Dear Grandpa Terrace,
If Staters wants to build a super store here I think they first should learn to stock the one they have now. Most evenings the shelves in various sections of the store are bare. Last night they had three bananas. Stores don't run out of bananas.
The community should get behind the owners of the location where Staters is now and lobby for a better retailer. Trader Joe's or Clarks. There are so many that would do so well here and give real competion to Staters. Staters seems not to care if they steam roll over the citizens here so why shop there anyway ,new or old. When I go into Riverside I shop at other stores just for the change anyway. Staters Red Grapes are mush much like the brain cells of this city management.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Monday, January 30, 2006
Council Not Responcive to Citizens
What You Find if you Google Grand Terrace….
City takes steps to buy land
San Bernardino Sun, CA - Jan 28, 2006
GRAND TERRACE - Despite the protests of several residents, the City Council has taken the first tentative step toward using eminent domain to acquire two ...
Parcels sought for Grand Terrace project
San Bernardino Sun, CA - Jan 28, 2006
GRAND TERRACE - Despite the protests of several residents, the City Council has taken the first tentative step toward using eminent domain to acquire two ...
Grand Terrace OKs property appraisal
Press-Enterprise (subscription), CA - Jan 27, 2006
The Grand Terrace City Council took the first step Thursday toward condemning properties where a home and gas station are located that are needed for the ...
Council OKs eminent domain in shopping center deal
San Bernardino Sun, CA - Jan 27, 2006
GRAND TERRACE -- Despite protests from several residents, the City Council on Thursday night took the first step toward using eminent domain to acquire two ...
Grand Terrace trying to set value on land sought for Town Center
Press-Enterprise (subscription), CA - Jan 26, 2006
GRAND TERRACE: The City Council wants two parcels for Town Center and might use eminent domain. By MASSIEL LADRÓN DE GUEVARA / The Press-Enterprise. ...
City takes steps to buy land
San Bernardino Sun, CA - Jan 28, 2006
GRAND TERRACE - Despite the protests of several residents, the City Council has taken the first tentative step toward using eminent domain to acquire two ...
Parcels sought for Grand Terrace project
San Bernardino Sun, CA - Jan 28, 2006
GRAND TERRACE - Despite the protests of several residents, the City Council has taken the first tentative step toward using eminent domain to acquire two ...
Grand Terrace OKs property appraisal
Press-Enterprise (subscription), CA - Jan 27, 2006
The Grand Terrace City Council took the first step Thursday toward condemning properties where a home and gas station are located that are needed for the ...
Council OKs eminent domain in shopping center deal
San Bernardino Sun, CA - Jan 27, 2006
GRAND TERRACE -- Despite protests from several residents, the City Council on Thursday night took the first step toward using eminent domain to acquire two ...
Grand Terrace trying to set value on land sought for Town Center
Press-Enterprise (subscription), CA - Jan 26, 2006
GRAND TERRACE: The City Council wants two parcels for Town Center and might use eminent domain. By MASSIEL LADRÓN DE GUEVARA / The Press-Enterprise. ...
Sunday, January 29, 2006
From the Email InBox: Council and City Put on Notice
Grandpa,
I delivered this letter to city council last week. Actually there is some confusion, and Grand Terrace has to abide by it's own Redevelopment ordinances 25, 52, 87 as well as CA state law, health & Safety code sections. They don't go straight to the Supreme Court for their "property takings" right by Kelo, which is prohibited by the 5th amendment and will eventually be overturned, first by most states. The city has not followed much of any rules they are legally required to follow, which will lead to more lawsuits. But they don't "get it" yet, so we still have more work to do.
Grand Terrace City Council members & RDA 1.26.2006
There is no public USE proposed for the land subject to the appraisal before you. It is merely an expeditious taking from one private party for use and monetary gain by another private party or a big box corporation. “No eminent domain for private gain” should instead be your motto. The only purpose here is to take desirable land in a prime location and change it to another’s ownership, at a price arrived at by neither party to the transfer. How fair is that?
It is not “necessary” to construct a public improvement on Jo Stringfield’s land for the purposes of eliminating blight according to the meaning of the relevant CA state statutes. The city already HAS a library, and they also own sufficient land in multiple locations around town that is well suited to library use. Other sensible library sites would be near area schools and homes. Taking these homes and businesses would be excess takings, and break the social contract.
Area business and residents have not been notified of the RDA relocation plan or replacement housing required by CA state law at Health & Safety code Sections. Therefore value condemnation of homes & businesses is unlawful & premature. Alternative and temporary housing has not been provided as required by code. All homeowners, residents, business owners, land owners, tenants and trailer park owners or renters should be advised of their legal rights first, before you use the law against the citizens. Fair play demands no less of you in your position of public trust. Redevelopment relocation assistance should be openly discussed with owners before you proceed with any eminent domain actions, or values placed only on real property.
The RDA should not proceed with voting for “just compensation” for any proposed “takings” in Grand Terrace by eminent domain, because the city/RDA has not followed it’s own rules. You should review your own RDA rules for participation, re-entry and owner notification. False and misleading information has been provided to various land owners, and participation, disclosure of the rules and participation of owners had been subject to favoritism, secret negotiations, land swaps, sales and closed door meetings. You are a public agency, and CA state laws and/or city ordinances outlined in the Redevelopment Act, amendments, rules, ordinances & the Brown Act govern your behavior. You should read and review the applicable city ordinances before you vote. The city staff often tells folks there are no rules for RDA participation, so perhaps even you have never even seen these rules!
Most municipalities restrict the use of eminent domain, exempting any property in which any person resides. Your weasel words say it does not allow use on “residentially designated” property, meaning the zone change to commercial –while the property use remained residential, indicates that you could legally try to take Jo’s house after all. How is this honest communication of RDA intent?
Have you or anyone in your agency exhausted every other method of negotiation at your disposal? Have you hired an ombudsman or professional arbitrator? Have you requested an alternative view and values for the property? Have you have any discussion with the land owners or personal meetings? Have you heard their side of the debate? Has arbitration been tried? Are you only using the biggest hammer in your tool chest? Could you do better than this on behalf of the public?
Vote NO on this first step in taking your neighbor’s property for others to gain. You should represent the voters not city staff. No eminent domain for private gain” should be your motto.
I delivered this letter to city council last week. Actually there is some confusion, and Grand Terrace has to abide by it's own Redevelopment ordinances 25, 52, 87 as well as CA state law, health & Safety code sections. They don't go straight to the Supreme Court for their "property takings" right by Kelo, which is prohibited by the 5th amendment and will eventually be overturned, first by most states. The city has not followed much of any rules they are legally required to follow, which will lead to more lawsuits. But they don't "get it" yet, so we still have more work to do.
Grand Terrace City Council members & RDA 1.26.2006
There is no public USE proposed for the land subject to the appraisal before you. It is merely an expeditious taking from one private party for use and monetary gain by another private party or a big box corporation. “No eminent domain for private gain” should instead be your motto. The only purpose here is to take desirable land in a prime location and change it to another’s ownership, at a price arrived at by neither party to the transfer. How fair is that?
It is not “necessary” to construct a public improvement on Jo Stringfield’s land for the purposes of eliminating blight according to the meaning of the relevant CA state statutes. The city already HAS a library, and they also own sufficient land in multiple locations around town that is well suited to library use. Other sensible library sites would be near area schools and homes. Taking these homes and businesses would be excess takings, and break the social contract.
Area business and residents have not been notified of the RDA relocation plan or replacement housing required by CA state law at Health & Safety code Sections. Therefore value condemnation of homes & businesses is unlawful & premature. Alternative and temporary housing has not been provided as required by code. All homeowners, residents, business owners, land owners, tenants and trailer park owners or renters should be advised of their legal rights first, before you use the law against the citizens. Fair play demands no less of you in your position of public trust. Redevelopment relocation assistance should be openly discussed with owners before you proceed with any eminent domain actions, or values placed only on real property.
The RDA should not proceed with voting for “just compensation” for any proposed “takings” in Grand Terrace by eminent domain, because the city/RDA has not followed it’s own rules. You should review your own RDA rules for participation, re-entry and owner notification. False and misleading information has been provided to various land owners, and participation, disclosure of the rules and participation of owners had been subject to favoritism, secret negotiations, land swaps, sales and closed door meetings. You are a public agency, and CA state laws and/or city ordinances outlined in the Redevelopment Act, amendments, rules, ordinances & the Brown Act govern your behavior. You should read and review the applicable city ordinances before you vote. The city staff often tells folks there are no rules for RDA participation, so perhaps even you have never even seen these rules!
Most municipalities restrict the use of eminent domain, exempting any property in which any person resides. Your weasel words say it does not allow use on “residentially designated” property, meaning the zone change to commercial –while the property use remained residential, indicates that you could legally try to take Jo’s house after all. How is this honest communication of RDA intent?
Have you or anyone in your agency exhausted every other method of negotiation at your disposal? Have you hired an ombudsman or professional arbitrator? Have you requested an alternative view and values for the property? Have you have any discussion with the land owners or personal meetings? Have you heard their side of the debate? Has arbitration been tried? Are you only using the biggest hammer in your tool chest? Could you do better than this on behalf of the public?
Vote NO on this first step in taking your neighbor’s property for others to gain. You should represent the voters not city staff. No eminent domain for private gain” should be your motto.
What Trucking People on Michigan St...
Swertfeger's Equipment, Inc.
12438 Michigan Street
Grand Terrace, California 92313
Office: (909) 825-8116
Email: info@swertfegers.com
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT.
Lee Swertfeger, President
Jeff Swertfeger, Vice President
Stacey West, Treasurer and Secretary
Swertfeger’s Equipment has been operating as a truck trailer repair facility since 1984 when founder, Lee Swertfeger, purchased two acres of land in Grand Terrace, California, a small city located in San Bernardino County. In 2001, Swertfeger’s Equipment was officially incorporated to become what it is now known today, Swertfeger’s Equipment, Inc. a.k.a. SEI.
As the company expanded Lee sought the assistance of his wife, Gay, as office manager, his son, Jeff, as Vice President, and daughter, Stacey, as Secretary and Treasurer. With their aide, Swertfeger’s grew from a mere two-acre facility to approximately six-acres and continue today to undergo rebuilding and remodeling of the facilities. In recent years, Swertfeger’s has expanded from a mere repair facility to also include successful sales of trailers, trailer equipment and parts.
We offer our customers a diverse inventory of new and pre-owned trailers from an array of well-known manufacturers. We provide most trailers including refuse trailers, commodity trailers, custom trailers, and our specialty, self-unloading floor trailers, etc. In addition, our company stocks name brand quality parts for your entire trailer needs ranging from nuts and bolts to tarps and walking floor parts. We currently have over twenty-five trained service men providing repair services, covering almost everything in specializing and repairing a trailer.
Swertfeger’s Equipment Inc. continues to be a family owned and operated facility. From humble aspirations Swertfeger’s Equipment, Inc. has become a company with approximately two million dollars in assets and thirty-eight full-time employees; all working towards the same goals. We strive to meet or exceed customer expectations by providing excellent customer service and value for every experience at Swertfeger’s Equipment, Inc.
A true reflection of our success can be found as a result from our many repeat and new customer bases. We have been successfully serving and satisfying the needs of many customers pertinent to the trailer service and sales industry and continue to grow.
From the Email InBox
There are a couple of things Mr. Swertrucker forgets to mention. He also provides truck parking that also brings big rigs on Michigan 24 hours a day. He has work going on till the wee hours of the morning with pounding and the sound of machinery.
Diesel fumes permeate the residential area he is located in and he built a building without the required building permits, with the approval of the city. He still has not met the obligation of moving a light standard and was wavied $41,000 in fee's.
The city has no building permits on file for him and has no idea how many building he has. He wants to move onto his property a 12,000 square foot building that goes against the agreement between he and the city that states it must be a concrete building. I know of no portable concrete buildings. While we are on the subject of trucks.
Just a few doors to the north of Mr. Swertfegers on the east side a cement contractor is allowed to operate out of his home and park his trucks and equipment there. In the evenings he blocks Michigan while he backs his trucks and trailers onto his property. Don't you park a motor home or anything else on your property unless it's on a cement pad and out of sight.
12438 Michigan Street
Grand Terrace, California 92313
Office: (909) 825-8116
Email: info@swertfegers.com
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT.
Lee Swertfeger, President
Jeff Swertfeger, Vice President
Stacey West, Treasurer and Secretary
Swertfeger’s Equipment has been operating as a truck trailer repair facility since 1984 when founder, Lee Swertfeger, purchased two acres of land in Grand Terrace, California, a small city located in San Bernardino County. In 2001, Swertfeger’s Equipment was officially incorporated to become what it is now known today, Swertfeger’s Equipment, Inc. a.k.a. SEI.
As the company expanded Lee sought the assistance of his wife, Gay, as office manager, his son, Jeff, as Vice President, and daughter, Stacey, as Secretary and Treasurer. With their aide, Swertfeger’s grew from a mere two-acre facility to approximately six-acres and continue today to undergo rebuilding and remodeling of the facilities. In recent years, Swertfeger’s has expanded from a mere repair facility to also include successful sales of trailers, trailer equipment and parts.
We offer our customers a diverse inventory of new and pre-owned trailers from an array of well-known manufacturers. We provide most trailers including refuse trailers, commodity trailers, custom trailers, and our specialty, self-unloading floor trailers, etc. In addition, our company stocks name brand quality parts for your entire trailer needs ranging from nuts and bolts to tarps and walking floor parts. We currently have over twenty-five trained service men providing repair services, covering almost everything in specializing and repairing a trailer.
Swertfeger’s Equipment Inc. continues to be a family owned and operated facility. From humble aspirations Swertfeger’s Equipment, Inc. has become a company with approximately two million dollars in assets and thirty-eight full-time employees; all working towards the same goals. We strive to meet or exceed customer expectations by providing excellent customer service and value for every experience at Swertfeger’s Equipment, Inc.
A true reflection of our success can be found as a result from our many repeat and new customer bases. We have been successfully serving and satisfying the needs of many customers pertinent to the trailer service and sales industry and continue to grow.
From the Email InBox
There are a couple of things Mr. Swertrucker forgets to mention. He also provides truck parking that also brings big rigs on Michigan 24 hours a day. He has work going on till the wee hours of the morning with pounding and the sound of machinery.
Diesel fumes permeate the residential area he is located in and he built a building without the required building permits, with the approval of the city. He still has not met the obligation of moving a light standard and was wavied $41,000 in fee's.
The city has no building permits on file for him and has no idea how many building he has. He wants to move onto his property a 12,000 square foot building that goes against the agreement between he and the city that states it must be a concrete building. I know of no portable concrete buildings. While we are on the subject of trucks.
