointment to have to have this delay," said JoAnn Johnson, the senior center's 75-year-old volunteer director. "It's meant a lot of unnecessary hardship on us. We are very, very anxious to get things started."
Contact writer Stephen Wall at (909) 386-3916 or via e-mail at stephen.wall@sbsun.com. ---------
IF YOU GO
Residents can voice opinions about the planned senior apartments and senior center at 6 p.m. Jan. 4 in Grand Terrace Council Chambers, City Hall, 22795 Barton Road.
Information: (909) 430-2247
Friday, December 22, 2006
From the Email Inbox: Berry Pocket Park
From the Email Inbox:
As I recall, during a City Council Meeting, when Steve Berry presented his plans for the park caddy corner from the Junior high school, that they planed to surround it with rose bushes and put a big mound in the middle to discourage anyone from using the "pocket park". That would not be a park.
Grand Terrace is behind State requirements for providing parks. The so called park next to the senior living project is suppose to have a park next to it also, but it is not meant for kids either. I seem to see a theme going here. There are plans for a dog park, a senior park and a no park.
Gramps Writes:
I agree with your concern, however, the "City" has no plan for a Dog Park. and IF there were a dog park the dogs come with People too, so that would be more of a Public Park than the LIMITED USE: Senior Passive Park or the Proposed Steve Berry: Pocket Park with Roses and a Mound or a Visual Park as it is being proposed. A Senior Park without Restrooms for the Seniors or Public to use as part of the Park Design is not a practical design, or a design that will encourage Use by the Public or the Seniors. (Need I be more direct? OK Seniors need to be close to Restroom Facilities).
The Dog Park is actually a Private Foundation Concept and a few individual private citizens behind the idea., The “City” has not been helpful with any of the plans or site selection of a Potential Dog/Public park. Lip service is the most anyone can say the City Council or City has provided the Dog Park.
Public Parks require Public Sanitation Facilities, aka Restrooms and this they fear will attract, homeless people... and vandals... So the City's (Berry, Schwab and Ferre's solution is to spend all park money on what looks like a park, but functions as a landscape.) Cortez and Garcia go along as directed, or in their desire for “Unity”.
A small pocket park, could be a great place to have a restroom for bike riders, and parents waiting to pick up their kids from the Jr. High, and perhaps a Chess / Checker's Club... Mentoring Park... There are many things that could be done that would even be inclusive of the teens they so much want to distract by having thorns and roses. PUBLIC SPACE should be PUBLIC SPACE, Perhaps Free Pick Fruit Trees? I don’t have a lock on an idea, I do know I am not for a Visual Park Only.
A Dog Agility Training Park, would also include a place for the dog owners... and this does not have to be a big area, and can be done to be attractive like Disneyland would make.. creative use of design to function...
100,000.00 for rocks, and roses is a bit much for a park with no function other than the eyes. This Eye Park will need weekly operational costs for water, and trimming. No doubt we’ll have to hire more people on the City Staff to handle the increased work load. How about a 100,000.00 grant to the 4H to build a Park / Meeting Place with an Edible Land Scape… and perhaps others could have thought of better things, IF the STAFF had wanted PUBLIC input.. BUT THAT WAS NOT THEIR PLAN ALL ALONG.
As I recall, during a City Council Meeting, when Steve Berry presented his plans for the park caddy corner from the Junior high school, that they planed to surround it with rose bushes and put a big mound in the middle to discourage anyone from using the "pocket park". That would not be a park.
Grand Terrace is behind State requirements for providing parks. The so called park next to the senior living project is suppose to have a park next to it also, but it is not meant for kids either. I seem to see a theme going here. There are plans for a dog park, a senior park and a no park.
Gramps Writes:
I agree with your concern, however, the "City" has no plan for a Dog Park. and IF there were a dog park the dogs come with People too, so that would be more of a Public Park than the LIMITED USE: Senior Passive Park or the Proposed Steve Berry: Pocket Park with Roses and a Mound or a Visual Park as it is being proposed. A Senior Park without Restrooms for the Seniors or Public to use as part of the Park Design is not a practical design, or a design that will encourage Use by the Public or the Seniors. (Need I be more direct? OK Seniors need to be close to Restroom Facilities).
The Dog Park is actually a Private Foundation Concept and a few individual private citizens behind the idea., The “City” has not been helpful with any of the plans or site selection of a Potential Dog/Public park. Lip service is the most anyone can say the City Council or City has provided the Dog Park.
Public Parks require Public Sanitation Facilities, aka Restrooms and this they fear will attract, homeless people... and vandals... So the City's (Berry, Schwab and Ferre's solution is to spend all park money on what looks like a park, but functions as a landscape.) Cortez and Garcia go along as directed, or in their desire for “Unity”.
A small pocket park, could be a great place to have a restroom for bike riders, and parents waiting to pick up their kids from the Jr. High, and perhaps a Chess / Checker's Club... Mentoring Park... There are many things that could be done that would even be inclusive of the teens they so much want to distract by having thorns and roses. PUBLIC SPACE should be PUBLIC SPACE, Perhaps Free Pick Fruit Trees? I don’t have a lock on an idea, I do know I am not for a Visual Park Only.
A Dog Agility Training Park, would also include a place for the dog owners... and this does not have to be a big area, and can be done to be attractive like Disneyland would make.. creative use of design to function...
100,000.00 for rocks, and roses is a bit much for a park with no function other than the eyes. This Eye Park will need weekly operational costs for water, and trimming. No doubt we’ll have to hire more people on the City Staff to handle the increased work load. How about a 100,000.00 grant to the 4H to build a Park / Meeting Place with an Edible Land Scape… and perhaps others could have thought of better things, IF the STAFF had wanted PUBLIC input.. BUT THAT WAS NOT THEIR PLAN ALL ALONG.
Plan to Attend:
GT PUBLIC MEETINGS and EVENTS
THURSDAY:
1/04/2007 6:00 PM Blue Mt. Senior Villas “SCOPING MEETING”
GT RDA & CFBH & PUBLIC at Council Chambers, (Recording and Presentation Equipment Available)
TUESDAY:
1/09/2007 6:00 PM City Council/RDA Meeting Agenda TBA Council Chambers
Inclusive of CFBH Management of Section 8 Regulations and Impact on Availability of Apartments for Local Senior Population.
WEDNESDAY:
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CEQA). Case SCVSS138113 – ESSCO
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 STATUS HEARING ON PETITION Case SCVSS144133 – Miguel’s Baron Road Grading: (Jacobsen and Staters?)
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 STATUS HEARING ON PETITION Case SCVSS144406 – Swertfergers Equipment Company/City of GT/
01/10/2007 3 p.m. Pocket Park Public Meeting City Hall, 22795 Barton Road. Community Services Department at (909) 430-2201.
Jan 10 Park Meeting 3:00 PM... WHEN PUBLIC IS AVAILABLE?
GRAND TERRACE Pocket park to be discussed
The public is invited to a community meeting to discuss plans for a new pocket park at Mount Vernon Avenue and De Berry Street.
The meeting is scheduled for 3 p.m. Jan. 10 at City Hall, 22795 Barton Road.
The City Council requested the meeting to give city staff members a chance to discuss the layout and design of the park with neighboring residents. For more information, call the city Community Services Department at (909) 430-2201.
Gramps Recalls: the animated City Council Discussion on the need or desire to include Public Participation in the Layout and design. I don't recall it being limited to Neighboring Residents, it is a PUBLIC Park being paid for with PUBLIC FUNDS and one would assume to be used if there is a USE by the PUBLIC. So those of you who are interested in: Park Development and Use, or PUBLIC USE OF FUNDS, please attend. For those of you who do attend thank you.
