Picture of Crime in Grand Terrace:
The following article is deserving of comment. The hoods with a hat or sweat shirt and dope, and a spray can will still visit the park and not be identifiable for arrest by the one cop town sheriff while they are booking a person at central booking. Do a blog search, there is crime here, and with the Town Center Development, we are just inviting More Crime to Grand Terrace.
How about putting cameras on Barton Road, and ticket speeders and cars that don't respect pedestrian traffic at De Berry and Mt. Vernon, where the Jr. High School students cross. How about putting speeder cameras on those down slope roads where drivers let their cars just run free.
How about, putting cameras and audio devices in the Back Rooms of the Chambers Offices and meeting rooms.
I suggest to all businesses in Grand Terrace they should install a camera and post the signs, and let the live cam web cast of Grand Terrace go forth. We should be able to click and see who's hanging out at Starbucks, or the Donut Shop. Is that Tom Schwabs car??? Here or there??? How fun.
This blog is a direct result of the City not being able to inform the Public with real crime information. What is published here are the Arrests. We can't get detail on Calls to dispatch, nor is there away to find out how much is unreported because to call the sheriff is equal to a 3 to 4 hour wait for an officer to show up to take the call. What is Reported to the FBI is the minimum of the serriouse crime.
People just don't report car breakins, theft of personal property and so forth. If you call this type of crime in, it will easily take 3 hours to have an officer to show up to take a report. The dispatcher even tries to tell you that it isn't worth the officer's time to file a report on things like car breakins, theft, and so forth. Wait you will, for shift changes, bookings, and calls to aid other cities.
Cameras are good, who will do the watching. Who will follow up. on what is recorded? Let the City be entertained, let it have a live feed to the web.
Article Display Date: 3/31/2006 12:00 AM
GT expects better cameras to deter crime at parks
Stephen Wall, Staff WriterSan Bernardino County Sun
GRAND TERRACE - The city prides itself on being one of the safest in the Inland Empire - and has a plan to keep it that way.
The last homicide was nearly 20 years ago, and there are fewer crimes per capita than in Loma Linda, Redlands, Colton, Riverside and San Bernardino, according to FBI statistics.
In 2004, Grand Terrace had 16 reported violent crimes eight robberies, six assaults and two rapes, according to FBI numbers.
But despite the relative tranquillity, city officials have been dealing with a recent spike in graffiti and vandalism at Pico Park. To stop the problem from getting worse, officials plan to install video-surveillance cameras at the city's two parks and child-care center.
"We want people to know it's not easy pickings in Grand Terrace," Assistant City Manager Steve Berry said. "We want to continue to be a low-crime city."
The City Council on April 13 is expected to consider spending about $15,000 to put eight cameras at the child-care center and four each at Richard Rollins and Pico parks.
The new cameras are technologically superior to the portable battery-operated cameras that were installed at the parks about three years ago, Berry said.
The old motion-activated cameras, which will remain, could only take pictures of a small area of the park, Berry said.
The new solar-powered digital devices placed in tamper-proof boxes would be centrally mounted on the concession stand and restroom buildings, he said. They would face in all directions to capture activity throughout the parks.
The new systems can record 24 hours a day for 20 days before the material is automatically erased, Berry said.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, which provides law enforcement in the city, would be able to view the recorded images if a crime occurred, he said.
The cost for an entire camera system at each site is about $5,000 the same price as one of the old cameras, he said.
The new cameras would be accompanied by signs letting people know they are under video surveillance.
Residents and council members welcome the addition of the improved cameras.
"I think it could be a deterrent for vandalism, graffiti, drug activity and crimes against children if there were cameras in our community centers and parks," said Bobbie Forbes, a longtime resident and local real-estate agent.
Councilwoman Lee Ann Garcia said she wants families to feel safe when they go to the park.
"When you see repeated vandalism in one spot, there's got to be a way of stopping it," said Garcia, who has a 7-year-old son. "Unfortunately, there are some people out there who instead of thinking of the park as a nice place for a family outing, they think of it as a place to damage property."
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Read Post
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/v-print/story/14235756p-15056956c.html
Former Mayor Matteson misrepresents Jacobsen
At a public City Council Meeting Former Mayor Byron Matteson represented that he had negotiated successfully the sale of his property to Jacobsen Family Holdings.
At this point in time. The property is Still Owned by Matteson, and Not Jacobsen Family Holdings.
Is there some sort of political influence buying with what ever the deal is between Jacobsen and Matteson? Is this one of the lots that Jacobsen Family Holdings has an OPTION to purchase agreement on?
It is interesting that the Matteson Property was not part of the original Town Center Plan. The current Jacobsen Family Holding Plan for that property is the Mysterious Library that no one has decided how it will be funded, rented, leased.
Options run out, and the Property Owner will be paid a fee for having been under the agreement even if the purchase is not completed. Interesting if this is the case Matteson speaks for a Development, which "May" result in the sale of his property, but if it is an "Option" property he will still receive Payment. Payment for what, his speaking in the council chambers as a former mayor, or is there some other Power he holds over the Council, and City Manager? He has a vested interest, and there is a possibility he is just being paid to speak, and Jacobsen will not exercise the option to purchase his land.
The Press enterprise has quoted city sources as saying ALL BUT ONE PROPERTY has been acquired by Jacobsen Family Holdings. This is NOT TRUE. The City Redevelopment Agency Has some of the Properties, Some are still owned by the private citizens, and a few are under "OPTIONS". As long as a part of the property in the total development scheme is PUBLIC Redevelopment Agency Land/Funds the public should be allowed to view a full disclosure of the "DEALS" in particular, Deals negotiated with Former Mayors, and transactions handled by Terra Loma.
Development will happen. Who develops, How it is Developed, and What gets Developed should be carefully monitored by the Public. Personal Property Rights should not be sacrificed on the alter of the Redevelopment Agency or City Council Chamber's Floor.
At this point in time. The property is Still Owned by Matteson, and Not Jacobsen Family Holdings.
Is there some sort of political influence buying with what ever the deal is between Jacobsen and Matteson? Is this one of the lots that Jacobsen Family Holdings has an OPTION to purchase agreement on?
It is interesting that the Matteson Property was not part of the original Town Center Plan. The current Jacobsen Family Holding Plan for that property is the Mysterious Library that no one has decided how it will be funded, rented, leased.
Options run out, and the Property Owner will be paid a fee for having been under the agreement even if the purchase is not completed. Interesting if this is the case Matteson speaks for a Development, which "May" result in the sale of his property, but if it is an "Option" property he will still receive Payment. Payment for what, his speaking in the council chambers as a former mayor, or is there some other Power he holds over the Council, and City Manager? He has a vested interest, and there is a possibility he is just being paid to speak, and Jacobsen will not exercise the option to purchase his land.
The Press enterprise has quoted city sources as saying ALL BUT ONE PROPERTY has been acquired by Jacobsen Family Holdings. This is NOT TRUE. The City Redevelopment Agency Has some of the Properties, Some are still owned by the private citizens, and a few are under "OPTIONS". As long as a part of the property in the total development scheme is PUBLIC Redevelopment Agency Land/Funds the public should be allowed to view a full disclosure of the "DEALS" in particular, Deals negotiated with Former Mayors, and transactions handled by Terra Loma.
Development will happen. Who develops, How it is Developed, and What gets Developed should be carefully monitored by the Public. Personal Property Rights should not be sacrificed on the alter of the Redevelopment Agency or City Council Chamber's Floor.
Do Funds = Development Cortes Decisions?
Bea Cortes did receive sufficient votes to win her seat on the City Council. However, now that she is there it may be interesting to cross check who her financial supporters were and how her decisions are in support of their direct and sometimes indirect interests and not the interests of the Citizens or property owners in Grand Terrace.
The funds for her campaign all came from developers, trade unions, all from outside the City. So WHO does she serve?
In addition Her add with her photo and her Real Estate business interest is almost an affirmation of a serious conflict of interest. An advertisement as being in her Official Capacity Mayor Pro Tem, and Promoting Hispanic Development, AND the Fact she is part of the TERRA LOMA REALTY OFFICE all in the same advertisement, at a minimum, suggests impropriety.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
City of Grand Terrace Cases Ongoing:
Case SCVSS119897 - Complaints/Parties Topic OAC
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: PETITION
Filing Date: 10/22/2004
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRAND TERRACE , JOHNSON & SE DLACK First Paper Fee Paid
2 RESPONDENT CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Served 11/01/2004
3 RESPONDENT GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Served 11/01/2004
NEXT COURT DATE: 06/22/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: WRIT/CEQA.
Case SCVSS131530 - Complaints/Parties Topic Blue Mt. Senior Villas
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: PETITION
Filing Date: 10/26/2005
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
1 PETITIONER CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN , JOHNSON & SE DLACK
2 RESPONDENT CITY OF GRAND TERRACE HARPER & BURNS, LLP Answer 01/06/2006
3 RESPONDENT GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HARPER & BURNS, LLP Answer 01/06/2006
4 RESPONDENT CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING
5 REAL PARTY IN INTEREST CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING HECHT SOLBERG ROBINSON GOLDBERG & BAGLEY LL
NEXT COURT DATE: 05/31/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE(CEQA).
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: PETITION
Filing Date: 10/22/2004
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
Party Number Party Type Party Name Attorney Party Status
1 PETITIONER CITIZENS FOR A BETTER GRAND TERRACE , JOHNSON & SE DLACK First Paper Fee Paid
2 RESPONDENT CITY OF GRAND TERRACE Served 11/01/2004
3 RESPONDENT GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Served 11/01/2004
NEXT COURT DATE: 06/22/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: WRIT/CEQA.
Case SCVSS131530 - Complaints/Parties Topic Blue Mt. Senior Villas
Complaint Number: 1
Complaint Type: PETITION
Filing Date: 10/26/2005
Complaint Status: ACTIVE
1 PETITIONER CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE AND OPEN GOVERNMEN , JOHNSON & SE DLACK
2 RESPONDENT CITY OF GRAND TERRACE HARPER & BURNS, LLP Answer 01/06/2006
3 RESPONDENT GRAND TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HARPER & BURNS, LLP Answer 01/06/2006
4 RESPONDENT CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING
5 REAL PARTY IN INTEREST CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING HECHT SOLBERG ROBINSON GOLDBERG & BAGLEY LL
NEXT COURT DATE: 05/31/2006 8:30 AM DEPT. S8 HEARING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE(CEQA).
More Missrepresentations by Jacobesen
Jacobsen Family Holdings' Douglas Jacobsen stood in front of Grand Terrace Citizens saying they will have a continued or vested interest in Grand Terrace. Well here they are selling the Savon before it is even Open. Worse yet the flyer is not showing what the building really looks like. If a prospective buyer comes to town they will be faced with a LIE. Grand Terrace will equal LIE and Jacobsen Family Holdings. Just Guess which name will be forgotten First?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
WHAT EACH OF US CAN DO
ANY California voter can sign & mail this in!
print the petition here:
http://www.limiteminentdomain.org/downloads/Petition.pdf
directions for the signing petitions here:
http://www.limiteminentdomain.org/petition.htm
why everyone can help:
http://www.limiteminentdomain.org/help.htm
WHY CHOOSE OUR INITIATIVE
Why Support Our People's Initiative? Why so many initiatives on eminent domain?Are you competing with McClintock's initiatives?
Why support our People’s Initiative?
It is the simple, single issue Initiative which provides: “No eminent domain for private gain.”
Our “people’s initiative” is an all volunteer, non-partisan, grassroots effort that brings together people from every political persuasion. Our initiative was written by people representing the full spectrum of political values from conservative to liberal. One proponent of our initiative is an active Republican and one is an active Democrat. We have set aside our partisan differences to focus on this one all-important issue of protecting our homes, businesses and places of worship from eminent domain seizures for private gain. With public opinion polls showing 80-90% of Californians opposed to the use of eminent domain for private profit in the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, this is the one issue we can all get behind. Overwhelming public support for this one issue, and this one issue only, will end eminent domain abuse in California.
We call ourselves “The People’s Initiative” because we represent and base our campaign on a groundswell of support from ordinary Californians like you. We stand for a single-issuethat simply fixes the kind of abuse that has so outraged the nation in the Kelo decision. Our cause and our initiative is simply “no eminent domain for private gain.” Nothing has been added to attract funding from special interest groups to finance a paid signature gathering effort. We are not playing politics and using the public’s passion for eminent domain reform to further other political or economic agendas. We are using the initiative process in the way it was intended – to give voters a voice and a vote when the courts and our legislative process fails us.
This isn’t about politics, it’s about people. In her testimony at the Supreme Court, Suzette Kelo says it best: This battle against eminent domain abuse may have started as a way to save my little pink cottage, but it has rightfully grown into something much larger – the fight to restore the American Dream and the sacredness and security of each one of our homes.
Why so many initiatives on eminent domain?