Just a few doors to the north of Mr. Swertfegers on the east side a cement contractor is allowed to operate out of his home and park his trucks and equipment there. In the evenings he blocks Michigan while he backs his trucks and trailers onto his property. Don't you park a motor home or anything else on your property unless it's on a cement pad and out of sight.
Fact Fiction or Farce
See if you folks can find any discrepancies in Mr. Schwabs statements here. These came off the city website. You may have to read it twice to find any falsehoods, or not.
The goal of the City Manager's office is to provide professional administrative assistance to the City Council in establishing the policies, programs, and services to be offered to the Grand Terrace community.
The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of the organization. The City Manager's Office coordinates the fulfillment of policy and programs established by the City Council. The City Manager provides overall direction to departments that administer City programs and services; implements inter-departmental programs for human resources, strategic planning, and emergency preparedness; and coordinates intergovernmental relations, lobbying, economic development, and public information efforts. The City Manager's Office also oversees projects such as property acquisitions and the Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency.
To fulfill these duties, the City Manager is aided by the Assistant City Manager, an organization of six City departments, and the talent and skills of approximately 66 part time and full time City employees. These departments and employees are under the immediate supervision of department directors appointed by the City Manager.
A Message from the City Manager……
Grand Terrace is a wonderful community to live, work and play. We are excited about the opportunity to provide you with more information about our City services and community activities. Please take the time to explore our web site and access those areas that interest you.
It is our intent to make City information easy to access and provide information that is most meaningful to you. If you have any questions or can offer suggestions that will improve our site, please feel free to call or email me at citymanager@cityofgrandterrace.org
Sincerely,
Thomas Schwab
City Manager
The goal of the City Manager's office is to provide professional administrative assistance to the City Council in establishing the policies, programs, and services to be offered to the Grand Terrace community.
The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to serve as the Chief Administrative Officer of the organization. The City Manager's Office coordinates the fulfillment of policy and programs established by the City Council. The City Manager provides overall direction to departments that administer City programs and services; implements inter-departmental programs for human resources, strategic planning, and emergency preparedness; and coordinates intergovernmental relations, lobbying, economic development, and public information efforts. The City Manager's Office also oversees projects such as property acquisitions and the Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency.
To fulfill these duties, the City Manager is aided by the Assistant City Manager, an organization of six City departments, and the talent and skills of approximately 66 part time and full time City employees. These departments and employees are under the immediate supervision of department directors appointed by the City Manager.
A Message from the City Manager……
Grand Terrace is a wonderful community to live, work and play. We are excited about the opportunity to provide you with more information about our City services and community activities. Please take the time to explore our web site and access those areas that interest you.
It is our intent to make City information easy to access and provide information that is most meaningful to you. If you have any questions or can offer suggestions that will improve our site, please feel free to call or email me at citymanager@cityofgrandterrace.org
Sincerely,
Thomas Schwab
City Manager
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Before You Buy or Invest in GT You Need to Know
This City May Take YOUR PROPERTY and Make it AVAILABLE FOR as Second PRIVATE PARTY...
Nearly the ENTIRE TOWN is in a REDEVELOPMENT AREA
ONCE Designated FOR REDEVELOPMENT
ALWAYS Designated FOR REDEVELOPMENT
NO NEW INVESTMENT IS SAFE
Apparently NO OLD INVESTMENT is Either...
Nearly the ENTIRE TOWN is in a REDEVELOPMENT AREA
ONCE Designated FOR REDEVELOPMENT
ALWAYS Designated FOR REDEVELOPMENT
NO NEW INVESTMENT IS SAFE
Apparently NO OLD INVESTMENT is Either...
43rd Revision: Library Moved, Drive Through Near Seniors Again
Note How the Plan keeps growing and growing. The Specific Plan calls for a Walkway/Pedestrian Friendly Development. Not shown in this Plan. The orriginal Specific Plan calls for Small Shops, and Resturants, and Retail. Lowes or a big box was not part of the Specific Plan or Idea Sold to the Community. The placement of a resturant near the Terrace Retirement Home was rejected and removed several plans ago, and there it is again. The Orriginal Plan worked around the existance of The Mobile Home Park, and other Property now under Option by Jacobsen.. If he has a chanch, how far will he go..??
Jo, Please plan your development plan from your property to the East to the Canal, contact them to see how you can incorporate the canal space as green space as an inhancement to the development rather than an eyesore.. as Jacobsen's Plan continues to perpetuate. Jo.. Please submit a plan that does not have a HUGE Parking lot as it's primary "Feature"... Perhaps Grape Arbors, Creaping Figs, and a WELCOMING PLACE for our Community. Perhaps a Clarks Community Health Store? Many other options would be better than the Jacobson Plan of Big Box Parkinglot Store..
Jo, Please plan your development plan from your property to the East to the Canal, contact them to see how you can incorporate the canal space as green space as an inhancement to the development rather than an eyesore.. as Jacobsen's Plan continues to perpetuate. Jo.. Please submit a plan that does not have a HUGE Parking lot as it's primary "Feature"... Perhaps Grape Arbors, Creaping Figs, and a WELCOMING PLACE for our Community. Perhaps a Clarks Community Health Store? Many other options would be better than the Jacobson Plan of Big Box Parkinglot Store..
From the Email INBox: Schwab's Answers Conflict with Prior Statements
The Public Policy Institute of California in it's 1998 study proved that cities with RDA's show little or no gain in revenue over those cities without RDA's. We are now yearly issuing Redevelopment Agency Bonds to pay off Redevelopment Agency bonds. Our budget this year has exceeded $24,000,000 from according to Mr. Schwab in a news article $3,580,000 Does anyone see $24,000,000 in improvements in this city? This is no different than a check kiting scheme where you keep writing bad checks to cover bad checks. This is your property taxes in essence going into the pockets of developers like Jacobson and scam artiest like The Corp. for Better Housing that if anyone looks at them, it is very plain, they use their charity status as a means to avoid paying taxes.
We were told by Schwab and Jacobson that no city or RDA funds would be used to pay the lease of $7500 a month on a new library we don't need. Two days later Schwab reversed himself in the press and said that the city or the RDA would make the lease payments. We have learned about Mr. Schwab that the old adage "when his lips are moving" holds" true" and I hate to use that word in the same sentence that bares Schwabs name. Now they say the library will be it's own free standing building. What they have not told us is how much more will this cost the tax payers of Grand Terrace over the $7500 a month which equates to $90,000 a year. One can only surmise, that no doubt, there will be an increase which will lessen even more the projected revenue of the Town Center. Now the library is going to be located on Michigan across from the skating ring. I'm sure the day laborers will find this much too far to walk to use the rest room or take a siesta on the lawn. On the other hand it will be,according to plan 43, FORTY THREE? This whole thing should be put on hold till there is a definite plan by someone. It appears Jacobson can't figure out anything except he wants Ms. Stringfiels and Pit Stops property. He owns four parcels and the City owns the rest, but he wants the city to buy the rest and sell them to him at an unknown rate per square foot. Show us the money Mr. Jacobson , Please.
My suggestion to the City is that they require of Mr. Jacobson an escrow account of all the monies that it will take to buy the property and build the Town Center. Show us that he is financially capable of such an undertaking. We are aware that he could not make the escrow payments to those that where threatened with eminent domain if they did not sell to him. Looking on the Internet all the projects he has undertaken have gone up for sale before completion. Some before he even broke ground.
Unfortunately I have the feeling that the City Council's right hand does not know what the left is doing. Councilwoman Garcia, in my opinion, should not have had to ask so many questions at the council meeting. She should have been able to give the citizens answers. Councilman Miller, by his indignant comments, as not being informed as to what Schwab and Jacobson were working out between themselves and the three council members that were informed and two weren't should turn on some light bulbs in the community as to were the money is going and to whom. I challenge anyone to try and follow the money trail of this city.
By design the book keeping will prevent you from doing so. Grand Terrace will no longer be the sleepy community we have loved these many years, except for the citizens that are not paying attention. They have been warned.
A note from Jo:
Grandpa:
Please put on the blog that Jo say thanks for the support.
I want to thank everyone who came to the Thursday night council meeting.
And, also to those who spoke. I know it is difficult to get up there and speak.
JO
**************************************************************************
There you are Jo... Thank you for standing up for your rights, and Ours as you do.
Gramps...
Please put on the blog that Jo say thanks for the support.
I want to thank everyone who came to the Thursday night council meeting.
And, also to those who spoke. I know it is difficult to get up there and speak.
JO
**************************************************************************
There you are Jo... Thank you for standing up for your rights, and Ours as you do.
Gramps...
From the Email In Box: Private Negotiations what a Laugh
Quoted in the Sun Telegram: "Schwab said she rejected a $1,010,000 offer from Jacobsen last year".
Isn't it interesting that while the Council meetings/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting was going on Mr. Schwab did not disclose the amount previously rejected? It is part of his pretence of Private Negotiations Being the REQUIREMENT. Then he goes to the PRESS and releases such statements.
Jo Stringfield is not just a "Homeowner", She is the PROPERTY OWNER. It does not matter if she lived there a week, rented the place out, or won the property in a bet. She is the PROPERTY OWNER. THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY is supposed to be an IMPORTANT RIGHT which separates us from the Likes of the Communists, Nazi, and the Taliban.
The City Councils Action in allowing the City's Involvement in this "Project/Development" with Jacobsen is an obscenity, and a betrayal. The Jacobsen's have been unsuccessful in their negotiations. They have put up all this planning investment... THAT IS CALLED RISK... The City of Grand Terrace should not be in the Business of Protecting Business against RISK.. How many business get such service from the City and RDA?
If your Deals aren't going to work out Jacobsen, minimize your losses, come up with a plan that works or cut and Run as others Have.
Do you suppose the restrictions on use put in place by this very council and planning department may be part of the cause of the problem? Do you suppose that the cost of doing business in the City may be part of the problem? Do you suppose that the DEAL being made behind closed doors is Part of the Problem? Oh it is not all Jo's Fault... Even if her property was sold today. The idea of going ahead with the development as currently planned is repulsive to the community. Traffic Studies, Freeway Changes, Day Workers, and Bears OH MY... Jacobsen's had better rethink its design and intended tenants.
A library, and a noisy hardware store, with day laborers.. The library will become the hospitality center for the day workers... Children going to and from school or the library will be subjected to those who didn't get a job in the morning, but by the after noon have spent their pocket change on beer readily available at the gas station, while hanging out for an after noon or evening job. An improvement to our city.. Our community life. Well if an increased cash flow is an improvement yes. But, we must know just because more money may come into the city's budget, there is no guarantee that there will not be an even greater need for money to leave the budget. Of course one could say a bigger budget is better. Hogwash. Quality is not always priced at a higher rate. Don't be fooled by twisted arguments. More Money is better. More in and Even More Out is not a good thing. More Name recognizing for Grand Terrace is not automatically a good thing. Do we want to be the Venice Beach of the Inland Empire?
It is time Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency is dissolved. It's leader removed, and the City provide what was intended at the beginning of its charter. Please Provide, Police Services. Thank YOU... Nothing else was the intent. Get out of the citizens way of enjoying their property.
Isn't it interesting that while the Council meetings/ Redevelopment Agency Meeting was going on Mr. Schwab did not disclose the amount previously rejected? It is part of his pretence of Private Negotiations Being the REQUIREMENT. Then he goes to the PRESS and releases such statements.
Jo Stringfield is not just a "Homeowner", She is the PROPERTY OWNER. It does not matter if she lived there a week, rented the place out, or won the property in a bet. She is the PROPERTY OWNER. THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY is supposed to be an IMPORTANT RIGHT which separates us from the Likes of the Communists, Nazi, and the Taliban.
The City Councils Action in allowing the City's Involvement in this "Project/Development" with Jacobsen is an obscenity, and a betrayal. The Jacobsen's have been unsuccessful in their negotiations. They have put up all this planning investment... THAT IS CALLED RISK... The City of Grand Terrace should not be in the Business of Protecting Business against RISK.. How many business get such service from the City and RDA?
If your Deals aren't going to work out Jacobsen, minimize your losses, come up with a plan that works or cut and Run as others Have.
Do you suppose the restrictions on use put in place by this very council and planning department may be part of the cause of the problem? Do you suppose that the cost of doing business in the City may be part of the problem? Do you suppose that the DEAL being made behind closed doors is Part of the Problem? Oh it is not all Jo's Fault... Even if her property was sold today. The idea of going ahead with the development as currently planned is repulsive to the community. Traffic Studies, Freeway Changes, Day Workers, and Bears OH MY... Jacobsen's had better rethink its design and intended tenants.
A library, and a noisy hardware store, with day laborers.. The library will become the hospitality center for the day workers... Children going to and from school or the library will be subjected to those who didn't get a job in the morning, but by the after noon have spent their pocket change on beer readily available at the gas station, while hanging out for an after noon or evening job. An improvement to our city.. Our community life. Well if an increased cash flow is an improvement yes. But, we must know just because more money may come into the city's budget, there is no guarantee that there will not be an even greater need for money to leave the budget. Of course one could say a bigger budget is better. Hogwash. Quality is not always priced at a higher rate. Don't be fooled by twisted arguments. More Money is better. More in and Even More Out is not a good thing. More Name recognizing for Grand Terrace is not automatically a good thing. Do we want to be the Venice Beach of the Inland Empire?
It is time Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency is dissolved. It's leader removed, and the City provide what was intended at the beginning of its charter. Please Provide, Police Services. Thank YOU... Nothing else was the intent. Get out of the citizens way of enjoying their property.
Friday, January 27, 2006
The Stringfield Plan They Didn't Show
This Plan would be in concert with the other land use, and allow Ms. Stringfield her Constitutional Rights to Property Ownership. This Plan would also be more conducive to the City Walk, called for in the SPECIFIC PLAN. Jacobsen's Plan is not in agreement with the Specific Plan Goals.
New Details From the City's Web Site:
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/city_departments/CC_Minutes.html
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/city_departments/CRA_Minutes.html
They are putting in the "Official" Minutes of the Council Meetings... Makes for an iteresting Read...
Check it out.
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/city_departments/CRA_Minutes.html
They are putting in the "Official" Minutes of the Council Meetings... Makes for an iteresting Read...
Check it out.
From theEmail InBox: The Vote was Unanimous
This means every member of the Current City Council will entertain the Use of eminent Domain for the Purpose of Passing land from one Private Person to a Second Private Party.
Of course they suggested this is only in the case of "Commercial Property". Homes could never face this situation in Grand Terrace.
Now who control the zoning? That would Be the City Council. So THEY can change the zoning of your property, then take it and transfer the ownership to a Second Private Party.
Their action says, they want to position the City as the arbitrator between a two party negotiation. The Land Owner, and the Person Wanting to Buy the Property should be the only ones at the table. The City's action prepositions the use of Eminent Domain. It has been held in reserves in all negotiations, and it has even been suggested it be used in the Press. So when the City Council Members let the first step down that road be taken, they have indicated that they are unfit to serve this community.
