ED

Homeowners, students both will benefit

EDITORIAL: EMINENT WIN
Homeowners, students both will benefit
OUR VIEW: We always knew there was a way to make both sides happy
Article Launched:10/30/2006 12:00:00 AM PST

Hooray for Ellen Disparte, the 84-year-old Redlands woman who put a face on the emiment-domain issue and won the right to stay in her home. And hooray for Redlands students, who now will have a third high school.

The year-long legal battle that resulted in the octogenarian selling her 9.5-acre farm to the school district, as long as she could remain in the home she had known all her life, shows there are common-sense solutions that let both sides win, as long as the human element isn't forgotten.
*

Though Disparte understood the need for a new school, she also needed her home. When the school district started eminent-domain proceedings Sept. 2, 2005, offering her more than $2 million, Disparte dug in, and held her ground.
*

With a hearing set for Nov. 17, Disparte agreed last week to a settlement, which gives her $3.43 million for her land, and lets her stay in her home on two acres, for $1 a year. Meanwhile, the school will spring up around her - giving both sides what they want, and keeping everyone happy.
*

Still, eminent domain might have been used to better advantage, with Citrus Valley High School opening sooner, had respect and compassion for other people's property been kept in the forefront.

http://www.sbsun.com/opinions/ci_4571492?source=emailhttp://www.sbsun.com

*

Gramps says:

*

After a long drawn out no doubt stressful negotiation there seems to be an acceptable resolution. Emiment Domain for the use of building such things as schools is what I think it was intended. *

*

HOWEVER, respecting our Elders is also an important, the agreement works. I think the planned use of the property as a parking lot is not its best and highest use. Perhaps the School District will rethink that when the time comes. A working 2 ac farm and hands on Agri Science Lab would be something that no other high school in the region has. Many of our Sciences, and Industries have their foundation in farming, and removing this uniqe opportunity of having a hands on practical application of these skills potentially giving the students what is most missing in their educational experience, a reason to learn, and application of the knowledge.

Fire this is a Local Issue:

Does this remind you of anything? Perhaps our own Fire in July?

Two young men were seen leaving the area where the fire began about 1 a.m. Thursday. Also, investigators said they were looking into whether the wildfire was related to other blazes in recent months, including a canyon fire last weekend.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Department assigned 40 detectives to find the arsonist. Authorities have vowed to seek murder charges against the person or people responsible.

On Friday, the two special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms helped make calls and conducted interviews to work on the numerous leads. The day before, the federal agency sent out a certified fire investigator and a mobile laboratory to assist, said ATF spokeswoman Susan Raichel. FBI agents have also been assigned to the case.

No arrests were reported, but detectives were following more than 100 leads called into a tip line. Authorities declined to discuss the strength of the leads. The reward for information leading to the capture of the arsonists grew to $500,000 by Friday night, with $100,000 each pledged by the state of California, both Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and Tim Blixseth, a Coachella Valley logging industry magnate, according to Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley.


Local resident James Pence, 63, said that shortly after the fire started he saw two unfamiliar young men leaving the area, which he said is close to a local teenage hangout known as Raccoon Rock.

Tim Bowers, 49, said he was awakened by his dog shortly after 1 a.m. Thursday, looked outside his trailer and saw flames on a hillside about 100 yards away. He said the two young men walked away from the flames.``I looked at them. They looked at me. Then they turned their heads and kept walking,'' Bowers said.
The two were gone by the time he alerted an arriving firefighter, Bowers said.

When the Blue Mt. Fire did not result in a Home being Damaged or Persons being killed or injured the significance of the Two Boys and Fireworks seems to be down played. This was much the same as the response to the Barton Road Daytime Theft/ where the Distraction of let me measure a fence while my friend swipes stuff from inside your house. Later we find out the same crime is happening elsewhere with persons of similar descriptions.

To minimize the importance of dealing with the first fire, or first criminal act is to promote the second act.

If the Blue Mt. Fire starters are not linked to other fires they should take the responsibility for the single fire. However, if anyone knows who they are and do not turn them in, they are contributing to their feeling of hey look at what I get away with, I'll do it some more, kind of thinking.

This blog is very sensitive to suggested violent acts, as the suggestions may inspire an action that the writer, or speaker not intend to be carried out.

I wish $500.000.00 would have been raised for the reward to investigate arsons that don't kill people. The arsonist may have been caught prior to the killing of people families would be spared the loss of loved ones, and others the loss of their homes, and jobs.

Arsonists are Terrorists the use of Fire as an expression of Opinion should be an alert to the nature of the individual and cause concern by all.


Hi Grandpa,

I'm glad that your brought up the subject of the fire in Grand Terrace. We forget how lucky we were with the Blue Mountain Fire. We were lucky that we had the wonderful response from many fire departments -- fire departments from all over southern California. We were fortunate to have use of the water dropping helicopters. We were lucky that they were able give us that kind of response -- I don't know that we could get the same response if the fire were to happen now, with so many resources being used on the fire in Riverside County. We were lucky that no lives were lost. We were lucky that no homes were lost. I think this is lost on the current city council, they don't get it. If we don't ban the use of all fireworks in this city, there could be a next time and we may not be so lucky.

All of the firemen did outstanding job on the Blue Mountain Fire and should be commended.

Gramps adds:

We were also lucky the Winds did not show up. We have never been told the total cost of this fire as requested by Council Members. The risk and cost may not come close to the amount of income the sports team earned by selling fireworks the most likely cause of the Blue Mt fire. Perhaps this is why we don't know the cost or have the public review of the Fireworks prior to the Election.

Rejection of Housing Plan in 2005:

This Housing Plan Rejection included 2 developments for low income housing for Seniors and it was rejected as it did not provide low income housing for ALL CLASS of Citizens, as was noted at the Oct 26, 2006 City Council Meeting. So there seems to be a conflict in the use of funds, putting GT at Risk of defaulting the contributions from the State Redevelopment Funds for Housing, and causing the Citizens to be burdened with ALL the Debt Load should the State Funds be Required to be Refunded.

Also note only 11% of funds for low housing can be spent on Senior Exclusive Housing. SO if 9 Million is spent for Seniors only housing there has to be a matching 91 milion spent on Low Income Housing for all other groups of citiznes in Grand Terrace:

Perhaps this is why the details of the Deal are not widely known or explained to the Public.

and and and

Citizen Hays Detail and Additional Information

Documents showing what the City Manager and Staf Knew and when

and and

and and

Here it is in OFFICIAL Documents Of HOW IT ALL ADDS UP

and and
and and and

Support Documents regarding Blue Mt. Senior Villas being for GT Seniors.



This is Grand Terrace Data from the 2000 census:. Which is the High end of the County... IF the County figures are used it is much lower..

The median income for a household in the city was $53,649, and the median income for a family was $61,068. Males had a median income of $41,417 versus $30,491 for females. The per capita income for the city was $21,787. About 4.5% of families and 7.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 9.6% of those under age 18 and 4.5% of those age 65 or over.

I wonder why the City Manager is not keenly aware of the Census Data above. Or why it was not part of the presentation to the Public and Seniors Prior to the first contract being signed, and dollar being spent.

City Manager Tom Schwab said, that by definition, "most seniors are low income." He believes that living on fixed incomes and receiving social security checks typically puts them in a low income bracket. Mr Schwab feels that if Grand Terrace seniors are making so much money that they can't qualify for senior housing, they probably won't want to live in senior apartments anyway. He added that 10% of the apartments will be made available at market value for those seniors who do not qualify for low income housing, but would like to live there. Mr Schwab said that this provision is unique and not typically included in this type of project. From the other blog.

From the Email Inbox: From Brian...

Post this if you wish. I don't care either way.

Just for the record to whomever sent that e-mail to your blog concerning Brian being a representative for council members. A review of my posts on my own blog will show that I have not stated support for any council member or candidate in this election. That's for the people to decide. I've simply opposed all the negativity and the recall. I even agree with some of the positions stated from the podium, particularly some of Patricia Farley's. She continues to show a great deal of courage in my opinion. Its the tone and lack of basic human respect that I've opposed from the beginning. I know you think that's not important, but I disagree. How we treat others is vitally important in my opinion. Opposing a recall action does not imply support. Opposing lawsuits does not imply support. I believe the council members are good people and deserve to have their fate decided by voters in a regular election. If they've done poorly in the opinion of voters, they'll be replaced. This is ok as I have no personal investment in any of this, with the exception of wanting what is best for Grand Terrace. If the people vote for a change on Nov 7th, I'll support that choice and that successful candidate, whomever it may be. The same goes if the people vote not to change.

Brian

Gramps finds Brian's tonal sensitivity interesting from someone who writes as he does. Name calling and all....