The public is invited to a community meeting to discuss plans for a new pocket park at Mount Vernon Avenue and De Berry Street.
The meeting is scheduled for 3 p.m. Jan. 10 at City Hall, 22795 Barton Road.
The City Council requested the meeting to give city staff members a chance to discuss the layout and design of the park with neighboring residents. For more information, call the city Community Services Department at (909) 430-2201.
Gramps Recalls: the animated City Council Discussion on the need or desire to include Public Participation in the Layout and design. I don't recall it being limited to Neighboring Residents, it is a PUBLIC Park being paid for with PUBLIC FUNDS and one would assume to be used if there is a USE by the PUBLIC. So those of you who are interested in: Park Development and Use, or PUBLIC USE OF FUNDS, please attend. For those of you who do attend thank you.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
OAC VOUCHER ON Last Batch of Approved Expenditures
AFTER The Grand Terrace Partners took over the OAC and did the market and feasibility studies and they were found not to be either, Feasible or a Market for the Planned Lake Development. Ralph Megna, the scoundrel that brought the OAC idea to Grand Terrace has been a Ghostly Figure. Recall that City Manager Tom Schwab claimed at one time that this was his vision until, the Sun article that proved it was Megna's idea. Schwab backed off that claim to fame and of course the Judge Wade Court reversed the OAC Designated Zoning and EIR.. Due to a lack of a Traffic Plan. This would have resulted in a debt of over 14 million by some estimates for the required roads, for which the "City" waived the developer fees upon the STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Over and over we have heard from the Council and from Steve Berry and Schwab that the OAC is dead. The Most recent Report that they are sending to the State includes the OAC as a still alive project. Perhaps that is or was true for the a period of the scope of the report. However, if the project is dead, a foot note should have been included to represent the current status and why it the project that spend Redevelopment administration Funds was a folly.
The most recent vouchers posted on the blogsite has a voucher for The Jamieson Group for $15,250.00 for "professional services" and there have been vouchers past that have money going to this group. Google the name and it came out to The Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce and if you click on residential real estate this is what you find .
It has Ralphs DNA all over it.
The Jamieson Group Inc
Ralph Megna
1201 University Ave #202
(951)328-0001
So what are we paying for? This begs for the same level of disclosure as payments to Corporation for Better Housing. What are we getting when we pay for these invoices? What FINE Work is the result of these payments?
Over and over we have heard from the Council and from Steve Berry and Schwab that the OAC is dead. The Most recent Report that they are sending to the State includes the OAC as a still alive project. Perhaps that is or was true for the a period of the scope of the report. However, if the project is dead, a foot note should have been included to represent the current status and why it the project that spend Redevelopment administration Funds was a folly.
The most recent vouchers posted on the blogsite has a voucher for The Jamieson Group for $15,250.00 for "professional services" and there have been vouchers past that have money going to this group. Google the name and it came out to The Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce and if you click on residential real estate this is what you find .
It has Ralphs DNA all over it.
The Jamieson Group Inc
Ralph Megna
1201 University Ave #202
(951)328-0001
So what are we paying for? This begs for the same level of disclosure as payments to Corporation for Better Housing. What are we getting when we pay for these invoices? What FINE Work is the result of these payments?
Under Paid Teachers was the Point: Details Updated
The City Manager of Grand Terrace has a staff of less than 20 ADULTS, and he earns 150,000.00 gets a free car, and a house, and full medical insurance.
Lets Review the House. The house was sold from the RDA to the City without Proper Public Notice and Open Participation of others who may want to apply for RDA Housing. Then the City Determined to use this City Asset to Provide Housing for City Manager as long as the City Manager is Employeed with the City. For what ever the reasons it is clear that the City Manager now holds title and a morgage on the property. This no doubt is in part being refunded in part by a monthly housing payment from the City to the City Manager, perhaps on the same account other Real Estate Transactions are done and not disclosed to the public. However, it is a contractual obligation that the city pay for the house as long as the City Manager is in City Employ.
One can well calculate at some point in time the Equity in the House was large enought to allow Mr. Schwab to refinance the entire house, and hold the title in his name, however, this does not mean that the financial obligation in the amount obligated by the housing offer has been deminished by the city, it no doubt continues and is being paid, as the Obligation has not been redacted or reversed by contract or a reduction in writing by Mr. Schwab refusing payment or compensation equal to the cost of the morgage payment for the house provided to him by the city.
SO I WILL continue to consider this a Gift of a house on the Condition of Continued Employment. A GIFT: as it did not requrie MORE WORK for More Compensation or Provision of Housing. IF his Employment Terminates, the Payments by the City would end and he would retain the house and its current morgate. I will not say he is not a Qualifed RDA home owner, because, THE CITY WAS THE PURCHASER OF THE RDA HOUSE. Of course with the overlap of Management, and Who is who it is a logical leap, but not proceedural one. The Violation of Proceedure is evident. The Benefactor is Mr. Schwab. Just as an example of how we spend our money as a society. Give it some thought.
When he needs help he hires Lawyers, and other Professionals.So when Teachers go out on strike, we must respect that there may be a reason that they do.So when a Person Works as a Substitute During a Strike, view that person as one who supports the Teachers Right to Strike, and a person who supports your children's right to go to school.
Lets Review the House. The house was sold from the RDA to the City without Proper Public Notice and Open Participation of others who may want to apply for RDA Housing. Then the City Determined to use this City Asset to Provide Housing for City Manager as long as the City Manager is Employeed with the City. For what ever the reasons it is clear that the City Manager now holds title and a morgage on the property. This no doubt is in part being refunded in part by a monthly housing payment from the City to the City Manager, perhaps on the same account other Real Estate Transactions are done and not disclosed to the public. However, it is a contractual obligation that the city pay for the house as long as the City Manager is in City Employ.
One can well calculate at some point in time the Equity in the House was large enought to allow Mr. Schwab to refinance the entire house, and hold the title in his name, however, this does not mean that the financial obligation in the amount obligated by the housing offer has been deminished by the city, it no doubt continues and is being paid, as the Obligation has not been redacted or reversed by contract or a reduction in writing by Mr. Schwab refusing payment or compensation equal to the cost of the morgage payment for the house provided to him by the city.
SO I WILL continue to consider this a Gift of a house on the Condition of Continued Employment. A GIFT: as it did not requrie MORE WORK for More Compensation or Provision of Housing. IF his Employment Terminates, the Payments by the City would end and he would retain the house and its current morgate. I will not say he is not a Qualifed RDA home owner, because, THE CITY WAS THE PURCHASER OF THE RDA HOUSE. Of course with the overlap of Management, and Who is who it is a logical leap, but not proceedural one. The Violation of Proceedure is evident. The Benefactor is Mr. Schwab. Just as an example of how we spend our money as a society. Give it some thought.
When he needs help he hires Lawyers, and other Professionals.So when Teachers go out on strike, we must respect that there may be a reason that they do.So when a Person Works as a Substitute During a Strike, view that person as one who supports the Teachers Right to Strike, and a person who supports your children's right to go to school.
LOCAL, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL Conduct of Politicals
Bill Postmus who is finishing his term as San Bernardino County Supervisor, and is soon to be the Assessor. Is trying to pad his new office with extra staff at an increased cost of $700,000 per year of more. Now if he can justify the need for that staff should not that staff been available to the prior Assessor? No this is just an example of padding that politicians play.
Here in Grand Terrace this tactic has a different form. Who gets Medical Insurance Paid for their service, who gets a monthly stipend rather than a wage or salary, who gets a house, car, or RDA Loan, or who gets a contract for this or that. When these things are not done in the open, and on some open basis, of application and review. Local City Politics runs into the same problems as the County or State, or Federal Government in relation to Poor Ethics. Perhaps on a smaller scale, but if poor ethics are allowed in local government, there is little hope of good ethics at any other level of government.
