Sunday, April 30, 2006
Over 100 posts in the month. It is difficult for some (myself included) to keep the information organized in a sequence. So, for the next month there will be a change. 6000, visits and nearly 12000 pages viewed in 5 months. Note, not one dime is earned by this blog or effort.
The blog's index on the left of the page, has an active group of 10 titles on the "Front" or first page of the blog.
I will designate these ten as the following categories, or clusters. Here is my list.. Please let me know if you have a better idea..
City RDA Action: Development / Redevelopment Agency
Other Major Developments.
City Council Action: Other City Action, or Non Development
Grand Terrace In the News
Safety: Arrest Reports and Crime Fire Department
Family Entertainment, Eats, and Local Employment
When you read someone saying "We can't have a Library because we have lost Lowes", be alert.
At no time did the city write a funding restriction on the use of funds resulting on the "Increased Tax Revenues" of any of the stores in the Town Center. The Highgrove Happening's Virginia Harford suggests in her "Opinion" that the Library lost 500,000.00 of support. HOG wash. Virginia, Lowes would have cost the Operations of the City so much there would have been a negative impact on available funds for services such as a Library or Youth Services.
The Library was a Hoax from the On-set. First it was to be rented back to the City. The city would finance monthly rent/lease payable to Jacobsen. Then it was said or rumored to be FREE. Never has there been a real budget, cost of operations, or plan to move the library in a coordinated well thought out plan between the City or the County... It is after all a County Library. Don't listen to any one who links the Lack of a Library plan with an individual protecting their property rights. Any one making such a connection is promoting fiction and lies. If they are trying to dupe you on this issue, where else are they leading you?
Here we go down another path... Of Flawed Logic. IF there is no Town Center, you will starve to Death... Yes that is Right... Stater Brothers will close it's current store, and the roads will be closed any your families will go hungry. After all, none of the former farms function in Grand Terrace, we have forgotten how to be self sufficient. We'd all sit on the curb, cry and wither away into dust.
HOG WASH. Stater's would negotiate either to buy or lease in its current space and continue to make good money off of the citizens of Grand Terrace. IF they could not come to terms a different market, Cardenas, Fiesta Foods, Food For Less, Trader Joe's, Maxie's Foods, any number of grocery providers will move into this market area, long before your tears will dry as you sit crying on the curb.
What you may never recover is your right to a Good Fair Government, and your Property Rights, if the practices used by the Jacobsen family Holdings and Tom Schwab City Dictator are allowed to be perpetuated.
Yes, individual's have vested individual interests in the big picture. Go ahead Move out of town Jack food will get to Grand Terrace.
Virginia if you want to live behind a Lowes, and Chili's, I suggest parking an RV in their parking lots for a week. See what you are bringing to town.... For the fiction of tax income.
Now, to the other press coverage. YOU like Virginia perpetuate the same lies, and false rational. Why is it the city officials are never asked the detailed questions, or for supporting data to their statements. In the Blue Mt. Outlook, the person who said, "thank GOD for Eminent Domain" was quoted as saying "thank Goodness for Eminent domain". This is not the garden of Eden.. But somehow, I don't think you'd find a Lowes in that garden either.
Continued Attention, Critical Attention must be paid to the Town Center Development and Developer. Continued Attention, Critical Attention Must be paid to the Management of our City.
Issues still abound: Action is still needed:
A hearty thanks to all those who have been and will be active citizens in the process. There are many ways to contribute to the community. We are fortunate to have this freedom. It is work to keep this freedom.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
10:00 PM PDT on Friday, April 28, 2006
By JULIE FARRENThe Press-Enterprise
The proposed Grand Terrace Town Center will not include Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse, which city officials said would have generated a half-million dollars in revenue to fund a new library.
Developer Doug Jacobsen withdrew his request April 17 for the Redevelopment Agency's assistance in purchasing Jo Stringfield's 1.9-acre property on Barton Road. That land would have been used to build Lowe's.
"I'm prepared to build Plan B," Jacobsen said Friday. He said he is talking to other major retailers to replace Lowe's in the proposed development. He should know in 30 days of a possible replacement.
The original Town Center would have featured a new Stater Bros. market and Lowe's as its anchor stores.
Jacobsen plans to submit his backup proposal to the Planning Commission within 90 days.
City Manager Tom Schwab confirmed Friday that Jacobsen withdrew his request for Redevelopment Agency funding. He said the city is still talking with Stringfield about acquiring her property.
"We don't have anything officially to report," Schwab said. "There's still some negotiation there."
Jacobsen said he has tried to contact Stringfield about buying the property but she has not responded to his calls.
Her attorney, C. Robert Ferguson, has asked Jacobsen to leave Stringfield alone.
"That's what we've decided to do," Jacobsen said.
Schwab said Lowe's would have created additional revenue of $500,000 to help fund a library. But without the retailer, plans for a new library are on hold.
"We'll stay in our current library," Schwab said.
Reach Julie Farren at (909) 806-3066 or jfarren@PE.com
Online at: http://www.pe.com/localnews/sanbernardino/stories/
(Back space connect the PE to the line above)PE_News_Local_B_bcenter29.3e2660a.html
has covered all the above points and counter points, in Prior Posts. It is time for Caution, and a Demand that Jo is restored to full property rights reversing the Feb 26, 2006 notice not to sell, rent or Move from her property. This Declaration, removed her property rights. Those writes should be restored in WRITING at a MINIMUM.