Because the other initiatives have included other partisan issues. We filed a separate initiative that was written by Democrats and Republicans to be a nonpartisan proposal for the single issue of eminent domain reform: No Eminent Domain for economic gain.
The McClintock/Jarvis Taypayer Association Initiatives have made the decision to join eminent domain reform with other partisan issues of ending rent control and limiting regulations (such as environmental regulations) on land use. This strategy brings financial support from various lobbyist groups to fund a paid initiative drive, but these additional issues do not bring the kind of broad, nonpartisan support for eminent domain reform that has galvanized public opinion across political lines. They risk losing the majority of voters needed to pass our single most important issue: eminent domain reform: No eminent domain for economic gain.
Thank You
Batch of Arrests of Interest.
Arrests March 3/2006
These are listed in the Arrests of the Month list, however they are of particular interest to parents trying to be aware of risks to their children.
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603301377
DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 0427
ARREST DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 0304
LOC: DEBERRY/MICHIGAN
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: MARTINEZ FIRST: BECINTE MIDDLE:
DOB: 06/29/1984 SEX: M RACE: H HT: 5 08 WT: 185 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: NONE LISTED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11377(A) FEL ORIGINAL $10,000.00
HS11364 MISD SUPP A $1,450.00
HS11377. (a) Except as authorized by law and as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or Section 11375, or in Article 7 (commencing withSection 4211) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, every person who possesses any controlled substance which is (1) classified in Schedule III, IV, or V, and which is not a narcotic drug, (2) specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11054, except paragraphs (13), (14), (15), and (20) of subdivision (d), (3) specified in paragraph (11) of subdivision (c) of Section 11056, (4) specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (f) of Section11054, or (5) specified in subdivision (d), (e), or (f) of Section11055, unless upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, or veterinarian, licensed to practice in this state, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than one year or in the state prison.
HS11364. (a) It is unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully injecting or smoking (1) a controlled substance specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055, or (2) a controlled substance which is a narcotic drug classified in Schedule III, IV, or V.
Priors: Burglary, Auto Theft, Accessory, Possession of Pipe/Drug Paraphernalia and Failure to Wear Seat Belt.
______________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603301383
DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 1240
ARREST DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 1100
LOC: 22176 LARK ST.
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME:
FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: BELL FIRST: LARUE MIDDLE: TYRONE
DOB: 11/01/1976 SEX: M
RACE: B HT: 6 01 WT: 220 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: SECURITY
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC166(C)(4) MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL
PC1203.2 FEL SUPP A NO BAIL
PC496(A) FEL SUPP A
PC1203.2 FEL SUPP B NO BAIL
VC10851 FEL SUPP B
PC166 (C)(4) (4) A second or subsequent conviction for a violation of any order described in paragraph (1) occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for a violation of any of those orders and involving an act of violence or "a credible threat" of violence, as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 139, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
PC1203.2. (a) At any time during the probationary period of a person released on probation under the care of a probation officer pursuant to this chapter, or of a person released on conditional sentence orsummary probation not under the care of a probation officer, if any probation officer or peace officer has probable cause to believe that the probationer is violating any term or condition of his or her probation or conditional sentence, the officer may, without warrantor other process and at any time until the final disposition of the case, rearrest the person and bring him or her before the court or the court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant for his or her rearrest. Upon such rearrest, or upon the issuance of a warrant for rearrest the court may revoke and terminate such probation if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to believe from the report of the probation officer or otherwise that the person has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation, has become abandoned to improper associates or a vicious life, or has subsequently committed other offenses, regardless whether he or she has been prosecuted for such offenses. However, probation shall not be revoked for failure of a person to make restitution pursuant to Section 1203.04 as a condition of probation unless the court determines that the defendant has willfully failed to pay and has the ability to pay. Restitution shall be consistent with a person's ability to pay. The revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the probationary period.
PC496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year. However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that this action would be in the interests of justice, the district attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
VC10851. (a) Any person who drives or takes a vehicle not his or her own, without the consent of the owner thereof, and with intent either to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner thereof of his or her title to or possession of the vehicle, whether with or without intent to steal the vehicle, or any person who is a party or an accessory to or an accomplice in the driving or unauthorized taking or stealing, is guilty of a public offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
Priors: Possession of Controlled Substance (3x’s), Receive/Known Stolen Property, Auto Theft, Drive out of Classification, Failure to Appear, Speading, Failure to Appear, Driving with Suspended License (3x’s), Failure to Appear (3x’s), Speeding.
_____________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603301395
DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 2354
ARREST DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 2139
LOC: MINONA/ARLISS
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: ESTRADA FIRST: DANIEL MIDDLE:
DOB: 06/06/1977 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 6 03 WT: 209 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: OTHER
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC211 FEL ORIGINAL $50,000.00
PC273.5(A) FEL ORIGINAL
PC422 FEL ORIGINAL
PC459 FEL ORIGINAL
PC3056 FEL V18577 NO BAIL
PC211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
PC273.5. (a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, orthe mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison fortwo, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.
PC459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors andNavigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle asdefined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.
PC3056. Prisoners on parole shall remain under the legal custody of the department and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the in closure of the prison. Priors Include: DUI, Driving with Suspended License, Vandalism, Disorderly Conduct, Speeding, Failure to Appear, Possession of Ammo/Fire arms, Driving a Car without Plates, No Insurance, Several DUI’s.
________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603344141
DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 2101
ARREST DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 1842
LOC: PRESTON/BARTON AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: DEVELVIS FIRST: TAMI MIDDLE: SUE
DOB: 05/02/1976 SEX: F
RACE: W HT: 5 04 WT: 185 HAIR: BLN EYE COLOR: BLU
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC496D(A) FEL ORIGINAL $25,000.00
VC10851(A) FEL ORIGINAL
PC496d. (a) Every person who buys or receives any motor vehicle, as
defined in Section 415 of the Vehicle Code, any trailer, as defined in Section 630 of the Vehicle Code, any special construction equipment, as defined in Section 565 of the Vehicle Code, or any vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any motor vehicle, trailer, special construction equipment, or vessel from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.
VC10851. (a) Any person who drives or takes a vehicle not his or her own, without the consent of the owner thereof, and with intent either to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner thereof of his or her title to or possession of the vehicle, whether with or without intent to steal the vehicle, or any person who is a party or an accessory to or an accomplice in the driving or unauthorized taking or stealing, is guilty of a public offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
San Bernardino County Priors:
VC M14601.1(A) M DRIVE WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED 03/14/2006
___________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603301329
DATE: 03/26/2006 TIME: 0452
ARREST DATE: 03/26/2006 TIME: 0420
LOC: DEBERRY/MICHIGAN
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 03/26/2006 TIME: 1012
FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: AMAYA FIRST: OMAR MIDDLE: OROS
DOB: 04/03/1987 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 11 WT: 170 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: MAINTANCE
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
VC16028(A) OTH ORIGINAL $25,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
VC23152(A) MISD ORIGINAL
VC23152(B) MISD ORIGINAL
VC40508(A) MISD ORIGINAL
VC16028. (a) Upon the demand of a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (b) or upon the demand of a peace officer or traffic collision investigator pursuant to subdivision (c), every person who drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall provide evidence of financial responsibility for the vehicle that is in effect at the time the demand is made. However, a peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the vehicle is being driven in violation of this subdivision.
VC23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
VC23152 (b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.
VC40508. (a) A person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he or she was originally arrested.
No Priors as an ADULT: Clearly he had to have priors to violate a court appearance.
These are listed in the Arrests of the Month list, however they are of particular interest to parents trying to be aware of risks to their children.
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603301377
DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 0427
ARREST DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 0304
LOC: DEBERRY/MICHIGAN
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: MARTINEZ FIRST: BECINTE MIDDLE:
DOB: 06/29/1984 SEX: M RACE: H HT: 5 08 WT: 185 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: NONE LISTED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
HS11377(A) FEL ORIGINAL $10,000.00
HS11364 MISD SUPP A $1,450.00
HS11377. (a) Except as authorized by law and as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or Section 11375, or in Article 7 (commencing withSection 4211) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, every person who possesses any controlled substance which is (1) classified in Schedule III, IV, or V, and which is not a narcotic drug, (2) specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11054, except paragraphs (13), (14), (15), and (20) of subdivision (d), (3) specified in paragraph (11) of subdivision (c) of Section 11056, (4) specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (f) of Section11054, or (5) specified in subdivision (d), (e), or (f) of Section11055, unless upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, or veterinarian, licensed to practice in this state, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than one year or in the state prison.
HS11364. (a) It is unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully injecting or smoking (1) a controlled substance specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), or paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, specified in paragraph (14), (15), or (20) of subdivision (d) of Section 11054, specified in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11055, or specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055, or (2) a controlled substance which is a narcotic drug classified in Schedule III, IV, or V.
Priors: Burglary, Auto Theft, Accessory, Possession of Pipe/Drug Paraphernalia and Failure to Wear Seat Belt.
______________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603301383
DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 1240
ARREST DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 1100
LOC: 22176 LARK ST.
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME:
FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: BELL FIRST: LARUE MIDDLE: TYRONE
DOB: 11/01/1976 SEX: M
RACE: B HT: 6 01 WT: 220 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: SECURITY
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC166(C)(4) MISD ORIGINAL NO BAIL
PC1203.2 FEL SUPP A NO BAIL
PC496(A) FEL SUPP A
PC1203.2 FEL SUPP B NO BAIL
VC10851 FEL SUPP B
PC166 (C)(4) (4) A second or subsequent conviction for a violation of any order described in paragraph (1) occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for a violation of any of those orders and involving an act of violence or "a credible threat" of violence, as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 139, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
PC1203.2. (a) At any time during the probationary period of a person released on probation under the care of a probation officer pursuant to this chapter, or of a person released on conditional sentence orsummary probation not under the care of a probation officer, if any probation officer or peace officer has probable cause to believe that the probationer is violating any term or condition of his or her probation or conditional sentence, the officer may, without warrantor other process and at any time until the final disposition of the case, rearrest the person and bring him or her before the court or the court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant for his or her rearrest. Upon such rearrest, or upon the issuance of a warrant for rearrest the court may revoke and terminate such probation if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to believe from the report of the probation officer or otherwise that the person has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation, has become abandoned to improper associates or a vicious life, or has subsequently committed other offenses, regardless whether he or she has been prosecuted for such offenses. However, probation shall not be revoked for failure of a person to make restitution pursuant to Section 1203.04 as a condition of probation unless the court determines that the defendant has willfully failed to pay and has the ability to pay. Restitution shall be consistent with a person's ability to pay. The revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the probationary period.
PC496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year. However, if the district attorney or the grand jury determines that this action would be in the interests of justice, the district attorney or the grand jury, as the case may be, may, if the value of the property does not exceed four hundred dollars ($400), specify in the accusatory pleading that the offense shall be a misdemeanor, punishable only by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.
VC10851. (a) Any person who drives or takes a vehicle not his or her own, without the consent of the owner thereof, and with intent either to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner thereof of his or her title to or possession of the vehicle, whether with or without intent to steal the vehicle, or any person who is a party or an accessory to or an accomplice in the driving or unauthorized taking or stealing, is guilty of a public offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
Priors: Possession of Controlled Substance (3x’s), Receive/Known Stolen Property, Auto Theft, Drive out of Classification, Failure to Appear, Speading, Failure to Appear, Driving with Suspended License (3x’s), Failure to Appear (3x’s), Speeding.
_____________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603301395
DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 2354
ARREST DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 2139
LOC: MINONA/ARLISS
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: CENTRAL D.C.
NAME:
LAST: ESTRADA FIRST: DANIEL MIDDLE:
DOB: 06/06/1977 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 6 03 WT: 209 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: OTHER
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC211 FEL ORIGINAL $50,000.00
PC273.5(A) FEL ORIGINAL
PC422 FEL ORIGINAL
PC459 FEL ORIGINAL
PC3056 FEL V18577 NO BAIL
PC211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.
PC273.5. (a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, orthe mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison fortwo, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.
PC459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors andNavigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle asdefined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises.
PC3056. Prisoners on parole shall remain under the legal custody of the department and shall be subject at any time to be taken back within the in closure of the prison. Priors Include: DUI, Driving with Suspended License, Vandalism, Disorderly Conduct, Speeding, Failure to Appear, Possession of Ammo/Fire arms, Driving a Car without Plates, No Insurance, Several DUI’s.