I have connected this relationship in the past. Our Council is made of persons who supported Bill Postmus in the past and his future jobs for the citizen. Just as nothing happened on the Town Center for Months, or Fireworks Discussed, after the election things got moving without proper notice or Permits, for the Town Center. The Fireworks Ord, waited to what will be again a down to the wire decision to make change by the Council.
Prudent Management would insist on seeing Permits for All the land being Graded and not accepting a flawed suggestion that a single business is doing prep work for an approve plan, or that it is weed abatement, or that no plans are needed for earth moving. Not one council member asked the city legal advisor for an evaluation of the situation, no they accepted the non legal expertise of City Manager, Tom Shcwab who as adroitly lead the city into successive lost legal challenges. Eventually, we may discover WHY the council allows this and WHY the Majority of Citizens or Voters don't seem to care. YOU PEOPLE who do care please continue your work and attention paid to the local government.
Prudent Management would insist the Agenda be in control of the City Council and the Firework Ordinance be on the NEXT Agenda, with the Proposal to NOT ALLOW any Fireworks in Grand Terrace, and Provide for Maximum Enforcement for 2 Years, AND Use the same resources in raising money for GT Days for GT YOUTH DAYS, and USE the FUNDS Donated for the event for the purpose of a LOCAL EVENT that Raises FUNDS for Youth Activities including Sports and Perhaps 4H Projects, and After School Teen Centers housed in neighborhood churches?
When the Fireworks Question comes up. Someone needs to ask, HOW MUCH DID IT COST THE CITY SO THAT THE SPORTS TEAM COULD EARN WHAT EVER IT DID.
The city will have to pay for increased enforcement until word gets out. Fireworks are no longer allowed in Grand Terrace and the rules are strictly enforced.
It would also help, if WE HAD A PUBLIC RECORD of those Arrested and Charged no such arrests were on the Arrest or Booking Records of the time. PUBLIC SHAME SHOULD BE PART of the PUNISHMENT.
IT IS NOT TO LATE or TO EARLY to be URGENT about FIREWORKS. WE see how long it takes to write and pass an ORDINANCE in Grand Terrace.
Here in Grand Terrace this tactic has a different form. Who gets Medical Insurance Paid for their service, who gets a monthly stipend rather than a wage or salary, who gets a house, car, or RDA Loan, or who gets a contract for this or that. When these things are not done in the open, and on some open basis, of application and review. Local City Politics runs into the same problems as the County or State, or Federal Government in relation to Poor Ethics. Perhaps on a smaller scale, but if poor ethics are allowed in local government, there is little hope of good ethics at any other level of government.
I have connected this relationship in the past. Our Council is made of persons who supported Bill Postmus in the past and his future jobs for the citizen. Just as nothing happened on the Town Center for Months, or Fireworks Discussed, after the election things got moving without proper notice or Permits, for the Town Center. The Fireworks Ord, waited to what will be again a down to the wire decision to make change by the Council.
Prudent Management would insist on seeing Permits for All the land being Graded and not accepting a flawed suggestion that a single business is doing prep work for an approve plan, or that it is weed abatement, or that no plans are needed for earth moving. Not one council member asked the city legal advisor for an evaluation of the situation, no they accepted the non legal expertise of City Manager, Tom Shcwab who as adroitly lead the city into successive lost legal challenges. Eventually, we may discover WHY the council allows this and WHY the Majority of Citizens or Voters don't seem to care. YOU PEOPLE who do care please continue your work and attention paid to the local government.
Prudent Management would insist the Agenda be in control of the City Council and the Firework Ordinance be on the NEXT Agenda, with the Proposal to NOT ALLOW any Fireworks in Grand Terrace, and Provide for Maximum Enforcement for 2 Years, AND Use the same resources in raising money for GT Days for GT YOUTH DAYS, and USE the FUNDS Donated for the event for the purpose of a LOCAL EVENT that Raises FUNDS for Youth Activities including Sports and Perhaps 4H Projects, and After School Teen Centers housed in neighborhood churches?
When the Fireworks Question comes up. Someone needs to ask, HOW MUCH DID IT COST THE CITY SO THAT THE SPORTS TEAM COULD EARN WHAT EVER IT DID.
The city will have to pay for increased enforcement until word gets out. Fireworks are no longer allowed in Grand Terrace and the rules are strictly enforced.
It would also help, if WE HAD A PUBLIC RECORD of those Arrested and Charged no such arrests were on the Arrest or Booking Records of the time. PUBLIC SHAME SHOULD BE PART of the PUNISHMENT.
IT IS NOT TO LATE or TO EARLY to be URGENT about FIREWORKS. WE see how long it takes to write and pass an ORDINANCE in Grand Terrace.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
IF Teachers of CJUSD Strike
There is talk and preparation for a pending Teacher's Strike. How should we prepare.
First of all We must collectively respect the Teachers as a Group. If you disagree with Teachers striking, or even if you dislike a singular individual teacher, degrading a "Teacher" in front of your children or child is equal to doing the same to a Parent Figure.
Explain that teachers are going on strike for better wages, and discuss all the things that almost every teacher does and provides the student's in their class. Explain the number of hours of homework a teacher has after the students go home, and how many students they are responsible for during the day.
Explain that the Substitutes being hired during the Strike aren't Strike Breakers, nor do they have a "Side" in the strike. They are there to allow the education to continue, the District to Stay functioning at some level, and that the Students and Staff should be respectful of the Strike Substitutes. It costs the District dearly during a strike, and this does not "Save" the District money, it makes it lose less. Quality Substitutes if found and working with a Quality Lesson Plan left by a truly concerned and Quality Teacher could result in little interruption in the classes, and an enhanced understanding or respect for Teachers and the part they Play in our Community and Society, and Family.
I have not investigated the budget of the CJUSD. I do feel Teachers as a group are under respected, under paid, and are overworked. The Public School system fails both the Students and the Teachers. I would support Public Financing of more Charter Schools, but schools that allow the Teachers to collect all the ADA Funds (Average Daily Attendance Funds), and then Lease the facilities and Equipment and Services from the School District or other Facility. Allow for "Schools" to be in non traditional school settings.
We have an odd paradox when we list transportation costs as a reason not to give Teacher's a Raise. Neighborhood, Charter Schools within Walking Distance would help with lowered transportation costs, community connected schools, better parental involvement, and perhaps even increase the health if people walked to school.
Elementary School Teachers have 30 students and 5 class subjects to manage. Middle and Senior High School Teachers have 150 to 200 individual students and possibly several subjects to manage. They do this with some support in facility maintenance, and office clerk help, however most of the task is upon them as individual managers. How much would a Manager of 150 to 200 individuals be paid in your company?
The City Manager of Grand Terrace has a staff of less than 20 ADULTS, and he earns 150,000.00 gets a free car, and a house, and full medical insurance. Lets Review the House. The house was sold from the RDA to the City without Proper Public Notice and Open Participation of others who may want to apply for RDA Housing. Then the City Determined to use this City Asset to Provide Housing for City Manager as long as the City Manager is Employeed with the City. For what ever the reasons it is clear that the City Manager now holds title and a morgage on the property. This no doubt is in part being refunded in part by a monthly housing payment from the City to the City Manager, perhaps on the same account other Real Estate Transactions are done and not disclosed to the public. However, it is a contractual obligation that the city pay for the house as long as the City Manager is in City Employ.