Reports and Quotes City Manager Tom Schwab as saying:
"On April 19th, Jacobsen and (un named) city officials withdrew the possibility of using eminent domain to acquire Jo Stringfield's Property." " The CRA and/or Doug Jacobsen will work to privately acquire the property from Jo Stringfield". "It is up to her. We would like to work something out but ultimately she gets to make the final decision".
One can only wonder what the other prior owners would have decided if they had not been under the repeated threats and innuendos of the Use of Eminent Domain by the City. Would they have sold? Would they have made the agreements they did?
Why the change of heart by Jacobsen and the Un-Named City Officials? Bad for business, and possibly worse we can all speculate. One thing is for sure continued vigilance is needed to over see what gets put in to the shops restaurants will be important for the citizens of the city. Increasing revenues while increasing crime and causing a deterioration of our community life is not a Net Gain for the city. With the CRA's continued involvement with the "Development" the city and citizens should have a great deal of control and influence on what is placed in the development. Let's hope CJUSD has a GT ELM School Replacement site, it would be nice to know where that is, before any construction is done on any large section of land.
MATCH?: A Lake Elsinore man arrested in Baldwin Park is suspected in several holdups.
10:00 PM PDT on Thursday, April 27, 2006
By KENNY KLEINThe Press-Enterprise
Authorities said Thursday that a bank robbery suspect caught Wednesday in Baldwin Park may be responsible for holdups in Hemet, Moreno Valley, San Bernardino, Grand Terrace and Irvine.
Mark King, a 36-year-old Lake Elsinore man, was arrested on suspicion of bank robberies in Baldwin Park, Irwindale and Arcadia, Baldwin Park police Capt. Michael Taylor said by phone.
DATE: 04/27/2006 TIME: 1828
ARREST DATE: 04/27/2006 TIME: 1525
LOC: 22616 MAIN ST
AGENCY: COLTON PD
RELEASE DATE: TIME: FACILITY: WEST VALLEY D.C.
LAST: HACKETT FIRST: DENNIS MIDDLE: CRAIG
DOB: 10/11/1956 SEX: M RACE: B HT: 5 11 WT: 206 HAIR: BLK EYE COLOR: BRO OCCUPATION: CHAPLAIN
CHARGE TYPE SUPPL/HOLD BAIL DISPOSITION
PC288.5(A) FEL ORIGINAL $250,000.00
PC288.5. (a) Any person who either resides in the same home with the minor child or has recurring access to the child, who over a period of time, not less than three months in duration, engages in three or more acts of substantial sexual conduct with a child under the age of14 years at the time of the commission of the offense, as defined insubdivision (b) of Section 1203.066, or three or more acts of lewdor lascivious conduct under Section 288, with a child under the ageof 14 years at the time of the commission of the offense is guilty ofthe offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 6, 12, or 16 years.
(b) To convict under this section the trier of fact, if a jury,need unanimously agree only that the requisite number of acts occurred not on which acts constitute the requisite number.
(c) No other felony sex offense involving the same victim may becharged in the same proceeding with a charge under this sectionunless the other charged offense occurred outside the time periodcharged under this section or the other offense is charged in the alternative. A defendant may be charged with only one count under this section unless more than one victim is involved in which case a separate count may be charged for each victim.
Article Display Date: 4/29/2006 12:00 AM
Crime and Public Safety 4-29-2006
San Bernardino County Sun
GRAND TERRACE Man arrested in molestation case
A man who identified himself as a chaplain in sheriff's booking logs has been arrested in connection with the molestation of a relative when she was 12 years old, police said Friday.
Dennis Craig Hackett, 49, of Grand Terrace was arrested about 3:30 p.m. Thursday at his home and booked into West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, where he was being held Friday in lieu of $250,000 bail.
On Tuesday, Hackett's alleged victim, now 19, went to the Colton Police Department and reported her uncle molested her repeatedly when she was 12 at locations in Colton and Grand Terrace, said Colton police Lt. Mark Owens.
It was unclear Friday where Hackett was employed, or if he was affiliated with a church.
A woman who answered the phone at his home Friday declined to comment.
Police will present the case to the District Attorney's Office on Monday, Owens said.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Article Display Date:
Grand Terrace site loses Lowe's
April 26, 2006
Stephen Wall, Staff WriterSan Bernardino County Sun
GRAND TERRACE - Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse won't be coming to the city, at least for the foreseeable future.
A Woodland Hills developer said he has given up trying to acquire all the land needed to build a 20-acre shopping center on Barton Road east of Michigan Avenue.
Homeowner Jo Stringfield, who lives on Barton, has been unwilling to sell her nearly two-acre property to the city or the developer for the project.
Without her land, there isn't enough room for Lowe's, said the developer, Doug Jacobsen.
The decision to abandon Lowe's pleases residents who complained the business would generate excessive noise, traffic and air pollution.
"This is excellent news for the community," said Mark Jolstead, spokesman for We The Residents of Grand Terrace, a group opposed to Lowe's and other big-box stores. "We're very glad to hear that."
The loss of Lowe's will be felt in the city's pocketbook, however.
The 20-acre project with Lowe's was expected to produce about $600,000 a year in tax revenue for the city, officials said.
"Our feeling is the best project would be the complete project," City Manager Tom Schwab said. "With the smaller project, we have to build around Jo Stringfield's property, which I don't think helps anybody."
WHO IS "OUR" Tom Schwab is speaking in the Third Person?
Confirmed tenants for the smaller center include a Stater Bros. market and a Miguel Jr.'s Mexican restaurant, Jacobsen said.