They should have said no to the assessment. They should have said Mr. City Manager/ RDA Director you do not have the authority to involve the City and or the Redevelopment Agency in this Negotiation. That would have set the standards and rights of Property Owners in this community. WHO CARES what the zoning is. THE City should not be the go between or the enforcer of negotiations between private individuals.
How Odd it is when the Public can't Be informed of the Negotiations on Public Property Sales, yet, the City can put their nose into what should be a Private Negotiation.
It is time to replace the entire council and the City Management. A clean House. It may take a few election cycles.. They all have to go.
Of the nearly 25 speakers only 4 or 5 who gained financially spoke for the development as planned. But, the end use of the property is not what is of issue here. Some of those speaking for the project are in agreements which are contagion on the Developer's gaining all the property in the "Plan", and thus they have personal gain and are willing to surrender the rights of another for their own benefit. Shame on them. Shame.
What is of issue is the RIGHTS to Property. If the owner was a foreigner who never set foot in the USA, that person should have PROPERTY RIGHTS in Grand Terrace. How much greater is the injustice when the issue is with a Family Home/Land passed on to a surviving daughter. The Property's zoning is not related to Property Rights, that is just a diversion of the City Manager to make such statements.
Of course they suggested this is only in the case of "Commercial Property". Homes could never face this situation in Grand Terrace.
Now who control the zoning? That would Be the City Council. So THEY can change the zoning of your property, then take it and transfer the ownership to a Second Private Party.
Their action says, they want to position the City as the arbitrator between a two party negotiation. The Land Owner, and the Person Wanting to Buy the Property should be the only ones at the table. The City's action prepositions the use of Eminent Domain. It has been held in reserves in all negotiations, and it has even been suggested it be used in the Press. So when the City Council Members let the first step down that road be taken, they have indicated that they are unfit to serve this community.
They should have said no to the assessment. They should have said Mr. City Manager/ RDA Director you do not have the authority to involve the City and or the Redevelopment Agency in this Negotiation. That would have set the standards and rights of Property Owners in this community. WHO CARES what the zoning is. THE City should not be the go between or the enforcer of negotiations between private individuals.
How Odd it is when the Public can't Be informed of the Negotiations on Public Property Sales, yet, the City can put their nose into what should be a Private Negotiation.
It is time to replace the entire council and the City Management. A clean House. It may take a few election cycles.. They all have to go.
Of the nearly 25 speakers only 4 or 5 who gained financially spoke for the development as planned. But, the end use of the property is not what is of issue here. Some of those speaking for the project are in agreements which are contagion on the Developer's gaining all the property in the "Plan", and thus they have personal gain and are willing to surrender the rights of another for their own benefit. Shame on them. Shame.
What is of issue is the RIGHTS to Property. If the owner was a foreigner who never set foot in the USA, that person should have PROPERTY RIGHTS in Grand Terrace. How much greater is the injustice when the issue is with a Family Home/Land passed on to a surviving daughter. The Property's zoning is not related to Property Rights, that is just a diversion of the City Manager to make such statements.
Press Enterprise' Take on City Council
Grand Terrace OKs property appraisal
By MASSIEL LADRÓN DE GUEVARA / The Press-Enterprise
The Grand Terrace City Council took the first step Thursday toward condemning properties where a home and gas station are located that are needed for the proposed Grand Terrace Town Center.
The decision came after a lengthy discussion among council members and a heated public hearing.
Council members said they hesitated to make the decision because they didn't want to use eminent domain to move the project forward but approved it so that negotiations to buy the land can resume. The vote was unanimous.
Several residents said they didn't want to see any homes in Grand Terrace taken by eminent domain and that they are concerned their home could be next.
Others said they are concerned about building a large home-improvement store in the Town Center because it will attract day laborers who will create trash and unsanitary conditions if no portable restrooms are made available for them. A Lowe's home-improvement store is one of the businesses planned for the 20-acre retail development. Some residents however, said they supported the project because it will bring revenue to the city.
The Redevelopment Agency last week ordered the appraisal of the remaining 1.9-acre lot and nearly half-acre lot within the project's proposed site.
City Manager Tom Schwab said although the appraisal is the first step toward the use of eminent domain, he hopes it doesn't get to that point.
The developer for the Grand Terrace Town Center, Jacobsen Family Holdings LLC, asked the city to get involved after negotiating with the owner of the smaller property for six months and with Jo Stringfield, the owner of the larger property, for a year.
The larger property was appraised at $750,000 and the smaller at $250,000.
However, the smaller property, where the gasoline station is located, may not be affected by the decision because the owner is negotiating with the city to trade his land for another piece of land, Schwab said.
Doug Jacobsen, chief executive officer of Jacobsen Family Holdings LLC, said he is glad the city approved the appraisals so that he can sit with Stringfield and negotiate.
All concerns expressed by residents will be addressed through numerous public meetings to mitigate any issues created by his development if it is approved, he said.
In hope of keeping some control of the home where she grew up, Stringfield submitted plans for a town center she says is more community-orientated than Jacobsen's.
Stringfield's lawyer, C. Robert Ferguson, said the city hasn't given his client her rights under the Redevelopment Act, which says homeowners facing eminent domain have the right to submit their own plan for the redevelopment of their property.
Ferguson said his client should have the right to submit plans with no outside competition, and if the city continues to move forward, it will lose.
Mr. Jacobsen, we have told you what we want. We don't want anymore grandstanding! We want a downtown area we can be proud of. I'm sure you wouldn't want to live next to Lowe's or have to try to get home in that traffic, or worse have your children hurt because of the trucks, traffic and pollution.
GrandTerraceNews
GrandTerraceNews
As Reported by the SB SUN Council OKs eminent domain in shopping center deal
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Despite protests from several residents, the City Council on Thursday night took the first step toward using eminent domain to acquire two properties needed to build a 248,000-square-foot shopping center on Barton Road.
The council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, agreed to offer "just compensation'' to homeowner Jo Stringfield and businessman Ali Yasin.
Both own property on Barton Road, where a shopping center anchored by a Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse and Stater Bros. supermarket is proposed.
Stringfield will be offered $760,000 for her 1.9-acre property, and Yasin will be offered $520,000 for his custom auto accessory shop.
But council members stressed they don't intend to use eminent domain to force the owners to sell their properties.
"We don't want to go down the eminent domain road,'' Councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia said.
Instead, they instructed City Manager Tom Schwab to negotiate with the property owners to reach an amicable solution so eminent domain wouldn't be necessary.
Developer Dennis D. Jacobsen Family Holdings LLC has bought or is under contract to purchase 12 of the 14 parcels needed for the project on Barton Road between Canal and Michigan streets, Schwab said.
But Jacobsen has been unable to come to an agreement with Stringfield and Yasin on their properties, forcing the city to assist in the purchase, Schwab said.
Hold Out Jo - You have the last piece to the Monopoly. Your property is not comparable to the others - It is prime land and they know it.
As Reported by the SB SUN Council OKs eminent domain in shopping center deal
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Despite protests from several residents, the City Council on Thursday night took the first step toward using eminent domain to acquire two properties needed to build a 248,000-square-foot shopping center on Barton Road.
The council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency, agreed to offer "just compensation'' to homeowner Jo Stringfield and businessman Ali Yasin.
Both own property on Barton Road, where a shopping center anchored by a Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse and Stater Bros. supermarket is proposed.
Stringfield will be offered $760,000 for her 1.9-acre property, and Yasin will be offered $520,000 for his custom auto accessory shop.
But council members stressed they don't intend to use eminent domain to force the owners to sell their properties.
"We don't want to go down the eminent domain road,'' Councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia said.
Instead, they instructed City Manager Tom Schwab to negotiate with the property owners to reach an amicable solution so eminent domain wouldn't be necessary.
Developer Dennis D. Jacobsen Family Holdings LLC has bought or is under contract to purchase 12 of the 14 parcels needed for the project on Barton Road between Canal and Michigan streets, Schwab said.
But Jacobsen has been unable to come to an agreement with Stringfield and Yasin on their properties, forcing the city to assist in the purchase, Schwab said.
Hold Out Jo - You have the last piece to the Monopoly. Your property is not comparable to the others - It is prime land and they know it.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
From the Email Inbox
Dear GrandpaTerrace,
Zoning shmoning. They declared the whole of the city a project area in 1979. Every square inch of this city can be taken according to the General Plan. Every home, business, and blade of grass in this city technically belongs to the Redevelopment Agency any time they want it. If they won't listen to the citizens on the projects that are now having to be held up by lawsuits, why would anyone believe that they would listen when they want to change a zone. We forget the Senior Housing. A zone for a project not a project for a zone. Too bad about Brentwood it used to be a nice street to live on.
Zoning shmoning. They declared the whole of the city a project area in 1979. Every square inch of this city can be taken according to the General Plan. Every home, business, and blade of grass in this city technically belongs to the Redevelopment Agency any time they want it. If they won't listen to the citizens on the projects that are now having to be held up by lawsuits, why would anyone believe that they would listen when they want to change a zone. We forget the Senior Housing. A zone for a project not a project for a zone. Too bad about Brentwood it used to be a nice street to live on.
Funny Town.
Steve Berry Suggest they wanted to have horses in the Parade... and would be willing to Pay folks to have horses...
This city has done it's best to get rid of all traces of farm life or horse folk. What a bunch of hipocrites.
Antique cars or car clubs.. Try and have a project car on your property in this town.
The Bat Mobile... OOOO that is Grand Terrace isn't it.
Bigger and Better and More distant from Grand Terrace Reality.
Ms Bidney is right. GT Days should be about, and by GT. If we can't host a GT Days, Cancel it. Use the effort to raise funds for a one day party on youth activities that last an entire year.
This city has done it's best to get rid of all traces of farm life or horse folk. What a bunch of hipocrites.
Antique cars or car clubs.. Try and have a project car on your property in this town.
The Bat Mobile... OOOO that is Grand Terrace isn't it.
Bigger and Better and More distant from Grand Terrace Reality.
Ms Bidney is right. GT Days should be about, and by GT. If we can't host a GT Days, Cancel it. Use the effort to raise funds for a one day party on youth activities that last an entire year.
Council Members Put on Notice.
Use of Eminent Domain will have Political consequences.
Forwarding the Development as currently planned will have Political consequences.
Back Room Deals, Private Meetings with Developers, and such behavior is Supported by the Legal Council Hired by City Manager Tom Schwab.
Not for Much Longer We can HOPE.
Thank you all for speaking up.
Note, Now the City Council has had an opportunity to sponsor an Ordinance Forbidding the use of Eminent Domain for this type of Venture. The Citizens MUST put one forth. Put it on the Agenda, let them Not Pass it, and then get it on the next available Ballot so that this and any future council can NOT use ED to pass land from one private person to the other.
Forwarding the Development as currently planned will have Political consequences.
Back Room Deals, Private Meetings with Developers, and such behavior is Supported by the Legal Council Hired by City Manager Tom Schwab.
Not for Much Longer We can HOPE.
Thank you all for speaking up.
Note, Now the City Council has had an opportunity to sponsor an Ordinance Forbidding the use of Eminent Domain for this type of Venture. The Citizens MUST put one forth. Put it on the Agenda, let them Not Pass it, and then get it on the next available Ballot so that this and any future council can NOT use ED to pass land from one private person to the other.
Bad Sound System Silences Council Meeting
The Presentations about the building of 35 Condominiums went silent on channel 3 as the sound system failed in the GT Council Chambers.
The Citizens audience had for the most part cleared the room after the heart felt participation regarding the first step toward the use of Eminent Domain to acquire Jo Stringfields Property or Forcing her to change the use of the property if she continues to own it.
This developer was being grilled about what recreational facilities would be in the Green Space. Odd that private developers are being required to do what the city won't do. Perhaps the Developer wants to put in a WALKING Park with no pool, or other recreational activities. Is it the City's Business. If the Development does not attract people to it, they will not buy into the development. Perhaps the savings of not having a pool and the expenses there in will make the housing more affordable or attractive to people who don't know how to swim.
More of concern is the missing of the fact there is a spring on that land, where the "Retaining Wall" will go. The water is not always above ground, but it is there. Those of us who know what to look for or have been here long enough recall that spring. The Rushes that grow in the ravine of that land are there for the water. This has not been included in the Plans, that are being shown to the public for the first time.
Who knows what was said about dealing with this environmental aspect.
The Citizens audience had for the most part cleared the room after the heart felt participation regarding the first step toward the use of Eminent Domain to acquire Jo Stringfields Property or Forcing her to change the use of the property if she continues to own it.
This developer was being grilled about what recreational facilities would be in the Green Space. Odd that private developers are being required to do what the city won't do. Perhaps the Developer wants to put in a WALKING Park with no pool, or other recreational activities. Is it the City's Business. If the Development does not attract people to it, they will not buy into the development. Perhaps the savings of not having a pool and the expenses there in will make the housing more affordable or attractive to people who don't know how to swim.
More of concern is the missing of the fact there is a spring on that land, where the "Retaining Wall" will go. The water is not always above ground, but it is there. Those of us who know what to look for or have been here long enough recall that spring. The Rushes that grow in the ravine of that land are there for the water. This has not been included in the Plans, that are being shown to the public for the first time.
Who knows what was said about dealing with this environmental aspect.
Did you like the Answers You Got?
For the Record: In the News Papers the Budget has been represented as being several different amounts. Justifying no services to youth... We have a small budget. When asked why the budget expanded so rapidly, that small budget expanded to 10 or 12 mil not 3.6... and the CITY MANAGER didn't know the Figures. IS he going to come back to the NEXT meeting with the FIGURES? And ANSWERS?
For the Record: Schwab said: No there weren't any NEW Tax Allocation Bonds Issued.
However on the Record of the 05-6- Budget it is in Black and White $15,000,000 in tax bonds issued by the RDA.
The Law in the Brown Act should work for disclosure Requirements for GAD Citizens like it DID FOR HILKEY when he got FIRED. THE Meeting ends the negotiation not the ESCROW. We have a Legal Advisor who Tells Schwab what he wants to hear, he does not represent the interests of the Citizens. There was no explanation as to who authorized the fancy rebuild of the rehab home. We are left to speculate the purchaser is or has directed the upgrades, and is benefiting unjustly from the financing arrangements being made. It is OUR HOUSE, and WE can't find out what is going on in the negotiations. THIS IS WRONG.
The question about the Library. The answer was there is a group of people interested in having a new library facility and we plan to go forward with that plan but this plan is flexible because it needs to be protected from the likes of Jo Stringfield and so on... Well lets ask, Is the County Going to Pay the Rent or construction for a NEW LIBRARY SPACE? Libraries are good. However, this smells of manipulation of the reality on many levels.
Is there a commitment from the County to Fund a Move, and Rent a New Facility at the current Projected Costs?