One can well calculate at some point in time the Equity in the House was large enought to allow Mr. Schwab to refinance the entire house, and hold the title in his name, however, this does not mean that the financial obligation in the amount obligated by the housing offer has been deminished by the city, it no doubt continues and is being paid, as the Obligation has not been redacted or reversed by contract or a reduction in writing by Mr. Schwab refusing payment or compensation equal to the cost of the morgage payment for the house provided to him by the city. SO I WILL continue to consider this a Gift of a house on the Condition of Continued Employment. I will not say he is not a Qualifed RDA home owner, because, THE CITY WAS THE PURCHASER OF THE RDA HOUSE. Of course with the overlap of Management, and Who is who it is a logical leap, but not proceedural one. The Violation of Proceedure is evident. The Benefactor is Mr. Schwab.
Just as an example of how we spend our money as a society. Give it some thought. When he needs help he hires Lawyers, and other Professionals.
So when Teachers go out on strike, we must respect that there may be a reason that they do.
So when a Person Works as a Substitute During a Strike, view that person as one who supports the Teachers Right to Strike, and a person who supports your children's right to go to school.
Those who serve our Community as Teachers should be well respected, well compensated and well supported as the service they provide and the importance of their function is one of the foundation stones in our society. Rancor should not be part of this "Strike" or Negotiation.
First of all We must collectively respect the Teachers as a Group. If you disagree with Teachers striking, or even if you dislike a singular individual teacher, degrading a "Teacher" in front of your children or child is equal to doing the same to a Parent Figure.
Explain that teachers are going on strike for better wages, and discuss all the things that almost every teacher does and provides the student's in their class. Explain the number of hours of homework a teacher has after the students go home, and how many students they are responsible for during the day.
Explain that the Substitutes being hired during the Strike aren't Strike Breakers, nor do they have a "Side" in the strike. They are there to allow the education to continue, the District to Stay functioning at some level, and that the Students and Staff should be respectful of the Strike Substitutes. It costs the District dearly during a strike, and this does not "Save" the District money, it makes it lose less. Quality Substitutes if found and working with a Quality Lesson Plan left by a truly concerned and Quality Teacher could result in little interruption in the classes, and an enhanced understanding or respect for Teachers and the part they Play in our Community and Society, and Family.
I have not investigated the budget of the CJUSD. I do feel Teachers as a group are under respected, under paid, and are overworked. The Public School system fails both the Students and the Teachers. I would support Public Financing of more Charter Schools, but schools that allow the Teachers to collect all the ADA Funds (Average Daily Attendance Funds), and then Lease the facilities and Equipment and Services from the School District or other Facility. Allow for "Schools" to be in non traditional school settings.
We have an odd paradox when we list transportation costs as a reason not to give Teacher's a Raise. Neighborhood, Charter Schools within Walking Distance would help with lowered transportation costs, community connected schools, better parental involvement, and perhaps even increase the health if people walked to school.
Elementary School Teachers have 30 students and 5 class subjects to manage. Middle and Senior High School Teachers have 150 to 200 individual students and possibly several subjects to manage. They do this with some support in facility maintenance, and office clerk help, however most of the task is upon them as individual managers. How much would a Manager of 150 to 200 individuals be paid in your company?
The City Manager of Grand Terrace has a staff of less than 20 ADULTS, and he earns 150,000.00 gets a free car, and a house, and full medical insurance. Lets Review the House. The house was sold from the RDA to the City without Proper Public Notice and Open Participation of others who may want to apply for RDA Housing. Then the City Determined to use this City Asset to Provide Housing for City Manager as long as the City Manager is Employeed with the City. For what ever the reasons it is clear that the City Manager now holds title and a morgage on the property. This no doubt is in part being refunded in part by a monthly housing payment from the City to the City Manager, perhaps on the same account other Real Estate Transactions are done and not disclosed to the public. However, it is a contractual obligation that the city pay for the house as long as the City Manager is in City Employ.
One can well calculate at some point in time the Equity in the House was large enought to allow Mr. Schwab to refinance the entire house, and hold the title in his name, however, this does not mean that the financial obligation in the amount obligated by the housing offer has been deminished by the city, it no doubt continues and is being paid, as the Obligation has not been redacted or reversed by contract or a reduction in writing by Mr. Schwab refusing payment or compensation equal to the cost of the morgage payment for the house provided to him by the city. SO I WILL continue to consider this a Gift of a house on the Condition of Continued Employment. I will not say he is not a Qualifed RDA home owner, because, THE CITY WAS THE PURCHASER OF THE RDA HOUSE. Of course with the overlap of Management, and Who is who it is a logical leap, but not proceedural one. The Violation of Proceedure is evident. The Benefactor is Mr. Schwab.
Just as an example of how we spend our money as a society. Give it some thought. When he needs help he hires Lawyers, and other Professionals.
So when Teachers go out on strike, we must respect that there may be a reason that they do.
So when a Person Works as a Substitute During a Strike, view that person as one who supports the Teachers Right to Strike, and a person who supports your children's right to go to school.
Those who serve our Community as Teachers should be well respected, well compensated and well supported as the service they provide and the importance of their function is one of the foundation stones in our society. Rancor should not be part of this "Strike" or Negotiation.
REMINDER GT CIty Council Meeting Night Changes:
As reported in the IN Brief in the San Bernardino Sun:
GRAND TERRACE Council meeting days to change Along with the new year comes some new changes at City Hall. City Council meetings are moving to the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month effective Jan. 1.
The first meeting of the new year will be at 6 p.m. Jan. 9.
The council decided to move the meetings from Thursdays to Tuesdays because most cities have council meetings on Tuesdays.
Some council members said they also have other commitments on Thursday nights.
Gramps Adds:
It has been reported that the Reason is to allow the Republican Members of the Council to attend Local Republican Party Meetings which are held on Thursdays. Now you will have to record Boston Legal if the Mettings go long.
GRAND TERRACE Council meeting days to change Along with the new year comes some new changes at City Hall. City Council meetings are moving to the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month effective Jan. 1.
The first meeting of the new year will be at 6 p.m. Jan. 9.
The council decided to move the meetings from Thursdays to Tuesdays because most cities have council meetings on Tuesdays.
Some council members said they also have other commitments on Thursday nights.
Gramps Adds:
It has been reported that the Reason is to allow the Republican Members of the Council to attend Local Republican Party Meetings which are held on Thursdays. Now you will have to record Boston Legal if the Mettings go long.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Quick Review and Update: Permit Permit Who's Got a Permit
When Grading Started on Barton Road the Contractor said there was no Permit for the Job.
When Citizens asked at City Hall for a Copy of the Permit there was no Permit Required or Issued.
When there was a City Council Meeting: Tom Schwab said all permits were issued for the Grading of Miguels Property and building Permits would be issued. (That would be a BIG MIGUELS). This was a distraction for the Council who did not require an explanation in detail, and the public who was not able to "Question the Answer" because debate is not allowed and "Public Comment Time" was over. To allow Mr. Schwab to lie to the public and not be challanged is not beneficial to the functioning of the City Government, but it is a common event.
When Citizens asked to view the Permits for Miguel's they were not accommodated.
Then it was told that "Weed Abatement" does not need Permits.
Grading is being done on More than Miguels Property, the area is inclusive of the land Jack Brown wants to Build a Mega Stater's Store On.
"Weed Abatement" Practices do not allow for grading, or earth moving or even disking at the scale it is being done.
Permits are required by law, State, Federal, and Local, why is it our City Staff does not require Permits from Jacobsen or Jack Brown or Migueles?
Open Records Act does not say that SOME PEOPLE may look at Documents and Other People are Excluded to Open Records. It is not up to the City Manager or City Staff who has or does not have Access to Open Records.