He said he has a letter of intent from Chili's Grill and Bar and has received interest from two drugstore chains and a pet supply company. A discount general merchandise store also has expressed interest, Jacobsen said.
Drug Store is a Liquor Store in Disguise. Chili's Grill and Bar accross from a Elementary School and next to Residential property. Sounds Like a great Plan?
Pet Suppy Store May be a good fit. Especially with the Emergency Animal Hospital Which May need to move in the future. 215 construction.
Jacobsen said the scaled-down center would generate 60 percent to 75 percent less revenue than a center with Lowe's.
We could invite HOOTERS, and Larry Flint and earn more money too.. but More Income is not More Available Funds. Jacobsen's Logic is still flawed.
City officials and Jacobsen spent months trying to reach a deal to buy Stringfield's property, which has been in her family more than 50 years.
The city offered as much as $1.1 million for her land, Schwab said, but she refused to sell. In January, the City Council considered using eminent domain to acquire the property. But strong opposition from residents doomed that possibility.
The City Manager/RDA Director was authorized to Offer 700.000.00 not 1.1 million. Does the City Council Give Tom Schwab a blank checkbook? OR is the TRUTH Jacobsen had offered 1.1 million and it was rejected, and the City's Offer was not accepted at 700.000 plus change. Schwab can not keep his figures and offers straight because he doesn't know who he is working for, the City or Jacobsen.
Last week, Schwab said Jacobsen withdrew his request for city assistance in obtaining Stringfield's parcel. "I'm worn out with all the effort to go forward with (the larger project) that requires condemnation," Jacobsen said. "I don't think it will ever not require condemnation. I don't think that Jo Stringfield is ever going to want to sell."
Gee you mean a woman can say NO and MEAN it? Has the city or Jacobsen notified Jo Stringfield that she is no longer under the treat of condemnation, or Eminent Domain.
Stringfield has refused several requests to discuss the issue.
Jacobsen said the scaled-down project would not create enough revenue to support a new county library branch, which was envisioned in the larger plan.
THE PLAN IN ALL IT'S LARGENESS DID NOT PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A NEW COUNTY LIBRARY, NOR ITS OPERATIONS. THIS IS A FICTION, AND AN ATTEMPT TO VILIFY JO STRINGFIELD AS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THERE NOT BEING A NEW LIBRARY. PROMOTING THIS FICTION IS DESPICABLE OR WORSE. The original plan provided "Space" to be RENTED or Leased by the CITY/COUNTY at a rate of 7500.00 per month, payable to Jacobsen. This is not an INCOME... this is an expense. This does not account for the Other Operational Expenses of a larger Library. Shame on you Jacobsen, Schwab and anyone perpetuating the fiction that it is Jo's Fault there is not going to be a Library. Shame on YOU.
"I have two years and millions of dollars invested in this project," Jacobsen said. "You can bet my last dollar that I'm disappointed."
Mr. Jacobsen show us the actual Millions Spent. Not just the Escrow or Options written... and we'll play a sad song for you as you flip your property and make a pile of money as you do it. Perhaps your pile will be smaller, but it should not be at the cost of an individual's property rights, the quality of live of others, or at the expense of the citizens of the city that your PILE of money grows.
All of Us who travel between Colton and Grand Terrace will do so much safer IF there is a light at La Cadena and Barton Road. This is a good place to collaborate if the city has to pitch in some funds, it may well be your life saved by putting a light at this intersection. La Cadena is traveled nearly daily by our driving youth going to CHS. This alone is reason we should want a light at that intersection. How about the CHS Buses that use this road daily.
Here is a Radical Idea: How about making GT a Electric Golf Cart Friendly City? Reduce the speed on Barton and Mt. Vernon to 35 MPH which is most likely the speed the lights will be set to. IF we were a Golf Cart Friendly City, we would do more shopping and restauranting in town. We would be causing less noise, wear and tear on the roads, and less smog from stop and go use of combustion engines. You can legally ride a horse through town, why not a LEV or NEV or Electric Golf Cart?
Why, well as long as Mt. Vernon and Barton Road have a posted speed limit of 45 mph, LEV, NEV, and Golf Carts can not use these major roads. However, Horses, goat carts, bikes, pedestrians, and mopeds can use these roads dividing the community. Progress is not always equal to Speed.
Swampers will Come!!! Wow... What is a Swamper???
I was informed a Swamper is a day laborer or casual laborer (may even be a union member) who is available to assist in the unloading of semi trailers). They are not "regular" employees and are often hired by the driver, not the company or in the case of the speakers concern, Fiesta Markets, whom is allegedly going to back fill into the soon to be abandoned Stater Brothers warehousing Operations On Barton Road, just out of town.
First a word on Fiesta Market... Oh... Great salsa, tortillas, and produce better than Stater's. However, I prefer Cardenas Market's vegetables and prices.
As far as their operations and "Swampers" this is an issue for a Union Organizer to take on, not the City Council. However, IF the behavior of Swampers is illegal while they visit Grand Terrace they should be arrested and dealt with on the basis of the specific violation, not their "Job".
Folks who work hard should be paid well, and treated well. I think we should ask ourselves where in Grand Terrace or Colton can these hardworking folks afford to live? Well, not in Grand Terrace, we think low income is the same as low life, criminal. We in Grand Terrace avoid a mixed income population where everyone is respected for the contribution they make to the community. Dog Washer to Dentist. Trash Man to Teacher. Mother to Mechanic. All should be respected. Swamper to Surgeon.