________________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603344141
DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 2101
ARREST DATE: 03/27/2006 TIME: 1842
LOC: PRESTON/BARTON AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
NAME:
LAST: DEVELVIS FIRST: TAMI MIDDLE: SUE
DOB: 05/02/1976 SEX: F
RACE: W HT: 5 04 WT: 185 HAIR: BLN EYE COLOR: BLU
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC496D(A) FEL ORIGINAL $25,000.00
VC10851(A) FEL ORIGINAL
PC496d. (a) Every person who buys or receives any motor vehicle, as
defined in Section 415 of the Vehicle Code, any trailer, as defined in Section 630 of the Vehicle Code, any special construction equipment, as defined in Section 565 of the Vehicle Code, or any vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any motor vehicle, trailer, special construction equipment, or vessel from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years or a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.
VC10851. (a) Any person who drives or takes a vehicle not his or her own, without the consent of the owner thereof, and with intent either to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner thereof of his or her title to or possession of the vehicle, whether with or without intent to steal the vehicle, or any person who is a party or an accessory to or an accomplice in the driving or unauthorized taking or stealing, is guilty of a public offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or in the state prison or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.
San Bernardino County Priors:
VC M14601.1(A) M DRIVE WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED 03/14/2006
___________________________________________
BOOKING NUMBER: 0603301329
DATE: 03/26/2006 TIME: 0452
ARREST DATE: 03/26/2006 TIME: 0420
LOC: DEBERRY/MICHIGAN
AGENCY: GRANDTERRACE CITY
RELEASE DATE: 03/26/2006 TIME: 1012
FACILITY:
NAME:
LAST: AMAYA FIRST: OMAR MIDDLE: OROS
DOB: 04/03/1987 SEX: M
RACE: H HT: 5 11 WT: 170 HAIR: MUL EYE COLOR: BRO
OCCUPATION: MAINTANCE
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
VC16028(A) OTH ORIGINAL $25,000.00 MISD-WARRANT
VC23152(A) MISD ORIGINAL
VC23152(B) MISD ORIGINAL
VC40508(A) MISD ORIGINAL
VC16028. (a) Upon the demand of a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (b) or upon the demand of a peace officer or traffic collision investigator pursuant to subdivision (c), every person who drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall provide evidence of financial responsibility for the vehicle that is in effect at the time the demand is made. However, a peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the vehicle is being driven in violation of this subdivision.
VC23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
VC23152 (b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle. For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.
VC40508. (a) A person willfully violating his or her written promise to appear or a lawfully granted continuance of his or her promise to appear in court or before a person authorized to receive a deposit of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which he or she was originally arrested.
No Priors as an ADULT: Clearly he had to have priors to violate a court appearance.
Monday, March 27, 2006
From Email Inbox: Eminent Domain Resistance
Eminent Domain Seen as NOT an OPTION in ORANGE County Cities:
http://www.cfrw.org/legislation/legislationupdate.php?date=2005-07-22
The first question that came to my mind was, who determines the definition of blight--the state/local government, the redevelopment agency, the property owner? As you may have already surmised, the definition is wide open for interpretation and is widely abused. Incidents of abuse can be seen in eminent domain cases in the cities of Garden Grove, Lake Elsinore, Fresno, and San Bernardino (see Click here:
http://www.claremont.org/projects/local_gov/essays/kelo.htm),
and those are just the tip of the iceberg.
What is being done in California to curtail these abuses and the rein in the effects of the Kelo decision? Assemblymember Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel) has introduced amendments to her Assembly Bill 590 to specifically address this issue.
Assembly Bill 590 would amend Section 1240.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to eminent domain; AB 590 would specifically prevent local governments from using the Kelo decision to take private property for private business development.
The California Constitution authorizes governmental entities to take or damage private property for public use only when just compensation, determined by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into the court for, the owner. The Eminent Domain Law authorizes public entities (government) to acquire property only for public use. Assemblymember Mimi Walters bill would provide that public use does not include the taking or damaging of property for private use, including, but not limited to, the condemnation of non-blighted property for private business development.
I would urge support of Assembly Bill 590.
I would also like to congratulate Orange City Council for expressing unanimous opposition to the Kelo decision.
The right to own property is a fundamental part of the United States Constitution, and yes, it is a civil right. Finally, something Republicans, Democrats, Independents and even Libertarians can agree upon.
A link for you
THE City of Grand Terrace Posts News and Updates HERE, on Occation.
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/about_city/news_bulletins.html
Please note, Trash Day April 8th. Same drill as last time.
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/about_city/news_bulletins.html
Please note, Trash Day April 8th. Same drill as last time.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
From The Email InBox:
Dear GrampaTerrace:
Two men were walking down Barton Rd. taking pictures of the NORTH side of Barton Rd between Canal and Michigan. When asked, they said they were architects working for a developer. When asked if the developer was Jacobsen, they said yes. They said they were only architects and they weren't planning on developing, only taking the pictures.
GrampaTerrace thinks, "Here they Come Again", Do we have any reason to think well of Jacobsen?
Two men were walking down Barton Rd. taking pictures of the NORTH side of Barton Rd between Canal and Michigan. When asked, they said they were architects working for a developer. When asked if the developer was Jacobsen, they said yes. They said they were only architects and they weren't planning on developing, only taking the pictures.
GrampaTerrace thinks, "Here they Come Again", Do we have any reason to think well of Jacobsen?
Does Jacobsen have eyes on the land between the School and Starbucks on the North Side of Barton Road? Has he been given the verbal Go a Head? How will citizens and land owners know? As long as there is a Tom Schwab as Dictator of the City, and a City Council willing to endorse his every whim, and use the power of zoneing, Private Exclusive Development Deals, and Eminent Domain landowners, business operators, and home owners are mere share croppers or temporary holders of the land to be pushed off at the Will of the Dictator, the Greed ot the Developer, and the Realty Faction who make money each time a plot of land is sold.
They are at your curb looking with eyes of greed on your property. You must stop all Eminent Domain in Grand Terrace, where it is for "Redevelopment" and not for Schools, or Roads, or true Public Works.
Eminent Domain HAS TO BE STOPPED.
Stop it in Grand Terrace.
Let Real Land Ownership be
a point of PRIDE in Grand Terrace.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Specific Design Requirements vs Specific PLAN
LOOK: At the City WEB PAGE:There are many design "Recommendations" and "Requirements" in the Specific Plan for the "Town Center area".. It would be prudent for the proposed Developers to Meet or Exceed these REQUIREMENTS. THESE requirements caused some of the past land owners to be UNABLE to develop their property or sell it to someone other than the City's NO BID or Competitive Selection, Hand Selected Developer aka Jacobsen Family Holdings. The Developer taking advantage of obtaining property from owners burdened by the specific Plan Requirements and then NOT have to follow those same requirements. Trees, walks, green spaces, buffers between development and Homes, and so forth.
Or will the Planning Commission and City Council, just do what it is told to do by City Manager/Redevelopment Agency Director: Dictator Tom Schwab? Terra Loma Realty has benefited by the negotiations of the sales of these properties. Who Else has gotten their Cut of the Deals? When it is all done, no matter who the developer is, WE have to LIVE with what is built.
The Issues are:
Who Builds Where.
What they Build.
How it will look.
Will Eminent Domain Be Used in Grand Terrace, to take property from a Private Party, and sold to a Private Party.
Was the Specific Plan Adoption effectively a Taking of the Property of the Prior Owners as it restricted the use, and development of the property in such a way it precluded them from enjoying the full value or potential of their property. Are legal actions pending?
These are separate Issues tangled into the dealings orchestrated by City Dictator Tom Schwab.
see full Specific Plan on the Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/pdf/BRSP.pdf
City Managers and Their "Friends
Things to Be Cautious OF:
Please read and give Consideration:
Section 18.20.020 Barton Road Specific Plan:
The Barton Road Specific Plan as referenced is located along Barton Road. It contains guidelines for commercial and office development within three sub areas of the Specific Plan;
General Commercial (GC), Village Commercial (VC) and Office/Professional (AP). The Barton Road Specific Plan as adopted on January 11, 1990 and as may be amended thereafter, is made a part of this title in its entirety.
The Design Standards are also available on the City's Web Page. Guess What, None of the 40 Something Plans Jacobson Family Holdings has provided are close to the Design Requirements.
Please read and give Consideration:
Section 18.20.020 Barton Road Specific Plan:
The Barton Road Specific Plan as referenced is located along Barton Road. It contains guidelines for commercial and office development within three sub areas of the Specific Plan;
General Commercial (GC), Village Commercial (VC) and Office/Professional (AP). The Barton Road Specific Plan as adopted on January 11, 1990 and as may be amended thereafter, is made a part of this title in its entirety.
The Design Standards are also available on the City's Web Page. Guess What, None of the 40 Something Plans Jacobson Family Holdings has provided are close to the Design Requirements.
Water Company Plan Approved a Second Look
Dear GrandPa Terrace,We do need to talk.I find the candor of your blog refreshing and the crime reporting, events coming up and posting of the Council and Planning Commission are a great gift to the City of Grand Terrace. It does fill a real need.
I do understand it is your personal blog and you have every right to publish what you want because you are paying the bills. With that said I would appreciate the following adjustments being presented to your readers.
The Zoning Map you have posted has a slight error which should be corrected.(See attached) The Grand Terrace Elementary Campus is zoned PublicFacilities and should be green. The map supplied to you shows it as commercial. It is a minor point in that it is State property and no matter what the City zones it, the State will decide its use.Same for the new high school - the Colton Joint Unified School District answers to the State and if they say it is a high school site, it is a high school site.
The contaminated piece mentioned a few weeks ago is not shown as contaminated on any zoning map but it does exist. For your general information it is theold plating site along Main Street that the City now owns and is using CDBG(Federal) Money to clean up. Then the City will give it to the high schoolsite for a parking lot........
Above is a portion of an Email From Councilmember Herman Hilkey
Mr. Hilkey:
Thank you for recognizing some good in the publishing of the Blog. As far as who pays the bill it is only a matter of time. The city could share information via a blog and only time would be the issue, not added equipment, software, or much training. It is a matter of no will to share information which precludes data sharing. Blogs are FREE, and many site providers provide Free storage space.
I will address the items as you have provided the evidence. In regards to the Map provided being in error. However, I will tell you the map came from the City of Grand Terrace Web Page.
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/business/zoning_code/zmap_gif.gif
Also I will tell you that the City's Record of Land Zone and the County's Don't Match. I will also suggest that Land Ownership is recorded at the web site:
https://nppublic.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/newpims/PimsInterface.aspx
It is interesting to go there and check the difference between the City's Maps and the County Records, and publicly made statements of who own's what, and how it is taxed.
posted by GrandPaTerrace at Tuesday, April 11, 2006
In trying to understand the location of the Proposed Water Company Offices, Garage, Storage Yard, sand lot, and asphalt storage issues I looked up for the most recent maps available on the City's Web Site.
Yep, it looks like the Planning commissioner was WRONG, it is not ZONED Light Commercial, IT IS ZONED .... RESIDENTIAL... And the Water Company's REPRESENTATION was that the PUMP HOUSE would LOOK like a residence and that is how they acquired the purchase and made their original representation. They represented the House, will cover the pump and YOU'LL never know it is not just another house in the neighborhood.
Now Mr. Hilkey Brought the Map Snafu to Mr. Schwab: and the answer is ..... Yes the Elementary School is Zoned Commercial. This may be why some of the city staff gleefuly has said the Community Center is not going to be there much longer. Hmmm things adding up yet folks?
Notice also on this map, the entire lot where GRAND TERRACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS LOCATED IS MARKED COMMERCIAL.
SO again, how can a citizen, be protected. Buying even developing land or property in Grand Terrace is a Crap Shoot. Zone Zone who knows the Zone, Ownership who cares, Eminent Domain can take care of any silly person who "Owns" property.
The "Simple Office Space" includes Offices for Board Members, and A Private Gym for Employees and Board Members, and a Meeting Room. This is not the best use of this property, nor is it what the citizens or the council originally approved. In addition, the Plans include a Metal Garage.
This will no doubt end up in court, for environmental issues, including, noise, traffic, vermin, pesticide, and herbicide use in an area which runoff will end up in the Santa Anna River.
As both a citizen of Grand Terrace and a member of the Stock holders of the Water Company We should all be distressed by this fraud being enacted. It is becoming apparent that anyone owning property on the west side of Michigan is in the situation they live in an area that is so BLIGHTED the city feels it can do what ever it pleases in that area.
Notice that the Red area near the High School is Toxic, and the land or Zone for the land of the High School was Commercial... Manufacturing.
CHILDREN/YOUTH NOT SAFE ALONE IN GT
A male trying to abduct children around our Schools and the
Crest Apartments and around GT has not been caught.
We all need to keep our eyes open, and our Children in pairs, or groups.
Keep an eye out ...
From : WE THE RESIDENTS OF GT
We The Residents of Grand Terrace a unique and separate association of citizens of our city want to share this information with the GrandTerracenews.blogspot readers.........
Another letter you can post from "wetheresidentsofgt@yahoo.com?