This no doubt is just the beginning of the string of court cases that will result if the City continues to lead developers and land owners into a pit of bad practices.
So how many ways will this story turn, and never come to the truth?
Here is another truth, the Contractor doing the work in Grand Terrace is required to have a Business License in Grand Terrace.
So IF the City Manager Likes you You don't need a Permit. IF he doesn't Like you Well Look OUT he'll spend every effort to force his will upon the citizen and city.
So this is in court, and fees and fines will be assessed, no doubt Judge Wade will hear yet another case in his Court. No doubt the City's John Harper will gain from his fees and the fees of his co council. I just wonder what council he should use so that the CITY is not in this situation time and time again.
When Citizens asked at City Hall for a Copy of the Permit there was no Permit Required or Issued.
When there was a City Council Meeting: Tom Schwab said all permits were issued for the Grading of Miguels Property and building Permits would be issued. (That would be a BIG MIGUELS). This was a distraction for the Council who did not require an explanation in detail, and the public who was not able to "Question the Answer" because debate is not allowed and "Public Comment Time" was over. To allow Mr. Schwab to lie to the public and not be challanged is not beneficial to the functioning of the City Government, but it is a common event.
When Citizens asked to view the Permits for Miguel's they were not accommodated.
Then it was told that "Weed Abatement" does not need Permits.
Grading is being done on More than Miguels Property, the area is inclusive of the land Jack Brown wants to Build a Mega Stater's Store On.
"Weed Abatement" Practices do not allow for grading, or earth moving or even disking at the scale it is being done.
Permits are required by law, State, Federal, and Local, why is it our City Staff does not require Permits from Jacobsen or Jack Brown or Migueles?
Open Records Act does not say that SOME PEOPLE may look at Documents and Other People are Excluded to Open Records. It is not up to the City Manager or City Staff who has or does not have Access to Open Records.
This no doubt is just the beginning of the string of court cases that will result if the City continues to lead developers and land owners into a pit of bad practices.
So how many ways will this story turn, and never come to the truth?
Here is another truth, the Contractor doing the work in Grand Terrace is required to have a Business License in Grand Terrace.
So IF the City Manager Likes you You don't need a Permit. IF he doesn't Like you Well Look OUT he'll spend every effort to force his will upon the citizen and city.
So this is in court, and fees and fines will be assessed, no doubt Judge Wade will hear yet another case in his Court. No doubt the City's John Harper will gain from his fees and the fees of his co council. I just wonder what council he should use so that the CITY is not in this situation time and time again.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Approved Minutes Now Available to Public for Review
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/city_departments/CRA_Minutes/2006/110906.cra.pdf
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/city_departments/CRA_Minutes/2006/110906.cra.pdf
Nov 9 Meeting Minutes are available on line on the City Web Site. These have been approved and your review may bring comment and a request for revisions to the record to reflect the record more accurately. Minutes are not a transcript, however, these may have areas where to much is left out.
If you want a MS WORD version of these documents please email Grandterracenews@yahoo.com.
Gramps.
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/city_departments/CRA_Minutes/2006/110906.cra.pdf
Nov 9 Meeting Minutes are available on line on the City Web Site. These have been approved and your review may bring comment and a request for revisions to the record to reflect the record more accurately. Minutes are not a transcript, however, these may have areas where to much is left out.
If you want a MS WORD version of these documents please email Grandterracenews@yahoo.com.
Gramps.
Added Detail: ORD 142 Violations
Regarding the Violation of City Code, Ord 142 and the Permit Requirement for the Grading work on the Miguels Site, and Jacobsen's Property where Stater Brothers is intending to Build.
Ord.142 gives all the reasons the grading is in violation of the law. There can be no work or permits issued until the sewer and drainage permits are issued.
Ord. 142 allows for criminal and civil penalties, including jail time for violations.
It would not be unexpected that the Interested Parties in the Suit is expanded to be inclusive of more companies and individuals.
Eventually, the Citizens of Grand Terrace should not have to continue to be liable for the Education Expense of the Staff making decisions that violate the process and procedures recorded in Federal, State, County and Local Laws, and Codes. It seems that the Education of lost Court Cases isn't bringing home the Lesson not to Cut Corners, in procedures and process.
Once, is a whoops, Twice is a possible didn't make a correction fast enough, but Three, Four and Five, Six, and Seven...... Errors is a pattern of standard behavior with intent.
Ord.142 gives all the reasons the grading is in violation of the law. There can be no work or permits issued until the sewer and drainage permits are issued.
Ord. 142 allows for criminal and civil penalties, including jail time for violations.
It would not be unexpected that the Interested Parties in the Suit is expanded to be inclusive of more companies and individuals.
Eventually, the Citizens of Grand Terrace should not have to continue to be liable for the Education Expense of the Staff making decisions that violate the process and procedures recorded in Federal, State, County and Local Laws, and Codes. It seems that the Education of lost Court Cases isn't bringing home the Lesson not to Cut Corners, in procedures and process.
Once, is a whoops, Twice is a possible didn't make a correction fast enough, but Three, Four and Five, Six, and Seven...... Errors is a pattern of standard behavior with intent.
OTHER CASES PENDING: ESSCO/MIGULES/SWERTFERGERS
The Current Status of the ESSCO Case:
Case SCVSS138113 - CITIZENS-V-GRAND TERRACE
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CEQA).
08/24/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0021559268
08/24/2006 FEE PAYMENT
08/21/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0021495421
08/21/2006 FEE PAYMENT
08/16/2006 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PET FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ON 011007 FILED.
08/08/2006 NOTICE OF HEARDING DATE; DECLARATION OF A. BROEDLING FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN
Barton Road Grading: Miguel's Case... ( I suspect more people are party to this Case)
Case SCVSS144133 - CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE VS CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 STATUS HEARING ON PETITION
12/07/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0023139060
12/07/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
12/06/2006 NOTICE OF DEPARTMENT ASSIGNMENT AND STATUS HRG FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN.
12/05/2006 SUMMONS ISSUED - ORIGINAL FILED IN COURT FILE.
11/30/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMP/PET ON MJSC HOLDINGS, LLC; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SERVED ON 11/28/06
11/30/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMP/PET ON SDG INVESTMENTS, LLC; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SERVED ON 11/28/06
11/30/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMP/PET ON GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SERVED ON 11/28/06 11/30/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMP/PET ON CITY OF GRAND TERRACE; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SERVED ON 11/28/06
11/29/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0022999389
11/29/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX
11/28/2006 NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN.
1/21/2006 CASE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO DEPARTMENT S8
11/21/2006 PETITION AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED (CIVIL)
Case Filed Regarding Swertfergers Equipment and the City of Grand Terrace/Redevelopment Agency...
Case SCVSS144406 - CITZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE-V-CITY
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 STATUS HEARING ON PETITION
11/30/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
11/30/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
11/21/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, SWERTFEGERS EQUIPMENT INC, GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; PARTY SERVED ON 11/20/06. TYPE OF SERVICE IS PERSONAL.
11/21/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, SWERTFEGERS EQUIPMENT INC, GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; PARTY SERVED ON 11/20/06. TYPE OF SERVICE IS PERSONAL. WITH COSTS OF 0.00.
11/21/2006 NOTICE OF DEPARTMENT ASSIGNMENT AND STATUS HEARING FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN.
11/17/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
11/17/2006 ** VOID ** PAYMENT
11/17/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
11/16/2006 NTCE TO ATTY GEN RECEIVED AND FORWARDED TO LEGAL RESEARCH FOR REVIEW
11/16/2006 NTCE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL FILED.
11/15/2006 NOTICE OF PETITIONERS ELECTION FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN.