Are Fireworks safer in your neighbors yard or at a public park? Schwab says the Liability Issues for the City should result in closing the Parks from being a Fireworks Fire Zone. BUT it is a risk the CITY can PUT on Citizens at Home. It is an annoyance to neighborhoods with dogs, cats, and other pets. In a park there is not supposed to be consumption of alcohol, safety inspection can be done, and IF the Rest of Grand Terrace were a no fire zone, The Rest of the Community would be Safe.
The Council has no business "Inspecting" the books of the teams as part of their justification of how to regulate the use or no use of fireworks. This is petty reasoning at best. Here is reality. The city will incur a cost to provide services for security of the Fireworks Sales, and Enforcement. That cost will be much greater if the Entire City is a Firework Fire Zone. The cost of house or brush fires could be MUCH greater than the "Damage" possible at one or both of the Parks.
It is a reasonable question to ask how much money is earned by the sale, the risk assumption of the activity and the net balance when off set by the real costs of the sale. (assuming NO tragic events). How would those costs and problems be mitigated by this ordinance, or the alternatives provided by the committee.
But, NO... We see the council accepting without debate the Amendments penciled in at the last moment by Tom Schwab. When was the public allowed to see the "Revised Version of the Committee's Recommendations as Amended by Tom Schwab". It was not on the City Web Page. The Fireworks Committee was not informed of changes, and at the meeting it came up well after 11:00pm after a series of "Presentations" which were intended to dilute the audience in attendance regarding the Threats of ED, Lowes, and Unwanted Development Activities and Practices in the City.
This slipping in the Ordinance and the Tom Schwab changes this way is typical of the operations of this city.
Passing the muster for the developer building 35 homes. More hoops than a 3 ring circus. However, WHO approve the signs of Sav-on.. Come on will any one on the Council Insist that it is Out of Code, Out of Plan, Take it down? No, Jacobsen apparently does not have to be held to the same standards as folks who want to build homes, and condo's. He can install major UGLY right in the middle of town he has been anointed by Tom Schwab.
Fees Increased 300% in two minutes.
Debate about a fence nearly 40 minutes.
Your house burnt down by fireworks. 10 minutes.
How about No Fireworks anywhere EXCEPT at the Park where they are sold and Fired in a controlled safe environment. AND the Teams provide Snacks Games and Entertainment in addition to the sale of Fireworks. They can even ask for Direct Donations from Jacobsen, Waist Management, and all the same folks that support the City's Party called Grand Terrace Days. Oh, but that would remove the influence that is bought from making those donations to the "City's Party".
A park only Firework Zone, would leave Peace in the Rest of town. Enforcement of a NO fire Zone is easier than a Zone where "Safe and Sane" is OK, other's are not. Dogs, cats, old people will be left in peace on that day. If your inclined to raise a ruckus, that day, do it at the park or be quiet at home. Hell Day and Night describes last years 4th of July. Let's Not Forget the Problems we had.
In conclusion, the pretence that there needs to be a rush to a resolution is also a fiction. IF the Council Takes NO action on the Firework Ordinance, the current Ordinance will remain in force. There is no need to pass an Ordinance to increase law enforcement services those days. If there are no new Fire Free Zones, No Fireworks in the Park, and no limit on the number of days, why bother with changing the Ordinance. Be like Nero Let it burn, don't pretend you have done some great thing for the citizens addressing their safety concern.
Have you noticed that while the concerned citizens of Grand Terrace are sharing their concerns at the podium, Marietta Ferre and Bea Cortes are looking at everything but the speaker. They just can't wait for the speaker to be finished. That is not the behavior of a knowledgeable leader.
It disappoints me that Bea Cortes, Marietta Ferre, Le Ann Garcia ignored Mr. Hay's question about Eminent Domain. He asked which way would they vote today. Mr. Miller stood up to his views and said he would vote against it. Mr. Hilkey, skated the issue again by saying, he would not vote on anything without the facts. Well, they didn't have the facts about the fireworks committees decision to limit the soccer/baseball teams sales days to four. Marietta wanted to push it through like everything else. I do not believe she can think for herself and therefore should not hold a seat in our city government. Bea Cortes swayed either way, as usual. The truth is, they just want to get out of there.
We need to elect people who care about our city, and don't have a hidden agenda.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
In Brief 4-27-2006
Staff ReportsSan Bernardino County Sun
GRAND TERRACE Council to discuss possible land purchase
The City Council, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency board, tonight is expected to discuss the purchase of property that would be used for a new shopping center.
City officials have been negotiating the price and terms of a deal with the owner of GT Pit Stop near Barton Road and Michigan Avenue.
The site is slated to become a shopping center anchored by a Stater Bros. and other stores. GT Pit Stop is expected to move nearby in the city as part of the deal, officials said.
Council members plan to discuss the matter in closed session at 6 p.m. at the Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road.
When did the Council specifically Direct the City Manager/Redelopment Agency Director to involve the City or CRA in the negotiations between two private businesses, or individuals?
Why is this City Business Done behind Closed Doors. Citizens should have the right to hear the negotiation from start to end.
If the Deal is to swap a Piece of GT CRA City Owned Property for the Pit Stop, the Citizens should have input to the Deal Before it is done Behind Closed Door Negotiations.
What has the Deal got to do the the Credit Problems of the Pit Stop? Will the CRA be liable for these debts?
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
City Council Meeting
6:00 City Hall
The project is funded by federal grants from the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program.
The software installed at the intersections will tie in with cities that already have traffic-synchronization programs in place, such as San Bernardino. Robert Eisenbeisz, senior civil engineer for the city, said his office is 90 percent finished installing its software in 16 major corridors and is troubleshooting the equipment.