Our group we the residents took to the streets of Grand Terrace discussing the cons of the Barton Rd center, (Me included). We had three separate groups sampling 3 totally different areas. With info in hand we talked to about 100 GT residents, after all three groups returned we came back with the same sampling, approx 97% of the residents oppose a Lowe's in our city period! Take in consideration that was after we educated them on the facts.
I was surprised to lean about the broken Brown act, back door dealings with city Mgrs and Council etc.
I believe that all this will come out in the end if Jacobson fails to get the Lowe's developed. What has happened is Jacobson was convinced by City Mangers and many council to purchase the property at X-millions in exchange for a 100% sure approval through the planning commission and the City council (Many laws broken here) not to mention ethics.
Our group will be out again tomorrow for more of the same, where we really need to go from here is a petition. In some part of the wording should state that if any city employee, council member has promised Jacobson LLC that if he purchased the property that they would push it through without proper procedures that person would be removed from their possession.
The city has to do another updated Barton Road study at the very least.
After today's 100 residents conversations its now very clear to me that the City council feels that they will go ahead with this project to protect us the simple minded residents....
We need to take control of this and send a strong message to the council
I ashed the residents to show up to the council meeting with just 8 1/2 sheet of paper with slogans like "No dirty Lowes" No to Barton Rd project, etc. This is simple and easy for all residents that show up to make. This I kinda like what you see on day time talk show where the commentator carries a card, the the people in the audience stating their cause.
Thanks again
We The Residents of GT
wetheresidentsofgt@yahoo.com
Another letter you can post from "wetheresidentsofgt@yahoo.com?
Our group we the residents took to the streets of Grand Terrace discussing the cons of the Barton Rd center, (Me included). We had three separate groups sampling 3 totally different areas. With info in hand we talked to about 100 GT residents, after all three groups returned we came back with the same sampling, approx 97% of the residents oppose a Lowe's in our city period! Take in consideration that was after we educated them on the facts.
I was surprised to lean about the broken Brown act, back door dealings with city Mgrs and Council etc.
I believe that all this will come out in the end if Jacobson fails to get the Lowe's developed. What has happened is Jacobson was convinced by City Mangers and many council to purchase the property at X-millions in exchange for a 100% sure approval through the planning commission and the City council (Many laws broken here) not to mention ethics.
Our group will be out again tomorrow for more of the same, where we really need to go from here is a petition. In some part of the wording should state that if any city employee, council member has promised Jacobson LLC that if he purchased the property that they would push it through without proper procedures that person would be removed from their possession.
The city has to do another updated Barton Road study at the very least.
After today's 100 residents conversations its now very clear to me that the City council feels that they will go ahead with this project to protect us the simple minded residents....
We need to take control of this and send a strong message to the council
I ashed the residents to show up to the council meeting with just 8 1/2 sheet of paper with slogans like "No dirty Lowes" No to Barton Rd project, etc. This is simple and easy for all residents that show up to make. This I kinda like what you see on day time talk show where the commentator carries a card, the the people in the audience stating their cause.
Thanks again
We The Residents of GT
wetheresidentsofgt@yahoo.com
Friday, March 24, 2006
The Rescheduling of a Meeting GT Style:
WHO DELAYED the TOWN CENTER MEETING?
The Blog received an email Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:17:54 -0800 (PST) which said the emailer heard from someone at the Chamber of Commerce Office the Meeting was canceled or postponed. I emailed back asking for confirmation and the source from in the Chamber Commerce. The writer, tried to get a confirmation from that source, and that source became non committal as to the situation, The emailer called the City Offices and got a non responsive reply of the clerk answering the phone did not know.
It was not until much after the information was shared with some of the community, that the Principals of the Meeting were informed of it being rescheduled. The City delayed the meeting. The city should say, they delayed the meeting. The City should have been courteous enough to inform the Principals before the news was released to the Press Enterprise, or Friends of the Council who also associate with the Chamber of Commerce Bunch.
Just another case of RUDEness of the city to the citizens. Had enough YET?
The Blog received an email Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:17:54 -0800 (PST) which said the emailer heard from someone at the Chamber of Commerce Office the Meeting was canceled or postponed. I emailed back asking for confirmation and the source from in the Chamber Commerce. The writer, tried to get a confirmation from that source, and that source became non committal as to the situation, The emailer called the City Offices and got a non responsive reply of the clerk answering the phone did not know.
It was not until much after the information was shared with some of the community, that the Principals of the Meeting were informed of it being rescheduled. The City delayed the meeting. The city should say, they delayed the meeting. The City should have been courteous enough to inform the Principals before the news was released to the Press Enterprise, or Friends of the Council who also associate with the Chamber of Commerce Bunch.
Just another case of RUDEness of the city to the citizens. Had enough YET?
In Ms. Jo's Stringfield's own words: "If you want you can put on the blog, that my attorney and I did not ask fora delay in Thursday's meeting.We were surprised as anyone. It seemed the newspaper and a few in GrandTerrace, knew before we did.".
Meeting Rescheduled:
The Special Joint Meeting with the CRA/City Council and Planning Commission that was scheduled to be held on Thursday, March 23, 2006 has been canceled. This meeting will be rescheduled to April 13, 2006.
With the past display of preferance and defferance to Jacobsen Family Holdings is it a coincidence that the Mailing Campain to gain a Display of Public support for their Exclusive Development of the area know as Town Center was delayed to benefit Jacobsen Family Holdings presentation.
Is it possible that the Lack of a SIGNED Stater Brothers Lease as represented by the City Manager and Redevelopment Agency Director, Tom Schwab caused the need for Jacobsen Family Holdings to be more careful with their representions to the public?
Is it Possible that the Mailer's Misrepresntation of the Facts and Design of the Current Plan befor the Planning Commission is so far from a fair representation they had to REVISE the Date of the Meeting.
Is it Possible that Jacobsen Family Holdings is NOT DONATING the LIBRARY as apparently some Council Members and Friends of the Library Thought?
Some how in my gut, I don't think the meeting was rescheduled to accomodate Jo Stringfields presentation, or ability to fully participate as a citizen property owner of a piece of land in a Redevelopment Plan, and Area.
I think it is a further attempt to mislead the public to suggest that Jo Stringfield asked for or someway caused the city to reschedule the meeting. I think the City or Jacobesen Family Holdings wanted more time to collect their mailings, have the Friends of the Library collect signatures based on the faulty idea that there would be a FREE DONATED LIBRARY Building IF JACOBSEN is the developer. I think JACK BROWN may be giving a thought as to the character of Tom Schwab and Doug Jacobsen.
Given the other indicators and past behavior there is no reason to believe the City Manager's Honesty, or the Integrety of Jacobsen Family Holdings.
I wonder if the Not Returned Ballots of the Jacobsen Family Holdings Missleading Mailers will be counted as NO votes against Jacobsen Family Holdings being the Developer Exclusively of the Town Center.
It is not only a question of WHAT gets built, but also HOW, WHO, and to WHO's Benefit or Detriment. It is a question of how the City Protects the PROPERTY RIGHTS of Citizens and Businesses in the City. It is an issue larger than Jo Stringfield vs Jacobsen Family Holdings. Larger than Lowes, Larger than an Uber Stater Brothers Market. That's an ISSUE not Politics.
Isn't it interesting that no one at the City Notified this Blog that the Meeting had changed. When in fact it is known that members of the Council, and City Staff read this blog, and have in the past asked that things be posted. This shows further disregard for the citizens and just plain rudeness on their part.
With the past display of preferance and defferance to Jacobsen Family Holdings is it a coincidence that the Mailing Campain to gain a Display of Public support for their Exclusive Development of the area know as Town Center was delayed to benefit Jacobsen Family Holdings presentation.
Is it possible that the Lack of a SIGNED Stater Brothers Lease as represented by the City Manager and Redevelopment Agency Director, Tom Schwab caused the need for Jacobsen Family Holdings to be more careful with their representions to the public?
Is it Possible that the Mailer's Misrepresntation of the Facts and Design of the Current Plan befor the Planning Commission is so far from a fair representation they had to REVISE the Date of the Meeting.
Is it Possible that Jacobsen Family Holdings is NOT DONATING the LIBRARY as apparently some Council Members and Friends of the Library Thought?
Some how in my gut, I don't think the meeting was rescheduled to accomodate Jo Stringfields presentation, or ability to fully participate as a citizen property owner of a piece of land in a Redevelopment Plan, and Area.
I think it is a further attempt to mislead the public to suggest that Jo Stringfield asked for or someway caused the city to reschedule the meeting. I think the City or Jacobesen Family Holdings wanted more time to collect their mailings, have the Friends of the Library collect signatures based on the faulty idea that there would be a FREE DONATED LIBRARY Building IF JACOBSEN is the developer. I think JACK BROWN may be giving a thought as to the character of Tom Schwab and Doug Jacobsen.
Given the other indicators and past behavior there is no reason to believe the City Manager's Honesty, or the Integrety of Jacobsen Family Holdings.
I wonder if the Not Returned Ballots of the Jacobsen Family Holdings Missleading Mailers will be counted as NO votes against Jacobsen Family Holdings being the Developer Exclusively of the Town Center.
It is not only a question of WHAT gets built, but also HOW, WHO, and to WHO's Benefit or Detriment. It is a question of how the City Protects the PROPERTY RIGHTS of Citizens and Businesses in the City. It is an issue larger than Jo Stringfield vs Jacobsen Family Holdings. Larger than Lowes, Larger than an Uber Stater Brothers Market. That's an ISSUE not Politics.
Isn't it interesting that no one at the City Notified this Blog that the Meeting had changed. When in fact it is known that members of the Council, and City Staff read this blog, and have in the past asked that things be posted. This shows further disregard for the citizens and just plain rudeness on their part.
Grand Terrace City News: Additional Perspectives
The Grand Terrace City News: (Not associated with this GrandTerraceNews Blogspot), has printed in the paid advertisement an interesting point of view on the Town Center Project and Debate.
Carefully read the above pictures of the advertisement.
Of note are several points.
First: The Jacobsen Family Holdings Plan for the LIBRARY is not a Donation. NO DONATED LIBRARY is in the WORKS for Town Center. NO County Library Contract Exists to Build or Lease a new facility in Grand Terrace.
There is a budget for shelves and furniture or was, some of those items are already in use in our library where it is now located.
Second: Yes, the Old Kmart is a better location for LOWES. This is an idea this Blog has promoted for a long time now.
Third: There is not a NEED to move Stater's in order to have an improved Stater Brothers.
Fourth: Who develops the Town Center and What is Included in the Town Center WILL have a major impact on the community. This blog is not a NO DEVELOPMENT position. This Blog, is concerned with the PROPERTY RIGHTS and FREEDOM of PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS and PRIVATE BUSINESSES who do NOT have BACKROOM, EXCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT DEALS with the CITY or CITY MANAGER or REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Fifth: A Public Library can ONLY be placed in the Town Center Development. ALL would support a new library. OWNED as a PUBLIC BUILDING. However, its location may be better suited as a complement to the New High School and incorporated in that Site Plan and Facility Design. By a collaborative effort the Citizens of Grand Terrace and the Students Attending High School would be better and more efficiently served with better facilities and access.
By all means contact your City Council Members, and the City Management.
It is Great to see more discussion of the ISSUES facing Grand Terrace. Let's HOPE the Council hears the Residents of Grand Terrace. Statements made to the Press indicate they have already set a predisposed default decision that Jacobsen Family Planning will have their way with the Town Center Development including the Big Box Lowes, and Uber Stater Brothers.
<bcortes@cityofgrandterrace.org>,
<citymanager@cityofgrandterrace.org>,
<hhilkey@cityofgrandterrace.org>, "
<jmiller@cityofgrandterrace.org>,
<lgarcia@cityofgrandterrace.org>,
<mferre@cityofgrandterrace.org>,
Residents of Grand Terrace also have an email address:
WeTheResidentsOfGT@yahoo.com
They seek your support in their views not your financial support.
Of course, the Blog runs entirely on the same standard. We are UNPAID, and Do not Charge for the Blog in ANY WAY.. We are an Add Free Blog. GrandPaTerrace is NOT Running For Any OFFICE, this is an ISSUES based Information Blog.
Jacobsen's New Vote Mailer: Not So Clear After All
Jacobsen Family Holdings:
Continues to mislead Citizens while trying to gain support for their total control of the Town Center Development.
Deception 1: The Mailer indicates or leads the reader to believe that IF they don't do the Development, No Development will take Place, and NO increase of "Services" will be provided.
Deception 2: It is IMPLIED that the Library Plan is Approved and Funded by the County, or some Source. IT has never been said they will DONATE a LIBRARY Space.
Deception 3: It is IMPLIED that there is revenue gain by moving Stater Brothers from one place to another place down the road. NOT the case.
Deception 4: It is IMPLIED that the "Other Option" is NO DEVELOPMENT AT ALL.