Oh well here is his reply, for your edification and enlightenment... The post he refers to suggests that he is not their "Official Spokesperson" but is representive of their supporters and others who write in their support. That is a different statement.

Quick Note on City Council Meeting:

C.E.R.T. Graduation:

The need for an Oath for the C.E.R.T folks is or was interesting. Quite frankly if properly trained emergency responders, I don't care if they were supporters of the Constitution of Canada if they were digging me out from under my house. Their service and training is greatly appreciated. How about the Boy Scout Pledge, I will do my duty to the best of my ability, wouldn't that be sufficient?

The blog administrator suggested local C.E.R.T. Training my result in participation where in the past training was done at distant fire houses, and our local GT Citizens were unable to participate with the added travel requirements. For those who say the blog folk never contribute ideas here is an example of an idea that has been acted upon and has resulted in a new group of C.E.R.T folk to but a team behind the GT EOC in support of the Fire Department.

The first group of C.E.R.T Graduates will augment the Emergency Operations Committee of Grand Terrace. Of course more folks need to be trained and need to be available for this type of service. Grand Terrace needs to be prepared for self sufficiency for at least a full week. These folks will aid in that preparedness.

After Fire Season let's hope a full class of GT Trainees will result in C.E.R.T Group 2.
Thanks all of you in the 1st GT C.E.R.T. Class.


The Oath to Protect the Constitution is important for City Council Members and persons who impact the Rights of Others Under that Constitution is important.

May, Master Sergeant Larkin return to a Grand Terrace where his Private Property Rights are Protected from encroachment by development other than Necessary Public Development such as roads, schools, and Public Utilities. May, Master Sergeant Larkin return to a Grand Terrace that has kept his family secure and safe in his absence.

For all of us with family and friends in the service and serving in high risk areas it is not the service man or woman who sets the policy or writes the orders controlling where or how they serve. Our Elected Officials shoulder that burden, and we Voters have the burden of Voting for those who will be as protective of Our Rights and Lives, as the Rights and Lives of Our Service Men and Women and their families. There is a common thread of relevance from the National and Local Small Town politic.

Master Sergeant Larkin: You are right "SO HELP US GOD"... Is appropriate in the Public and Politic. Supporting a particular church or religion is not. May God Protect you Master Sergeant Larkin, May God Protect your Family. I for one pray not another drop of blood is spilled be it yours or that of our enemy. War is something we are good at. Peace seems to be what we have a problem with may we work as hard at the establishment and nourishing of the act of Peace as we do War. This is the only way mankind can have an ever advancing and secure future.

On a lighter note: Perhaps there can be a weekly mailing to Master Sergeant Larkin or to others from Grand Terrace with thinks like... Baker's Habenaro Catsup pkts, Miller's Honey, Mrs Redds Pies, books, and other things from home town that will let them know they are not forgotten. These small care packages are shared with buddies and local populations and aid in the building of civil relations in small but measurable and lasting ways.

Master Sergeant Larkin, may Peace break out and return you to the details of traffic in Grand Terrace. May you be deported back to Grand Terrace back to your family and community. You are as with the other fine men and women in the service are our best most Precious Export. It is not easy to see our family and friends be put in harms way. Please know you are all thought of regardless where one is in the debate of the issues, our concern and support with you all as individuals goes with you.

If you want to email the community at anytime I'll post your open letters to those who will be keeping you in mind along with the other family members of our Grand Terrace Community Serving in Harms Way. You and the others all take a bit of each of us with you, may we preserve your family, home, neighborhood, town, state and country while you are away on our behalf at the calling of the National Government.

Public Comments for the most part was a review of what has not been made public or resolved. Each of the Comments will be reviewed and supported with documents and posted individually. None of the Council Members past request for information and detail have apparently been provided. Council Member Miller did ask in the past for detail on the CFBH Deal and Payments of over 3 million dollars. This is the type of think asked, and then not answered that was the issue of one of the public speakers and seemingly dismissed by Council Member Millers comment on the issue of oversight. The point was that the list of checks is not sufficient detail, and when the detail is asked for, there is no response. The specific "Deal" between the city and the CFBH has been asked for in the past, and it has always been not available for review, by Council Members or Citizens.

Council Comments: Well, as they relate to Public Comment or Agenda Items these will be evaluated or included issues by issue.

The "Gift" provided to a City Employee to do her job while another employee was on maternity leave should be reported as wages, or a bonus not a "Gift".

Welcome back Brenda, and thanks Tina we all know who does the real work of any office is the clerk and secretary of the boss.

More From Brian and Blog Readers: From Email Inbox

Gramps you may post the below if you see fit.

I would like to see these thousands of people that Brian speaks of show up at a Council meeting. I have seen hundreds show up and sign petitions in opposition to projects where the Council and staff had ignored the law and the will of the people.

Never more than a handful of those who stand to gain financially and are friends or employers of council members, go into the podium in support of projects and at that they are the same real estate developers that show up when there is money to be made off the taxpayers of Grand Terrace.

We are not against development. We feel that the voters should have a say in what is developed and how but City Hall feels that they should never be questioned or have to answer any questions or produce any financial records. There have been developments done without opposition from the public. There have been times the developers have resolved citizen and council concerns prior to approval.

Perhaps Brian can explain why there are no open bids on the Senior project in violation of State law, which he claims to enforce, and the project was changed from low to moderate income to low to low low incomes after it's approval, thus eliminating the very Grand Terrace seniors that were told they would be put on a priority list. Perhaps Brian can produce the list.

The O.A.C. packed the chambers for the Planning meeting twice and the Council meeting. The very developers that took over the original plan, Grand Terrace Partners, did a study on the feasibility and marketability on that project and found it to be neither, thus hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tax dollars wasted because City Hall refused to listen to the voters. The City was told by the residents that they would be negatively affected and that the project was flawed. The Council, who is supposed to represent the people refused to listen and went ahead with a flawed plan on Mr. Schwab's recommendation. Mr. Megna and Mr. Koontz, The Planning Director for the City two days a week, employer made hundreds of thousands from a plan that was not feasible. Mr. Megna has not been seen since the studies were made known but not shared with the public. For Brian’s edification Mr. Megna was the Cities financial director and he and Mr. Schwab authored the O.A.C. which Mr. Megna was quoted in an article in the Sun that" Ralph was finally going to get to build his big boy toys". At the expense of the citizens of Grand Terrace. The feasibility study as explained at Council by the Grand Terrace Partners stated that the claim by the City of the revenue the O.A.C would produce was flawed and not true. The plan that Mr. Schwab authored would produce nothing but debt for the taxpayers of Grand Terrace. Perhaps why Mr. Schwab refuses to allow any citizen to view the studies?

The Town Center packed the Chambers with hundreds of citizens that did not want the big box stores in their community nor did they want eminent domain main used on their neighbor. This was to be a private development but Mr. Jacobsen in collusion with Mr. Schwab has used taxpayer money to benefit Mr. Jacobsen. At the Community meeting Mr. Schwab and Mr. Jacobsen said that not one red cent of City funds or RDA funds would go into the project. That's all that has. I know Brian would rather defend the lies told by Mr. Schwab than try to get to the bottom of them. If he knows that thousands of people want these projects I challenge him to bring them to a Council meeting and have them go into the podium like the brave souls that have done years of research to point out the misleading of the Council by Staff. How about Brian himself showing up at a Council meeting and go into the podium and explain how and why the violations of the law and the disregard of the citizens is o.k. and explain the reasons why the City does not have to follow the law.

If Brian looks at Loma Linda, Redlands, Colton and the other Cities that have had or tried to have development that was unwelcome stopped by citizens there, perhaps he would better understand the form of Government we are supposed to be enjoying.

In 1978 the Council declared all of Grand Terrace blighted and those very same people that Brian defends, that make their money off that decision, may someday decided they want his house for Mr. Jacobsen or the Corporation for Better Housing or any developer that comes along with a pie in the sky plan.

What is needed is for the City to get back into the business of running a City and get out of the real estate business to benefit their employers and friends. The General Fund that should go for the services that Brian’s taxes pay for are going to pay off RDA debt that produces nothing in revenue.

I suggest Brian reads the General Plan. Mr. Koontz recently stated to the Council and the Planning Commission that it is "Garbage" and threw it in the trash can. He stated
"Pages one through nine tell you what you can do and page ten takes it all away"

To those that have been the watch dogs of this City Hall and have taken the countless hours of research to document what they say, to them Brian looks foolish because he refuses to look at or take any evidence of violations of the law into account before he speaks. Our form of Government protects the right of anyone to seek redress from Government when they do harm to the citizens or to speak when they are so totally uninformed. Brian, as it should be, enjoys one of those rights.