"We're gearing ours up so when (the SANBAG project) happens, it will go at the same time," he said.
SANBAG also has plans for two more phases on smaller streets, covering about 550 intersections, Donahue said. A start date and budget for those phases have not yet been determined, she said.
Here is an Idea. How about affordable houses NEAR Reasonable Paying JOBS. Cut the Commute time back and forth. No that won't work, Your children may see their parents eat dinner... and you know we can't have that.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Answer: All businesses operation within Grand Terrace are required to have a current business license registration on file with the City of Grand Terrace. This applies to business based in the City as well as businesses and contractors doing work in the City but who are based elsewhere.
Do the Contractors and Sub Contractors who built Savon Have Business Licenses in Grand Terrace? Does Jacobesen Family Holdings Inc. LLC have a Business Licence in this City?
8. What kind of signs can I have for my business?
Answer: All signs are governed by the Zoning Code or the Barton Road Specific Plan. Appropriately regulated signs enhance the visual environment and economic stability of the City. The type and size of signs allowed for a use depend on the zoning of the site and the size and nature of the use. Consult the Planning Department for specific information regarding signs.
From the Barton Road Specific Plan:
F. Sign Regulations
1. Required Compliance
The purpose of the sign regulations is to provide the means for adequate identification of buildings and businesses by regulating and controlling the design, size, and location of all signs within the Specific Plan area.
All signs within the Barton Road Specific Plan area shall comply with the sign provisions of Chapter 18.80 (Signs) of the City of Grand Terrace Zoning Code, but with the following exceptions:
Village Commercial (VC) District
Single Tenant Facilities – Wall or canopy signs shall not exceed 75 square feet based upon an area of one square foot of sign area per each lineal foot of building street frontage.
Multiple Tenant Facilities – Wall and canopy signs shall not exceed 50 square feet based upon one square foot of sign for each lineal foot of building street frontage.
Monument type signs shall not exceed 24 square feet for any parcel with less than 300 feet of street frontage and a maximum size of 32 square feet for any parcel with 300 feet or more of street frontage. They shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet above grade.
General Commercial (GC) District
Multiple Tenant Facilities - Monument type signs shall not exceed 24 square feet for any parcel with less than 300 feet of street frontage and a maximum size of 32 square feet for any parcel with 300 feet or more of street frontage. They shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet above grade.
2. Sign Modifications
The Community Development Director may approve a sign that does not strictly adhere to the sign provisian exception noted above where such sign is compatible with the surrounding development and is in harmony with the general aesthetics and welfare of the local area. Friends of Council or Community Development Director Have No Rules.
The Planning Commission has the authority to allow deviations from the sign ordinance to approve creative and innovative sign programs or sign solutions under exceptional or unusual circumstances . of the Chapter 18.80 of the City Zoning Code and.... Friends of the Planning Commission Don't have Rules.
Colton Joint Unified School District Should: File a letter of intent on all or part of the Remaining Land in Grand Terrace as a New Site for Grand Terrace Elementary School may be required in Part or Whole as a result of Construction of the 215.
Grand Terrace Historical Society Should: Get the Old School Building (Current Lions Club) Designated as a Building of Historical Significance, and get it Protected to some degree, IF it does not “HAVE” to be removed due to Freeway or School Construction it should remain a part of the City.
The City Should Stop all Construction Plans and Redevelopment Plans: until all the above is done, and A LONG RANGE PLAN is in sight, and inclusive of the total needs of the Community. Increased Redevelopment Costs will result if businesses have to be relocated several times.
Who on Earth Approved the Signage at the new Sav-on. It looks appropriate for building trying to attract business along a Major Freeway siding. It is Garish, Ugly, Hideous, and Gross. When small shops are pestered about a sign board listing today's specials, we allow this outbreak up UGLINESS. DRIVE UP RESTURANTS, UGLY SIGNS, UGLINESS ALL AROUND.
YUCK... JUST PICTURE THAT 10 TIMES OVER IF THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF JACOBSEN'S ARTISTIC APPRECIATION FOR AESTHETICS, and apply it to the "TOWN CENTER"
Savon is on the Building Facade 2 Times, The Drive way, and Now the Central Intersection. PLEASE is Down Town Grand Terrace going to Look Like Colton's Freeway of Billboards...
YUCK. A Field of WEEDS is better than all that UGLY EXCESSIVE Signage.
In addition to the YUCK factor, it is a Safety Issue. Try and Make a Right hand Turn going south bound on Mt, Vernon Onto Barton Road. You can't see, the Block Stoner Wall, the UGLY SIGN, the Gazebo, and the pre existing slight curve will all add up to a death one of these days. Before that happens I hope the "Traffic Engineer" figures out the cost of putting a No Turn on Red Sign on that signal will save lives, and cost only a few bucks.
But, that does not cure the OUT BREAK of the UGLIES on the Corner of Mt. Vernon And Barton Rd.
THE CITY NEEDS TO CUT OUT THE EXCESSIVE SIGNAGE AT SAV-ON.. BILLBOARD BLIGHT MID GRAND TERRACE.
I'd rather know there is a special on pizza
than see SAV-ON UP DOWN ALL AROUND CENTRAL GT.
Monday, April 24, 2006
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 27, 2006
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK=S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
* Call to Order -
* Invocation -
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
1. Approval of 04-13-2006 Minutes
2. Closed Session - Real Property Negotiations (GC 54956.8)
1. Real Estate Negotiations
A. Property Address: 22115 Barton Road APN# 1167-231-11 and APN# 1167-141-08
ARE THEY going for partial property sales, in order to break
ground on the earliest possible date, so that they canot be stopped?