More Later
For the Record: Schwab said: No there weren't any NEW Tax Allocation Bonds Issued.
However on the Record of the 05-6- Budget it is in Black and White $15,000,000 in tax bonds issued by the RDA.
The Law in the Brown Act should work for disclosure Requirements for GAD Citizens like it DID FOR HILKEY when he got FIRED. THE Meeting ends the negotiation not the ESCROW. We have a Legal Advisor who Tells Schwab what he wants to hear, he does not represent the interests of the Citizens. There was no explanation as to who authorized the fancy rebuild of the rehab home. We are left to speculate the purchaser is or has directed the upgrades, and is benefiting unjustly from the financing arrangements being made. It is OUR HOUSE, and WE can't find out what is going on in the negotiations. THIS IS WRONG.
The question about the Library. The answer was there is a group of people interested in having a new library facility and we plan to go forward with that plan but this plan is flexible because it needs to be protected from the likes of Jo Stringfield and so on... Well lets ask, Is the County Going to Pay the Rent or construction for a NEW LIBRARY SPACE? Libraries are good. However, this smells of manipulation of the reality on many levels.
Is there a commitment from the County to Fund a Move, and Rent a New Facility at the current Projected Costs?
More Later
Hire a Party
Grand Terrace Days Raises 15,000 to 25,000 for a PARTY. Spends it in a Day. Now why isn't that effort done by the Sports Teams, give them a real activity, that is community building rather than fireworks which may cause harm to life and property.
GT City asks for Gifts to fund this PARTY...
Put the Events at HOME by People who Live HERE.
GT City asks for Gifts to fund this PARTY...
Put the Events at HOME by People who Live HERE.
Jo has answered. The Answer is NO
This is a fact.
Jo has Said NO to selling her property.
They the City's Redevelopment Agency has suggested the use of Eminante Domain for Several Months.
They the City is in BED with the other party in negotiations, and can not be considered a nuteral party. The Redevelopment Agency wants to recouperate invested funds and property to the Development.
If you are ready to have your property rights ended, support the Council, elect them again, they will be after your land next year or in 30 years after you have paid for it and given it to one of your children.
THIS IS ALL WRONG. DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN
Jo has Said NO to selling her property.
They the City's Redevelopment Agency has suggested the use of Eminante Domain for Several Months.
They the City is in BED with the other party in negotiations, and can not be considered a nuteral party. The Redevelopment Agency wants to recouperate invested funds and property to the Development.
If you are ready to have your property rights ended, support the Council, elect them again, they will be after your land next year or in 30 years after you have paid for it and given it to one of your children.
THIS IS ALL WRONG. DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN
How Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency Can Take Your Land or Church or HOME
First, the Land has to currently be Zoned as Commercial. If your property is not Zoned Commercial, you are not Safe. The Redevelopment Agency, will get your property reclassified, they will even create a new zone if it is their desire to Force Their Designs upon the community.
Second, the Redevelopment Agency will find a No Bid Developer at the Exclusion of Current Businesses, and Property Owners to make a Development Plan. Which by the way does not have to be in accordance with the specific plan or original reason for obtaining property.
Third, the Redevelopment Agency will buy up the land around you, and "Offer it exclusively to the Developer of Choice".
Fourth, the Redevelopment Agency will Pretend to represent the Library of San Bernardino County, to justify use of eminent Domain. Fortunately for them the Kelso Decision even supports their taking of property and forcing the transfer to a second private party.
Fifth, the council and City Manager will assume to know what YOUR Property is Valued to You. And somehow you don't deserve to decide how to use your property.
IF this is going to be PUBLIC POLICY in Grand Terrace. We will become the Town with NO Private Property, a town that was replaced by the BIG BOX stores.
We should have a sign. Welcome to Grand Terrace: Where Property Rights are Temporary, and Conditional on the Whims of the Redevelopment Agency the City Council and City Manager.
Second, the Redevelopment Agency will find a No Bid Developer at the Exclusion of Current Businesses, and Property Owners to make a Development Plan. Which by the way does not have to be in accordance with the specific plan or original reason for obtaining property.
Third, the Redevelopment Agency will buy up the land around you, and "Offer it exclusively to the Developer of Choice".
Fourth, the Redevelopment Agency will Pretend to represent the Library of San Bernardino County, to justify use of eminent Domain. Fortunately for them the Kelso Decision even supports their taking of property and forcing the transfer to a second private party.
Fifth, the council and City Manager will assume to know what YOUR Property is Valued to You. And somehow you don't deserve to decide how to use your property.
IF this is going to be PUBLIC POLICY in Grand Terrace. We will become the Town with NO Private Property, a town that was replaced by the BIG BOX stores.
We should have a sign. Welcome to Grand Terrace: Where Property Rights are Temporary, and Conditional on the Whims of the Redevelopment Agency the City Council and City Manager.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Gossip and Rumors
Gossip and rumors about How GT Developers are Dealing with displaced Mobile Home Residents, and locally Owned Businesses.
A lady said Jacobsen offered everyone $10,000 to move from the trailer park. Just before Christmas the others were serve with an evict notices and no money. They were told to take their trailers and move within the year. Others were "Guaranteed Apartments" in the Senior Villas. (What about the non seniors you ask?)
Also heard was: the city hall was going to move down on Michigan. That's one way to enlarge the library, move out and give it to them; and Lowe's wanted the city to widen Barton Rd.
If the city was more up front, we wouldn't have wonder about everything we hear. At this point, no matter how silly it seems, you're just not sure.
The owner of a shop across from Stater on the North side of Barton said some developer bought the little shopping center and gave everyone a year to leave. That also includes the go-cart place and the mail place on Mt. Vernon. Concern for the future of the businesses and about all the secretive info they are not getting causes all of the businesses in GT a concern. Perhaps they should all Move to Colton and leave empty space in Grand Terrace.
These rumors should advise the citizens of the nature of the beast of Development and the Operations of the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency is to insure that people and businesses displace are provided for in a specific way. Replacement accommodations have to be provided for the displaced businesses and homes, including TRAILERS.
Will the small shops be able to afford the increase in rent? Will the business learn not to lease property in GT and perhaps move to a better more affordable piece of property? If there were no closed meetings and If there were a climate of Trust in Our Government, the RDA and Council this Gossip and rumors would not exist. Nor would the citizens and local business owners be wary about their futures in Grand Terrace.
To the current land owners in Grand Terrace who are leasing space to the small business person. Please be reasonable in your rents. Let local business owners operate their small shops. Keep the Ownership of GT business in GT. That is Community. That is how we build a self sustaining community.
Closed Meetings Cause this...
A lady said Jacobsen offered everyone $10,000 to move from the trailer park. Just before Christmas the others were serve with an evict notices and no money. They were told to take their trailers and move within the year. Others were "Guaranteed Apartments" in the Senior Villas. (What about the non seniors you ask?)
Also heard was: the city hall was going to move down on Michigan. That's one way to enlarge the library, move out and give it to them; and Lowe's wanted the city to widen Barton Rd.
If the city was more up front, we wouldn't have wonder about everything we hear. At this point, no matter how silly it seems, you're just not sure.
The owner of a shop across from Stater on the North side of Barton said some developer bought the little shopping center and gave everyone a year to leave. That also includes the go-cart place and the mail place on Mt. Vernon. Concern for the future of the businesses and about all the secretive info they are not getting causes all of the businesses in GT a concern. Perhaps they should all Move to Colton and leave empty space in Grand Terrace.
These rumors should advise the citizens of the nature of the beast of Development and the Operations of the Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency is to insure that people and businesses displace are provided for in a specific way. Replacement accommodations have to be provided for the displaced businesses and homes, including TRAILERS.
Will the small shops be able to afford the increase in rent? Will the business learn not to lease property in GT and perhaps move to a better more affordable piece of property? If there were no closed meetings and If there were a climate of Trust in Our Government, the RDA and Council this Gossip and rumors would not exist. Nor would the citizens and local business owners be wary about their futures in Grand Terrace.
To the current land owners in Grand Terrace who are leasing space to the small business person. Please be reasonable in your rents. Let local business owners operate their small shops. Keep the Ownership of GT business in GT. That is Community. That is how we build a self sustaining community.
Closed Meetings Cause this...
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
AGENDA and BLUE NOTES
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2006
6:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER
22795 Barton Road
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, YOU ARE ASKED TO PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 01-12-2006 Minutes
2. Approval of Just Compensation for Two Parcels Within the Proposed Site for the Towne Square Development
This is A STEP by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to USE EMINATE DOMAIN to FORCE the SALE OF PROPERTY FROM ONE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE SPCIFIC PURPOSE OF THEN SELLING IT TO A SECOND PRIVATE DEVELOPER. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES JUST COMPENSATION, NOT FAIR MARKET VALUE. JUSTICE WOULD INCLUDE A LIFETIME OF EARNING POTENTIAL LOST. AS A MINIMUM. HOWEVER, NO SALE SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS NO SALE IN THIS CASE. THE INTENT IS TO VIOLATE A PERSONS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Home of Distinction
B. Proclamation - Go Red for Women Day - February 3, 2006
C. Proclamation - Congential Heart Defect Awareness Day - February 14, 2006
D. Proclamation - National Blood Donor Month - January 2006
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Approve Check Register Dated January 26, 2006
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 01-12-2006 Minutes
D. Agreement Between Lighthouse Promotions and the City of Grand Terrace (Grand Terrace Days)
(Why are we paying OUTSIDERS for GT Days? Pay the Youth Sports Teams to Do GT Days and GT should be happy with HOMETOWN GT DAYS)
E. Travel Authorization for the Assistant City Manager to Attend the Incident Commander Hazmat Training Program in Pacific Grove, CA April 18-20, 2006 (Shouldn't our Commander LIVE in GT, Perhaps HAM HANS would be better?)
F. Reject Liability Claim GTLC-05-09 (Unser) (In Court again are WE?)
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not on the agenda. The Mayor may request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. REPORTS -
A. Committee Reports
1. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
a. Minutes of December 5, 2006
2. Crime Prevention Committee
a. Minutes of November 14, 2005
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Specific Plan No. 05-02 (SP-05-02), Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM-05-03/County No. 17766) and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05-21) to construct a 35 single family condominium development
Ordinance of the City Council Approving Specific Plan No. 05-02 (SP-05-02) for a condominium subdivision with 35 single family detached units on a 3.7 acre site located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue at 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05-21) Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act
Resolution of the City of Grand Terrace Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM 17766) for a 35 Single Family Residential Condominium Development in the City of Grand Terrace
Is this between US Mailers and the Advocate Schools? No, it if further North... ( The large House/Farm surrounded by the Highlands Perhaps?)
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Appoint Council Representative to Bi-County Policy Advisory Committee for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor (do we need a TRANSPORTATION PLAN?)
B. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Year 2005-2006 Re-Allocation
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, February 9, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 02-09-2006 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 02-02-2006.
COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 2006
6:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER
22795 Barton Road
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, YOU ARE ASKED TO PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Salim Elias, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 01-12-2006 Minutes
2. Approval of Just Compensation for Two Parcels Within the Proposed Site for the Towne Square Development
This is A STEP by the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to USE EMINATE DOMAIN to FORCE the SALE OF PROPERTY FROM ONE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE SPCIFIC PURPOSE OF THEN SELLING IT TO A SECOND PRIVATE DEVELOPER. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES JUST COMPENSATION, NOT FAIR MARKET VALUE. JUSTICE WOULD INCLUDE A LIFETIME OF EARNING POTENTIAL LOST. AS A MINIMUM. HOWEVER, NO SALE SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS NO SALE IN THIS CASE. THE INTENT IS TO VIOLATE A PERSONS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Home of Distinction
B. Proclamation - Go Red for Women Day - February 3, 2006
C. Proclamation - Congential Heart Defect Awareness Day - February 14, 2006
D. Proclamation - National Blood Donor Month - January 2006
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Approve Check Register Dated January 26, 2006
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 01-12-2006 Minutes
D. Agreement Between Lighthouse Promotions and the City of Grand Terrace (Grand Terrace Days)
(Why are we paying OUTSIDERS for GT Days? Pay the Youth Sports Teams to Do GT Days and GT should be happy with HOMETOWN GT DAYS)
E. Travel Authorization for the Assistant City Manager to Attend the Incident Commander Hazmat Training Program in Pacific Grove, CA April 18-20, 2006 (Shouldn't our Commander LIVE in GT, Perhaps HAM HANS would be better?)
F. Reject Liability Claim GTLC-05-09 (Unser) (In Court again are WE?)
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not on the agenda. The Mayor may request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. REPORTS -
A. Committee Reports
1. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
a. Minutes of December 5, 2006
2. Crime Prevention Committee
a. Minutes of November 14, 2005
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Specific Plan No. 05-02 (SP-05-02), Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM-05-03/County No. 17766) and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05-21) to construct a 35 single family condominium development
Ordinance of the City Council Approving Specific Plan No. 05-02 (SP-05-02) for a condominium subdivision with 35 single family detached units on a 3.7 acre site located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue at 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05-21) Mitigated Negative Declaration as Provided by the California Environmental Quality Act
Resolution of the City of Grand Terrace Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM 17766) for a 35 Single Family Residential Condominium Development in the City of Grand Terrace
Is this between US Mailers and the Advocate Schools? No, it if further North... ( The large House/Farm surrounded by the Highlands Perhaps?)
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Appoint Council Representative to Bi-County Policy Advisory Committee for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor (do we need a TRANSPORTATION PLAN?)
B. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Year 2005-2006 Re-Allocation
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, February 9, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 02-09-2006 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 02-02-2006.
Email from Jo Stringfield regarding Keeping Her Property
Grandpa:
I think it would be a good idea to put on the net something about that this Thursday's meeting in regards to my situation is supposably only going to be for the vote that the city appraised my property for $760,000 and PittStop for the $520,000.
The last letter I got from the city said this Thursday's meeting was goingto be the amendment of the city's and Jacobsen agreement. That is what I was preparing for.
I guess that will happen later or may be it was already done behind doors. Verbally they have already made that agreement.
And, if I can't live in my home peacefully, then why shouldn't be able to follow there rules and develop something nice for citizens of GT and havean income for myself instead of an out of town developer that will sell it for a profit. I can still be involve.
IF I CAN'T OWN MY HOME THEN I WANT TO OWN THE PROPERTY!!!!
Thanks for your help.
jo
I think it would be a good idea to put on the net something about that this Thursday's meeting in regards to my situation is supposably only going to be for the vote that the city appraised my property for $760,000 and PittStop for the $520,000.
The last letter I got from the city said this Thursday's meeting was goingto be the amendment of the city's and Jacobsen agreement. That is what I was preparing for.
I guess that will happen later or may be it was already done behind doors. Verbally they have already made that agreement.
