Dear Virginia:
Virginia's Viewpoint in the Highgrove Happenings Aug, 2006 issue contains several interesting thoughts and statements. I will attempt to follow the same order of thoughts in the review of her statements.
Virginia, you, like many folks who have accumulated ideas, facts and even opinions find that the 3 minute rule without the opportunity for an extension is counter productive to the full sharing of ideas. This rule seems not to be working for the best governance and communication. It may speed along the meetings but to suggest that it is fair that everyone is limited to the same amount of time. As if Time is the measure of importance and not the content, or communication being presented as being the focus of importance. It is less likely that a citizen speaker would speak longer than 5 minutes on a single agenda item. That unusual time may be of significant importance. Failure to have a means to accommodate a longer time, or a granting of the floor to a citizen demonstrates a desire not to hear the citizen or to be fully informed as to the citizens concerns, ideas, and suggestions.
Virginia, you, find fault with the citizens some of whom live on Brentwood Street for filing a suit which has resulted in a Judicial finding which was supposed to reverse all prior approvals for the Blue Mt. Senior Villas Construction. You feel that the seniors are being inconvenienced by the Citizens who filed suit, and the Judge did not hear from the seniors who want housing and a new Senior Center. To you and, all those who have embraced this thought should understand some basic truths. First of all, the plans were not changed to accommodate the concerns of the Brentwood Citizens. As a matter of fact the Plans are now that fewer than 10 senior apartments will be for seniors offered at market rental rates and all the others will be Section 8 Housing for VERY Low Income Seniors. If the seniors of Grand Terrace think they have some priority on the list of who moves in, they need to ask for the proof that this offer is in fact part of the Memo of Understanding or the Operations Terms and Conditions which have not been released to the public. It is doubtful that it is legal to make such accommodations.
The Judge was not asked should the seniors have a place to live in Grand Terrace. There is no resistance to putting Senior Housing where it was planned in the General Plan on Barton Road. This is not the issue. The issue is the where and how the planning, zone changes, and contractual relationships were done. The Judge chose to decide on a single issue, but that decision was also included the "Reversal of all Approvals" as the remedy. His allowing the completion of the Move of the "Old Senior Center" was no doubt out of concern for the Seniors of Our Community.
Virginia, the deal brokered with Corporation For Better Housing gives them the authority over the property you think you should have some right to oversee the progress. The deal is we give them half the capital(9,000,000.00) and 60 year exclusive management of the facility and land, and the City will be rewarded in 60 years with an old building, no revenue income, and rights to the land, and a DEBT to pay off with no income from operations to offset that debt payment.
It may be owned by the City, but the Lease makes the control in the hands of Corporation for Better Housing. If this is news to you, it may also be news to you that this deal was done without a competitive bid or other options being considered and was sisorcedurced perhaps in violation of Redevelopment Agency Regulations. It is not that anyone wants to stop senior housing, it is the fact it should be done in a correct way, in the correct place as planned and approved during the General Plan Process.
As to the right of Citizens, to take their concerns to the Courts, we should be thankful that we have this opportunity to address our concerns, and not disparage those who seek Judicial Oversight of our City's Decisions. Our planning department, our City Manager, and their chosen contractors seem to desire to take short cuts which cause problems with each development. This is an important part of doing what you ask at the close of the article, a desire to improve and preserve our little city.
Virginia, you, went on to pontificate about the Town Center voicing disappointment that there is not a LOWES. Interesting how she links Jo Stringfield's desire to remain in her home as a negative, while promoting the idea that the city should provide housing for seniors. The lack of there being a Lowes completely on the fact that Jo Stringfield desires to retain her home and property. Perhaps Virginia, you, did not hear the multitude of citizens who spoke against having a Lowes in Grand Terrace, particularly near Grand Terrace Elementary School and adjacent to residential zones. Lowes brings Day Workers, Lowes brings trucks delivering and buying large and heavy items causing a pedestrian hazard for the children. Lowes, brings a BIG box store and is not in compliance with the General Plan or the Barton Road Specific Plan. These issues exist with or without Jo Springfield's desire to remain in her home, or what ever Jo Stringfield decides to do.
Jo Stringfield has not stopped the construction of a new Miguele's, the City Manager and Jacobesen Family Holdings have been the cause of the delay and change of location from here to there, and so forth. Jo is exercising her rights, it is inappropriate to suggest she should not be allowed to "Upset the apple cart". We are or should be thankful in this country we have a citizen who will stand up for our property rights, while standing up for their own. The despicable use of threats of the use of Eminent Domain, made by the City Manager/Director of the RDA, represent a violation of Jo's Civil Rights, and the Civil Rights of every land owner forced to negotiate under those "terms" or "conditions". The citizens of the city, no Nation owe her a debt of gratitude for her determination.