11/15/2006 PETITION AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED (CIVIL)
11/15/2006 CASE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO DEPARTMENT S8
Case SCVSS138113 - CITIZENS-V-GRAND TERRACE
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CEQA).
08/24/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0021559268
08/24/2006 FEE PAYMENT
08/21/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0021495421
08/21/2006 FEE PAYMENT
08/16/2006 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PET FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ON 011007 FILED.
08/08/2006 NOTICE OF HEARDING DATE; DECLARATION OF A. BROEDLING FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN
Barton Road Grading: Miguel's Case... ( I suspect more people are party to this Case)
Case SCVSS144133 - CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE VS CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 STATUS HEARING ON PETITION
12/07/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0023139060
12/07/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
12/06/2006 NOTICE OF DEPARTMENT ASSIGNMENT AND STATUS HRG FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN.
12/05/2006 SUMMONS ISSUED - ORIGINAL FILED IN COURT FILE.
11/30/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMP/PET ON MJSC HOLDINGS, LLC; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SERVED ON 11/28/06
11/30/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMP/PET ON SDG INVESTMENTS, LLC; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SERVED ON 11/28/06
11/30/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMP/PET ON GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SERVED ON 11/28/06 11/30/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMP/PET ON CITY OF GRAND TERRACE; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SERVED ON 11/28/06
11/29/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0022999389
11/29/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX
11/28/2006 NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN.
1/21/2006 CASE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO DEPARTMENT S8
11/21/2006 PETITION AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED (CIVIL)
Case Filed Regarding Swertfergers Equipment and the City of Grand Terrace/Redevelopment Agency...
Case SCVSS144406 - CITZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE-V-CITY
01/10/2007 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 STATUS HEARING ON PETITION
11/30/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
11/30/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
11/21/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, SWERTFEGERS EQUIPMENT INC, GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; PARTY SERVED ON 11/20/06. TYPE OF SERVICE IS PERSONAL.
11/21/2006 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON CITY OF GRAND TERRACE, SWERTFEGERS EQUIPMENT INC, GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; PARTY SERVED ON 11/20/06. TYPE OF SERVICE IS PERSONAL. WITH COSTS OF 0.00.
11/21/2006 NOTICE OF DEPARTMENT ASSIGNMENT AND STATUS HEARING FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN.
11/17/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
11/17/2006 ** VOID ** PAYMENT
11/17/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN FOR FAX FEE
11/16/2006 NTCE TO ATTY GEN RECEIVED AND FORWARDED TO LEGAL RESEARCH FOR REVIEW
11/16/2006 NTCE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL FILED.
11/15/2006 NOTICE OF PETITIONERS ELECTION FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN.
11/15/2006 PETITION AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED (CIVIL)
11/15/2006 CASE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO DEPARTMENT S8
BMSV: UPDATE: TWO APPROACHES of CFBH
Corporation for Better Housing has changed Attorneys for the Appeal of the Judge Wade Decision which required in the words of Tom Schwab, a minor adjustment to the EIR and all things will be resolved. Rather than comply with the Requirements of Judge Wade they have filed an Appeal as a means to Resolve the Issues. This is of course their right to do so. However, as they ask Citizens to Meet with them at a Scoping Meeting Jan 4th, to once again hear the "Concerns of the Citizens" they are Appealing the Decision of Judge Wade at the same time, apparently finding that an EIR which would meet Judge Wade's requirements is not one they could live within.
The Cost of this folly is comming inpart from the City of Grand Terrace's Redevelopment Agency Funds which represent a Debt or BOND... as some would rather refer to the funds... and those available resouces are limited. NINE Million was to be spent on the Senior Center and Housing and already 3 Million plus has been paid out, in addition to a gift of a 60 year lease for a much lower than market value rate of a buck a year, has already been put on the table by the City. 'The Project was Contracted for 18 million with 9 million coming from the city.
A request for detailed accounting of what the payments to Corporation for Better Housing has repeatedly been denied. Will the Corporation for Better Housing still build after it has spent the City's Funds on Legal Fees? Will the Corporation for Better Housing still defend it's Plan, and aren't they the ones who should be defending a plan they put forth, and Not the City?
When is it going to be clear to the City Council that the Staff and the Corporation for Better Housing does not have the City's Best Financial Interest in mind as they continue on this path. Is it time for the City Council and the Redevelopment Board, to say enough, count up our losses, perhaps even file a claim against the CFBH for the expences trying to defend a flawed plan. Perhaps it is time to recognize that our Planning Department, Planning Commision, and Staff are not competent in management of a Development Plan of ANY SORT, and remove this function from the City Government and restore it to a County Function.
Case SCVSS131530 - Actions/Minutes
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition
12/08/2006 DEPOSIT AND DISBURSEMENT ORDER FILED. PAID BETTY KELLEY $63 FOR RPTR TRANSCRIPT. Not Applicable
12/08/2006 DEPOSIT AND DISBURSEMENT ORDER FILED. PAID APPEALS $100 PURSUANT TO CRC 5.1. Not Applicable
12/08/2006 RECORD ON APPEAL CERTIFIED TO APPELLATE PARTIES Not Applicable
12/01/2006 SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FILED; SUBSTITUTING HECHT SOLBERG ROBINSON GOLDBERG& BAGLEY LL WITH GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING. Not Applicable
11/29/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0022998888 Not Applicable
11/29/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN FOR FAX FEE Not Applicable
Minutes
Receipt: 061129-0489 $4.00
11/27/2006 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPTS ON APPEAL RECEIVED. Not Applicable
11/16/2006 NOTICE OF DECISION ON PETITIONERS MTN FOR ATT FEES FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN. Not Applicable
11/08/2006 NOTICE TO REPORTER TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL FORWARDED TO DCA Not Applicable
11/08/2006 NOTICE TO COURT REPORTER(S) TO PREPARE APPEAL TRANSCRIPT. Not Applicable
11/08/2006 DEPOSIT AND DISBURSEMENT ORDER FILED. RESP CITIZENS PAID $13.50 FOR REPORTER TRANSCRIPT. Not Applicable
11/08/2006 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
Minutes
Receipt: 061108-0780 $13.50
061108-0780-CK Reference Number REPORTER'S TRANS
11/06/2006 DEPOSIT AND DISBURSEMENT ORDER FILED. APP ATTY PAID $36 FOR REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT. Not Applicable
11/06/2006 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
Minutes
Receipt: 061106-1159 $36.00
061106-1159-CK Reference Number REPORTER'S TRANS
11/06/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 MOTION RE: AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FILED BY PLAINTIFF CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN GRANTED
Minutes
JUDGE: JOHN P. WADE
CLERK: OLIVIA MCDONALD
REPORTER: BETTY KELLEY
COURT ATTENDANT LARRY RUSSELL
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY RAYMOND JOHNSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY COLIN R. BURNS PRESENT FOR CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING.
ATTORNEY RICHARD SCHULMAN PRESENT FOR CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN'S MOTION TO FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IS HEARD.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
COURT FINDS:
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN, CITY OF GRAND TERRACE'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IS GRANTED.
THE PREVAILING PARTY IS AWARDED $30,000.00 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND STAFF TIME, PLUS $655.00 IN COSTS.
ACTION - COMPLETE
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===
The Cost of this folly is comming inpart from the City of Grand Terrace's Redevelopment Agency Funds which represent a Debt or BOND... as some would rather refer to the funds... and those available resouces are limited. NINE Million was to be spent on the Senior Center and Housing and already 3 Million plus has been paid out, in addition to a gift of a 60 year lease for a much lower than market value rate of a buck a year, has already been put on the table by the City. 'The Project was Contracted for 18 million with 9 million coming from the city.