Deception 5: The drawings of the Building with water fall and walkways is NOT what is their Current Plan as submitted to the Planning Commission. PLAN number 40 something.
Deception 6: The Stater Brothers has to be located at the Town Center no other option is possible within the city, and that creating a HIGH TRAFFIC area Across from the Elementary School is the ONLY OPTION for the Town Center.
Deception 7: The added Sales Tax and Property Tax revenue will be Larger than the expenses to the City if Jacobsen Family Holdings develops the Town Center, than if alternatives were selected. Alternative Developments would increase Sales Tax Revenue, and Property Tax Revenues, and Provide for lower risk and cost to the City.
Deception 8: They are concerned for the Citizens of this City.
Notice, there is not a way to VOTE NO or VOTE for ALTERNATIVE on their Mailer. Will they be providing the number of no response as an indication of a lack of Support for their Project?
Readership Continues to Grow
GrandTerraceNews Blogspot Readership continues to grow.
This is a free blog, providing information to Grand Terrace Citizens.
Anyone wishing to post may email their article and attachments to GrandTerraceNews@yahoo.com
We are a Blog that has a "G" Moral Code, and that is the only reason the posts go through a read prior to posting.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
UPDATE to Meeting Tonight: Postponed by CITY
The Special Joint Meeting with the CRA/City Council and Planning Commission that was scheduled to be held on Thursday, March 23, 2006 has been canceled. This meeting will be rescheduled to April 13, 2006.
JACOBSEN has spent a ton of money distributing mailers to our neighbors inorder to encourage them to mail in a response card for the "Village Town Square", of which is really Lowes. It included a beautiful picture of a fountain and promised thousands in revenue for our city to be able to increase protection for it's citizens.
Lowes does not belong on our main street. It does not belong in the same neighborhood as our elementary schools. Keep our kids safe. Show up tonight at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council/Planning Commission Meeting and tell our elected officials it's time to represent our citizens and vote no on the Lowes project.
It's time to go back to the drawing board!
JACOBSEN has spent a ton of money distributing mailers to our neighbors inorder to encourage them to mail in a response card for the "Village Town Square", of which is really Lowes. It included a beautiful picture of a fountain and promised thousands in revenue for our city to be able to increase protection for it's citizens.
Lowes does not belong on our main street. It does not belong in the same neighborhood as our elementary schools. Keep our kids safe. Show up tonight at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council/Planning Commission Meeting and tell our elected officials it's time to represent our citizens and vote no on the Lowes project.
It's time to go back to the drawing board!
Arrest Report
For those of you who forget... and you know who you are... the Arrests are updated nearly daily, but are listed in one post at the beginning of the month. So if you want to read the arrest report, click for the month of March, 2006 and scroll down to the beginning of the month... Or just do a search at the top of the page, "this blog only" and put March Arrest... and bingo.. you'll find what you are looking for.
More Dui/Drug, and some Fraud type arrests... not to mention the calls into dispatch that don't result in an arrest.
More Dui/Drug, and some Fraud type arrests... not to mention the calls into dispatch that don't result in an arrest.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Alt Energy
GRAND TERRACE
City promoting alternative fuels
Grand Terrace is continuing its drive to become a green city, officials said. The city recently installed three compressed-natural gas stations for alternative fueling for its trucks.
In addition, Clean Fuel Connection Inc. in Arcadia soon will be retrofitting the city's two electric-charging stations with new small-paddle inductive chargers, Assistant City Manager Steve Berry said.
The electric-charging stations are located at City Hall and in the Stater Bros. shopping center.
City promoting alternative fuels
Grand Terrace is continuing its drive to become a green city, officials said. The city recently installed three compressed-natural gas stations for alternative fueling for its trucks.
In addition, Clean Fuel Connection Inc. in Arcadia soon will be retrofitting the city's two electric-charging stations with new small-paddle inductive chargers, Assistant City Manager Steve Berry said.
The electric-charging stations are located at City Hall and in the Stater Bros. shopping center.
From the Email InBox
Open Request to Jack Brown of Stater Brother's Markets:
"We told them if that's what the folks in Grand Terrace want, we would be happy to do that. Since then, our only commitment is, if that is what the folks in Grand Terrace want, that's what we will do." This is the exact quote from Mr. Jack Brown in an article that appeared March 18 in the Press-Enterprise.
I must have missed the Town Hall meeting Mr. Brown held to find out what the folks want. There has been negotiating with Jacobsen, who has no vested interest here other than to make a quick buck, and the City. The City, which represents only developers not the "folks", have ignored every person that went before them to state their objections to the Town Center for many reasons. Some listed on this site.The only person they don't ignore is Jacobsen's plea to start the process of eminent domain on a resident.
So here is a suggestion Mr. Brown. Hold a meeting away from City Hall and away from Jacobsen. Do not invite Mr.Schwab or any council member or the circle of special real estate and developer friends of the Mayor and a few of the Council. Invite Jo Stringfield and the average working family. Ask them how they feel about the Town Center. Ask if they have a concern about a shopping center anchored by you that will have day laborers within a few feet of their children that will use a public library. Ask about traffic,the revenue that is projected and let the "folks" that shop at your store( anyone seen Jacobsen shopping there) have a real say so in what happens to their community. That is something that the City Council will not do. Here is a chance Mr. Brown to really show that your store is a part of this community and not a part of the community that only sees us as a source for a fast profit.
PLEASE HOLD YOUR OWN TOWN MEETING AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT SPEND WITH YOU.
"We told them if that's what the folks in Grand Terrace want, we would be happy to do that. Since then, our only commitment is, if that is what the folks in Grand Terrace want, that's what we will do." This is the exact quote from Mr. Jack Brown in an article that appeared March 18 in the Press-Enterprise.
I must have missed the Town Hall meeting Mr. Brown held to find out what the folks want. There has been negotiating with Jacobsen, who has no vested interest here other than to make a quick buck, and the City. The City, which represents only developers not the "folks", have ignored every person that went before them to state their objections to the Town Center for many reasons. Some listed on this site.The only person they don't ignore is Jacobsen's plea to start the process of eminent domain on a resident.
So here is a suggestion Mr. Brown. Hold a meeting away from City Hall and away from Jacobsen. Do not invite Mr.Schwab or any council member or the circle of special real estate and developer friends of the Mayor and a few of the Council. Invite Jo Stringfield and the average working family. Ask them how they feel about the Town Center. Ask if they have a concern about a shopping center anchored by you that will have day laborers within a few feet of their children that will use a public library. Ask about traffic,the revenue that is projected and let the "folks" that shop at your store( anyone seen Jacobsen shopping there) have a real say so in what happens to their community. That is something that the City Council will not do. Here is a chance Mr. Brown to really show that your store is a part of this community and not a part of the community that only sees us as a source for a fast profit.
PLEASE HOLD YOUR OWN TOWN MEETING AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT SPEND WITH YOU.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
From the Email Inbox
Email Sent to Jo: and Forwarded to Grandpa:
I'm not sure I'll to be able to attend the meeting this time.However, I wondered if anyone has thought about the children with any ofthe plans - at least your plan keeps the library away from the Lowes parking lot.
I think it is inherently unsafe to have a school and a library with a Lowes in between the two buildings.How will the children be protected here? A sex offender could hide in the Lowes parking lot to scope out the children.Off the freeway, snatch a child, back on the freeway again.Will Grand Terrace become the Pedophile Capital of the world? The prospect appalls me.Is anyone addressing this issue?
XXXXXXX
I'm not sure I'll to be able to attend the meeting this time.However, I wondered if anyone has thought about the children with any ofthe plans - at least your plan keeps the library away from the Lowes parking lot.
I think it is inherently unsafe to have a school and a library with a Lowes in between the two buildings.How will the children be protected here? A sex offender could hide in the Lowes parking lot to scope out the children.Off the freeway, snatch a child, back on the freeway again.Will Grand Terrace become the Pedophile Capital of the world? The prospect appalls me.Is anyone addressing this issue?
XXXXXXX
From the Email InBox
Friends of Library Petition Drive Pushed by Ann Petta
Ann Petta has for some reason activated the "Friends of the Library" to support the Jacobsen Family Holdings Development Proposal in preference to the Stringfield Development Plan.
The Cover Letter does indicate that Both Plans have a Library included in the design.
However, they only question how Stringfield could build the library? I would assume the same way Jacobsen would, cement rebar and a building design.
The real question the Friends of the Library should be asking who is going to PAY for the Library they want? The County has not provided for rent or lease of the current space. The city gives the Library its limited funds and space as it is. Jacobsen is not GIFTING the Building to the City, or County. So the Friends of the Library should look for the Funding Commitments before weighing in on which Developer should build a Library Building.
The friends of the Library may also want to consider that Jo's Plan has the Library on Barton Road, where as the Current Jacobsen Family Holdings Plan has it on land formerly owned by FORMER Mayor, Bryan Mattesson, who has sold his property to Jacobsen, or at least has given them an option to buy the property.
The Friends of the Library are being used by Ann Petta to support the desires of the Realtor Class in the City, not the Reading Class.
The original Jacobsen Family Holdings Plan of a Library and some shops did not take the area of Jo Stringfields house, or property to the east of her lot. There is no need for Jacobsen to push that far east. Leave Jo with her property, and those to the east, and Jacobsen to the property to the west. The Design of the development can complement and flow into each other. King Solomon would split this baby.
This still will not answer question of who pays, for the library. Shouldn't the Friends of the Library get their thinking caps on and put the library in a location which will serve both the citizens of the city and the high school students. Perhaps funding from State, Federal and County could build a PUBLIC owned library space, not a leased or rented one. This would be a better use of tax money.
On plan 43 the library is shown on single family zoning. They would have to rezone. The mailers rendering is a deliberate misleading of the public. There is not going to be a water fall or the library in the T/C he wants. He can say anything he wants because like the Corp for Better Housing said that the housing would be for low to moderate income. As soon as they got the check it changed to low to low low. Jacobsen will say what ever he needs to say or promise because he will change it if it's approved.We are dealing with slim ball sludge puppies that only see the money thay want. Absoulatly Jacobsen is not going to give away $90,000 a year. I wonder who at City Hall put Petta up to this.
Ann Petta has for some reason activated the "Friends of the Library" to support the Jacobsen Family Holdings Development Proposal in preference to the Stringfield Development Plan.
The Cover Letter does indicate that Both Plans have a Library included in the design.
However, they only question how Stringfield could build the library? I would assume the same way Jacobsen would, cement rebar and a building design.
The real question the Friends of the Library should be asking who is going to PAY for the Library they want? The County has not provided for rent or lease of the current space. The city gives the Library its limited funds and space as it is. Jacobsen is not GIFTING the Building to the City, or County. So the Friends of the Library should look for the Funding Commitments before weighing in on which Developer should build a Library Building.
The friends of the Library may also want to consider that Jo's Plan has the Library on Barton Road, where as the Current Jacobsen Family Holdings Plan has it on land formerly owned by FORMER Mayor, Bryan Mattesson, who has sold his property to Jacobsen, or at least has given them an option to buy the property.
The Friends of the Library are being used by Ann Petta to support the desires of the Realtor Class in the City, not the Reading Class.
The original Jacobsen Family Holdings Plan of a Library and some shops did not take the area of Jo Stringfields house, or property to the east of her lot. There is no need for Jacobsen to push that far east. Leave Jo with her property, and those to the east, and Jacobsen to the property to the west. The Design of the development can complement and flow into each other. King Solomon would split this baby.
This still will not answer question of who pays, for the library. Shouldn't the Friends of the Library get their thinking caps on and put the library in a location which will serve both the citizens of the city and the high school students. Perhaps funding from State, Federal and County could build a PUBLIC owned library space, not a leased or rented one. This would be a better use of tax money.
On plan 43 the library is shown on single family zoning. They would have to rezone. The mailers rendering is a deliberate misleading of the public. There is not going to be a water fall or the library in the T/C he wants. He can say anything he wants because like the Corp for Better Housing said that the housing would be for low to moderate income. As soon as they got the check it changed to low to low low. Jacobsen will say what ever he needs to say or promise because he will change it if it's approved.We are dealing with slim ball sludge puppies that only see the money thay want. Absoulatly Jacobsen is not going to give away $90,000 a year. I wonder who at City Hall put Petta up to this.
March 23, 2006 TCSpecial Meeting CC and RDA
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL
& PLANNING COMMISSION
REVISED AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 23, 2006
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
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, 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.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL
& PLANNING COMMISSION
REVISED AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS March 23, 2006
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
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, 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.
If you want to speak, on more than one item on the agenda submit separate request to speak on each item or each presentation. If there is no opportunity to address each presentation a law suit may be filed. If you have some response to the Staff Report, or Jacobsen Family Holdings Presentation or the Stringfield Presentation, each should afford a speaking opportunity as individual specific topics. Clumping the topics into one agenda item is an effort to restrict public comment.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation -
* Pledge of Allegiance - Pastor John Brunt, Azure Hills Seventh-Day Adventist Church
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Special Presentation - Jack Brown, CEO/Don Baker, President of Stater Bros. Markets Of course citizens are not informed as to the nature of the Presentation so Citizens can't be informed sufficiently to respond.