And, if I can't live in my home peacefully, then why shouldn't be able to follow there rules and develop something nice for citizens of GT and havean income for myself instead of an out of town developer that will sell it for a profit. I can still be involve.
IF I CAN'T OWN MY HOME THEN I WANT TO OWN THE PROPERTY!!!!
Thanks for your help.
jo
Monkey See, Monkey Do
While the City is busy micro-managing (fees and compliances), they hope citizens don't notice that they have forced long-standing homeowners to sell their family homes to a developer who has no interest in our community but developing another shopping center. He doesn't care about the next generation, or the welfare of our lives now. That is the feeling I get from our hired employees. I feel our City Council, who is responsible for directing them, should set them straight as to the direction our City should be going. Taking property and giving it to a developer is just plain WRONG
Monday, January 23, 2006
A comment from City Employee:
I ran into Chuck Hornesby at their new Stop Eminent Doman site in the Stater Bros. It would be nice if that site donated by Anita was in compliance with the proper permits, business licenses and certificate of occupancy.
And GrandpaTerrace Asks:
Perhaps the Owner of the Parking Lot could Authorize a RV being Parked there for the same purpose without being harrased. Perhaps rather than making this type of comment the City should be encouraging civic participation, should make available the forms, and waive the fees for the use and occupation of the space.
Does the Woman's Club have all the permits it needs for all it's functions?
Do the Lion's Club have all the permits required for their events? Including Health permits for Pancake Breakfast, and Food being served at Bingo Night?
Do the Senior Citizens at the Senior Center Have a Gambling Permit? They do bet when they play Bridge.
Do you have to get a permit, to give the use of property to a group of people for a Issue Action Group, of Non Incorporated Non profit organization.? Hmm...
How about Council Members Spouces doing business in GT without a GT Business license?
I ran into Chuck Hornesby at their new Stop Eminent Doman site in the Stater Bros. It would be nice if that site donated by Anita was in compliance with the proper permits, business licenses and certificate of occupancy.
And GrandpaTerrace Asks:
Perhaps the Owner of the Parking Lot could Authorize a RV being Parked there for the same purpose without being harrased. Perhaps rather than making this type of comment the City should be encouraging civic participation, should make available the forms, and waive the fees for the use and occupation of the space.
Does the Woman's Club have all the permits it needs for all it's functions?
Do the Lion's Club have all the permits required for their events? Including Health permits for Pancake Breakfast, and Food being served at Bingo Night?
Do the Senior Citizens at the Senior Center Have a Gambling Permit? They do bet when they play Bridge.
Do you have to get a permit, to give the use of property to a group of people for a Issue Action Group, of Non Incorporated Non profit organization.? Hmm...
How about Council Members Spouces doing business in GT without a GT Business license?
Sunday, January 22, 2006
The Brown Act: How about it HILKEY
Open-government advocate wants board to rescind action to terminate employee
A closed-door decision on Dec. 3 by the Fontana Unified School District to fire an administrator may have violated the state’s open meeting law. According to Richard McKee, immediate past-president of the California First Amendment Coalition, the vote to fire Herman Hilkey, director of facilities expansion and special projects, was illegal because the meeting agenda failed to state that a discussion to terminate an employee was going to take place. As a consequence, the public was denied the opportunity to offer input before the board decided to terminate Hilkey’s employment – a clear violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, McKee contended.
District lawyer John Dietrich said it is unlikely the board will overturn the decision to terminate Hilkey, as requested by McKee, because district officials believe the agenda was accurate. District officials contend the law was followed because the agenda listed the section of law that allows closed discussions of employee hiring, employment, evaluations, discipline or dismissal. The district could fix the situation by clarifying the board’s public report of what it did, Dietrich said.
McKee said that would not be enough. "They did not provide an opportunity for public comment, and they did not properly report the action taken. All of these demand they rescind the action. Do it again. Give the public a chance to comment," McKee said.
Later that month, McKee confronted the board about other possible Brown Act violations. Upon hearing McKee’s new allegations, the board voted unanimously to release information on their Dec. 3 firing of Hilkey. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario, 1/11/04, 1/23/04
A closed-door decision on Dec. 3 by the Fontana Unified School District to fire an administrator may have violated the state’s open meeting law. According to Richard McKee, immediate past-president of the California First Amendment Coalition, the vote to fire Herman Hilkey, director of facilities expansion and special projects, was illegal because the meeting agenda failed to state that a discussion to terminate an employee was going to take place. As a consequence, the public was denied the opportunity to offer input before the board decided to terminate Hilkey’s employment – a clear violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, McKee contended.
District lawyer John Dietrich said it is unlikely the board will overturn the decision to terminate Hilkey, as requested by McKee, because district officials believe the agenda was accurate. District officials contend the law was followed because the agenda listed the section of law that allows closed discussions of employee hiring, employment, evaluations, discipline or dismissal. The district could fix the situation by clarifying the board’s public report of what it did, Dietrich said.
McKee said that would not be enough. "They did not provide an opportunity for public comment, and they did not properly report the action taken. All of these demand they rescind the action. Do it again. Give the public a chance to comment," McKee said.
Later that month, McKee confronted the board about other possible Brown Act violations. Upon hearing McKee’s new allegations, the board voted unanimously to release information on their Dec. 3 firing of Hilkey. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario, 1/11/04, 1/23/04
Redirected Funds? 1.25 ML RDA funds ? What Else?
Steve Westly
California State Controller Writes:
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace:
California State Controller Writes:
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace:
The compliance audit opinion noted the following areas of noncompliance:
A. The agency did not file the property report or blight progress report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as required by Code Section 33080.1;
B. The agency’s implementation plan does not provide any documentation or inventory of the reported affordable units or evidence that the units meet statutory requirements for production units, as required by Code Section 33490(a); and
C. The agency’s implementation plan does not meet the requirements of Code Section 33413(b) (4); it does not identify the number of units rehabilitated in the project within the 10-year period.
A. The agency did not file the property report or blight progress report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, as required by Code Section 33080.1;
B. The agency’s implementation plan does not provide any documentation or inventory of the reported affordable units or evidence that the units meet statutory requirements for production units, as required by Code Section 33490(a); and
C. The agency’s implementation plan does not meet the requirements of Code Section 33413(b) (4); it does not identify the number of units rehabilitated in the project within the 10-year period.
_________________________________________________________________________________
In the same report the fallowing information if included about the Redevelopment Agency of Grand Terrace.
15% vacant land left of 2368 acres = the whole town
14.56 million tax increment what?
1.9 million construction of what
1.6 million "other" expenses on What?
total equity $14.45 million of what?
1993 $6,735,000. in city "capital improvement" expenditures
Total Required Funds? Debt? $52,196,674 for 2003-2004
14.56 million tax increment what?
1.9 million construction of what
1.6 million "other" expenses on What?
total equity $14.45 million of what?
1993 $6,735,000. in city "capital improvement" expenditures
Total Required Funds? Debt? $52,196,674 for 2003-2004
The entire report is available for the asking... Just drop us an email.
Important Things on the 01/26/2006 Agenda
The Staff Report on the Issue of the assessment of the value of Jo Springfields Property and the clear disclosure of the "Deal" the City has with the "Family Holdings" is a sample of the one sided reports given to the Council in preparation for a meeting. Shouldn't the Staff also present to the Council Members that Jo does not want to sell at any Price? If she must convert the use of the property from Residential to Commercial, should not she have the opportunity to do so, rather than a Second Party. Shouldn't she be the one to determine how to earn an income from that asset.
The ownership of property is a basic right in this country. Don't let the Council use their power force a sale of property from one private person to another. It is JUST WRONG
There are other interesting items on the Agenda.
Who wants the City to Spend the Money for a Fakey Grand Terrace Days Event? How much money will be spent to bring outsiders to entertain us for a day. Sure, Pay for the expenses of the CJUSD bands to perform. Include the elementary school bands. But, come on.. Lucy and Ricky... what has that got to do with Grand Terrace.
How about paying the local Sports Teams to put on Grand Terrace Days.
The next issue of concern is the "Redirection of Funds" of the Community Block Grand Funds.
When the words Redirection of Funds are used there is a problem.
Please attend the Council Meeting. Let the council know, you would like to have all the Staff Reports to Council made PUBLIC before the MEETING, on the CITY web PAGE...
The ownership of property is a basic right in this country. Don't let the Council use their power force a sale of property from one private person to another. It is JUST WRONG
There are other interesting items on the Agenda.
Who wants the City to Spend the Money for a Fakey Grand Terrace Days Event? How much money will be spent to bring outsiders to entertain us for a day. Sure, Pay for the expenses of the CJUSD bands to perform. Include the elementary school bands. But, come on.. Lucy and Ricky... what has that got to do with Grand Terrace.
How about paying the local Sports Teams to put on Grand Terrace Days.
The next issue of concern is the "Redirection of Funds" of the Community Block Grand Funds.
When the words Redirection of Funds are used there is a problem.
Please attend the Council Meeting. Let the council know, you would like to have all the Staff Reports to Council made PUBLIC before the MEETING, on the CITY web PAGE...
"NO Eminent Domain for private gain"
has opened their offices today at 22421 Barton Road, the coffee shop
next to Miguel Jr.'s in the Stater Bros shopping center Grand Terrace.
Staff will pass out flyers and answer citizens questions Mon-Thursday.
about forced homeowner property sales to rich BIG BOX developers.
Support your local homeowner and this private property rights fight!
Attend City council hearing Thursday 6PM city hall 22795 Barton Road.
Speak up, Thursday night 1-26-06 -- your home or businesss could be next.
has opened their offices today at 22421 Barton Road, the coffee shop
next to Miguel Jr.'s in the Stater Bros shopping center Grand Terrace.
Staff will pass out flyers and answer citizens questions Mon-Thursday.
about forced homeowner property sales to rich BIG BOX developers.
Support your local homeowner and this private property rights fight!
Attend City council hearing Thursday 6PM city hall 22795 Barton Road.
Speak up, Thursday night 1-26-06 -- your home or businesss could be next.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
ED
For the Blog:
Susan Kelo still at Home Thanks!
It should be remembered that although Kelo “lost” at the Supreme Court, the real person Susan Kelo still lives in her house in CT. Why? Because the five star hotel project planned for her homesite was abandoned even before Kelo was decided by the Supreme Court. “Developer says Fort Trumbull Hotel plan not Viable since 2002: Project became unrealistic without Pfizer Commitment.” The Day, June 12, 2004, page 1. But meanwhile, the Kelo case, developer was granted a 99 year lease on a 90-acre waterfront parcel for rent of only $1.00 a year. Does this sound familiar to the Grand Terrace Senior low, low income housing deal/scam?
Justice Sandra Day O’Conner said in her dissent that since the Kelo decision sanctions the forcible transfer of wealth from the lower middle class to the rich, it is a case of predatory behavior by the government, that most Americans rightly reject. “Meet Hood Robin, he takes from the Poor and Gives to the Rich,” and “most right thinking Americans are outraged” by this immoral decision, says legal scholar/author Gideon Kanner, Esq.
Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor crystallized the concerns of property owners in her dissenting opinion, pointing out that "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner." O'Connor concluded the beneficiaries of the Kelo decision are "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms," at the expense of individual property owners.
After Kelo, concerned citizens across the country now formed coalitions and went to their respective state capitols and cities in an attempt control eminent domain abuse. About forty states are currently considering legislation to limit the use of eminent domain abuse. So, get going to your city meetings on Thursday nights and make your self heard on this important issue. Or, your property could be next!
Worried in Grand Terrace,
From: Will I be condemned too?
Susan Kelo still at Home Thanks!
It should be remembered that although Kelo “lost” at the Supreme Court, the real person Susan Kelo still lives in her house in CT. Why? Because the five star hotel project planned for her homesite was abandoned even before Kelo was decided by the Supreme Court. “Developer says Fort Trumbull Hotel plan not Viable since 2002: Project became unrealistic without Pfizer Commitment.” The Day, June 12, 2004, page 1. But meanwhile, the Kelo case, developer was granted a 99 year lease on a 90-acre waterfront parcel for rent of only $1.00 a year. Does this sound familiar to the Grand Terrace Senior low, low income housing deal/scam?
Justice Sandra Day O’Conner said in her dissent that since the Kelo decision sanctions the forcible transfer of wealth from the lower middle class to the rich, it is a case of predatory behavior by the government, that most Americans rightly reject. “Meet Hood Robin, he takes from the Poor and Gives to the Rich,” and “most right thinking Americans are outraged” by this immoral decision, says legal scholar/author Gideon Kanner, Esq.
Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor crystallized the concerns of property owners in her dissenting opinion, pointing out that "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner." O'Connor concluded the beneficiaries of the Kelo decision are "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms," at the expense of individual property owners.
After Kelo, concerned citizens across the country now formed coalitions and went to their respective state capitols and cities in an attempt control eminent domain abuse. About forty states are currently considering legislation to limit the use of eminent domain abuse. So, get going to your city meetings on Thursday nights and make your self heard on this important issue. Or, your property could be next!
Worried in Grand Terrace,
From: Will I be condemned too?
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Alternative Wording for Prohibiting Eminent Domain Abuse
In the wake of the Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision, state and local governments are taking action to restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. To assist elected officials in these efforts, Reason Foundation has made available a variety of tools that can serve as a starting point toward eminent domain reform. Based upon the Institute for Justice’s model eminent domain legislation, these documents offer sample legislation and resolutions to curb eminent domain abuse, while also allowing public-private partnerships to thrive.
Model Charter Provision or Ordinance for Local Governing Body
The following three provisions may be adopted as amendments to a municipal charter or added to municipal code. The first and second provisions do essentially the same thing, while the third provision can be adopted separately or with either provision one or two. A number of cities are considering adopting provisions similar to the first and second types of provision. The language in the second model provision is modeled after the language of the statute that permitted the condemnations in the Kelo case. The third type of provision, prohibiting transfer to private parties, has been adopted by Mesa, Arizona.
Prohibiting Eminent Domain for Economic Development
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither this City nor any of its subdivisions shall use eminent domain to take private property without the consent of the owner for economic development.
Economic Development--The term "economic development" means any activity to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health, when that activity does not result in (1) the transfer of land to public ownership, such as for a road, hospital or military base; (2) the transfer of land to a private entity that is a common carrier, such as a railroad, utility, or tollroad; or (3) the transfer of property to a private entity when eminent domain will remove a harmful use of the land, such as the removal of public nuisances, removal of structures that are beyond repair or that are unfit for human habitation or use, or acquisition of abandoned property
.
Prohibiting Eminent Domain for Private Business
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither this City nor any of its subdivisions shall use eminent domain to take private property without the consent of the owner to be used for private commercial, financial, retail, or industrial enterprise, except that property may be transferred or leased (1) to private entities that are public utilities or common carriers such as a railroad or tollroad; and (2) to private entities that occupy an incidental area within a public project, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor of a public building.