A request for detailed accounting of what the payments to Corporation for Better Housing has repeatedly been denied. Will the Corporation for Better Housing still build after it has spent the City's Funds on Legal Fees? Will the Corporation for Better Housing still defend it's Plan, and aren't they the ones who should be defending a plan they put forth, and Not the City?
When is it going to be clear to the City Council that the Staff and the Corporation for Better Housing does not have the City's Best Financial Interest in mind as they continue on this path. Is it time for the City Council and the Redevelopment Board, to say enough, count up our losses, perhaps even file a claim against the CFBH for the expences trying to defend a flawed plan. Perhaps it is time to recognize that our Planning Department, Planning Commision, and Staff are not competent in management of a Development Plan of ANY SORT, and remove this function from the City Government and restore it to a County Function.
Case SCVSS131530 - Actions/Minutes
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition
12/08/2006 DEPOSIT AND DISBURSEMENT ORDER FILED. PAID BETTY KELLEY $63 FOR RPTR TRANSCRIPT. Not Applicable
12/08/2006 DEPOSIT AND DISBURSEMENT ORDER FILED. PAID APPEALS $100 PURSUANT TO CRC 5.1. Not Applicable
12/08/2006 RECORD ON APPEAL CERTIFIED TO APPELLATE PARTIES Not Applicable
12/01/2006 SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FILED; SUBSTITUTING HECHT SOLBERG ROBINSON GOLDBERG& BAGLEY LL WITH GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING. Not Applicable
11/29/2006 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION ID NUMBER 013-0022998888 Not Applicable
11/29/2006 FILING FEE PAID BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN FOR FAX FEE Not Applicable
Minutes
Receipt: 061129-0489 $4.00
11/27/2006 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPTS ON APPEAL RECEIVED. Not Applicable
11/16/2006 NOTICE OF DECISION ON PETITIONERS MTN FOR ATT FEES FILED BY CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN. Not Applicable
11/08/2006 NOTICE TO REPORTER TO PREPARE TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL FORWARDED TO DCA Not Applicable
11/08/2006 NOTICE TO COURT REPORTER(S) TO PREPARE APPEAL TRANSCRIPT. Not Applicable
11/08/2006 DEPOSIT AND DISBURSEMENT ORDER FILED. RESP CITIZENS PAID $13.50 FOR REPORTER TRANSCRIPT. Not Applicable
11/08/2006 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
Minutes
Receipt: 061108-0780 $13.50
061108-0780-CK Reference Number REPORTER'S TRANS
11/06/2006 DEPOSIT AND DISBURSEMENT ORDER FILED. APP ATTY PAID $36 FOR REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT. Not Applicable
11/06/2006 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
Minutes
Receipt: 061106-1159 $36.00
061106-1159-CK Reference Number REPORTER'S TRANS
11/06/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 MOTION RE: AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FILED BY PLAINTIFF CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN GRANTED
Minutes
JUDGE: JOHN P. WADE
CLERK: OLIVIA MCDONALD
REPORTER: BETTY KELLEY
COURT ATTENDANT LARRY RUSSELL
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY RAYMOND JOHNSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY COLIN R. BURNS PRESENT FOR CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING.
ATTORNEY RICHARD SCHULMAN PRESENT FOR CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN'S MOTION TO FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IS HEARD.
ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
COURT FINDS:
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN, CITY OF GRAND TERRACE'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IS GRANTED.
THE PREVAILING PARTY IS AWARDED $30,000.00 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND STAFF TIME, PLUS $655.00 IN COSTS.
ACTION - COMPLETE
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===
Court Orders Payment on OAC Lawsuit:
MOTION RE: MTN FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FILED BY PETITIONER CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRAND TERRACE 11/21/2006 - 8:30 AM DEPT. S8
JUDGE: JOHN P. WADE
CLERK: OLIVIA MCDONALD
REPORTER: BETTY KELLEY
COURT ATTENDANT LARRY RUSSELL
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY RAYMOND JOHNSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY COLIN BURNS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRAND TERRACE'S MOTION TO FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS IS HEARD. ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
COURT FINDS: CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRAND TERRACE'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IS GRANTED.
THE MOVING PARTY IS AWARDED $30,000.00 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND STAFF TIME PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $4,188.00 FOR REIMBURSEABLE COSTS.
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===
Some will say this is a waist of City Money: This is not including the Money Spent by the City Trying to Defend the OAC. BUT even with that cost added in, it is MUCH LESS than the cost the City would have been paying for road imporvement, if the OAC had not been challanged.
JUDGE: JOHN P. WADE
CLERK: OLIVIA MCDONALD
REPORTER: BETTY KELLEY
COURT ATTENDANT LARRY RUSSELL
-
APPEARANCES:
ATTORNEY RAYMOND JOHNSON PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER.
ATTORNEY COLIN BURNS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
-
PROCEEDINGS:
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRAND TERRACE'S MOTION TO FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS IS HEARD. ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED.
COURT FINDS: CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRAND TERRACE'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IS GRANTED.
THE MOVING PARTY IS AWARDED $30,000.00 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND STAFF TIME PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $4,188.00 FOR REIMBURSEABLE COSTS.
=== MINUTE ORDER END ===
Some will say this is a waist of City Money: This is not including the Money Spent by the City Trying to Defend the OAC. BUT even with that cost added in, it is MUCH LESS than the cost the City would have been paying for road imporvement, if the OAC had not been challanged.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Council Member Hilkey: Retires under threat of lawsuit.
From the "Other Blog"
Do We NEED TO REVIEW?
Hilkey did acknowledge though, that there have been questionable decisions on the part of certain city council members in the past. He cited the "Dobson house purchase," saying that, "the city paid 1.2 million dollars for a house that we didn't need, never should have bought, and will never use." Hilkey maintains his belief that the manner in which this transaction occurred was a violation of the Brown Act, which is also known as the "California Open Government Law." He did not elaborate on his statement that he was "threatened with a law suit over his opposition to this purchase."
Point of fact, I don't think Council Member Hilkey said he was threatened with a law suit over his opposition to this purchase. I think he left the actual related issue of the lawsuit undefined.
Let's Review: recently Herman Hilkey requested that the Payments Made to Gene Carlstrom related to the Dodson House Transaction should be listed in the Vouchers and Payments made and they are not represented or disclosed. He requested this Nov 9th Council Meeting. He had not made any statements about a lawsuit prior to that in spite of his objections to the Deal, and the manner of its negotiation, and the full disclosure of the details in accordance with the Brown Act.
So it may be the Lack of Proper Notice or how it was listed on the Agenda, it may be over his objection to the participation of Council Members who either worked or were working for Gene Carlstrom in the past or present in the Negotiation, it may be over his request that the payments being made to Gene Carlstrom be Disclosed and listed on the Voucher.
Former Council Member Hilkey's request for the payment disclosure, must lead to the next question. What other payments are being made to who on a non disclosed vouchers or account?
Perhaps some one will obtain a Vendor Report with a showing of all payments made to Gene Carlstrom, Terra Loma Realty, or any related business doing "Realty Management" for the city.
That may answer the question as to who, what, where and why?
Council Member Hilkey's statement there is no Fraud in GT seems not to match his un answered question, or the mentioned law suit threat, regarless of which issues it is related to.
Let's Review: recently Herman Hilkey requested that the Payments Made to Gene Carlstrom related to the Dodson House Transaction should be listed in the Vouchers and Payments made and they are not represented or disclosed. He requested this Nov 9th Council Meeting. He had not made any statements about a lawsuit prior to that in spite of his objections to the Deal, and the manner of its negotiation, and the full disclosure of the details in accordance with the Brown Act.
