FROM THE EMAIL INBOX: COUNCIL MEETING REVIEWS

Dear Gramps:

It was nice to hear Councilwoman Garcia congratulate the child for winning the guitar for his reading and to encourage others to do the same. Now if we could just get her to follow her own advice. Had she read the information on the trucking company she wouldn't have had to ask questions of Mr. Schwab. Her questions proved she read not one word of the information provided from City records by the citizens that brought the problem before the Council. Ah yes, The trip to the League of California Cities and Councilwoman Ferre going to the seminar on RDA and how to deal with the roadblocks. I believe the roadblocks they are referring to is the initiative giving the voters the right to define how they want Eminent Domain taken from the hands of the developers and private companies like the League of Ca. Cities. Last month the League was lobbying the State lawmakers against a bill that would have defined blight to mean blight and not anyone's property that got in the way of a developer. This bill would make blight a definite definition and not a whim of City Councils and County Governments. The League and Councilwoman Cortes opposes it. So how much did the citizens pay for our Council to go to this League of Ca. Cities meeting to learn how to take your property away from you?


Dear Gramps

Tonight at the City Council meeting something questioning occurred. There was a gentleman from an agency supporting union wages and asked for the contract to be amended to include a certain article. He stepped away and the attorney asked if he had a copy, which he did. He proceeded to the attorney with it, conducted a conversation for a while with he and Schwab. All this was going on during the meeting. Ferre asked for his opinion and he said they would include the article to be stipulated in the contract.

I asked the attorney after the meeting, why procedure was broken and why there wasn't an inquiry from the council members as to the meaning. He said because they don't have a choice, aside from his views on union. Never really answering my question.

Gramps says:


Eminent Domain Support of the County's Measure will not protect Citizens in Grand Terrace from the City of Grand Terrace using Eminent Domain. There needs to be a local Ordinance. The county Ordinance says the County will not use Eminent Domain... for the purpose of transferring private property to a private developer...... It does not say ALL cities in the County Must apply this same practice. It is nice to support the county's action. HOWEVER, it does not protect the PROPERTY RIGHTS OF GRAND TERRACE CITIZENS.

With all construction including those done on land formerly owned by the RDA, the labor regulations may be such that there are additional requirements on all contractors doing work on all or part of the developments.

THE CITY may find itself liable if the contractors that are allowed to work in this city are not employing legal workers covered by workman comp, and so forth. Businesses and Individual who hire contractors for any job should be sure of the insurance coverage, and right to work in the country of all the workers. IF the requirement is up front and investigated prior to construction permits are issued it would be the best prevention for a problem rather than trying to solve a problem after one happens.