A. Property Address:
22115 Barton Road is PIT STOP the corner
and APN# 1167-141-08 is 22181 Barton Road
owned by GT CRA, previouwly owned by Sara Jay
B. Negotiating Parties:
1) Tom Schwab on behalf of the Agency
2) Ali Yasin on behalf of the Seller
C. Areas of Negotiation: Real Property Purchase (Price and Terms)
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamation - Blue Ribbon Week
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
C. Approval of 04-13-2006 Minutes
D. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program 2006-09 Delegate Agency Agreement
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
E. Committee Reports - None
B. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Specific Plan No. 05-02 (SP-05-02), Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 05-03 (TTM-05-03/County No. 17766) and Environmental Review Case No. 05-21 (E-05-21) to construct a 35 single family condominium development
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
B. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, California, Amending Chapter 8.112 of the Municipal Code and Regulating the Sale and Discharge of Fireworks
C. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace Rescinding the Traffic Signal Improvement Fee Schedule and Circulation Fee Schedule (4.104) and Replacing it with a new Fee Structure and Rescinding the Capital Improvement and Maintenance Fee Schedule (4.80) and replacing it with a new Fee Structure (ask for a full Reading).
8. NEW BUSINESS - None
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON HURSDAY, MAY 11, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS FOR THE 05-11-2006 MEETING MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK=S OFFICE BY NOON 05-04-2006.
NOTICE OF A PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AND DENNIS D. JACOBSEN FAMILY HOLDINGS II, LLC,
PARCELS WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT
DATE: Thursday, April 27 2006
PLACE: Council Chambers,
22795 Barton, Road,
Grand Terrace, Calif.
TIME; 6:00 P.M
THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS SCHEDULED TO CONSIDER AT THE ABOVE TIME AND PLACE THE FOLIOWING ITEM:
PROPOSAL; The City Council will consider the environmental declaration for the First Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace and Dennis D. Jacobsen Family holdings II, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company for TWO parcels within the proposed Town Center Project. The staff is recommending that this environmental documentation take the form of a Negative Declaration in that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment under Environmental Review Case No. 06-07.
APPLICANT: Community Redevelopment Agency of Ins City of Grand terrace
LOCATION: The two parcels in question are “Parcel A” (APN 1167-213.02) approximately 1.9 acres on the south aide of Barton Road approximately 1.050 feet easterly of Michigan Street and “Parcel B” (APN i187-231l1) approximately .4 of an acre located on the Southeast corner of Barton Road and Michigan Street
The proposed Negative Declaration (Environmental Review Case No. 06.07) will be available for public inspection and review in the. office of the Community Development Department in City Hall at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace beginning on Thursday, April 6, 2006 through Thursday, April 27, 2006. At the conclusion of the City Council discussion on this matter, the Council may or may rot make a decision to adopt the Negative Declaration for the above described matter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact the Community Development Department of the City 01 Grand Terrace at 430.2247
A Negative Declaration is a document that states upon completion of an initial study, that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
An EIR is an informational document which will inform the public agency decision-makers and the public generally of:
*the significant environmental effects of a project
*possible ways to minimize significant effects
*reasonable alternatives to the project
Saturday, April 22, 2006
I recently received a copy of the G.T. City News, which had on front page the two proposals for the downtown center shopping place. I certainly hope that the two proposals get run through the City Planning Commission, for I find fault in both.
I am a sort of Streets and Roads person. Both of the views appear a bit blurred, but can pick up features none the less. What I see on the surrounding roads bothers me, for if you or I were a private developer we would not be able to get away with what is shown within these two pictures. If I view the two proposals correctly, they are illustrative of the phrase "Do as I say, don't do as I Do"
The illustration at top of page one, shows that Michigan will remain a one lane/two lane as it presently is. If one were to go over to the city counter, they have what is termed a Circulation Element. These formerly were referred to as Master Plan of Streets. I do believe that Michigan is scheduled to be a four lane road, plus parking strips. Often referred to as a Secondary by the City and County of S.B. Consider that the O.A.C. called for the widening of Michigan to secondary status, I now see a conflict of offerings between the two plans. If you will remember, the school district wanted to narrow up the full length to two lanes of Michigan from Barton to Main. In illustration two near bottom of page, you will notice that Michigan has been revised to four lanes, but without curb side parking. I certainly doubt that either of the plans have been run through the City Traffic Engineer. It seems a bit odd in that a development with is expected to attract a greater amount of traffic has the narrower streets being proposed.
What also bothers me is that LaPax is shown in both illustrations to be forever a half width street. Last year a similar situation was taken before the city Planning Commission, and there it was stated that any planned developments when butting up against a half width street, need then to improve and widen to full width. I would think that the Fire Department ought to be interested in the city staff perpetuating 1/2 width streets. Then too the west end of either becomes a one-way street, with entrance only on to private
property. And notice the rear exit from the Center onto Pascal Ave. Iff'n the Stringfield property were to be developed commercially in ten years, you can bet your dollar that they would be asking for street R/W dedication on the north side of LaPax. Can't ask the
city to do that though.
On both, the entrance off Canal street looks to be a little narrow. Iff'n an auto or truck had an under hood fire right after rolling off Barton, then the fire Department showed up, this then completely plugs up the access.
On the Lowe's proposal, I do not see enough parking spaces.
