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
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.
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