Prohibiting Transfer of Condemned Property to Private Parties
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, private property acquired through eminent domain without the consent of the owner shall not be dedicated, sold, leased in substantial part, or otherwise transferred to a private person, partnership, corporation, or any other entity for a period of ten (10) years following the acquisition of the property by the City, except that property may be transferred or leased (1) to private entities that are public utilities or common carriers such as a railroad or tollroad; and (2) to private entities that occupy an incidental area in a public project, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor of a public building.
Model Charter Provision or Ordinance for Local Governing Body
The following three provisions may be adopted as amendments to a municipal charter or added to municipal code. The first and second provisions do essentially the same thing, while the third provision can be adopted separately or with either provision one or two. A number of cities are considering adopting provisions similar to the first and second types of provision. The language in the second model provision is modeled after the language of the statute that permitted the condemnations in the Kelo case. The third type of provision, prohibiting transfer to private parties, has been adopted by Mesa, Arizona.
Prohibiting Eminent Domain for Economic Development
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither this City nor any of its subdivisions shall use eminent domain to take private property without the consent of the owner for economic development.
Economic Development--The term "economic development" means any activity to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health, when that activity does not result in (1) the transfer of land to public ownership, such as for a road, hospital or military base; (2) the transfer of land to a private entity that is a common carrier, such as a railroad, utility, or tollroad; or (3) the transfer of property to a private entity when eminent domain will remove a harmful use of the land, such as the removal of public nuisances, removal of structures that are beyond repair or that are unfit for human habitation or use, or acquisition of abandoned property
.
Prohibiting Eminent Domain for Private Business
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither this City nor any of its subdivisions shall use eminent domain to take private property without the consent of the owner to be used for private commercial, financial, retail, or industrial enterprise, except that property may be transferred or leased (1) to private entities that are public utilities or common carriers such as a railroad or tollroad; and (2) to private entities that occupy an incidental area within a public project, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor of a public building.
Prohibiting Transfer of Condemned Property to Private Parties
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, private property acquired through eminent domain without the consent of the owner shall not be dedicated, sold, leased in substantial part, or otherwise transferred to a private person, partnership, corporation, or any other entity for a period of ten (10) years following the acquisition of the property by the City, except that property may be transferred or leased (1) to private entities that are public utilities or common carriers such as a railroad or tollroad; and (2) to private entities that occupy an incidental area in a public project, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor of a public building.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Possible Wording For Ordinance
ORDINANCE RESTRICTING EMINENT DOMAIN
WHEREAS: The City of Grand Terrace recognizes that the right to quiet enjoyment of private property is a sacred and historic American guarantee.
WHEREAS: The City of Grand Terrace recognizes that it may exercise the power ofeminent domain to acquire private property in accordance with The Constitution of the State of California ARTICLE 1, Section. 19. Excluding it use to transfer of Private Property to a Second Private Party.
WHEREAS: The City of Grand Terrace recognizes that the exercise of eminent domain is a harsh proceeding which has the effect of bringing into question the ownership security of all private citizens.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDAINED:
That the City of Grand Terrace shall establish the following restrictions and requirements for the City’s exercise of eminent domain:
A. The Council must find that the taking of a private parcel of land has a significant and logical nexus to the safety health and/or welfare of its citizens and is within the scope of the municipal powers granted as enumerated in California Constitutional Law, prior to the scheduling of a Council meeting to discuss and act upon the eminent domain proceedings.
B. The Council must acquire 2 independent appraisals of the property sought to acquire prior to its negotiations to purchase with the owner.
C. The Council must demonstrate that it has engaged in good faith negotiations with the owner of the subject property prior to the scheduling of a Council meeting to discuss and act upon the eminent domain proceedings.
D. The mere showing that the City may enjoy a revenue tax benefit from a particular taking will not be, in and of itself, adequate justification to proceed to an eminent domain proceeding. The Council must demonstrate and enumerate all benefits to the common good of the citizens of Grand Terrace prior to its scheduling a Council meeting to discuss the eminent domain proceedings.
E. The City shall not sell, lease, transfer or in any other way convey any private premises taken by it to a private individual or business entity. Any property taken by eminent domain must be used for the stated purpose unless it becomes impracticable or impossible to so use such property.
In the event that the said property cannot be used for the stated purpose then said property shall be offered for sale to the original owner for an amount paid by the City under the eminent domain proceedings. If the owner is not available or declines the offer under this section the subject property shall be offered at a public auction within two months of the determination that said owner is not available or declines the offer.
F. Eminent domain shall not be employed for the sole purpose of obtaining open spaces or restricting housing development.
G. . Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon action of the Board of Selectmen.
Adopted this ______ day of 2006 by the Grand Terrace City Council
Please Ask Individual Council Members or Council Candidates to Endorse this.
WHEREAS: The City of Grand Terrace recognizes that the right to quiet enjoyment of private property is a sacred and historic American guarantee.
WHEREAS: The City of Grand Terrace recognizes that it may exercise the power ofeminent domain to acquire private property in accordance with The Constitution of the State of California ARTICLE 1, Section. 19. Excluding it use to transfer of Private Property to a Second Private Party.
WHEREAS: The City of Grand Terrace recognizes that the exercise of eminent domain is a harsh proceeding which has the effect of bringing into question the ownership security of all private citizens.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDAINED:
That the City of Grand Terrace shall establish the following restrictions and requirements for the City’s exercise of eminent domain:
A. The Council must find that the taking of a private parcel of land has a significant and logical nexus to the safety health and/or welfare of its citizens and is within the scope of the municipal powers granted as enumerated in California Constitutional Law, prior to the scheduling of a Council meeting to discuss and act upon the eminent domain proceedings.
B. The Council must acquire 2 independent appraisals of the property sought to acquire prior to its negotiations to purchase with the owner.
C. The Council must demonstrate that it has engaged in good faith negotiations with the owner of the subject property prior to the scheduling of a Council meeting to discuss and act upon the eminent domain proceedings.
D. The mere showing that the City may enjoy a revenue tax benefit from a particular taking will not be, in and of itself, adequate justification to proceed to an eminent domain proceeding. The Council must demonstrate and enumerate all benefits to the common good of the citizens of Grand Terrace prior to its scheduling a Council meeting to discuss the eminent domain proceedings.
E. The City shall not sell, lease, transfer or in any other way convey any private premises taken by it to a private individual or business entity. Any property taken by eminent domain must be used for the stated purpose unless it becomes impracticable or impossible to so use such property.
In the event that the said property cannot be used for the stated purpose then said property shall be offered for sale to the original owner for an amount paid by the City under the eminent domain proceedings. If the owner is not available or declines the offer under this section the subject property shall be offered at a public auction within two months of the determination that said owner is not available or declines the offer.
F. Eminent domain shall not be employed for the sole purpose of obtaining open spaces or restricting housing development.
G. . Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon action of the Board of Selectmen.
Adopted this ______ day of 2006 by the Grand Terrace City Council
Please Ask Individual Council Members or Council Candidates to Endorse this.
Anti Eminent Domain Actions Increase
http://www.sbeminentdomainabuse.com/ Visit this web site for San BernardinoWhat You Can DO
Call: Senate Majority leader Frist (202) 224-3344, Sen.'s Boxer office (202) 224-3553 and Sen. Feinstein's office (202) 224-3841 and respectfully requested that the Senate move on House Resolution 4128. While the Senate fights among themselves real people with real lives are going to loose their homes to eminent domain. That the people here need that law now and to please get to work on it today.
To: comments@whitehouse.gov
Dear Mr. President,
We respectfully request that you light a fire under the U.S. Senate to act on House Resolution 4128. This bill would stop all Federal Funding for two years to redevelopment agencies that us eminent domain to take a citizens home from them to give to a developer.
Our city of Grand Terrace, Ca. has abused the funds for years and will not let the citizens see any accounting of the money. Our city manager who makes over $110,000 a year was sold a redevelopment house as well as his secretary and the city financed it for him.
Our city government co-mingle's the RDA funds into city funds so it is impossible to determine what monies went where. In fiscal year 2004-2005 our city buget for a population of 13,000 was 3.58 million in one year, 2005-2006, with no explaination from the city it went to over 24 million.
My neighbor, Jo Stringfield is under the threat of loosing her home to eminent domain (see attached flyer) for a Lowes and a grocery store. The city used the ruse of a new library to threaten the other neighbors with eminent domain and they fled.
Now that the developer has taken those homes and bulldozed them the city says there will be no new library. Mr. President there are real people out here beyond the Beltway that feel those that are inside the Belt way only care about their biggest campaign contributors.
We need our Government to be responsive and protect us where the Supreme Court won't. Please, Please Please, Mr. President don't let them take my friends house away from her.
It's just not right.
Logical Alternative to Force Sale of Private Property
Stater Bros.'s landlord, Viking Investment Properties stands ready, willing & able to expand the store to meet their needs at their current downtown store in Grand Terrace. This proposed expansion plan was also personally given to the city staff, Koontz & Schwab on November 10, 2005 in a meeting with the landlord's architect at city hall.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Eminent Domain Epidemic
Grand Terrace has joined the epidemic. It is a "cancer" that distroys lives for the sake of greed.
What has happened to our country? A country our forefathers fought to insure our freedom. The right to own land and build inorder to support our families. While we all know it is wrong to steal or distroy what belongs to someone else, our Government, City, State and Federal refuse to stand up and protect the hard working people. This is why we must stand up and be counted.
Martin Luther King said it so well when he said "I have a dream where all men are created equal."
The Consititution of the United States Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Or to quote a higher authority "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
What will it take to get the elected officials of Grand Terrace to see that their decisions harm innocent people. The City Council, Planning Department, and City Manager have made a decision to allow Developer, Jacobson an "Exclusive Negotiating Agreement" or to be the sole person the homeowners located in the designated Barton Road Project are to negotiate with.
Nobody should have the right to take someone's home for capital gain. Taking peoples homes to build a store, is cruel and unjust. But if the citizens of Grand Terrace don't stand up and be counted, they will get away with it.
We don't want a Lowe's at our front door. You promised us a "City Walk" citizens could be proud of. Selling out the hard working citizens of Grand Terrace is just wrong. I really don't know how Jacobsen and Schwab sleep at night
What has happened to our country? A country our forefathers fought to insure our freedom. The right to own land and build inorder to support our families. While we all know it is wrong to steal or distroy what belongs to someone else, our Government, City, State and Federal refuse to stand up and protect the hard working people. This is why we must stand up and be counted.
Martin Luther King said it so well when he said "I have a dream where all men are created equal."
The Consititution of the United States Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Or to quote a higher authority "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
What will it take to get the elected officials of Grand Terrace to see that their decisions harm innocent people. The City Council, Planning Department, and City Manager have made a decision to allow Developer, Jacobson an "Exclusive Negotiating Agreement" or to be the sole person the homeowners located in the designated Barton Road Project are to negotiate with.
Nobody should have the right to take someone's home for capital gain. Taking peoples homes to build a store, is cruel and unjust. But if the citizens of Grand Terrace don't stand up and be counted, they will get away with it.
We don't want a Lowe's at our front door. You promised us a "City Walk" citizens could be proud of. Selling out the hard working citizens of Grand Terrace is just wrong. I really don't know how Jacobsen and Schwab sleep at night
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Happy Birthday GrandTerraceNews.Blogspot
The GrandTerraceNews.blogspot is a Year Old Today.
The reason for the blogs beginning was a direct response to a public desire for more available information on crime in Grand Terrace. The Blog provides a report of ACTUAL ARRESTS, previously not reported in a format for Grand Terrace Specifically.
The blog's readers then began providing email comments and documents to be posted. The Blog Posts these documents because the CITY of Grand Terrace is unwilling or unable to provide this level of service to the PUBLIC.
The Blog also tries to keep abreast of the current actions of the Council, and the RDA and the publics objections to those actions including law suits. Again the city apparently holds the operational opinion that the citizens should not be informed of the particulars, process, negotiations of the business conducted on their behalf. Developments, High Schools, and Debt are all in part "Negotiated in Closed Session", with out PUBLIC disclosure along the way.
The City of Grand Terrace also request the blog to share announcements with the blog readers.
Happy Birthday Blogsters..
Please continue your support, and email submissions.
The reason for the blogs beginning was a direct response to a public desire for more available information on crime in Grand Terrace. The Blog provides a report of ACTUAL ARRESTS, previously not reported in a format for Grand Terrace Specifically.
The blog's readers then began providing email comments and documents to be posted. The Blog Posts these documents because the CITY of Grand Terrace is unwilling or unable to provide this level of service to the PUBLIC.
The Blog also tries to keep abreast of the current actions of the Council, and the RDA and the publics objections to those actions including law suits. Again the city apparently holds the operational opinion that the citizens should not be informed of the particulars, process, negotiations of the business conducted on their behalf. Developments, High Schools, and Debt are all in part "Negotiated in Closed Session", with out PUBLIC disclosure along the way.
The City of Grand Terrace also request the blog to share announcements with the blog readers.
Happy Birthday Blogsters..
Please continue your support, and email submissions.
Friday, January 13, 2006
More Comment on the Schwab Comments to the Press
Isn't it odd that all the times the case has been heard or in the court house, that the Judge didn't kick the case out as being unfounded. A plaintive in the case could not find a lawyer to take a case pro bono if the Lawyer didn't think there was a chance, and in this case the Lawyer would be at fault if it is a frivolous case, as they are obligated to advise a client on the validity of filing a case from the onset.
The Public Naming of one of the citizens bringing suit, and the "Search" for others indicates the disdain for individuals who desire the City to listen to their concerns, and to manage public business in a professional and legal process. The name calling and the lack of comprehending that the issue is not only the old OAC plan, but the methods and workings of CITY HALL, demonstrates a defensiveness and an attempt to misdirect attention away from those whose actions are being questioned in the suit.
So, my read is that the article is an attempt of the City Manager, and therefor the City and the City Council to intimidate any other citizens which may find themselves outraged by mismanagement and improper actions by the City Government. Trying to find out who else is in the "Group", is not relative is there is no attempt to intimidate, or file counter suit. It could only be to intimidate future plaintiffs or persons desiring to hold the City Responsible for Proper Governance.
It is clear there was a problem or there would have been no negotiation. It is also clear there is substantial changes to the OAC and yet, we have no plan. What we have is a piece of property the RDA has purchased. The purchases themselves are questionable. What we have is no plan as previously described. If there is no plan then there can no longer be a Environmental Impact Report.
However, what we do have is evidence that the City, City Staff, City Manager, the Developer, and possibly various persons in the Realty Business have violated Good Governance Practices. They may have perhaps gone beyond the veil of legality and transgressed into criminal conduct. This does not go away if the OAC is discontinued. This poor governance is the suit. This is where the value is, even if the OAC area reverts to nature. The City NEEDS to improve its Management. It that costs the citizens $20,000.00 that is money well spent.