We disagree with Brian and would like to see him document his claims, as we do here on this site, just once, give documentation that everyone is wrong and he is right.

Gramps Says:

Here is your post and the following is Brians last known reply... no proof or retractions offered by Brian:

Another Meet the Candidates Forum

Alright, enough of this negativity and lawsuit garbage.
Let's get back to business.

MEET THE CANDIDATES
November 1st at 7:00 pm
City Hall Community Room

*

..................... encourages all residents to get out and meet the candidates for city council and mayor. This is important, because more information leads to better decisions in the voting booth. Come on out and be a part of the process which could shape the future of Grand Terrace for years to come. Hope to see you there.

Brian

From the Email Inbox: Mr. Johnson Shares Information

Mr. Johnson tries to inform Brian about the Issues:

From: "Raymond W. Johnson Esq. AICP"
Subject: RE: Brians Answer to Johnson...Date:
(Brian is in Brown) (Mr. Johnson is in Black)
Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:06:34 -0700

"There are thousands, literally thousands, of residents here who want these projects built, particularly our senior center. Just so we have our facts straight, you are representing a small group who does not want this city government to succeed, and will go to great lengths to try and see that it doesn't. This group objects to everything that this city tries to do, and nothing will satisfy them. These are not just "regular working folk with a legitimate concern about our environment, trying to make a difference."Brian

Based upon your comment it is clear that you do not understand the issues involved in protecting the environment. Protecting the environment includes more than just endangered species. The overwhelming majority of environmental protections are there to protect the human inhabitants. These protections include water quality, air quality, noise, traffic, hazardous materials, land use and public services. These protections were placed there because there had been substantial abuses by local governments.

Each of these impacts has the potential to negatively affect the human inhabitants of an area. The purpose of the environmental regulations is twofold 1) to reduce the impact of projects on the environment and 2) to make decision makers accountable to the public for their decisions.

One of the key aspects of environmental law is that you may not sue a jurisdiction over environmental impacts unless 1) the environmental issues were pointed out to the decision makers prior to the project approval and 2) the jurisdiction failed to adequately consider the impacts and failed to adequately mitigate those impacts. It is not a matter of looking for some loophole, it is a situation where the issues have been presented to the decision makers and they simply decided to ignore them.

The overwhelming majority of environmental groups seek nothing more than to minimize the environmental impacts. Generally, they seek modifications in projects to reduce those impacts. A large percentage of environmental suits are settled as a result of changes being made in the project to reduce the impacts of the project. In the cases in Grand Terrace, the City did not wish to consider any modifications to the projects, they simply decided to approve them regardless of the concerns raised over environmental impacts. In the case of those in Grand Terrace that I am familiar with, it is not that they don't want the City to succeed, they very much do. What they want is for the city to act responsibly in the projects they approve and adequately mitigate the environmental impacts.

The question of the Senior center was not that it was being built, or even the size of it. The issue is, was it being placed in a proper place and was it being constructed to minimize the impacts. The fact that the project was proposed at a density of over 60 units per acre in an area of low density single family homes was problematic and this was one of the areas where the judge felt that the city inadequately evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposal. A second area of concern was that the city did not even attempt to determine the noise impacts of the project. The developer knew of the problems and simply did not want to bother trying to determine if it would be a problem.

"The real story here is about small inland cities trying to move forward with development, so they can create a stable tax base and survive. These city governments are constantly hounded by anti-government/anti-development fringe groups who seek to obstruct any and all progress with the help of hired gun specialists such as yourself. This all occurs over the objections of the majority of the citizens in these cities, which is the most important point in this entire letter. THE MAJORITY OBJECTS!!" Brian

This comment obviously means that the majority of the people you know objects. I am unaware of any vote taken on this issue. More importantly, the majority has no ability to force a minority of the population to endure environmental hazards where they can be avoided. Would you be supportive if the majority of the city decided to put a hazardous waste site adjacent to your house. It would after all be the will of the people.

"If you truly were in this to help," you would be helping to plan projects correctly up front, not stopping them after the fact." Brian

I will tell a jurisdiction that there is a problem and if I am involved in the project at an early stage I will offer suggestions to mitigate the impacts. When I do that and the city ignores it, there is nothing more that I can do other than seek to protect the rights of those who are being abused.

"Can you honestly say that your Grand Terrace clients contacted you with environmental concerns about the senior center? Be honest now. They don't want that center built, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is simply the vehicle available to them in reaching that end" Brian

The requirement for an Environmental Impact Report will not stop the development of a project. What it will do is force the city to realistically determine what the impacts will be and adequately mitigate those impacts. The city can still approve the project, if there are no environmentally superior alternatives and if it has adopted all feasible mitigation of the environmental impacts.

Our city government may not be perfect here in Grand Terrace, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be sued by its own residents on each missed loop-hole. This group was looking for a loophole" any loophole to stop the senior center, and you found it for them"again.

Once again, it was not that we found a "loophole," it was a case of the City being presented with the specific problems before they approved the project and making the conscious decision to ignore those concerns and approve the project anyway, in spite of the evidence and in spite of the law.

"I'm sure that you don't really care about any of this though because in the end, Grand Terrace taxpayers will foot the $42,000 bill for an unnecessary EIR".Brian

The city had the opportunity to cure the problems before they approved the project and they made the decision not to. As for the $42,000 to be spent on an EIR for the project, if that is what they are spending then it is entirely likely that they will again inadequately analyze the environmental impacts and likely again be subject to a successful challenge.

The issue should be how can we mitigate the impacts of the project, not how can we get around the law to do what we want to do.

*

End of Mr. Johnson's Reply

*

Gramps adds:

To the above reasoned sharing of information Brian Posted this on his Blog: It is shared here as it demonstrates his true perspective on things:

Brian Writes His Final Thoughts on
Lawsuits :

*
Just because a city or individual may be open to be taken to court, doesn't excuse the legal scavengers who swoop in and feel it their duty to take the taxpayers to court at every opportunity. Like I've said many times, there are always legal openings for lawsuits in anything we do. Anyone can sue anyone at any time for any reason. Sometimes the quesion should not be "can we," but "should we?" Why does everything need to be litigated?

*

In Grand Terrace, it's always about the same agenda. Make Schwab look bad and try to get him removed. Does anyone think for a moment that, if the opposition favored the city manager, they would be trying to litigate every loophole?

*

No way. Its personal with these people and that's why I feel the need to counter them at every turn. It's just not right. The entire premise of disingenuous and is without merit, so its difficult to give credence to anything they say. I recently saw the following analogy regarding these lawsuits: "Blaming Mr. Johnson for these lawsuits is like blaming a doctor who finds cancer." The doctor would in fact, be blamed if he was widely known for diagnosing this type of cancer where it did not exist, strictly for his own monetary gain. Mr Johnson makes his living diagnosing and fighting cancers that do not exist, in patients who are not ill.

*

That, my friends, is immoral and just plain wrong.Brian

*Gramp Adds: *

Brian has even the simple example wrong. The analogy was: Blaming Mr. Johnson for these lawsuits is like: the Smoker (The City) who was forced by a Spouce (The Citizen 0r Gadfly as Brian may Call them), to get a check up, blaming the Doctor (Mr. Johnson) for the Cancer (Error Causing a Law Suit), that is discovered and treated. The Tobacco Salesman is in this case City Manager Tom Schwab, as he is the one who has brought these things to the City Council who then sells the tabacco to the Taxpayers and Citizens of Grand Terrace. The Doctor, nor the Spouce is the cause of the Problem.

*

Let me see: Brian has said Mr. Johnson is immoral, just plain wrong, and a legal scavanger strictly out for his own monetary gain, who follows the dictates of citizens who are disingenuous and whose cases are with out merrit. Mr. Schwab is the City Manager/City Redevlopment Agency Director, the failings of these projects do lie on his desk, and that of the Council whom have not required better information and detail prior to their Acceptance of Staff Reccomendations.

*

Brian may never understand these issues which seem to complex for him to address, causing him to revert to the name calling. This exchange is posted for the Citizens of Grand Terrace who may gain from the diolog being made available. Yes, Brian, people do oppose bad management, bad EIRS and those who repeat the same errors of managment over, and over, and over, again.

*

Remember, Mr. Schwab earns $150.000.00 lives in a house provided by the city, drives a car provided by the city, and has full medical coverage at OUR Employment.

*

Mr. Johnson earns $100,000.00 pays for his own house, car, and no doubt medical insurance out of that income. NO DOUBT he could earn more money if that was his objective.