And say, in looking at Plan B, consider that the supermarket wants to install a pharmacy. From what I see this then means a new one at the east end of the center, one inside the supermarket, and one on Barton being under construction at present time.
And the statement that the city would loose a library is false, for as proposed, the property for the library expansion could be obtained without any development.
"Do as I say, don't do as I Do"
April 27th 2006
Your Participation is still needed.
ISSUES: Participating in negotiations on the Behalf of Jacobsen Family Holdings LLC.
ISSUES: Back ROOM NEGOTIATIONS IF IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS THAN YOU SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS BUSINESS
ISSUES: FIREWORKS WHERE ARE THEY SAFE... NOT IN A PARK .... BREAKS ALL LOGIC. IF THE CITY DOES NOT WANT THE LIABILITY WHY SHOULD THE CITIZENS HAVE THE LIABILITY OF THE ACTION OF THE COUNCIL AND SPORTS TEAMS?
GO AND SPEAK. TAKE YOUR 3 MINUTES CONTINUE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE CITY. EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK 3 MINUTES. EACH CITIZEN CAN SPEAK 3 MIN ON THE NON AGENDA OPEN COMMENT PERIOD.
Friday, April 21, 2006
CHEAP LAND SUBSIDIZE
STATER'S LOWES AND JACOBSEN PROFITS !!
Jacobsen said in Thursday's meeting that he paid $3,625,000 for land so far and $1,497,000 in relocations/busines expenses.So we know he agrees to pay that much to buy the LAND.These numbers total $5,122,000 on the 6.7 acres he has closed escrow on,
AVERAGING $764,447 per acre.At that price per acre it's about $17.13/sf or
This would equal $1,452,507. calculated for Stringfield's 1.9 acres.The land he is buying from the city he SAID Thursday he is paying $1,760,000
for 5.4 acres or $325,925/acre or $8.50/SF.
However the DDA shows $7.50/sf for land sales instead
If you average these two purchases together mathematically you get $578,512.acre or $13.28/sf for land. About what they have offered Jo.
he was supposed to assemble ALL the land parcels and
SIGN tenants and provide approved building plans.
He was supposed to apply for permits & pay all fees (page 12)
and meet all environmental requirements BEFORE
getting title and closing escrow on the city land parcels.
Permits, fees and environmental are for approved projects.
This project has not even been before the planning commission!
until last Thursday's PR meeting.
This is the purpose of the 15 month exclusive due dilligence period
from the Dec 2004 Development Agreement which expired on 4-15-2006!
IF the city allows 4 land sales now, without all the parcels
there is no guarantee WHAT kind project will be approved
there is no guarantee that a LIBRARY will be included.
With NO traffic studies done or environmental issues addressed,
what will need mitigation, and how will it get done later?
Do the traffic study and the environmental report first.
What are you waiting for? Quick cheap land sales?
If the city sells land at half price, the developer could sell to another
and make double his money at a market rate sale of land.
Approvals first, environmental reports first, LAND sales after.
Grand Terrace residents protest cityproposal for new center
Grand Terrace residents protest city proposal for new center
Juliane Ngan, Staff WriterSan Bernardino County Sun
GRAND TERRACE - If you have 20 acres of bare ground in the heart of the city, the Southern California way is develop it and maybe even name it, "Town Center.''
Jo Stringfield lives on just such a parcel but she isn't so sure what she wants. And she's not saying much, even through her lawyer.
This puts her at odds with the City Council, which wants that parcel turned into a sales-tax-generating machine to make the wheels of local government turn.
Thirteen of the 14 parcels on the site on the south side of Barton Road east of Michigan Street are owned by Woodland Hills developer Douglas Jacobsen. He wants to build a Lowe's home improvement warehouse, a new Stater Bros. market, a new city library and some smaller shops there. The 14th parcel is owned by Stringfield. There's the rub.
tringfield also dreamed of developing the site but she withdrew her proposal at the April 13 council meeting. As a result, the council named Jacobsen as the developer, almost by default.
Jacobsen submitted two development plans. One excludes the home that has been in Stringfield's family for more than half a century.
Grand Terrace City Manager Thomas Schwab said a resolution of necessity is set for Thursday, to determine whether eminent domain will be used to acquire Stringfield's property. If not, Jacobsen will be asked to design a proposal for development which will develop the 13 of the 14 parcels of land that he owns, around Stringfield's home.
It is a decision that will be completely up to Stringfield, Schwab said.
"It doesn't take a lot of deduction to take the words said by the council that it does not appear that there's any will to exercise eminent domain,'' Schwab said. "I fully expect the developer will withdraw his request for assistance for requiring her property.''
Despite an offer of $1,010,000 for her property, Stringfield has refused to leave her home.
"When (the council) can stop lying to Jo and they can come up with numbers that are valid, then Jo will be prepared to talk to them,'' said Stringfield's attorney Robert Ferguson in a telephone interview on Monday.
At the April 13 meeting, even as the council asked Stringfield to tell them what she wants to do instead of relying on her attorney, she refused to speak.
"Early on my client did talk, but nobody listened, there was no response, and nothing happened,'' Ferguson said at the meeting. Stringfield's silence at the meeting appeared to baffle several members of the council.
Even Schwab said he was perplexed. Although Stringfield says publicly that she wants to remain in her home, Schwab said, "privately her actions don't reflect that.''
Schwab said that if Stringfield decides she wants to remain in her home, that he doesn't think the council would vote to take it through condemnation.
The community too seems to have mixed emotions about the Town Center project.