Go Forth David and Fight the Giant.
The Public Naming of one of the citizens bringing suit, and the "Search" for others indicates the disdain for individuals who desire the City to listen to their concerns, and to manage public business in a professional and legal process. The name calling and the lack of comprehending that the issue is not only the old OAC plan, but the methods and workings of CITY HALL, demonstrates a defensiveness and an attempt to misdirect attention away from those whose actions are being questioned in the suit.
So, my read is that the article is an attempt of the City Manager, and therefor the City and the City Council to intimidate any other citizens which may find themselves outraged by mismanagement and improper actions by the City Government. Trying to find out who else is in the "Group", is not relative is there is no attempt to intimidate, or file counter suit. It could only be to intimidate future plaintiffs or persons desiring to hold the City Responsible for Proper Governance.
It is clear there was a problem or there would have been no negotiation. It is also clear there is substantial changes to the OAC and yet, we have no plan. What we have is a piece of property the RDA has purchased. The purchases themselves are questionable. What we have is no plan as previously described. If there is no plan then there can no longer be a Environmental Impact Report.
However, what we do have is evidence that the City, City Staff, City Manager, the Developer, and possibly various persons in the Realty Business have violated Good Governance Practices. They may have perhaps gone beyond the veil of legality and transgressed into criminal conduct. This does not go away if the OAC is discontinued. This poor governance is the suit. This is where the value is, even if the OAC area reverts to nature. The City NEEDS to improve its Management. It that costs the citizens $20,000.00 that is money well spent.
Go Forth David and Fight the Giant.
From the Email Inbox...
I just read the Donald Thistle article in the Grand Terrace City News 1-12-2006 "Schwab says countersuing Citizens Group not Likely"
Interesting that Schwab says the city probably will not go after each of the group's members individually to recover costs of the city's counter lawsuit.
What a joke! The city makes their own laws as they go along and their attorney runs up hourly fees defending that. Taxpayers already pay for this once. Then the city manager of Grand Terrace and their attorney feel comfortable calling anyone to objects to the city's planned big, giant box development in town names like "environmmental terrorist wacko" or "legal shakedown artist" or even non-existant people, in quotes for the press. Are these adults supposed to be in charge?
Rational people can disagree about how the town development should proceed. We need to have that rational discussion. It used to be that city planners would protect the citizen taxpayers and develope projects only in conformity to the city's general plan, laws and zoning. Now we need advocate citizens watching out to protect us ALL, from city hall itself and the sale of our town the highest bidding developer, with a few real estate commissions for their friends!
Interesting that Schwab says the city probably will not go after each of the group's members individually to recover costs of the city's counter lawsuit.
What a joke! The city makes their own laws as they go along and their attorney runs up hourly fees defending that. Taxpayers already pay for this once. Then the city manager of Grand Terrace and their attorney feel comfortable calling anyone to objects to the city's planned big, giant box development in town names like "environmmental terrorist wacko" or "legal shakedown artist" or even non-existant people, in quotes for the press. Are these adults supposed to be in charge?
Rational people can disagree about how the town development should proceed. We need to have that rational discussion. It used to be that city planners would protect the citizen taxpayers and develope projects only in conformity to the city's general plan, laws and zoning. Now we need advocate citizens watching out to protect us ALL, from city hall itself and the sale of our town the highest bidding developer, with a few real estate commissions for their friends!
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Report on Council Meeting Jan 12 2006
Well, the transfer of land or Property from the RDA to the CITY was approved without much question as to the cost to the city, and how the funds will be bonded, and paid back, nor the related legal requirements for reporting the sale, transfer of funds, and so forth. RDA wants it, so it was done.
There was no sale of property to the city at the council meeting. Con-firmed by Councilman Hilkey and Mr. Schwab the land was GIVEN to the City by the Redevelopment Agency. What is to stop all cities from using their redevelopment agencies funds from buying property and transferring to their cities. Then they could sell it to their developer friends or just friends at a reduced rate and then perhaps from there to a family member of the council and then to a council member or former council member. By the time all the transactions had taken place the short memory of the public would have taken effect.
I wonder who the buyer of the Arliss house is and if it is a well known name in town. Did the city or RDA spend $250,000 to rehab any other houses the agency or city owned. No. They were going to low to moderate income folks. The buyer of the Arliss house has to be in a higher income bracket than most or maybe a former council member. Who knows? The city does but they won't tell. An odd sort of accounting and disclosure, or non disclosure at best.
The Tax on Rentals was passed into GT LAW... Pay up all you rich landlords. Renters, YOUR RENT INCREASE will be in the MAIL. Further assistance in providing low and moderate income housing I would presume.
The sale of the house on Arliss. It is GREAT to have the City Manager, say that the Citizens of the Town selling a house, should not be fully informed regarding the process of the negotiations. It is OUR CITY, and thus OUR BUSINESS if a buyer is not going to surrender their rights to "PRIVATE" negotiations, quite frankly they should not be buying a piece of property owned by TAXPAYERS/THE PUBLIC/YOU AND ME.
The Council Member Miller's willingness to identify addresses, and people for alleged criminal activities is odd when, at the same meeting, the land deals are just rushed through, and "In Private" or not fully disclosed.
Toxic Chemicals, Oils, Noise, and a bad Neighbor on Michigan. Gee welcome to the new west GT. Add more of the same and a High School and that would just about equal the OAC Plan. Sure, it may have LOOKED better than trucks, but the real affects would have been no different. These real violations get a "We'll look into it". Note the problems have been brought to CITY EMPLOYEES with no action taken. Effective Management Mr. Schwab.
With past mismanagement of RDA funds, the recent two transactions should be investigated completely. Including the involvement of Councilmember Miller and all others on the Council related to or directly involved in Realty business in GT.
Who is the purchaser, and is $500,000. and change the current market value for the house? What is the total financial disclosure on the "DEAL"? Who is getting paid to "Manage" the DEAL..? Terra Loma? Perhaps even a Council Member is getting a point here or there on the sale. WE can't be told the details, until AFTER the deal is a DONE DEAL.
Now for the HAM: It would be nice if the PUBLIC was able to VIEW the details provided the COUNCIL in preparation for the appeal. Remember the Staff Reports and preparation is Provided to the Council Preloading their minds with data and a recommended action or prejudice. The petitioner has to overcome this disadvantage.
A new Planning Commissioner is Needed. Two are for that matter. Dates and Disclosure requirements. Dates were settled upon. I wonder if the council would accept the application of any of the folks who have opposed the council's opinions and decisions in the past?
The progress on the "Fire Works Committee" report was interesting. There is no doubt about the great work of the folks who work in the Sports Groups in Town. The issue is "Fire Works". The issue is perhaps are there ALTERNATIVE fund raising activities available to support the Youth Sports in town? Is there a better way of regulating the sale and use of fireworks if they are permitted. Is there a better way of removing illegal fireworks and ticketing persons discharging fireworks in an unsafe manner, or using illegal fireworks. We could tax Prostitutes over lets say Easter Week and give them free walking time on Barton Road and earn enough money to support the Youth Sports. This however would not be a good thing.
Fireworks, of any kind increase the risk of fire and injury to individuals. The existence and permitting of "Safe and Sane" fireworks increases the use of illegal fireworks, and increases the difficulty of enforcement.
I hope that the HAM operator is able to get a reasonable resolution to the issues he is being assailed with.
The Council Meeting ended rapidly.
Farewell to those who passed.
There was no sale of property to the city at the council meeting. Con-firmed by Councilman Hilkey and Mr. Schwab the land was GIVEN to the City by the Redevelopment Agency. What is to stop all cities from using their redevelopment agencies funds from buying property and transferring to their cities. Then they could sell it to their developer friends or just friends at a reduced rate and then perhaps from there to a family member of the council and then to a council member or former council member. By the time all the transactions had taken place the short memory of the public would have taken effect.
I wonder who the buyer of the Arliss house is and if it is a well known name in town. Did the city or RDA spend $250,000 to rehab any other houses the agency or city owned. No. They were going to low to moderate income folks. The buyer of the Arliss house has to be in a higher income bracket than most or maybe a former council member. Who knows? The city does but they won't tell. An odd sort of accounting and disclosure, or non disclosure at best.
The Tax on Rentals was passed into GT LAW... Pay up all you rich landlords. Renters, YOUR RENT INCREASE will be in the MAIL. Further assistance in providing low and moderate income housing I would presume.
The sale of the house on Arliss. It is GREAT to have the City Manager, say that the Citizens of the Town selling a house, should not be fully informed regarding the process of the negotiations. It is OUR CITY, and thus OUR BUSINESS if a buyer is not going to surrender their rights to "PRIVATE" negotiations, quite frankly they should not be buying a piece of property owned by TAXPAYERS/THE PUBLIC/YOU AND ME.
The Council Member Miller's willingness to identify addresses, and people for alleged criminal activities is odd when, at the same meeting, the land deals are just rushed through, and "In Private" or not fully disclosed.
Toxic Chemicals, Oils, Noise, and a bad Neighbor on Michigan. Gee welcome to the new west GT. Add more of the same and a High School and that would just about equal the OAC Plan. Sure, it may have LOOKED better than trucks, but the real affects would have been no different. These real violations get a "We'll look into it". Note the problems have been brought to CITY EMPLOYEES with no action taken. Effective Management Mr. Schwab.
With past mismanagement of RDA funds, the recent two transactions should be investigated completely. Including the involvement of Councilmember Miller and all others on the Council related to or directly involved in Realty business in GT.
Who is the purchaser, and is $500,000. and change the current market value for the house? What is the total financial disclosure on the "DEAL"? Who is getting paid to "Manage" the DEAL..? Terra Loma? Perhaps even a Council Member is getting a point here or there on the sale. WE can't be told the details, until AFTER the deal is a DONE DEAL.
Now for the HAM: It would be nice if the PUBLIC was able to VIEW the details provided the COUNCIL in preparation for the appeal. Remember the Staff Reports and preparation is Provided to the Council Preloading their minds with data and a recommended action or prejudice. The petitioner has to overcome this disadvantage.
A new Planning Commissioner is Needed. Two are for that matter. Dates and Disclosure requirements. Dates were settled upon. I wonder if the council would accept the application of any of the folks who have opposed the council's opinions and decisions in the past?
The progress on the "Fire Works Committee" report was interesting. There is no doubt about the great work of the folks who work in the Sports Groups in Town. The issue is "Fire Works". The issue is perhaps are there ALTERNATIVE fund raising activities available to support the Youth Sports in town? Is there a better way of regulating the sale and use of fireworks if they are permitted. Is there a better way of removing illegal fireworks and ticketing persons discharging fireworks in an unsafe manner, or using illegal fireworks. We could tax Prostitutes over lets say Easter Week and give them free walking time on Barton Road and earn enough money to support the Youth Sports. This however would not be a good thing.
Fireworks, of any kind increase the risk of fire and injury to individuals. The existence and permitting of "Safe and Sane" fireworks increases the use of illegal fireworks, and increases the difficulty of enforcement.
I hope that the HAM operator is able to get a reasonable resolution to the issues he is being assailed with.
The Council Meeting ended rapidly.
Farewell to those who passed.
Planning commissioners Wanted:
Applicants wanted: Can you serve the Planning Commissioner? Here is your chance to be in the loop.
Deadline for applications Feb 14, 2006
Interviews and selection will be Feb 23, 2006
Deadline for applications Feb 14, 2006
Interviews and selection will be Feb 23, 2006
More Concerns From the Email Inbox
There is something wrong here!
Tonight the RDA is going to transfer the property that the Senior Villas are going to be built on to the city. They just can't transfer it. The RDA is a separate entity, it would have to be sold to the city. Just like the city bought Tom Schwabs house from the RDA, although we have never been able to find where the city paid the RDA for it, they just can't transfer it without a monetary transaction.
The RDA has to sell it to the city. Is the City going to pay the $9,000,000 the RDA gave to the Corp for Better Housing Whether You Like It Or Not. Can anyone explain this to me? Can anyone explain this to anybody?
The answer is:
Go to the Meeting Tonight. Bring it up in the Public Comments, on the topic, and during the Public Comment Portion of the Council Meeting. Then you and others may have an option to bring forth legal action which may be able to make the transaction, and process an ethical, and proper one.
Tonight the RDA is going to transfer the property that the Senior Villas are going to be built on to the city. They just can't transfer it. The RDA is a separate entity, it would have to be sold to the city. Just like the city bought Tom Schwabs house from the RDA, although we have never been able to find where the city paid the RDA for it, they just can't transfer it without a monetary transaction.
The RDA has to sell it to the city. Is the City going to pay the $9,000,000 the RDA gave to the Corp for Better Housing Whether You Like It Or Not. Can anyone explain this to me? Can anyone explain this to anybody?
The answer is:
Go to the Meeting Tonight. Bring it up in the Public Comments, on the topic, and during the Public Comment Portion of the Council Meeting. Then you and others may have an option to bring forth legal action which may be able to make the transaction, and process an ethical, and proper one.
What Is The Secret?
Why is it when the City Council asks the Staff to do something, they get "backtalk". Leann Garcia has asked Staff to put the Council Meeting Minutes, Planning Commission Minutes and any other public information on the website. Staff just says, "we need to budget that for next year". What budget? There is enough time in a secretaries day to download onto a website. It's called "time" management. Perhaps Mr. Schwabb is having difficulty managing, or playing stupid. Quite frankly, I am tired of being treated like a dumb hick town by the Staff and the Developer.
In my opinion, I don't feel rental property should be bed taxed. Nickle and diming because other cities do it does not make it right.
What has happened to the OAC Development? The beautiful waterfall by the freeway with another mile of RVs. Perhaps the citizens of Grand Terrace can get together to plan the OAC and if acceptable by the people, we could quit spending thousands of dollars over and over again for contractors to develop ideas.
Who is checking the expenditures? Doesn't the City answer to a higher authority?
Why is it all negotiations are held behind closed door. Why don't citizens have the same opportunity to purchase City property as City Employees do for 10 cents on the dollar.
In my opinion, I don't feel rental property should be bed taxed. Nickle and diming because other cities do it does not make it right.
What has happened to the OAC Development? The beautiful waterfall by the freeway with another mile of RVs. Perhaps the citizens of Grand Terrace can get together to plan the OAC and if acceptable by the people, we could quit spending thousands of dollars over and over again for contractors to develop ideas.
Who is checking the expenditures? Doesn't the City answer to a higher authority?
Why is it all negotiations are held behind closed door. Why don't citizens have the same opportunity to purchase City property as City Employees do for 10 cents on the dollar.
HAM and the EGGHEADS
Will the next case against GT go to the Federal Courts?
This straw that may bring the City's intrusion on individual's rights may be the size of a HAM Radio Tower.