2. Owner Participation Proposals from Jacobsen Family Holdings and Stringfield Investment Company
Staff Report
Jacobsen Family Holdings Proposal
Stringfield Proposal
Council & Commission Discussion
3. 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.
Here is an opportunity to speak again for 3 Minutes. First of all that your comments were cut off by the above ploy and restriction of the Mayor. Be brief and cover all your points without explanation. IF there is to be a law suit filed, the cause, not the reason will be what comes into court. Example: If you are concerned about the Pollution of building such a large paved area, or the stores they plan on putting in the shopping center, then say, "I have concerns about the water pollution caused by run off, and the product line offered at the store." You don't have to go into detail. You have to raise the issue. In order for it to be a cause in a court of law. Yes this will no doubt end up in court. So use your three minutes to raise issues. The council and staff has made statements which suggest they have already formed a decision on the matters on the agenda.
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON HURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 04-13-2006 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK
Monday, March 20, 2006
Time to Do the Math
The Town Center, so says Schwab and Jacobsen will produce $600,000 a year in revenue This will help with additional law enforcement and Fire protection, road repair and the cost of the lease of the new library. Lets say we get one more patrol deputy per shift. That's $546,000 per year. We still don't know what we pay for fire protection but any increases will take another big bit out of this $600,000 that the Town Center is alleged to bring in. Now lets add the minimum lease payments to Jacobsen for the new library, $90,000 a year. We are now at $636,000 a year without figuring in road repair or additional fire services. Another sham like the OAC to pad the pockets of the Cities developer friends and put the tax payer further in the hole. The people of this community need to demand an explanation of the Council and Mr. Schwab. Just looking at what the Town Center will cost us is over a million(s) a year at least.
For what?
Bill Hays. Grand Terrace
For what?
Bill Hays. Grand Terrace
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
From the Email Inbox:
Re: Jacobsen Family Holdings Mailer,
Let's take a look at this Jacobsen mailer. So far it has been sent to select address's east of Mt. Vernon. Why is that? Doesn't Jacobsen want the opinion's of those that the traffic will affect the most. The traffic will affect everyone.
What "Opportunity" is knocking? It's knocking at Jacobsen's door not ours.
We are going to have to pay more than $7500 a month for the library and if according to his 43 rd plan the library will be a free standing building on Michigan. That has to increase maintenance and monthly lease cost. The location of the library, according to his latest plan, anyway the one we saw, looks like the three or four houses that sit back off Michigan will either have to be taken out or at least be walled in because the truck and library entrance will now be at their door step.
O.K. "Join us as we open the door to our future". The residents of Grand Terrace already "opened the door" to their futures by moving here. The exact reasons we all moved here was to get away from all the "open" doors developers like Jacobsen want to force on us for his enrichment.
"A state of the art flagship new Stater Brothers Market, Lowe's and Miguel's Jr. Restaurant, creating a new focal point for the community" There you go, we all can't wait to go look at drive thru's and acres of asphalt and watch the 1300% increase per acre of polluted run off that asphalt provides over porous soil. What does every storm drain in town say on it. "No dumping, flows to creek". Who's getting dumped on with this project? So far it's been the people that have had to give up their homes under the threat of eminent domain and the residents of the trailer park that did not take the offer from Jacobson. They are now given less than a year to vacate and take their trailers with them.
Jacobsen said he was going to relocate them on Grand Terrace Road with a new park. That turned out to be a prefab housing project that Jacobsen will again use Grand Terrace to line his pockets and whoever else is promoting him in the city. If any resident does not believe that there are palms being greased then they have to be very naive.
The library. Show us the "letters of intent and the signed long term leases" from the County of San Bernardino that they are going to fund this library. They don't fund the one we have now adequately. "With a children's room, computer lab and a quite reading room". Except that it's going to be either located between two big box stores with day workers in the parking lot or at the side of a truck entrance on a street that is going to be widened to four lanes and have the new freeway off ramp come out on Commerce directly across from the new library site. Maybe Jacobsen can have everybody take their shoes off when they shop so they won't disturb the library patron's. I love the sound of a shopping cart being pushed across a paved parking lot. I'm sure none of the other shop's will produce any noise. Everyone knows how quite Lowe's can be. Lowe's wont have to install a day laborer site. They can just use the library. A cost cutting measure for Lowe's. The waterfall will serve the purpose also. A built in beer cooler, laundry mat and wash basin for the day laborers. I can hardly wait till the high school pranksters dump about five gallons of soap in it.
"Convenient and safe local one stop shopping". Well , we may be safer in our home's or maybe not. Burglar magnet. So two trains of thought here. The residential burglars will graduate to business, like the other burglar magnet that will be built on Michigan, or it will draw in more burglars that will hit more homes when they can't get day labor jobs. This has been a reported problem all over the country where the big box stores are located. The crime rate has gone up in every area when the big box stores attract day labors. I would imagine that Staters will have an increase in thefts from those that hoover in the parking lots looking for day work. We have already had panhandlers at our Staters here.
"The added benefits and convenience of Grand Terrace Town Center will raise property values and enhance the quality of life for all residents". Oh yeah, I'm sure the residents on La Paix are all in a twitter in anticipation of having their street extended and having the truck loading docks in their back yards not to mention the wall that Jacobsen said he will have to build. If it's such a wonderful thing why would he want to build a wall between the residents and the Town Center. I would guess it's to keep them out. Not to worry, they can buy ladders from Lowe's and climb the wall to get there before anyone else. How much more would you pay for a house that has a truck entrance and loading dock in it's back yard. I haven't heard of anyone complaining of the inconvenience of the location of Staters where it is now.
"The Grand Terrace Town Center represents a major milestone for the City, removing old City eyesores and providing a wide range of services while keeping our small community feel". Jacobsen can't really think we believe that load of crap. What this represents is a City Council that has not listened to the residents, has illegally deviated from the General Plan, taken campaign contributions from Jacobsen and allowed him to donate to City functions in exchange for using their power to make him wealthier at the cost of Grand Terrace. "Old City eyesores". That's us. That's the home's he has taken from your neighbors with the threat of eminent domain and the home he intends to take from our neighbor with the help of a corrupt City Council. This is a private development. The City has no business being involved. Maryette Ferre said in a newspaper article several years ago she intended to out develop her father. Why doesn't she start in Honey Hills. That's an old eyesore, all those rock's sticking up that you have to drive around to get to Grand Terrace coming up Barton. If it wasn't there we could get home a lot sooner from Home Depot. The only" old eyesores" I see is Tom Schwab and the constant Lie's he tells this community and the Council that is part and particle to them.
"Grand Terrace Town Center will provide Grand Terrace with more than $600,000 per year in new revenue helping to pay for expanded police and fire protection and needed road repair". The Outdoor Adventure Center is suppose to do the same thing. So pretty soon we will be tripping over cops and firemen. Where did they come up with this $600,000 figure? Where is the documentation? If it fails to produce it will Jacobsen guarantee to make up the short fall. Menga did the same with the OAC. He just grabbed a number out of the air. When it was shown that the OAC would not provide the revenue he claimed the projection went up. There was no documentation or how they came to their figures. The same holds with Jacobsen and Schwab and the Town Center. Show the feasibility and marketing study conducted by an independent firm and the E.I.R. for the Town Center. The roads, Jacobsen is furnishing the traffic study for the Town Center. Fox and hen house. Schwab and Jacobsen both stated at the community meeting last year that if the traffic study shows Grand Terrace cannot handle the additional traffic that the Town Center project would be dead. Schwab also said that no city funds or RDA funds would be used to pay for the library and two days later in a newspaper article he said the funds would come from the General fund or the RDA. We have learned long ago that there is not one word that you can believe out of the mans mouth. He is the shill for the developers and does not work for the citizens of this city. His illegal purchase of an RDA house should show the citizens who he is in this for.
"The Grand Terrace Town Center is about progress, progress for the residents, for the City, and for the region as a whole" I believe he misused the word whole, it should be "and the region as a hole" I haven't seen long lines of citizens waiting to praise this project at City Council meeting. There have been two people that are developers and one reversed himself in public and one person from the trailer park that took a Jocobsen payoff. The only progress this is about is Jacobsens bank account and the bank accounts of whomever is taking money or favors from him. In the last two or three years many more citizen have gone into the podium at Council meetings and voiced their opposition to the underhanded dealing of Schwab and the City Council Not once save the Manholebuilders project did they listen. They had to on Manhole because of the people involved connection to council members. So here is my suggestion. Fill out the return mailer and write in Schwab's name or your favorite council members name. Then at the meeting on the 23rd of this month where the citizens are supposed to be able to speak on the Town Center ask Jocobsen to show us the results of this mailer along with the signed leases that don't exist. This is not, for one nano-second ,about Grand Terrace or our progress or our small community feel or $600,000 in revenue they can't prove or a library or police or fire protection or increased property values (not) It is about Jacobsen and no one other than Jacobsen. He call us our community like he lives here. He lives in the San Fernando Valley. The Sav-On was up for sale before he even broke ground. If it is such a lucrative leasing deal why is he trying to unload it before it's built on Loop Net .com. Ask yourselves how many projects that Schwab has brought to this town has he or the council told the truth about? What have we gained from the "pie in the sky' projects but lawsuits and do overs because the City violated State laws knowingly. If these were such big revenue makers and did all the things the city claimed, why would Jacobsen want to come here. There must be thousands of other cities glamoring for his services where he could make much more or maybe other cities are just smarter than ours.
Bare this in mind my fellow voters. Jacobsen is not a land lord that takes an interest in his projects after they are built. He is a DEVELOPER. He DEVELOPS and sells as quick as he can so he can move on and work his magic on the next sucker. Ask Jacobsen at the next meeting, if he shows up, if he is going to hold on to the Town Center. Staters will buy the land from Jacobsen build their store then sell it back to Jacobsen and lease from him. That is what he told us through Schwabs lips. Otherwise why would there be long term leases that no one is allowed to see. The Sav-on deal goes into detail how the buyer will automatically have rent increases every year. I don't think Jacobsen is a grocery store land lord. Ask him how many of his DEVELOPMENTS he is the land lord of. I would like to hear the answers to these questions. If he is so financially sound he should be able to offer Ms. Stringfield anything she wants instead of whining to the City to use eminent domain. If you use your common sense and listen, it is the same song and dance that the Corp. for Better Housing gave. Same song and dance from Manhole. Same for the Peaker Plant. Same for the High School and the Water Company building. Same song and dance we heard from Megna on the OAC, now it's just being played by a different band. Same with the trucking company on Michigan. Not one of these projects is going to harm the quality of life in Grand Terrace. Just ask those that are DEVELOPING them or the ones that live next to them.
Let's take a look at this Jacobsen mailer. So far it has been sent to select address's east of Mt. Vernon. Why is that? Doesn't Jacobsen want the opinion's of those that the traffic will affect the most. The traffic will affect everyone.
What "Opportunity" is knocking? It's knocking at Jacobsen's door not ours.
We are going to have to pay more than $7500 a month for the library and if according to his 43 rd plan the library will be a free standing building on Michigan. That has to increase maintenance and monthly lease cost. The location of the library, according to his latest plan, anyway the one we saw, looks like the three or four houses that sit back off Michigan will either have to be taken out or at least be walled in because the truck and library entrance will now be at their door step.
O.K. "Join us as we open the door to our future". The residents of Grand Terrace already "opened the door" to their futures by moving here. The exact reasons we all moved here was to get away from all the "open" doors developers like Jacobsen want to force on us for his enrichment.
"A state of the art flagship new Stater Brothers Market, Lowe's and Miguel's Jr. Restaurant, creating a new focal point for the community" There you go, we all can't wait to go look at drive thru's and acres of asphalt and watch the 1300% increase per acre of polluted run off that asphalt provides over porous soil. What does every storm drain in town say on it. "No dumping, flows to creek". Who's getting dumped on with this project? So far it's been the people that have had to give up their homes under the threat of eminent domain and the residents of the trailer park that did not take the offer from Jacobson. They are now given less than a year to vacate and take their trailers with them.
Jacobsen said he was going to relocate them on Grand Terrace Road with a new park. That turned out to be a prefab housing project that Jacobsen will again use Grand Terrace to line his pockets and whoever else is promoting him in the city. If any resident does not believe that there are palms being greased then they have to be very naive.