*

Should we ask Mr. Schwab why he repeats the same error over and over again or just gripe that it is found, and addressed in order to protect the citizens from an error? Should we not hold the City Council Members Accountable also? Is there some motivation for Mr. Schwab to repeat the same error over and over again?

*

Thank you Mr. Johnson for taking the cases you have taken in Grand Terrace. Thank you for your time in trying to inform Brian. I hope others have been informed as a result of your efforts.

*

Gramps

MEETING TONIGHT: Light Agenda Bring the Council Your Concerns

THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Bring Your Public Comments and Concerns to the City Council

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2006

AT 6:00 P.M

&

Free Trash Day on Canal near Newport Oct 28...

Enter from Barton Rd to Off load Items

&

Oct 31,Halloween Haunt Pico Park

&

EVERYONE WELCOME

NOV 1, 2006 Evening Public Meet the Candidate Night

7:00 P.M. Community Room at City Hall

FREE FOR ALL Bring your Questions WITH YOU

&

Nov 4, Country Fair - Lions Community Center

&

Remember to Vote Nov 7 th 2006

Busy Social Life we all have here in GT...

From the Email Inbox: Voters Parting Words

Dear Gramps:

After living in the Terrace for 33 years, I have given up.....Two sets of rules Two sets of laws...The D A ignores the law.....The Sheriff has selective enforcement. And who could be more condescending than Mr Schawb and his cohort Steve. Always thought I would retire here, but I mailed my ballot today and I will move tomorrow.

Gramps Responds:

Sorry to see you go, but understand why your leaving. Harassment comes in many forms, including, words like "if they don't like it move". Sorry to see a concerned citizen leave, but fully understand your not wanting to be swatted, dealt with, vilified, lied to, and rebuffed by folks you once respected and counted as friends.

May you find your new community as you did find Grand Terrace 33 years ago, a mix of rural, close to the convinces of near by cities, a pocket of green, family living. Thanks for your final effort on the behalf of the citizens of Grand Terrace, your voting in this election is appreciated.

I am sorry to see you pack up and head yonder, but it is understandable. When you go, please take what was Grand about the Terrace with you. Know your 33 years of being a good citizen were appreciated neighbor. Go forth and enjoy retirement. As you know many are leaving for the same reasons you are. Soon GT will look and be like other cities and communities that have been cursed by City Redevelopment Agencies that are as effective as Nero.

Gramps

From the Email InBOX: Plea for HELP

Dear Gramps:

HOW do you get the attention of someone at the State or Federal Level, where our own DA, and Representatives are not willing to address or answer the questions and issues of citizens?
Some of them may see the problem and be connected to it even on a tangent, so they have all refused action. Others just don't take action for fear of political or personal inconvenience.

I think we are suffering from gross mis-allocation of RDA housing funds. Gross because Grand Terrace is a Small City and any problem is a Big Problem for those of us with little budgets and a even smaller margin for error.

Who do you call or contact about the City Redevelopment Agency mismanagement of our local housing issue.The GT housing element is not certified with the state. Unspent low income housing funds should go back to the state or county.

There is evidence that Redevelopment Funds have gone to provide Cars for the City Manager's exclusive use, and other non approved uses, yet no one has been held accountable. Redevelopment Agency Property changes ownership without any Public Notice or Hearings, and not for the purpose of Low Income Housing.

Since GT has not USED the housing funds, only GIVEN them to Corp. For Better Housing for not building anything that looks like malfeasance to me, but perhaps it's technically legal. If you look at their 501 (c)3 filings, they only take fees, not build. There has been a Court Hold on the Blue Mt. Senior Villas and the city still is paying the CFBH money in a deal that has been stopped, nothing built, and not one competitive bid was taken.

I fear GT will never see that $3.8 million and will get nothing for it. The Sr. Housing that could have been built with a straight up builder. Imagine if there were open bidding for such a contract?

There were no Competitive Bids, and a project that was proposed includes a $60.00, 60 year lease and a 9 million City Debt that will zap the city, for all its legitimate revenue and the CFBH will gain all revenue for 60 years of operations and management of the facility which they say they will build after getting matching funds from investors and other bonds in the amount of 9 more million. All for a plan that the Housing Authority says does not meet State Requirements to provide Low and Moderate Income Housing for ALL classes and age groups in the City.

The Plan was pushed as a place for GT Residents to have a priority, and in all CFBH the residences are Section 8 Very Low Income Occupants. Now this is not a bad thing to accommodate in our community, but it is a fraud on the citizens who supported going in to debt for the project. The CFBH and CRA/City Manager pushed the plans past the Planning Commission, and City Council, and it was Paused by Court Order which required a EIR to be done properly.

No EIR has been done and the time requirements have lapsed.

The State Housing and Redevelopment Authorities have rejected the plan as it only addresses Seniors and there is a need for housing for all ages. The Secretary of the State of California has in past audits show misuse of funds.

IF we have to pay back what we have used to date that would be better than have to pay back the whole 9 million and still be in trouble with the state or federal government.

So here we are in Grand Terrace unable to get the City Government/City Redevelopment Agency to stop the folly. No they gave the City Manager/ CRA Director a raise from 100,000 to 150,000 per year, and improved his contract, to all but make him King of the City.

WHO do you call to get action, and HELP?

Please provide addresses and names to folks who will help.

I will pass them along, to folks who will then follow your directions and guidance.

Thank you:

Gramps Answers:

I have been asking the same question for 2 years, and keep trying. Many Citizens are in agreement with your concerns. There have been information requests from Council Member Miller and Hilkey and they apparently get no answers from the City Staff, or the Developers.

I too share your fears and concerns of the debt, costs, contracts, and lack of proper process and procedures taking place. Civil action does not seem to correct the practices of the City Governance, City Staff, perhaps more is needed. Unfortunately, there seems to be little interest in Little GT, other than from those who want its Money, and RDA land Deals, and Concessions to Developers on selected projects.

Oh for a law student that needs a Federal Case, or a budding Gloria Allred, who was on the team that Audited Culver City in the 1980's. Who will be the Champion of GT?

EIR for Blue Mt. Senior Villas Not Done Yet

What did they Know, When Did THEY Know It, and WHO areTHEY?

Money still goes out, and an accounting is not on the Agenda for the Next Council Meeting.
EIR is not on the Agenda for the BMSV.
Contract requirements have expired.
Will Corporation For Better Housing Refund the Money?
Funding Requirements have Time Lines... Will there be a Public Disclosure of the Facts?

Town Center Plan B not Presented.
Jacobsen's DDA Agreement Terms and Condidtions not Met and have Expired.
Will there ever be a Public Hearing on CRA LAND TRANSFERS?
Will there ever be Low Income Housing for Non Seniors in Grand Terrace?

Mr. Johnson who has represented EIR Cases warned the City that there would be a cause of action against the ESSCO Development Plan, even the City's Special Real Estate Lawyer agreed there was pre planned identifiable actionable items missing in the Plan which left open the door for a suit against the Plan as Presented and Approved. Did the City Council send the plan back to the developer for a do over? No they approved Essco. It is in court to have issues resolved.

It took nearly 2 years to get 8 homes on Pico approved. (A non City Development). It required an EIR in such a detail the number of toilet flushes and water/sewer use had to be calculated, dare not over burden the sewer treatment plant with an additional 8 homes. The city is now planning a "Park" on the corner of that development, was that extorted out of the land owner, or a "Gift" to the city freely given? Citizens should know. Did the developer of this private developent get any fees waived for road imporvments or other city fees?

How many toilet flushes will the senior villas bring to the Colton Sewer Plant, and how many will the Town Center with its new "Restroom Facilities"? Has anyone given a flush count on those development ideas?

Alerts were offered, and there is no apparent acceptance of the issues brought to the attention of the city. Rather, there is just continued hostility toward the idea that EIR protect more than swamps and birds. This document is from the records of the City of Grand Terrace. No record of a reply was made available. It is not clear that the Council Members have read this document.

Traffic, and noise effects more than birds and swamp things. People have an interest in a EIR report which should be done by the Developer, at the expense of the Developer not the City.

No one is against Senior Housing or a New Senior Center. People are against the Proposed and Approved Senior Center and their concerns were not heard or dealt with and the issues were related to the EIR issues, of noise, zone change, and housing density issues. Who they are are mostly people who live on Brentwood, or in that area of Grand Terrace, affected by the design being pushed by Center For Better Housing, and the City Manager.

The EIR issues would impact not only the people who currently live in the area, but those Section 8 seniors who would be moving into the Senior Housing, and they would be ill financed to take matters up for their own interests.