Type of lawn, tree, paint,..... Special no bid development by the RDA handing Private Property to a Private Developer after effectively forcing out the Home Owners to comply with the whims of the Developer and City RDA Manager's Plans, (Note I did not say the City Plan as we don't have an updated one of those documents.)
How many in the minority must be abused? Neighbors, if the house next to you offends your eye, do something of Biblical proportions. PLUCK YOUR EYE OUT, but don't bother your neighbors right to live and use their property as they see fit. If you don't want to live in a free country,,, move to Singapore.
This straw that may bring the City's intrusion on individual's rights may be the size of a HAM Radio Tower.
Type of lawn, tree, paint,..... Special no bid development by the RDA handing Private Property to a Private Developer after effectively forcing out the Home Owners to comply with the whims of the Developer and City RDA Manager's Plans, (Note I did not say the City Plan as we don't have an updated one of those documents.)
How many in the minority must be abused? Neighbors, if the house next to you offends your eye, do something of Biblical proportions. PLUCK YOUR EYE OUT, but don't bother your neighbors right to live and use their property as they see fit. If you don't want to live in a free country,,, move to Singapore.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
From the Email InBox
Dear GrandPa Terrace
With the employment of Councilwoman Cortes by Terra Loma Reality, and who knows how long she has been employed by them, and Planning Commissioner Bidney should not Terra Loma be excluded from doing any business with or for the City. I am shocked that the other Realtors in Grand Terrace have not objected to this or filed complaints with the State Board of Realtors or the Attorney General.
The citizens of this city must watch and see if any of the properties listed below are given to Terra Loma to sell. I would not be surprised that with the councilwoman and the commissioner employed by them that all real property will be given to Terra Loma, who's owner is a former councilman. We saw this with the Dodson property. Such brazen corruption. Are our citizens so asleep that they do not care what is happing to our city? We need criminal investigations. Unfortunately our District Attorney does not investigate politicians in this county nor does his Public Integrity Division.
With the employment of Councilwoman Cortes by Terra Loma Reality, and who knows how long she has been employed by them, and Planning Commissioner Bidney should not Terra Loma be excluded from doing any business with or for the City. I am shocked that the other Realtors in Grand Terrace have not objected to this or filed complaints with the State Board of Realtors or the Attorney General.
The citizens of this city must watch and see if any of the properties listed below are given to Terra Loma to sell. I would not be surprised that with the councilwoman and the commissioner employed by them that all real property will be given to Terra Loma, who's owner is a former councilman. We saw this with the Dodson property. Such brazen corruption. Are our citizens so asleep that they do not care what is happing to our city? We need criminal investigations. Unfortunately our District Attorney does not investigate politicians in this county nor does his Public Integrity Division.
This Weeks Agenda JANUARY 12th..
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 12, 2006
6:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER
22795 Barton Road
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, YOU ARE ASKED TO PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Rick Doucette, Calvary, The Brook Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 12-08-2005 Minutes
2. Transfer of Parcel #276-261-14 to the City of Grand Terrace for the Purpose of Building the Blue Mountain Villas/Senior Center Project
TRANSFER OR LEASE? WHY TRANSFER THE LAND THAT IS LEASED? THE PROPERTY WAS TO REMAIN THE CITY'S
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Approve Check Register Dated January 12, 2006
WHO'S GETTING PAID FOR WHAT THIS TIME?
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 12-08-2005 Minutes
D. Audit Contract Extension (Rogers Andersons Malody & Scott)
WHO IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL VIOLATIONS OF SOUND PRACTICES?
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not on the agenda. The Mayor may request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. REPORTS -
A. Committee Reports
1. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
a. Minutes of November 7, 2005
2. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Appoint Alternate Member (Neeb)
b. Minutes of November 1, 2005 and December 6, 2005
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-06 (CUP-05-06) and Environmental RAeview Case No. 05-19 (E-05-19) to allow for an "Amateur Radio Antenna Structure" with a tower-mast and antennas on top with a maximum height of 75 feet and including a "yagi" antenna measuring approximately 32 ft. x 36 ft.
PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE THIS ADDED EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OPTION SHOULD SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION. FOR THOSE WHO "FEAR" THE TOWER, THEY HAVE TO "FEAR" TREES FALLING AND IF THEIR "FEAR" IS REAL THEY WOULD BE LIVING IN A TREELESS HOME. THAT ARGUMENT JUST IS NOT VALID.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, Establishing the Non-Owner Occupied/Rental Property Program. IS THIS IS A WAY TO PAY FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND NOT MISUSE FUNDS INTENDED FOR LOW AND MODERATE PRICED HOUSING? IT IS AN INCREASE IN EXPENSE FOR THE LANDLORDS, PAID TO GOVERNMENT, THUS A TAX INCREASE.
B. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Grand Terrace, California, Establishing the Non-Owner Occupied/Rental Property Program
WHO MADE UP THIS AGENDA? TWO SECOND READINGS OF THE SAME AGENDA?
C. WHERE is the traffic study that Schwab and Jacobson said the Town Center depended on. At the meeting they both said that if the State said it would cause more traffic congestion than Grand Terrace could handle the project would not go through.
D. Where is the Policy and Procedure and Document in regards to the Function of the Mayor and Council Members?
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Accept Resignation of Planning Commissioner Whitley, set the deadline for applications and schedule a meeting date to conduct interviews and possible appointment
WHY IS COMMISSIONER WHITLEY RESIGNING?
9. CLOSED SESSION
A. Real Estate Negotiations - 22874 Arliss
THIS HOUSE WAS PURCHASED FROM THE COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SHELTER. IT WAS PURCHASED WITH RDA FUNDS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF LOW OR MODERATE HOUSING. IT IS BEING SOLD AT FULL MARKET VALUE. THE SALE PRICE WILL BE PARTIALLY SHARED WITH THE COUNTY ACCORDING TO A FORMULA ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL SALE. THIS PROPERTY DEAL, LIKE OTHERS IN THE COUNTY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. JIM MILLER WAS INVOLVED WITH THE NEGOTIATION REPRESENTING THE COUNTY AT THE TIME. Jim Miller was also a councilman elect when he was involved in the Arliss house deal.
ADJOURN
IF THERE IS ANY DECISION THAT IS MADE AS THE RESULT OF THE ABOVE CLOSED MEETING, THE DECISION SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AND ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE ADJOURNMENT. MOST OF THE TIME THE COUNCIL/RDA DOES NOT MAKE PUBLIC THE DECISIONS OR ACTIONS RESULTING FROM A CLOSED MEETING UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO DISCLOSE THEM.
THIS PRACTICE EFFECTIVELY DENIES THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE TIMELY APPEALS OF DECISIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, January 26, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 01-26-2006 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 01-19-2006.
COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 12, 2006
6:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER
22795 Barton Road
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, YOU ARE ASKED TO PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Rick Doucette, Calvary, The Brook Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1. Approval of 12-08-2005 Minutes
2. Transfer of Parcel #276-261-14 to the City of Grand Terrace for the Purpose of Building the Blue Mountain Villas/Senior Center Project
TRANSFER OR LEASE? WHY TRANSFER THE LAND THAT IS LEASED? THE PROPERTY WAS TO REMAIN THE CITY'S
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Approve Check Register Dated January 12, 2006
WHO'S GETTING PAID FOR WHAT THIS TIME?
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 12-08-2005 Minutes
D. Audit Contract Extension (Rogers Andersons Malody & Scott)
WHO IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL VIOLATIONS OF SOUND PRACTICES?
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or acting on any item not on the agenda. The Mayor may request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. REPORTS -
A. Committee Reports
1. Historical & Cultural Activities Committee
a. Minutes of November 7, 2005
2. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Appoint Alternate Member (Neeb)
b. Minutes of November 1, 2005 and December 6, 2005
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 05-06 (CUP-05-06) and Environmental RAeview Case No. 05-19 (E-05-19) to allow for an "Amateur Radio Antenna Structure" with a tower-mast and antennas on top with a maximum height of 75 feet and including a "yagi" antenna measuring approximately 32 ft. x 36 ft.
PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE THIS ADDED EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OPTION SHOULD SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION. FOR THOSE WHO "FEAR" THE TOWER, THEY HAVE TO "FEAR" TREES FALLING AND IF THEIR "FEAR" IS REAL THEY WOULD BE LIVING IN A TREELESS HOME. THAT ARGUMENT JUST IS NOT VALID.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, Establishing the Non-Owner Occupied/Rental Property Program. IS THIS IS A WAY TO PAY FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND NOT MISUSE FUNDS INTENDED FOR LOW AND MODERATE PRICED HOUSING? IT IS AN INCREASE IN EXPENSE FOR THE LANDLORDS, PAID TO GOVERNMENT, THUS A TAX INCREASE.
B. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City of Grand Terrace, California, Establishing the Non-Owner Occupied/Rental Property Program
WHO MADE UP THIS AGENDA? TWO SECOND READINGS OF THE SAME AGENDA?
C. WHERE is the traffic study that Schwab and Jacobson said the Town Center depended on. At the meeting they both said that if the State said it would cause more traffic congestion than Grand Terrace could handle the project would not go through.
D. Where is the Policy and Procedure and Document in regards to the Function of the Mayor and Council Members?
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Accept Resignation of Planning Commissioner Whitley, set the deadline for applications and schedule a meeting date to conduct interviews and possible appointment
WHY IS COMMISSIONER WHITLEY RESIGNING?
9. CLOSED SESSION
A. Real Estate Negotiations - 22874 Arliss
THIS HOUSE WAS PURCHASED FROM THE COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A SHELTER. IT WAS PURCHASED WITH RDA FUNDS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF LOW OR MODERATE HOUSING. IT IS BEING SOLD AT FULL MARKET VALUE. THE SALE PRICE WILL BE PARTIALLY SHARED WITH THE COUNTY ACCORDING TO A FORMULA ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL SALE. THIS PROPERTY DEAL, LIKE OTHERS IN THE COUNTY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. JIM MILLER WAS INVOLVED WITH THE NEGOTIATION REPRESENTING THE COUNTY AT THE TIME. Jim Miller was also a councilman elect when he was involved in the Arliss house deal.
ADJOURN
IF THERE IS ANY DECISION THAT IS MADE AS THE RESULT OF THE ABOVE CLOSED MEETING, THE DECISION SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC AND ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE ADJOURNMENT. MOST OF THE TIME THE COUNCIL/RDA DOES NOT MAKE PUBLIC THE DECISIONS OR ACTIONS RESULTING FROM A CLOSED MEETING UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO DISCLOSE THEM.
THIS PRACTICE EFFECTIVELY DENIES THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE TIMELY APPEALS OF DECISIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, January 26, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 01-26-2006 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON 01-19-2006.
Preferential Treatment at City Hall
I have received several complaints about the service at City Hall in regards to the issue of business permits, occupancy permits and basic transactions such as these.
When a business person comes to the City to obtain a license to do business the city should bend over backwards to speed the process. This process should be a simple rubber stamp when the business is re occupying a space formerly or currently used as that same function. For example if a hairdresser sub leases a booth in an existing salon there is no reason to do a title search on the land, or the office space leased by the saloon operator.
With commercial and retail rentals or leases being as expensive as they are in Grand Terrace, the city does not need to add motivation for the business operators to go to Colton just down the hill so they can get going with their business.
When a business is purchased, and it operates in a leased building. The business purchased is in name and good will only. The new owner operator may have picked up a long term lease with the land lord or not. The new owner gets the Name, Goodwill and perhaps some of the removable equipment and inventory in their purchase price. There is no need to to a title search all the way back to the original Spanish Land Grants.
There is no need to have the new owner interrupt business or the services provided to the community, in order to complete the transition.
How is it that Plans for developments by the RDA aren't Stopped in their tracks due to questions regarding the "Land Ownership". When these plans are often done overlaying land not owned by the proposed developer, or the city at the time they are being made?
Let's be fair, and intelligent about how businesses are treated in GT.
When a business person comes to the City to obtain a license to do business the city should bend over backwards to speed the process. This process should be a simple rubber stamp when the business is re occupying a space formerly or currently used as that same function. For example if a hairdresser sub leases a booth in an existing salon there is no reason to do a title search on the land, or the office space leased by the saloon operator.
With commercial and retail rentals or leases being as expensive as they are in Grand Terrace, the city does not need to add motivation for the business operators to go to Colton just down the hill so they can get going with their business.
When a business is purchased, and it operates in a leased building. The business purchased is in name and good will only. The new owner operator may have picked up a long term lease with the land lord or not. The new owner gets the Name, Goodwill and perhaps some of the removable equipment and inventory in their purchase price. There is no need to to a title search all the way back to the original Spanish Land Grants.
There is no need to have the new owner interrupt business or the services provided to the community, in order to complete the transition.
How is it that Plans for developments by the RDA aren't Stopped in their tracks due to questions regarding the "Land Ownership". When these plans are often done overlaying land not owned by the proposed developer, or the city at the time they are being made?
Let's be fair, and intelligent about how businesses are treated in GT.
Proven Misuse of FUNDS ?
I wanted to prove the source of the information. The link now works. Thanks for finding the glitch friends.
Perhaps this is why the city is in a RUSH to build Senior Villas?
http://www.sen.ca.gov/locgov/REDEVELOPMENTPAPER.DOC
Housing Obligations And Performance
Redevelopment agencies must deposit 20% of their annual property tax increment revenues into a Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund (L&M Fund), and spend the money to increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing. Several agencies dedicate more than the required 20% of tax increment funds to housing activities.
Statewide in 2000-01, this set-aside requirement resulted in the deposit of $225 million in property tax increment revenues into the agencies' L&M Funds. An additional $337 million came from accrued interest, transfers, and bond proceeds.
Perhaps this is why the city is in a RUSH to build Senior Villas?
http://www.sen.ca.gov/locgov/REDEVELOPMENTPAPER.DOC
Housing Obligations And Performance
Redevelopment agencies must deposit 20% of their annual property tax increment revenues into a Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund (L&M Fund), and spend the money to increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing. Several agencies dedicate more than the required 20% of tax increment funds to housing activities.
Statewide in 2000-01, this set-aside requirement resulted in the deposit of $225 million in property tax increment revenues into the agencies' L&M Funds. An additional $337 million came from accrued interest, transfers, and bond proceeds.
Effectiveness. Beyond the issue of spending L&M funds by the statutory deadline is the question of how effectively redevelopment officials spend these funds. Many agencies report spending more than 50% of their L&M income on planning and administration. HCD's audits of redevelopment agencies have uncovered other problems. For example, the redevelopment agency in Grand Terrace (San Bernardino County) underfunded its L&M Fund by $1.2 million, plus interest. Grand Terrace officials used their L&M funds to construct and rehabilitate city offices, and to pay for the entire payroll and equipment costs of the City's code enforcement office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)