So it may be the Lack of Proper Notice or how it was listed on the Agenda, it may be over his objection to the participation of Council Members who either worked or were working for Gene Carlstrom in the past or present in the Negotiation, it may be over his request that the payments being made to Gene Carlstrom be Disclosed and listed on the Voucher.
Former Council Member Hilkey's request for the payment disclosure, must lead to the next question. What other payments are being made to who on a non disclosed vouchers or account?
Perhaps some one will obtain a Vendor Report with a showing of all payments made to Gene Carlstrom, Terra Loma Realty, or any related business doing "Realty Management" for the city.
That may answer the question as to who, what, where and why?
Council Member Hilkey's statement there is no Fraud in GT seems not to match his un answered question, or the mentioned law suit threat, regarless of which issues it is related to.
fraud n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right. A party who has lost something due to fraud is entitled to file a lawsuit for damages against the party acting fraudulently, and the damages may include punitive damages as a punishment or public example due to the malicious nature of the fraud. Quite often there are several persons involved in a scheme to commit fraud and each and all may be liable for the total damages. Inherent in fraud is an unjust advantage over another which injures that person or entity. It includes failing to point out a known mistake in a contract or other writing (such as a deed), or not revealing a fact which he/she has a duty to communicate, such as a survey which shows there are only 10 acres of land being purchased and not 20 as originally understood. Constructive fraud can be proved by a showing of breach of legal duty (like using the trust funds held for another in an investment in one's own business) without direct proof of fraud or fraudulent intent. Extrinsic fraud occurs when deceit is employed to keep someone from exercising a right, such as a fair trial, by hiding evidence or misleading the opposing party in a lawsuit. (See: constructive fraud, extrinsic fraud, intrinsic fraud, fraud in the inducement, fraudulent conveyance) damages)
Do We NEED TO REVIEW?
Council Minutes November 9, 2006
Herman Hilkey, thanked JoAnn Johnson for the card. He congratulated the Mayor (Who was in Hawaii and Not at the Meeting) and Bea Cortes on their victory. There was some inconsistencies in the ballot counting at both sites, however, it was relatively small. He stated that it is the fear that keeps the Mayor from responding to the residents. He stated that is why the timer and the cop was brought in. He feels that Mrs. Hornsby’s letter needs to be responded to.
He questioned if there was any plans to replace the seat that was held by Councilmember Ferré. It is his position and he encouraged that the Council be independent on picking who they feel has acceptance by the community.
He stated that the I 215 is the stepchild and neither organization wants to build the strip between San Bernardino and Riverside. They would rather build a road between Riverside and Moreno Valley. Both Counties have tremendous pressure to build someplace else and not to connect the two counties. Whoever you appoint or continue to appoint to SANBAG needs to be ferocious and fight for Grand Terrace and Colton. Every time he opens the paper or gets a mailer from SANBAG they are starting new projects other places and it is disheartening when he sees them widening freeways every place else. They say the I 215 gets pushed back because it is too expensive. It was the lead project when Measure I was initiated, it was the lead project when Measure I was renewed and it is getting pushed back because of the political positioning of both counties. The San Bag Representative has to
be on top of that.
In regards to High School #3, he feels that it is disheartening to have an election and have posters of High School #3 in the lobby. They don’t have the money, the money is gone, we are totally dependant on the State to come in an build a High School. The Bond that was passed is gone. They have some money left but they fixed all the other schools. The intent of the Bond was to build a High School first. They were going to build the High School with cash and apply for a 50/50 rebate from the State and it was violated. We are now dependant on the State of California. They are talking about High School #4 now and he feels that High School # 4 will be built in Bloomington before High School # 3 is built in Grand Terrace. He mentioned this to the Mayor while they were both on the Committee and she stated that the staff says it is on schedule.
He stated that City Manager Schwab agreed to bring Corporation For Better Housing in to explain the project. He feels that there is a level of distrust that would be well served if we had someone that wasn’t part of the contractor who is doing the project, a third party if possible. There has to be a level of trust. He stated that there will be a meeting in Grand Terrace with regards to the peeker plant, which will last past 3:00 p.m. and feels that it is reassuring.He stated that Council approved a commission (and sic) for Gene Carlstrom to rent the Dodson Property. As far as he can see that check has never shown up on the check register and wanted to find out what is going on with that.
FUNS and FUNDS: For Medical Treatment
Grand Terrace Citizens are banning together to help Kyle Bacon aquire sufficient funds for a Cancer Treatment not Covered by Insurance Coverage. Kyle age 15 takes long naps in his Grand Terrace home while trying to save energy and continue the fight against the cancer which started as a brain tumor and now has spread to other parts of his body. He has had 10 surgeries, radiation yet tumors continue to grow.
Funds for Kyle's treatment will be spent to pay for a treatment which uses harvested white blood sells from Kyle's own blood, and a protein extracted from near the tumor itself. It is hoped this will slow his cancer by causing his own body to respond to the cancer's invasion. Please contribute what you can, so that Kyle may know that every effort was made. Including a treatment his parents feel represent his best hope.
Thank You,
Funds for Kyle's treatment will be spent to pay for a treatment which uses harvested white blood sells from Kyle's own blood, and a protein extracted from near the tumor itself. It is hoped this will slow his cancer by causing his own body to respond to the cancer's invasion. Please contribute what you can, so that Kyle may know that every effort was made. Including a treatment his parents feel represent his best hope.
Thank You,
Audit Report and Commentary
IF the CITY of GRAND TERRACE wanted AN INFORMED COUNCIL and CITIZENS they would make this information available on THE GT WEB SITE. IF a BLOG can post it, they could with much less effort.
The Grand Terrace City Council voted Thursday night December 14th, 2006 on The Annual Report To The Legislative Body from Tom Schwab, Executive Director Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency. This report is posted below.the first and second and 14th pages contain apparent false information and troubling information. The underlined include that no elderly were displaced for an RDA project. The trailer park was full of elderly and one who refused to move. The folks on Barton Road were told to deal with Jacobsen of face eminent domain. The section maintenance for Repair of Affordable Housing. The addresses listed are vacant lots. All but the Mirado location are known vacant lots. Page 14 states Rental Income $0 and Sale of Real Estate $0. We know this is also not factual.
ABOVE Audit Report Posted in this space. And a Short Commentary.
GT ORD: Related to Development:
Ord.142 gives all the reasons the grading is in violation of the law. There can be no work or permits issued until the sewer and drainage permits are issued.
Ord. 142 allows for criminal and civil penalties, including jail time for violations.
IF you have concerns about the content of the Audit Report, you may want to contact your State Government as that is who is the regulator of the funds and to whom the Report is Addressed.
The Grand Terrace City Council voted Thursday night December 14th, 2006 on The Annual Report To The Legislative Body from Tom Schwab, Executive Director Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency. This report is posted below.the first and second and 14th pages contain apparent false information and troubling information. The underlined include that no elderly were displaced for an RDA project. The trailer park was full of elderly and one who refused to move. The folks on Barton Road were told to deal with Jacobsen of face eminent domain. The section maintenance for Repair of Affordable Housing. The addresses listed are vacant lots. All but the Mirado location are known vacant lots. Page 14 states Rental Income $0 and Sale of Real Estate $0. We know this is also not factual.
ABOVE Audit Report Posted in this space. And a Short Commentary.
GT ORD: Related to Development:
Ord.142 gives all the reasons the grading is in violation of the law. There can be no work or permits issued until the sewer and drainage permits are issued.
Ord. 142 allows for criminal and civil penalties, including jail time for violations.
IF you have concerns about the content of the Audit Report, you may want to contact your State Government as that is who is the regulator of the funds and to whom the Report is Addressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)