The old Senior Center was moved after the Court Order to Reverse all Approvals was issued. So the inconvience of the current participants in the Senior Programs rests with the Corporation for Better Housing and the City of Grand Terrace for not haulting all work when orderd to do so by the Court. How many times will this happen befor the City Manager, and Planning Staff learns to insist on a full EIR including toilet flushes, traffic, and noise, for Private and Public Developments equally? This is the burden of the Developer not the City.

GT: In the NEWS

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-domain24oct24,1,1136193.story?coll=la-news-politics-california

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ELECTIONS
San Bernardino County offers a tamer alternative to state's Prop. 90
Like the statewide measure, it would limit the use of eminent domain, but it would not change the compensation formula.
By Jonathan Abrams, Times Staff Writer
October 24, 2006

San Bernardino County voters will have two choices Nov. 7 if they want to limit the use of eminent domain, the legal power governmental agencies use to take over private property.

One is Proposition 90, a sweeping statewide measure that would forbid governments to take land unless it is put to public use; it would also require potentially significant increases in government compensation to property owners.

The second choice is Measure O, a local alternative that would also prohibit the county from using eminent domain to take private land and transfer it to a private developer or other entity but would not alter the rules on compensation.

The state initiative would change the current formula for determining payment to those whose land is seized by requiring the state to put the property owner in the "same position monetarily as if the property had never been taken," as opposed to simply offering the owner fair market value. It would also require landowners to be compensated for "government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property" — which could including rezoning or environmental protection restrictions.

Supervisors have said they are concerned that the state proposition may be too broad and could raise the price of land taken by eminent domain, so they offered a local alternative.

"It's a better approach than Proposition 90 because it doesn't create some of the same limitations," said Supervisor Dennis Hansberger.

If both measures pass, the statewide proposition would supersede the local one.

James Mulvihill, a professor of urban planning at Cal State San Bernardino, said the eminent-domain issue was covered sufficiently by the statewide proposition.

He said the San Bernardino County measure had received little support or opposition, largely because the county had no history of abusing eminent domain in unincorporated areas.

"Measure Os across the country are simply a firestorm that was created by a lot of people who want to get their names out on a hot issue," he said. "There's really no reason for San Bernardino County to have its own eminent-domain law."

Eminent domain is often used in efforts to revitalize blighted areas and has become a hotter issue since last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a Connecticut city could use it to acquire private land and turn it over to a developer if the transfer resulted in a public benefit.

In the Inland Empire, the Riverside City Council recently used eminent domain in a land purchase near downtown to allow a private developer to construct condominiums.

Residents in Grand Terrace, a city between San Bernardino and Riverside, mounted a failed recall attempt this year against two council members in an effort, among other issues, to curb eminent-domain use.

And San Bernardino officials want to raze several hundred homes and buildings in a blighted neighborhood near downtown to build a scenic lake. But resident DeAnna Adams, who owns a chapel in the area, has sued to keep the city from taking her property.

"They need to keep their hands off the property," said Adams, who owns Victory Chapel. "You can't just take somebody's property and hand it over to somebody else."

In Orange County, Anaheim, Dana Point and Newport Beach, voters are also being asked to restrict local government's use of eminent domain through private transfers on next month's ballot.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jonathan.abrams@latimes.com

EVENTS: Evening Meet the Candidate Night NOV 1

NOV 1, 2006 Evening Public Meet the Candidate Night
7:00 P.M. Community Room at City Hall

CRA IMPACT on Local Business

Fair competition from others or even responsible development is OK if there is an even playing field and opportunity, (like a uniform set of building rules) applied to everyone.

Residents need to know when there is a $4 million dollar RDA land subsidy and $800,000 in street improvements included in the Town Center, and Drive Tru's, and now no substantial sales tax revenue and no library the only real added feature to the development will be more traffic and need for law enforcement.

With all the city owned land they could sell some & build a library without holding a favored developer hostage to "give, Rent" it to them as a return on the above city/RDA "investment".

The businesses existing in Grand Terrace should not be hurt by new development. Demitri's should be allowed a Drive Thru if Migueles and others are allowed a Drive Thu. Is SubDepo being put at an unfair advantage to Subway because the developer was in some way able to avoid city fees? Was the Liquor License approved for CVS/Savon over the Grand Terrace Market a pre existing business, (Both have limited parking)?

City Redevelopment perhaps should be limited to Refreshing what is or sustaining it, rather than creating competition for existing businesses. Perhaps, if there are to be New Businesses and Development it should be done the old fashioned way, without government involvement. Perhaps, sustainable or potential sustainable would involve the keeping of some farms, fruit trees and animal production in Grand Terrace. When the Containers stop coming from China to fill Walmart, and the Containers stop from the Central Valley, and Chile. What does Grand Terrace produce to sustain itself? PUMPS.... and a Labor Supply.

It would be a social improvement if Parents of the Children who live in Grand Terrace can work in Grand Terrace and afford to live here. CRA Development should be used to bring employment opportunities that provide income levels that would develop local jobs that are sufficient for Citizens of Grand Terrace to live on.

Grand Terrace is Like the Philippines, and Mexico, we export our labor and import cash payments or earnings. The only difference is that the commute is closer and the citizens are free to travel out of the city without a passport or green card. While a few get rich, most struggle and our children suffer. Perhaps our children are not suffering from poverty of hunger but they do suffer from a poverty of parenting and adult interaction. The idea of development in Grand Terrace needs to be re-thought about. Sustainability and Social Impacts should be included in the decision matrix.

One thing is for sure, the GT Tax Payer should not be spending their limited tax funds to support businesses by waiving of fees or selling of assets that will distress existing businesses, and lower the quality of life, and not provide employment for residents in Grand Terrace. CRA Debt is sucking funding from other areas of need so that Developers and their new competiting businesses can benefit from the Citizens paying off CRA loans, street improvements, and fee waivers. IF a fee waiver would be provided to all Citizens and Businesses why have the fees, or requirements at all? The only reason is so that some may recieve an unfair advantage over others.

From the Email InBOX:

An Open Letter to Brian Reinarz and the Residents of Grand Terrace
*

Brian, you seem to misunderstand the facts and the law. I thought it funny that you referred to me as an opportunist. I do not file suits against anyone. I represent clients that feel that they have been significantly impacted by the environmental consequences of the jurisdiction’s actions. I entered law school at the age of 47 for the specific purpose of helping people who were being victimized by the very governments who were there supposedly to protect them. I offer my services to groups at very low rates to provide them access to the legal system. I actually took a pay cut to practice law, hardly the mark of an opportunist. I have never advertised and don’t even have a phone number listed for the firm. People have to work to find me, but they do.
*

I find it interesting that you bemoan the cost to the taxpayers of the litigation over the Outdoor Activity Center. It will probably cost the City around $65,000. What is interesting though is that the reason overturned the approval was that the City approved the project without requiring the developer to mitigate his fair share of traffic impacts. In this case, the fair share was in excess of $12,000,000. In other words, by not requiring the developer to pay this expenditure the public would be forced to pay for this twelve million dollar expenditure. My clients cost the City $65,000 maybe, but saved the residents of Grand Terrace $12,000,000. I guess you are right. It would be better to stick the people with a $12,000,000 bill rather than a $65,000. It should also be noted that my clients offered to settle the suit by having the City rescind the approval of the OAC and the EIR and pay the then attorney fees of $20,000. This City chose not to do this.

*
You also claim that these suits are frivolous and based upon loopholes in the law. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the case of the OAC there was a two part test for the judge. He had to deny the petition unless there was no evidence to support the approval or unless the City failed to comply with the law. This is an extremely high burden and is met in only a very small number of cases. The judge in that case routinely declines to find for the plaintiff in what he refers to as “hyper-technical” violations of the law. The judge in that case concluded that the City had not complied with the law because they failed to adequately require the mitigation of $12,000,000. of traffic impacts. The Court also held that the City failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the project as required by law. They City decided what it wanted to do and did not want to be bothered by the requirement of the law that it must consider alternatives to the project that can reduce the environmental impacts. These are not frivolous issues but are serious issues that were among those that the California Environmental Quality Act was specifically adopted to prevent.

*
As to the City making itself an easy target, they do. Rather than attempt to comply with CEQA the City tries to see how they can avoid complying with the law. They seem to simply not care how projects affect the residents of Grand Terrace. Their priority seems to be helping the developers rather than the residents. An interesting question for the citizens of Grand Terrace is why has the City Council paid the Corporation for Better Housing over $3,200,000 of their tax money for a project that the courts have required that the City rescind their approvals and no work has been done on the project?

*
Most cities have very few challenges to projects on environmental grounds because they do a good job of complying with the law and protecting their residents. Fewer than one tenth of one percent of development proposals are challenged on CEQA grounds. Some cities approvals are challenged on a routine basis because the City consistently fails to comply with the law and fails to protect the residents. Ironically, often I find out about problem projects from planning staff members who feel that the politicians have acted improperly.