The library. Show us the "letters of intent and the signed long term leases" from the County of San Bernardino that they are going to fund this library. They don't fund the one we have now adequately. "With a children's room, computer lab and a quite reading room". Except that it's going to be either located between two big box stores with day workers in the parking lot or at the side of a truck entrance on a street that is going to be widened to four lanes and have the new freeway off ramp come out on Commerce directly across from the new library site. Maybe Jacobsen can have everybody take their shoes off when they shop so they won't disturb the library patron's. I love the sound of a shopping cart being pushed across a paved parking lot. I'm sure none of the other shop's will produce any noise. Everyone knows how quite Lowe's can be. Lowe's wont have to install a day laborer site. They can just use the library. A cost cutting measure for Lowe's. The waterfall will serve the purpose also. A built in beer cooler, laundry mat and wash basin for the day laborers. I can hardly wait till the high school pranksters dump about five gallons of soap in it.
"Convenient and safe local one stop shopping". Well , we may be safer in our home's or maybe not. Burglar magnet. So two trains of thought here. The residential burglars will graduate to business, like the other burglar magnet that will be built on Michigan, or it will draw in more burglars that will hit more homes when they can't get day labor jobs. This has been a reported problem all over the country where the big box stores are located. The crime rate has gone up in every area when the big box stores attract day labors. I would imagine that Staters will have an increase in thefts from those that hoover in the parking lots looking for day work. We have already had panhandlers at our Staters here.
"The added benefits and convenience of Grand Terrace Town Center will raise property values and enhance the quality of life for all residents". Oh yeah, I'm sure the residents on La Paix are all in a twitter in anticipation of having their street extended and having the truck loading docks in their back yards not to mention the wall that Jacobsen said he will have to build. If it's such a wonderful thing why would he want to build a wall between the residents and the Town Center. I would guess it's to keep them out. Not to worry, they can buy ladders from Lowe's and climb the wall to get there before anyone else. How much more would you pay for a house that has a truck entrance and loading dock in it's back yard. I haven't heard of anyone complaining of the inconvenience of the location of Staters where it is now.
"The Grand Terrace Town Center represents a major milestone for the City, removing old City eyesores and providing a wide range of services while keeping our small community feel". Jacobsen can't really think we believe that load of crap. What this represents is a City Council that has not listened to the residents, has illegally deviated from the General Plan, taken campaign contributions from Jacobsen and allowed him to donate to City functions in exchange for using their power to make him wealthier at the cost of Grand Terrace. "Old City eyesores". That's us. That's the home's he has taken from your neighbors with the threat of eminent domain and the home he intends to take from our neighbor with the help of a corrupt City Council. This is a private development. The City has no business being involved. Maryette Ferre said in a newspaper article several years ago she intended to out develop her father. Why doesn't she start in Honey Hills. That's an old eyesore, all those rock's sticking up that you have to drive around to get to Grand Terrace coming up Barton. If it wasn't there we could get home a lot sooner from Home Depot. The only" old eyesores" I see is Tom Schwab and the constant Lie's he tells this community and the Council that is part and particle to them.
"Grand Terrace Town Center will provide Grand Terrace with more than $600,000 per year in new revenue helping to pay for expanded police and fire protection and needed road repair". The Outdoor Adventure Center is suppose to do the same thing. So pretty soon we will be tripping over cops and firemen. Where did they come up with this $600,000 figure? Where is the documentation? If it fails to produce it will Jacobsen guarantee to make up the short fall. Menga did the same with the OAC. He just grabbed a number out of the air. When it was shown that the OAC would not provide the revenue he claimed the projection went up. There was no documentation or how they came to their figures. The same holds with Jacobsen and Schwab and the Town Center. Show the feasibility and marketing study conducted by an independent firm and the E.I.R. for the Town Center. The roads, Jacobsen is furnishing the traffic study for the Town Center. Fox and hen house. Schwab and Jacobsen both stated at the community meeting last year that if the traffic study shows Grand Terrace cannot handle the additional traffic that the Town Center project would be dead. Schwab also said that no city funds or RDA funds would be used to pay for the library and two days later in a newspaper article he said the funds would come from the General fund or the RDA. We have learned long ago that there is not one word that you can believe out of the mans mouth. He is the shill for the developers and does not work for the citizens of this city. His illegal purchase of an RDA house should show the citizens who he is in this for.
"The Grand Terrace Town Center is about progress, progress for the residents, for the City, and for the region as a whole" I believe he misused the word whole, it should be "and the region as a hole" I haven't seen long lines of citizens waiting to praise this project at City Council meeting. There have been two people that are developers and one reversed himself in public and one person from the trailer park that took a Jocobsen payoff. The only progress this is about is Jacobsens bank account and the bank accounts of whomever is taking money or favors from him. In the last two or three years many more citizen have gone into the podium at Council meetings and voiced their opposition to the underhanded dealing of Schwab and the City Council Not once save the Manholebuilders project did they listen. They had to on Manhole because of the people involved connection to council members. So here is my suggestion. Fill out the return mailer and write in Schwab's name or your favorite council members name. Then at the meeting on the 23rd of this month where the citizens are supposed to be able to speak on the Town Center ask Jocobsen to show us the results of this mailer along with the signed leases that don't exist. This is not, for one nano-second ,about Grand Terrace or our progress or our small community feel or $600,000 in revenue they can't prove or a library or police or fire protection or increased property values (not) It is about Jacobsen and no one other than Jacobsen. He call us our community like he lives here. He lives in the San Fernando Valley. The Sav-On was up for sale before he even broke ground. If it is such a lucrative leasing deal why is he trying to unload it before it's built on Loop Net .com. Ask yourselves how many projects that Schwab has brought to this town has he or the council told the truth about? What have we gained from the "pie in the sky' projects but lawsuits and do overs because the City violated State laws knowingly. If these were such big revenue makers and did all the things the city claimed, why would Jacobsen want to come here. There must be thousands of other cities glamoring for his services where he could make much more or maybe other cities are just smarter than ours.
Bare this in mind my fellow voters. Jacobsen is not a land lord that takes an interest in his projects after they are built. He is a DEVELOPER. He DEVELOPS and sells as quick as he can so he can move on and work his magic on the next sucker. Ask Jacobsen at the next meeting, if he shows up, if he is going to hold on to the Town Center. Staters will buy the land from Jacobsen build their store then sell it back to Jacobsen and lease from him. That is what he told us through Schwabs lips. Otherwise why would there be long term leases that no one is allowed to see. The Sav-on deal goes into detail how the buyer will automatically have rent increases every year. I don't think Jacobsen is a grocery store land lord. Ask him how many of his DEVELOPMENTS he is the land lord of. I would like to hear the answers to these questions. If he is so financially sound he should be able to offer Ms. Stringfield anything she wants instead of whining to the City to use eminent domain. If you use your common sense and listen, it is the same song and dance that the Corp. for Better Housing gave. Same song and dance from Manhole. Same for the Peaker Plant. Same for the High School and the Water Company building. Same song and dance we heard from Megna on the OAC, now it's just being played by a different band. Same with the trucking company on Michigan. Not one of these projects is going to harm the quality of life in Grand Terrace. Just ask those that are DEVELOPING them or the ones that live next to them.
Just Thinking Out Loud:
How Many Times Will
Tom Schwab LIE to the Public and City Council
Before he is FIRED with Cause.
IF HE IS NOT FIRED WHY NOT MUST BE THE NEXT QUESTION
ARE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO GUILTY
IF HE IS NOT FIRED WHY NOT MUST BE THE NEXT QUESTION
ARE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO GUILTY
OF LIES AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS?
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
or is it
ASSOCIATION OF CO-CONSPIRATORS?
Citizen's Needed for Action
Limit Eminent Domain:
Grand Terrace Petition Drive Needs YOU
A Petition to Restrict the Use of Eminent Domain in Grand Terrace has been writen. What Needs to be done next is to present the Eminent Domain Petition to the city clerk. The Presenter will have to put their name on it and be active in getting signatures.
The time to research the how to write the petition, and get the idea this far along are unable to take the last remaining steps to put it on the next ballot. If you are interested in helping, Contact me, and I'll put you in contact with the folks who have the know how and the too do list. In short the petition need a few signatues, and then a few days infront of Stater's Collecting Signatures should do. Can You dedicate your time for this effort, to protect your property rights, and the rights of others? You must be a resident and registered voter to be the head of this important drive. Here is an opprotunity to be a Real Local Hero.
contact me at Grandterracenews@yahoo.com
A Reminder: Petitions Need to Be Sent:
Limit Eminent Domain: State Wide Petition Drive
PLEASE MAIL YOUR PETITIONS IN
In addition to local city level action, a state wide inititive has been written. Signatures are needed. Please Download a copy of the Petition, get it signed and forward it to the collection site. You may also sign the Petition at the No Eminent Domain for Private Gain Office in Grand Terrace.http://www.limiteminentdomain.org/petition.htm
TO ENSURE THAT EVERY SIGNATURE ON EVERY PETITION COUNTS WE HAVE CREATED SOME GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PRINTING AND COMPLETING THE PETITION.Step 1: Before downloading and printing the petition, please carefully read andfollow the instructions below.
The Petition must:Be printed on a single piece of paper with the initiative text on one side and the signature area on the otherHave a 1" margin at the top of both sides of the paper - Please get your ruler out and check since each printer is a bit differentBe readable with no smeared or smudged inkhttp://www.limiteminentdomain.org/petition.htm
Read it, Print it, Sign it, and Send it IN...
YOUR GRAND CHILDREN WILL THANK YOU.
From the Email Inbox:
RE: A Different View on GT DEVELOPMENT
Shopping center owner, Viking Investment Properties say they stand ready, willing & able to allow Stater Bros. to expand their current store in any direction they wish. Leasing members met with Stater's management & real estate officials on Wednesday, promising to roll up their sleeves and get a deal done. "Stater's wants a larger 43,000 SF prototype store, complete with bakery, pharmacy and deli.
The intersection of Barton Road & Mt. Vernon has been Stater's home for 26 years, said property manager, Anita McGaughey. "The location of utility easements had prevented us from providing a site plan that met their needs last year. But now with easements addressed and Miguel's moving, we think we can solve any physical problem on site and give Stater's what they want. The idea would be to expand the Stater Bros. store on two sides, while keeping the 25,500 sf store open.
Redevelopment is supposed to bring new tenants to town and increase city sales tax. The Jacobson team should be busy finding new tenants that sell taxable items that would enhance city income and make his project feasible.
The land being sold to him by the city is partially subsidized, because the price of $7.50/sf is less than half the market rate of commercial land that sells in true arms'-length transactions. Our local Mom & Pop tenants cannot afford the $3/sf rent he is asking at the proposed center or at his SavOn site.
Merely moving existing businesses from one center to another could cause blight, not cure it. Redevelopment, public dollars should be used ONLY for the public good, to enhance the quality of life in Grand Terrace.
Jacobson's responsibility under the development agreement is to assemble the land and tenants for his project. He has not done that in 2 years and now wants the city to do it for him with eminent domain.
However, such action by the council against local Grand Terrace property owners, would damage the fabric of this wonderful community. Local property owners, residents and businesses should be free to negotiate the sale of their private property with any buyer, without the interference from third parties or the threat of eminent domain.
A newspaper poll of citizens shows that 83% think that eminent domain land transfers by force for the private gain of developers or big box corporations is morally indefensible. Takings of this type were originally reserved for truly public needs such as roads, schools or fire stations and would best be reserved for only those situations.
The city owns many land parcels around town on which they could build a library. Ideally, it should be located in the new high school where it could be staffed during the day without cost to the city or county. Fontana received a state grant and an award for this innovative solution.
Our city council should thoughtfully explore all options before making such major decisions that will shape the character of Grand Terrace and it's residents for generations to come. We hope the community will be actively engaged in this lively discussion so that the outcome truely reflects the community desires for the reshaping of the entire Barton Road commercial corridor that functions as a responsible and cohesive whole. Then we can all be proud to call this "our town."
Shopping center owner, Viking Investment Properties say they stand ready, willing & able to allow Stater Bros. to expand their current store in any direction they wish. Leasing members met with Stater's management & real estate officials on Wednesday, promising to roll up their sleeves and get a deal done. "Stater's wants a larger 43,000 SF prototype store, complete with bakery, pharmacy and deli.
The intersection of Barton Road & Mt. Vernon has been Stater's home for 26 years, said property manager, Anita McGaughey. "The location of utility easements had prevented us from providing a site plan that met their needs last year. But now with easements addressed and Miguel's moving, we think we can solve any physical problem on site and give Stater's what they want. The idea would be to expand the Stater Bros. store on two sides, while keeping the 25,500 sf store open.
Redevelopment is supposed to bring new tenants to town and increase city sales tax. The Jacobson team should be busy finding new tenants that sell taxable items that would enhance city income and make his project feasible.
The land being sold to him by the city is partially subsidized, because the price of $7.50/sf is less than half the market rate of commercial land that sells in true arms'-length transactions. Our local Mom & Pop tenants cannot afford the $3/sf rent he is asking at the proposed center or at his SavOn site.