The business relationship and government practices used for the "Town Center" are all now suspect and will no doubt end up in court as the Citizens should demand that proper procedure is practiced. Part of the requirement which no one wants to admit to is that there is a requirement for more Low and Moderate Income housing which must be planned for "Non" Seniors, when ever residential RDA land is sold. What was the plan for the Mystery Library and the Real Cost of Operations of the Development. Will the Town Center actual create a tax income that will pay off the debt, pay for additional police, and have anything left over? No numbers have really been provided for expenses related to the "development". More Drug Stores, More Bars equal More Crime.
Perhaps we should look at the Big Kmart as an example of what it will be like with a single store anchor like a Lowes. That site is not generating sales tax revenue for the City of Colton, and it has better freeway access.
The Outdoor Adventure Center was negated due to the lack of a sufficient traffic plan to complement the OAC Specific Plan. The decision in no way said everything else was fine, but that was sufficient to negate the OAC Specific Plan and reverts the area back to its prior Zoning, and Condition prior to the OAC Specific Plan.
What does that mean? Well once again the City Manager/Director of RDA entered into a no bid, development debacle, which included the changing of the freedom to fully enjoy the value of the property. The OAC Specific Plan so limited the land use, it made sale and development almost impossible as it was dependent on a "Single Developer" for the entire project. Property owners who wanted to sell their property found buyers would back out during escrow as they realized they could not get Conditional Use Permits as their use was commercial, but not in compliance with the OAC Specific Plan. This put the control over who could sell property, at what price, and to who in the hands of the City Manager/Director of RDA. This is not full enjoyment of property rights, a Civil Right, a Federal Right.
Now that this OAC Specific Plan has been dissolved the City may be obligated to compensate all those who sold their property during that time a compensatory compensation for the violation of their Civil Rights. It will be interesting to see how this resolves. Remember the genesis of this fantastic experience must rest directly at the feet of the City Manager/Director of the RDA and the City Council which did not exercise better oversight and judgment.
On to Virginia's Letter to Mrs. Hathaway:
Virginia, you seem to not understand Mrs. Hathaway's opinion. Mrs. Hathaway as an individual is against having any fireworks. She so stated. She headed a committee and the committee provided a revised Firework Ordinance which was then gutted by the City Manager. She as an individual was not happy with the result, but she presented the work of the committee.
Virginia, your going to find many more people in agreement with the ban all fireworks opinion, now that we have had, increased enforcement and still had problems and a bad weekend, and a fire. You are correct the sports teams should find a different way to earn money. The firemen make about 4000.00 for a well attended pancake sale and this builds community interaction, not fires, fear, and noise. (Ok, it also builds our waist lines but we can walk that off easier than repair a burned child).
Your suggestion that Mrs. Hathaway as an individual desires fireworks not only is an error, but if it were true, she like you has a right to her opinion. But, please get her position on the topic correct. The Opinion Pole regarding the matter is part of the Fireworks Committee's Effort to collect input this is not a negative thing to do. I find the poll insufficient as it does not require the city to disclose all costs and calls regarding the sale of fireworks, it does not require the sports teams to find other funding plans.
In addition to the fines for illegal fireworks being fired off, those individuals should at a minimum be publicly shamed for putting us all at risk. Their names and addresses should be published along with their photographs. It is not a joke, it is not funny, to light a sky rocket. It is an assault with a potentially deadly weapon. Should Firework fire kill someone it should be considered arson, or at least the same as shooting a gun in the air and kildidn't someone. Just because it didn't have that end result the potential, and yes intent was there. No one accidentally lit off a sky rocket.
Your right safe isn't sane does not exist. If it not safe for a Public PARK it is not safe for kids in a street, or cramped back yards. We do not need another year of firework mayhem in Grand Terrace.
Your closing "we have a wonderful little city that we hope to preserve and protect", conflicts with your promotion of Lowes, removal of property rights, and so forth. It makes one ask what are you suggesting needs preserving, and protecting? We had farms, animals, farm houses, little businesses, and freedom in Grand Terrace. We thought we owned our property in Grand Terrace. We thought we would be better served by our own city government than that of Colton. The only thing that seems to be protected in Grand Terrace is the Perpetual Employment of the City Manger/Director RDA, Tom Schwab.
Virginia, I don't have your phone number but if I did, the above is what I would say to you. I would also suggest that these issues raised are in part the cause for the Recall Effort. Accountability for the above issues falls on the City Council. They are to exercise the judgment and oversight in these matters. They just have not done so, and it is getting to the point the city and citizens can not afford any more of the same maleficent conduct.
Gramps.