*
As to my motives, they are easy. I help people protect themselves from being subjected to unreasonable noise, unhealthful air, traffic, and toxic materials. A recent case involved seeking to require the developer of a project notify future home buyers that the area of the homes would subject the buyers to a significantly increased cancer risk. Imagine that, the developer did not want to make that disclosure for some reason. Additionally, there is a strong belief in environmental and economic justice involved in my motives to help people. When a multimillion dollar corporation does not have to mitigate their environmental impacts, the residents of the area have two choices, live or die with the impacts or pay for them themselves. When a multimillion dollar corporation does not pay for mitigating their impacts that cost is shifted to the residents of the area. The local resident with both family members working or working multiple jobs to pay for their house ends up subsidizing the multimillion dollar corporation. Personally, I find this to be offensive and outrageous.
*

At a recent Planning Commission hearing the Planning Commission Chairman suggested that perhaps they should have the environmental documents reviewed to make sure they were adequate. The rest of the commissioners didn’t want the developer to have to wait to make sure the city was complying with the law. Go figure. If you want to be upset with someone be upset with the city council who puts the interests of the development community over the interests and safety of their residents.

Raymond W. Johnson Esq. AICP

From the Email InBox: Regarding Johnson:

Dear Gramps:

There is a connection with some of the cities who have failed to meet the legal requirements which open themselves up to being taken to Court. Many of those cities have the same City Attorney John Harper, or his firm. Perhaps he enjoys the billing time that the faulty advise he provides to the Cities bring when they are hauled in to court, over apparently predictable and avoidable issues.

Grand Terrace has had many developments and plans built and not taken to court. It took YEARS of negotiation with the Planning Commission and City Council for a local resident and developer to satisfy the requirements of the Commission and City Council so he could build homes on his own property, not using city funds, or the use of Eminent Domain. It took a series of negotiations to get neighbors to agree with a zone change and plan for development near Kingfisher Road. (Negotiation of a Settlement). WHEN the City rushes through favored plans with out doing all that is required and it leave wide open the gates to Courts.

When did you ever hear it is easy to beat City Hall. Some how that phrase is said differently. So when Johnson says these cities are easy targets it must be something about the cities that make them weak, and defective in their management in order for them to fail in Court where a Judge not a Jury decides the issue based on the law not emotion of a Law Suit like "McDs" and the Hot Coffee cases. The higher burden of proof of the case lays heavily on the part of Johnson and the Citizens who bring a claim. His point is that these cities conduct themselves in such a way the Court has found his cases not only have merit, but were won.

Mr. Schwab City Manager seems to think Environmental Protection is only for Wildlife and Swamp things. Perhaps, Mr. Schwab should look into the law and code a bit more he will learn that Environmental Protection Laws also protect the Environment that HUMANS are Living In, and that is why a traffic, or noise plan is part of the NORMAL Planning for a large Project which will impact the TRAFFIC and NOISE not only during construction but for the intended use of the Planned Development. He has the advise and council of Attorney John Harper for this purpose, perhaps it is time the City Council has better Legal Counsel?

Gramps says:
Thanks for the insight and connection of the Legal Advise and insight on the Hearings not being like the McD's case. I think this is an attempt to divert attention from the election by saying the problems in the city are not because there is any reason to change membership on the current City Council, or the way it does business. It is interesting that Mr. Schwab does not say next time things will be done differently so legal action can be avoided. No he actually says it is to be expected, expect more. Elect the same Council Members, and Mayor and you no doubt will get more of the same.

CRA LAND TRANSFERS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS

Back-Room Deal, on Council Member Ferre's Watch. She was "ACTING MAYOR".

City Redevelopment Land

22237 Barton Road Grand Terrace Ca

Why was the deed signed by Council Member Acting Mayor Maryetta Ferre for the City Redevelopment Agency transferred to Jacobsen Family Holding after the Designated Developer Agreement had expired for Town Square? The Designated Developer Agreement which was entered into without competitive bid, or public consultation, an approved Redevelopment Plan, and required study prior to the selection process for development contracts.

How much did the city sell this land for to Jacobsen?

How does the city know they will get any project or plan B? The Redevelopment Agency is not managing this development nor the assets in accordance to redevelopment Code (Law) and the failure to do so will no doubt be food for an additional law suit and legal action against the city and developer.

Is everything still happening in secret? This Question was asked at Council Meeting and Not Answered: Except that City Manager Tom Schwab said, a Plan will be submitted to Council Soon, and now Soon has lappsed with 6 passing City Council Meetings, with no Plan B being presented.

Voters want to know.

Citizens Want Public Hearings as are Required by Law

Were the Firework Stands actually on City Property Prior to the Deed Transfer?

In spite of the No Fireworks on City Property Decision of the City Council?

What business in their right mind would locate in GT where Eminent Domain can take their Commercial Property on a whim, when they can invest near by and have FULL ownership. Well, it must be that the Redevelopment Agency has made the deal sweet enough to overcome this negative feature of land ownership in Grand Terrace. How is that fair to the land owners, and business owners who purchased their property and businesses the old fashioned way, on the good old Competitive, Free enterprise Market?

GT in the NEWS... Again...

Attorney impacts several cities
Files lawsuits on environmental grounds
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Article Launched:10/22/2006 12:00:00 AM PDT

* Environmental lawyer Raymond Johnson is a thorn in the side of city officials throughout the region.
* In the nine years he's been an attorney, the Temecula-based Johnson said he has filed about 200 lawsuits, nearly all of them related to potential violations of state environmental laws.
* Of the four largest projects under consideration in Grand Terrace, he has sued on three of them.
*He also is challenging Loma Linda's recently approved General Plan as well as Fontana's approval of a new Home Depot.
* Other municipalities he has sued include Apple Valley, Victorville, Beaumont, Hemet, Palm Springs, Temecula, Murrieta and Riverside.
*Wal-Mart is a favorite target, along with housing developments, retail projects and even a senior center.
*Critics say Johnson uses technicalities and loopholes in the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, to prevail in court.
*"Everybody needs to make a living," said Loma Linda Mayor Robert Christman. "But they're making it at the expense of the taxpayers on frivolous lawsuits. When you bring CEQA into the picture, if you cut one blade of grass, somebody can allege you harmed the environment and can file a lawsuit that can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars."
*Johnson, 59, scoffs at the notion that the lawsuits are without merit.
*"They always call it a frivolous lawsuit right before they lose it, which is an indication that it was not a frivolous lawsuit," Johnson said. "I win the overwhelming majority."
*Johnson estimates that he takes home about $100,000 a year after expenses. His three-attorney firm, Johnson and Sedlack, costs about $25,000 a month to run, Johnson said.
*He said his fee to take a case ranges from $500 to $70,000, with most cases costing between $5,000 and $10,000.
*"If we win, we're able to collect our attorneys' fees from the other side," Johnson said. "Typically, what our client paid will be refunded to them. If we lose, their only cost is whatever the agreement provides."
*Some city officials say Johnson prefers to settle cases before trial and that he rarely succeeds in stopping projects from being built.
*"The cost of settling is clearly cheaper than running it through the legal process," said Grand Terrace City Manager Tom Schwab. "If you're a developer, you factor it into the cost of doing business."
*Johnson said about one-third of his suits are settled out of court.
*"When you're talking a settlement on a CEQA suit, you're not talking about clients getting money," Johnson said. "They're getting modifications to the project to make the project a better project."
*Johnson acknowledges that most projects he opposes in court still get built.
*"A lot of times, it's not about stopping a project, but about getting traffic, noise or health problems fixed," Johnson said. "That's the bottom line. It's trying to avoid the environmental problems that the project creates."
*Johnson sued Grand Terrace over plans for a 120-unit senior apartment complex, an outdoor-themed retail center and construction of an electrical-wholesale business.
*Johnson prevailed in the first two cases, while the third case is in the process of being settled.
*"Grand Terrace is an easy target," Johnson said. "They need to actually try to comply with the law instead of trying to figure out how they're going to avoid it."
*Schwab said the city makes every effort to obey the law, but it's nearly impossible to get any project approved without some kind of environmental objection being raised.
*"The burden of proof falls very much on the public agency or the developer," Schwab said. "It's pretty easy to get a judge to say that there could be a need for additional environmental review."
*San Bernardino Superior Court Judge John P. Wade earlier this year ruled that Grand Terrace must perform a detailed environmental study before moving forward with the senior project. The study will cost $42,000 and delay the project about eight months, Schwab said.
*Wade earlier this year also invalidated the environmental report for the outdoor center plan because he said it didn't properly address all potential impacts.
*Johnson offered to settle that lawsuit for $30,000, but the City Council decided to fight the case on principle, Schwab said.
*"The council felt it wasn't right to settle when there really weren't any valid issues in our opinion," Schwab said.
*City officials said the lawsuit dealt with a project that has changed significantly since the original outdoor adventure center plan was developed more than two years ago.
*The previous concept that called for an 8-acre lake with boat dealers was scaled down to a traditional freeway-oriented retail center with a 1.5-acre lake.
*The city is moving ahead with the outdoor retail project without changing the zoning for the area. Officials said they need to obtain additional funding to improve traffic circulation before building the project.
*In Fontana, Johnson filed a lawsuit in late September against a proposed Home Depot south of Interstate 10.
*Mayor Mark Nuaimi calls the suit a delaying tactic.
*"I often believe that the environmental lawsuits that are brought forward are meritless," Nuaimi said. "I trust our process was done correctly. Unfortunately, we will have to expend resources to prove that."
*In Loma Linda, the slow-growth group Save Loma Linda hired Johnson to challenge the City Council's approval in July of its new General Plan, claiming the document didn't address traffic, air quality and other potential environmental problems.
*"We hired an expert to ensure that the citizens of Loma Linda are well-represented," said Ovidiu Popescu, a member of the group. "CEQA regulations are vital for the welfare of the citizens, and we feel they must be followed."
*Johnson said he is concerned about environmental protection and economic justice.
*"When a Wal-Mart goes in and cons a city into not doing traffic mitigation, that means the rest of the citizens have to pony up and pay the cost of the improvements that Wal-Mart didn't pay for," Johnson said. "That means the average Joe working two jobs ends up subsidizing Wal-Mart or subsidizing the developers."
*Schwab agrees that environmental laws have a purpose.
*"But they certainly can be misused," Schwab said. "There are areas of environmental law that are not crystal clear. But I don't think any of these people are destroying wetlands or harming endangered animals to build a Home Depot."