Merely moving existing businesses from one center to another could cause blight, not cure it. Redevelopment, public dollars should be used ONLY for the public good, to enhance the quality of life in Grand Terrace.
Jacobson's responsibility under the development agreement is to assemble the land and tenants for his project. He has not done that in 2 years and now wants the city to do it for him with eminent domain.
However, such action by the council against local Grand Terrace property owners, would damage the fabric of this wonderful community. Local property owners, residents and businesses should be free to negotiate the sale of their private property with any buyer, without the interference from third parties or the threat of eminent domain.
A newspaper poll of citizens shows that 83% think that eminent domain land transfers by force for the private gain of developers or big box corporations is morally indefensible. Takings of this type were originally reserved for truly public needs such as roads, schools or fire stations and would best be reserved for only those situations.
The city owns many land parcels around town on which they could build a library. Ideally, it should be located in the new high school where it could be staffed during the day without cost to the city or county. Fontana received a state grant and an award for this innovative solution.
Our city council should thoughtfully explore all options before making such major decisions that will shape the character of Grand Terrace and it's residents for generations to come. We hope the community will be actively engaged in this lively discussion so that the outcome truely reflects the community desires for the reshaping of the entire Barton Road commercial corridor that functions as a responsible and cohesive whole. Then we can all be proud to call this "our town."
From the Email Inbox
Re: Jacobsen Family Holdings Brouchere
Interesting brouchere --Interesting mailing list,
perhaps the mailing list was for "uphill"
in the "no fireworks discharge areas"
but not mailed in the "eyesore" areas of town
Interesting brouchere --Interesting mailing list,
perhaps the mailing list was for "uphill"
in the "no fireworks discharge areas"
but not mailed in the "eyesore" areas of town
Brown Vs Schwab & Town Center Lease Question
Reply to the PE Article:
Possibility of market relocating spurs worries
GRAND TERRACE: Shop owners are concerned about the impact if Stater Bros. moves elsewhere.
01:23 AM PST on Saturday, March 18, 2006
By MASSIEL LADRON DE GUEVARA / The Press-Enterprise
As the approval of the Grand Terrace Town Center becomes more plausible, the question of where the local Stater Bros. market will operate has left some business owners worried.
For 32 years the Grand Terrace Shopping Center on Barton Road has housed the Stater Bros. and several mom-and-pop shops that have thrived because of the high pedestrian traffic generated by the supermarket.
If Stater Bros. relocates to the Town Center, as officials have said it will, the Shopping Center will die, said Cid Bailey, who co-owns the Beauty Gallery.
"Stater Bros. Does a really good job in bringing in business here," Bailey said. "Without them the center is no good."
The potential developer of the 20-acre Town Center, Doug Jacobsen of Jacobsen Family Holdings, said his plans include a Stater Bros. market.
During Council Meetings, City Manager, and Redevelopment Agency Director: Mr. Tom Schwab said, "WE have signed Lease Agreements with Stater Brother's Market.". When asked to produce the documents, he then said : "I have been to Stater Brothers, and I have seen the Documents, and it is only reasonable that Jacobsen, and Stater's don't want to make the financial information public." The city is involved in this development, and thus the Financial Commitments are or should be PUBLIC. He never did clearly state who the "WE" was when he represented the Leases were in existence.
The Grand Terrace City Council will review his development proposal Thursday along with a proposal, submitted by resident Jo Stringfield, that doesn't include the market.
Part of the use of the "Redevelopment Agency and those Funds" requires that businesses adversely affected by Redevelopment Agency actions be compensated, relocated, or bought out. Is it possible that the loss of business to the Mom and Pop Stores is an expense the "Redevelopment Agency" will have to pay for, in part due to the lack of planning to provide an alternative plan to all the businesses affected by the NEW Development supported by and the Redevelopment Agency?
The Current Shopping Center's manager said she realizes the need to keep the anchor store and has approached Stater Bros. and city officials with the option of expanding the market rather than relocation.
"I think it would better suit the community if the Stater Bros. Stays," said Anita McGaughey. "If you move Stater Bros. from one side of town to another, you haven't created any more revenue for the city. It would just be moving a business."
The Stater Bros. store is 25,500 square feet and the company's prototype is 43,000 square feet. McGaughey said she will work with the company so that the store can be expanded in any direction.
Jack Brown, CEO of Stater Bros., said the company is negotiating with Jacobsen regarding the Town Center project, but no decisions have been made.
"About two years ago, the City Council came to us and asked us if we would consider moving to a new area in Grand Terrace to anchor the first real shopping center," Brown said.
"We told them if that's what the folks in Grand Terrace want, we would be happy to do that. Since then, our only commitment is, if that is what the folks in Grand Terrace want, that's what we will do."
Brown said he will look at the proposal to expand the market in its current location, but will ultimately do what is best for Grand Terrace.
"The deciding factor will be if we can build a new, bigger store with adequate parking," Brown said.
The current location has "Adequate Parking", Yes, you may not be able to park in the first or second row, but there has not been a PARKING LOT Closed sign up at the current location. The Stater Brother's on Washington has less parking.
Now what is interesting is the Prior Statements of City Manager, Redevelopment Agency Director: Mr. Tom Schwab himself said that Stater Brothers has signed a LEASE commitment with Jacobsen Family Holdings. These representations of the facts are not in agreement. WHO is City Manager, Redevelopment Agency Director Working for? His statement, "We have a signed lease with Stater Brothers". Who is the WE, and Show us the WE the LEASE, or Step down, resign for yet another lie you have told the community, and city council.
Jacobsen said that after visiting the Shopping Center, he came to the conclusion that a larger store would not fit.
(Here is an interesting idea, ask a Developer, if his potential client could be facilitated at a competitor's location.) Has Jacobsen seen the Plans to Expand in the current location? There comment should have been No Comment. Is there a plan for expanding the current location, is it being held up by the Planning Department, or City?
"Mom-and-pop shop owners have nothing to worry about because everyone is welcome (in the Town Center); I would love to talk with them," Jacobsen said.
(Sure, he'd love to steal or move people out of one shopping center in to his. Leave empty buildings in some other Development, that makes a better town.)
Of course, this encourages the relocation of even more businesses, and more empty spaces or causing a distressed center at the current development. Again, no gain, just transference. Is there a lack of logic here or just greed?
Kim Sieng, manager of the China Bowl in the Shopping Center, said it would be better for business if Stater Brothers Does does not leave.
"A lot of people come in and eat lunch or dinner after shopping, so I'm not sure what I would do if they left," he said.
Stater Brothers Market may find itself in a position the old Grand Terrace Independent Market found itself. If there is an empty space left behind at their current location, a Cardenas, Trader Joes, or perhaps a Clarks Nutrition Center and Grocery Store will move in and provide a wider selection of produce, and natural foods.
IF Stater Moves, they may be faced with competition they did not expect.
IF Stater Brothers Moves, the new store or replacement anchor may bring More business to the Mom and Pops. That is yet to be determined. However, it seems not a good decision on the part of Stater Brother's Market, to welcome the competition.
The current retail space will recover in time. However, the ownership of the small Mom and Pop Owners may be crushed by the changes. In Addition: the Property Rights Issues may never be restored if Jo Stringfield is Forced off Her Land, and Forced out of Full Participation in the Development and enjoyment of the financial income potential from the development of her property when and if it is developed. This is the long term effect of where the Stater's goes in our town.
Possibility of market relocating spurs worries
GRAND TERRACE: Shop owners are concerned about the impact if Stater Bros. moves elsewhere.
01:23 AM PST on Saturday, March 18, 2006
By MASSIEL LADRON DE GUEVARA / The Press-Enterprise
As the approval of the Grand Terrace Town Center becomes more plausible, the question of where the local Stater Bros. market will operate has left some business owners worried.
For 32 years the Grand Terrace Shopping Center on Barton Road has housed the Stater Bros. and several mom-and-pop shops that have thrived because of the high pedestrian traffic generated by the supermarket.
If Stater Bros. relocates to the Town Center, as officials have said it will, the Shopping Center will die, said Cid Bailey, who co-owns the Beauty Gallery.
"Stater Bros. Does a really good job in bringing in business here," Bailey said. "Without them the center is no good."
The potential developer of the 20-acre Town Center, Doug Jacobsen of Jacobsen Family Holdings, said his plans include a Stater Bros. market.
During Council Meetings, City Manager, and Redevelopment Agency Director: Mr. Tom Schwab said, "WE have signed Lease Agreements with Stater Brother's Market.". When asked to produce the documents, he then said : "I have been to Stater Brothers, and I have seen the Documents, and it is only reasonable that Jacobsen, and Stater's don't want to make the financial information public." The city is involved in this development, and thus the Financial Commitments are or should be PUBLIC. He never did clearly state who the "WE" was when he represented the Leases were in existence.
The Grand Terrace City Council will review his development proposal Thursday along with a proposal, submitted by resident Jo Stringfield, that doesn't include the market.
Part of the use of the "Redevelopment Agency and those Funds" requires that businesses adversely affected by Redevelopment Agency actions be compensated, relocated, or bought out. Is it possible that the loss of business to the Mom and Pop Stores is an expense the "Redevelopment Agency" will have to pay for, in part due to the lack of planning to provide an alternative plan to all the businesses affected by the NEW Development supported by and the Redevelopment Agency?
The Current Shopping Center's manager said she realizes the need to keep the anchor store and has approached Stater Bros. and city officials with the option of expanding the market rather than relocation.
"I think it would better suit the community if the Stater Bros. Stays," said Anita McGaughey. "If you move Stater Bros. from one side of town to another, you haven't created any more revenue for the city. It would just be moving a business."
The Stater Bros. store is 25,500 square feet and the company's prototype is 43,000 square feet. McGaughey said she will work with the company so that the store can be expanded in any direction.
Jack Brown, CEO of Stater Bros., said the company is negotiating with Jacobsen regarding the Town Center project, but no decisions have been made.
"About two years ago, the City Council came to us and asked us if we would consider moving to a new area in Grand Terrace to anchor the first real shopping center," Brown said.
"We told them if that's what the folks in Grand Terrace want, we would be happy to do that. Since then, our only commitment is, if that is what the folks in Grand Terrace want, that's what we will do."
Brown said he will look at the proposal to expand the market in its current location, but will ultimately do what is best for Grand Terrace.
"The deciding factor will be if we can build a new, bigger store with adequate parking," Brown said.
The current location has "Adequate Parking", Yes, you may not be able to park in the first or second row, but there has not been a PARKING LOT Closed sign up at the current location. The Stater Brother's on Washington has less parking.
Now what is interesting is the Prior Statements of City Manager, Redevelopment Agency Director: Mr. Tom Schwab himself said that Stater Brothers has signed a LEASE commitment with Jacobsen Family Holdings. These representations of the facts are not in agreement. WHO is City Manager, Redevelopment Agency Director Working for? His statement, "We have a signed lease with Stater Brothers". Who is the WE, and Show us the WE the LEASE, or Step down, resign for yet another lie you have told the community, and city council.
Jacobsen said that after visiting the Shopping Center, he came to the conclusion that a larger store would not fit.
(Here is an interesting idea, ask a Developer, if his potential client could be facilitated at a competitor's location.) Has Jacobsen seen the Plans to Expand in the current location? There comment should have been No Comment. Is there a plan for expanding the current location, is it being held up by the Planning Department, or City?
"Mom-and-pop shop owners have nothing to worry about because everyone is welcome (in the Town Center); I would love to talk with them," Jacobsen said.
(Sure, he'd love to steal or move people out of one shopping center in to his. Leave empty buildings in some other Development, that makes a better town.)
Of course, this encourages the relocation of even more businesses, and more empty spaces or causing a distressed center at the current development. Again, no gain, just transference. Is there a lack of logic here or just greed?
Kim Sieng, manager of the China Bowl in the Shopping Center, said it would be better for business if Stater Brothers Does does not leave.
"A lot of people come in and eat lunch or dinner after shopping, so I'm not sure what I would do if they left," he said.
Stater Brothers Market may find itself in a position the old Grand Terrace Independent Market found itself. If there is an empty space left behind at their current location, a Cardenas, Trader Joes, or perhaps a Clarks Nutrition Center and Grocery Store will move in and provide a wider selection of produce, and natural foods.
IF Stater Moves, they may be faced with competition they did not expect.
IF Stater Brothers Moves, the new store or replacement anchor may bring More business to the Mom and Pops. That is yet to be determined. However, it seems not a good decision on the part of Stater Brother's Market, to welcome the competition.
The current retail space will recover in time. However, the ownership of the small Mom and Pop Owners may be crushed by the changes. In Addition: the Property Rights Issues may never be restored if Jo Stringfield is Forced off Her Land, and Forced out of Full Participation in the Development and enjoyment of the financial income potential from the development of her property when and if it is developed. This is the long term effect of where the Stater's goes in our town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)