NOTE TO READERS: Tom Schwab : Earns $150,000.00 and takes his pay home to a House the City Provided him in a Vehicle Paid for with Redevelopment Agency Funds. HE advised approval of all the plans brought to court in spite of Citizens raising concerns in the Planning Hearings and at City Council Meetings they were approved and were not held up under the challenge of trial. So who is responsible for wasting the Citizens Money, and Developer’s Time? Let us look has the origin of the problem not the mid way point. Tom Schwab as City Manager is under the Direct Oversight of the City Council Members. This demonstrates one of the reason there is a need for a Change on the City Council in Grand Terrace. Failure to stay out of the Courts is a costly failure, and expresses an anti citizen attitude to the public concerns as they are brought forward.

Putting blame on Johnson, or the Citizens he represents is like being a smoker and being mad at the doctor who finds a cancer, after a spouse nagged you to go to the Doctor. Question is when the Sun writes with this slant who are they trying to support? The Developers, and Real Estate Dealers who are being forced to comply with the law, like Citizen John Doe would be required to? Interesting Public Trust the Sun has shown.

From the Email InBox:

Gramps, if the wings fit.....



gad·fly NOUN:

1: A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance.
2: One that acts as a provocative stimulus; a goad.
3: Any of various flies, especially of the family Tabanidae, that bite or annoy livestock and other animals.

I'm sure Mr. Carlstrom and Friends, must have had the first or second definition in mind. There are worse things to be called. Or, perhaps he was suggesting the City Council are Animals?

Lost Dogs?

http://www.fidofinder.com/dog.php?id=48041

Listed a Great Dane found in GT... If your missing your pet here is a place to look... If you found a pet,,, here is a place to post it...

This Blog will also post lost and found, and jobs offered for GT... A self sustaining community is well networked and the Blog is a network that brings people together.

Candidate Ferre and Candidate Cortes Oppose ED Reform

Candidate for Mayor Ferre and Candidate for City Council Cortes both want to maintain the right to use Eminent Domain in Grand Terrace for the Purpose of Forcing the Sale of Property from one Business (Non Residencial Zoned Property), to another based on the whim of the City Redevelopment Agency or the City Council.

What does this mean to you.

If you are a home owner in Grand Terrace, your property can be rezoned to Commercial and then subject to their "approved use of Eminent Domain" .

If you are a business owner in Grand Terrace, your property can be taken by Eminent Domain if some other Development or Business Proposition comes and convinces the City Council and City Redevelopment Agency there is something in it for them that they Force a Deal.

Be you a business owner or home owner this is not the Full Protection of Private Property which Citizens of Grand Terrace, Citizens of San Bernardino, Citizens of California, Citizens of the United States of America should expect of its Governing Bodies.

Prop 90 is a State Level Effort to Correct some of the Problems with Eminent Domain Use and Abuse. It is not a perfect solution, but it will provide a bit of restriction of the use of Eminent Domain, not by making it impossible, but perhaps by making it not a financial advantage for the "Buyer" to take land this way from the "Owner".

Best Best and Kruger Law Firm is actively against the Reforms of Prop 90, and the protection of your rights. This is the law firm that employees Council Member Ferre's Son. Some one from this law firm visits the Blog on a weekly basis.

League of California Cities is Actively Against the Reforms of Prop 90, and both Council Member Ferre and Council Member Cortes are active Members and Supporters of the League of California Cities positions.

Don't be fooled that just because Jo Stringfield has not had Eminent Domain used to obtain her property for the benefit of Jacobsen Family Holdings, that the treat and potential has been removed and that she or you enjoy full protection and use of your Property Rights in Grand Terrace.

If this is not enough reason to be concerned on their position about your property rights consider:

If the County of San Bernardino adopts Eminent Domain Reform, and other surrounding counties and cities do the same, what will be the result in Grand Terrace? IF you own Property in Grand Terrace it will be devalued in comparison to equal property in a place where Property Ownership is Guaranteed, by Protections against Eminent Domain for Private Gain.

Now back to the Local Issue:

Council Member and Mayor Candidate Ferre has indicated Your Property Rights are to be considered on a Case by Case basis, and that there is no change in the Eminent Domain Ordinance in Grand Terrace.

Council Member and Council Candidate Cortes has indicated that Your Property Rights are also to be considered on a Case by Case basis, and that there is no change in the Eminent Domain Ordinance in Grand Terrace.

Neither of the above Council Members have taken any effort to Protect Property Rights in Grand Terrace in a broad reform of the GT City Ordinance on Eminent Domain Use. They won't even insist it be put on the City Council Agenda for Discussion and Review as requested by Council Member Jim Miller.

WHY?

Council Member Bea Cortes is a Real Estate Sales Person and her financial backing in the past elections have all been related to Development of one form or another. Dealing by her employer Terra Loma Real Estate and the City and pending Development suggest a question of conflict of Interest.

Council Member/Acting Mayor Ferre, a retired educator apparently does what she has been told to do. She accepts the practice of allowing developers to "contribute" to city's Grand Terrace Days, and other activities while they have decisions pending before the City Council and or Planning Commission. She allows the perpetuation of myth, smoke and mirrors of there being a true hearing of evidence, and a taking of council the advise and concerns of the Citizens of Grand Terrace. She has refused to Protect Your Collective Property Rights.

When they suggest don't worry about your house, it is safe as it is not zoned for Commercial Use. Ask yourself, how fast can the City Council change a zone classification on your property. Ask if it is fair for a business land owner to be forced to have less property rights. I say to you no, on this issue alone. These women do not Protect your Property Rights and should not be on the City Council.

Recall News.. Final Number > or < 1506?

Recall Petition Signature Drive that ended Oct 16, 2006 and it has been determined that there are not more than 1506 signatures that would pass Inspection of Qualifying Eyes of the City Clerk and no Doubt the Hyper Scrutiny of Others insisting every i has a dot.

Therefore the Petitions for the Recall of Council Member Ferre and the Recall of Council Member Garcia have not been submitted to the City Clerk. Many citizens who provided their signatures requested that the petitions not be turned unless there were an overwhelming number that could face the inspection and qualification process, as they feared retribution from the city or council members in one means or another. Usually there is an effort to provide 20% more than is required. So we can conclude the Recall Effort did not gather 1800 signatures to give that buffer.

In the political process it is not unusual to have a Signature Campaign be it for a Measure, Recall or Referendum, from the grass roots, to take more than one effort or drive. Council Member Ferre and Council Member Garcia still face the potential of being recalled up until they have only 6 months remaining in their term of office. OF course Council Member Ferre may avoid this by running and winning the seat of Mayor, so she would have a 6 month window where she could not be Recalled in that position.

What has been accomplished by the Recall. It has educated the citizens on the current status of the City of Grand Terrace's Finances, and Governmental practices. It has brought added awareness to the importance of the Council's Action or Inaction on the lives of the Citizens.

A new Intent to Recall could be filed Oct, 17, 2006. The major reasons for the Recall Effort still exist the next action to be taken and what actions are going to be taken are yet to be seen.

CITIZENS CAN STILL PARTICIPATE IN THEIR GOVERNMENT

&

REGISTER TO VOTE BY OCTOBER 23, 2006

YOU WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE NOV 7, 2006

*

ATTEND GREET AND MEET THE CANDIDATE MEETINGS

BECOME INFORMED AND VOTE

&

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR ACTIVISM AND COURAGE

REMEMBER: Neighborhood Watch TONIGHT

WHEN: October 16th, 2006
WHERE: City Hall Community Room
TIME: 6:00 PM
For more information contact

Sheriff's Specialist Amber Emon at (909) 430-2224.

update: Woman's Club Rummage Sale and Hamburger Barbeque will be in Spring....

42 Minutes CC Meeting Oct 12, 2006

Grand Terrace Area Chamber of Commerce Community & Business LuncheonTuesday, October 17that 11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Community Room @ City Hall

22795 Barton RoadGrand Terrace

Meet The Candidates for the 2006 ElectionPublic Welcome$8 with Reservation,$12 without Reservation 783-3581

Please R.S.V.P By Monday, Oct 16th

Lets hope that there is a evening event for those voters who can't attend a lunch time meeting. It would be terrific if it was on CH 3, or CH 10, or on YouTUBE

October 12, 2006 Grand Terrace City Council Meeting 42 Minutes

The City Council Meeting Light went on almost as one would predict: The meeting demonstrated why there is a need for change on the council, and how the management of the City hall needs to be held in account.

The Presentations to the folks working at the Child Care should be recognized in action not with a paper and plaque. These folks should be paid at least half of the equivalent of the City Manager’s Salary that would be 75,000.00 per year each. That may be high, but they would not be getting a house and a car, so it is a fair goal to pay these folks for the quality work they do day in and day out. Thank You Ladies, wish we could pay you better.

Facility and Staff for our teenagers should have equal attention to that which the youngest and oldest are provided in our community.

The Council went on down the agenda to the Public Comment Section and here is where the comments and the response was worthy of attention.

Cindi Bidney’s Request for the City Council or Staff to Identify a Place and time for an Evening Meet the Candidates Meeting went un answered.

Rather than provide input on where, and when a Public Facility may be made available and who to contact, Assistant City Manager and President of the Chamber of Commerce, Steve Berry decided to be offended by the mention of the Mid Day Pay to attend Chamber Council Meet the Candidate Meeting posted below. At no time did Cindi suggest that the City was holding the Chamber’s Candidate Meeting, nor did she suggest that the meeting should not be held. The point was IF this is an appropriate use for the City Hall, can it be done by others After work HOURS, in City Hall. AGAIN the Question was not ANSWERED. Let’s hope it was answered off camera.

Assistant City Manager Steve Berry’s response to Mrs. Hornsby’s Question and Comments was nonsensical . Yes, the project has been HALTED. Halted does not mean that it has been TERMINATED. The Court Order has Reversed ALL Approvals until an Approve EIR has been presented and approve.

The question is Why then are Payments still being Made to Corporation for Better Housing?

The question is Why did City Manager Tom Schwab represent that 1 Million had been spent when it is closer to 3.2 Million.

The question is Why has not the expenses been presented in an accounting so that the Council and Public knows what that 3.2 Million has paid for. This was asked and re-asked now by the public and by Council Member Miller. This concern was confirmed by Council Member Hilkey.

The question is what are the contractual obligations of the City to Pay the CFBH under the Court Ordered Reversal of Approvals Pending an EIR.

Where is the EIR. Should we the city pay another dime until the EIR is submitted and approved and the court has removed its Stop Work Order?

OR should we just empty out our piggy bank and give CFBH all the money and they then shrug their shoulders and say, “well that was a nice thought”, to bad it didn’t work out. GT will have to pay the Long Term Debt used to provide that 9 Million Dollars to CFBH?

Not quite clearly stated at the podium was the question: Why are the comments and questions of Council Member Miller, and the reply by City Manager Tom Schwab accurately recorded in the Minutes which the council approved?


The Trucking issue was raised by Patricia Farley Steve Berry said I looked on Saturday and didn’t see a problem. This once again will require the citizens to make a log of when the violations occur, and be put in the position of having to record the coming and going of the truck on the property. Perhaps City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members should be on Speed Dial for reporting these violations as they are noted. Clearly what citizens bring forth to the podium on this matter was discounted or even disregarded by the Assistant City Manager. No Council Member addressed the issue in their comments. None directed staff to investigate, or report, or put it on the agenda on a specific time line.

Citizen Farley reviewed the long list of unanswered issues:

Where and when will the issue of Eminent Domain be put on the Agenda as requested by both Citizen Concern and Council Member Miller?
Where is the real recognition of the financial status of the city and why does the Council Members Ferre, as Mayor, and Council Member Cortes ad Mayor Pro Tem continue to mislead the public saying there is a surplus when there is a net debt?
Where are the financial documents requested by Bill Hays, ( the real and total accounting for car transactions, land and property transfers).
Where are the reports requested by Council Member Miller: Cost of Fire on Blue Mt., Grand Terrace Days Accounting not just the budget but Actual Income and Expense.
When are these things going to get on the agenda?
Not mentioned the Fireworks Question is still pending.

Side Mention of the Budget Matters for the Historical Preservation Committee in relation to the required additional insurance for the upcoming Country Fair offered insight that the information is not being exchanged. Council Member Miller was concerned that the HPC was being asked to absorb a large expense for insurance and queried if that would be a budget problem. Here is a budget that he has asked for detail reports on as this committee over sees the Grand Terrace Days Event and the “Contributions” made by Developers with Projects Pending, and Service Providers including the likes of Waste Management, AES and Press Enterprise all “Contribute” to their budget. Council Member Millers Request for Budget and Expense or Accounting Audit of this Committee has apparently gone un answered in sufficient detail, if at all.

New information: Grand Terrace Country Days will be having Moreno Valley Lions to Sell Hot Dogs. The Grand Terrace Woman’s Club will be having their Rummage Sale and Hamburger Barbeque on a Separate Date. None of the Council Promoted the Women’s Club Event or the Lion’s Pan Cake Breakfast which precedes the Nov Country Fair… and of course there is the Halloween Haunt.

As Sympathetic as we all are when any family member is ill it should not have been the reason for a short City Council Meeting. The Government of GT is not Dependent on Council Member Ferre’s sitting in the Mayor’s Chair. She could have absented herself from the Meeting at any time. We do have a Mayor Pro Tem as advertised and Council Member Bea Cortes could have conducted the meeting as there would have been a quorum. No this was a Political Choice on the part of Council Member Ferre.

Perhaps Council Member Ferre felt it would not look good if she missed a meeting so close to an election regardless of the reason. However, I do know for a fact the meeting is not dependent on her being there. I do know the agenda was more ceremony and little substance on the agenda. You are free to read into the reason she was there and not with her mother. Some times, it is just not necessary or productive to be bed side, and the meeting did not conflict with family duty. Marryetta has cared for her mother for many years and one would hope that if there was a need to be at the hospital that would have come first. Governmentally speaking no one council member is indispensable to the function of the council, to suggest so is inappropriate.

Council Member Hilkey’s remarks are refreshing. It has been the goal of this blog to inform and educate. This blog has provided detailed information on the LOWES and what it would bring to this community. This blog does research the issues it presents and acts as a repository of the information gathered. This blog doing this has annoyed the City Management to the extent that Members of the Staff are forbidden to communicate with the blog. Yet, there is ample evidence that the blog is still read by City Staff and Council Members.

Council Member Hilkey, you are right you have been set up in the past. The question you need to ask now is by whom and for who’s benefit, short and long term. If you can tie up the loose ends by December we’d all appreciate it. Perhaps the Professionals should have to swear in prior to making a Presentation to the Council.

Council Member Hilkey: this is why there is a second reading of a decision. It is or should be an opportunity for you to have as a cool off period where you can say, you know I gave it some thought and I don’t want to sign on to that decision or approval I made after a one sided presentation… And Perhaps you are guilty yourself in discounting the citizens input and giving the “Professional” the long leash rather than a short leash. Council Member Hilkey, you are correct in identifying the flaw is in the Staff that is providing you the information. You still have time and means to deal with these situations. Please be an Aggressive Council Member, and after you leave the council an Audacious Citizen.