Former Grand Terrace Mayor Hugh Grant, 74, said he understands the concerns expressed by several of the council members about noise, traffic and air pollution, but a development such as a Lowe's would help build a tax base in Grand Terrace.
"It's a city of homes, unfortunately a city of homes cannot always pay the bills,'' Grant said.
At a protest before the April 13 meeting, more than a dozen residents lined up along Barton Road in front of
City Hall with signs.
"We don't want Lowe's here,'' protester Grand Terrace resident Bill Hays said, "and there's no benefit for Staters to move (from it's existing store on Barton near Mount Vernon). We'd like the City Council to pay attention to local residents for a change instead of the big developers.''
The protest also drew young activists in the community including 18-year-old Vincent Bartman, a Reed Avenue resident who carried a "Say No to Lowe's'' sign.
"This is not what the citizens want,'' Bartman said. "The city council is going against what the city wants, and we're not enthusiastic about this change for the worst.''
Bartman along with others supported Stringfield's cause and opposed use of eminent domain to acquire Stringfield's property.
"I think she's a hero,'' Bartman said. "She's a local hero.''
As she watched protesters wave their signs before the meeting, Stringfield remained tight-lipped.
"It's a very stressful situation and they've all helped me get through this,'' Stringfield said in an earlier telephone interview. "I'm kind of a shy person and to be thrown in limelight like this - is overwhelming.''
"It's my property, my home,'' Stringfield said.
"I think that history will determine whether Jo Stringfield will be remembered as the stubborn lone hold-out that stopped Lowe's from going in the Town Center,'' said Grand Terrace resident Jeffrey McConnell, "or as the heroic little lady that stood up and fought City Hall to help keep the city of Grand Terrace's village-town atmosphere.''
This e-mail was initiated by machine [10.148.8.5] at IP [10.148.8.5].
Proposal for retail center advances
Group opposes any big-box stores in GT
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
GRAND TERRACE - Plans for the largest shopping center in city history are moving forward despite the opposition of some residents.
At a special meeting last week, the City Council selected a developer to build a retail center expected to include a Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse.
But a residents' group says it is determined to stop the construction of a Lowe's or any big-box store in the city.
"We want to keep Grand Terrace a bedroom community," said Mark Jolstead, spokesman for the group We The Residents of Grand Terrace. "We don't want this type of industry. We're going to make sure it never gets built in Grand Terrace."
Jolstead said a big-box store such as Lowe's would bring noise, traffic, air pollution and other problems.
"It's just not suitable for Grand Terrace," said Jolstead, 52.
However, he said the group does support plans for a new Stater Bros. and a county branch library, which also would be part of the shopping center.
Woodland Hills developer Doug Jacobsen has proposed a 20-acre center on Barton Road between Michigan Avenue and Canal Street. The $40 million project is expected to generate about $600,000 in annual sales-tax revenue for the city, officials said.
But to build a center of that size, Jacobsen needs to acquire a 1.9-acre piece of land owned by Barton Road resident Jo Stringfield.
Jacobsen has contracts to buy the other 13 properties needed for the project, City Manager Tom Schwab said.
Stringfield, whose family has owned a home on Barton for more than 50 years, has refused to sell her property to make way for Jacobsen's project.
Instead, Stringfield expressed interest in building her own shopping center on the site.
She refused to present details of her development plans when asked by council members Thursday night.
As a result, the council unanimously agreed to choose Jacobsen as the developer of the project.
City officials will continue trying to work out a deal to acquire Stringfield's property, Schwab said.
If the city is unable to get her land voluntarily or through eminent domain, Jacobsen said he would build a scaled-down project that would exclude Stringfield's parcel.
The modified 18-acre proposal would be too small for a Lowe's, however. It would include a Stater Bros., library, restaurants and other stores.
Stater Bros. would move from its current location at Barton and Mount Vernon Avenue to a larger store in the new center.
The new supermarket would offer an expanded deli, a bakery, a bank and a wider selection of products, Jack Brown, Stater Bros. chairman of the board and chief executive officer, told the council.
"What I like about this project," said Mayor Maryetta Ferre on Friday, "is the fact that we have Jack Brown and Doug Jacobsen, two financially experienced, forward-thinking men who are willing to put their money into our city."
10:00 PM PDT on Thursday, April 20, 2006
By JULIE FARREN
GRAND TERRACE - Leo and Maria Garcia will drive out of Terrace Pines Mobile Home Park for the last time today.
Stan Lim / The Press-Enterprise
Joe Boyd, a resident of the Terrace Pines Mobile Home Park in Grand Terrace, is reflected as he plays in a the grass around an unoccupied mobile home. The park is scheduled to be the new home of Lowe's Garden Center.
The couple will take 14 years of belongings and memories from the Michigan Avenue trailer park and create a new life at another mobile-home park in Reche Canyon.
The Garcias are among 27 owners who sold their mobile homes to make way for development of the Grand Terrace Town Center along Barton Road and Michigan Avenue.
Leo Garcia, 56, said he had heard of mobile-home owners being displaced in other cities by redevelopment.
"I never imagined that it was going to happen to me," Garcia said.
The mobile-home park demolition plans have gone more smoothly than the city's efforts to take the Barton Road home of Jo Stringfield, who is fighting the eminent-domain proceedings.
Stringfield does not want to leave her family home. Her 1.9 acre parcel is within the 20 acres planned for the town center, which will include a Stater Bros. Market and Lowe's Home Improvement store as its anchors.
The mobile-home park, which is more than 50 years old, will be demolished after May 1, said property manager Sarah Sandlin. All of the tenants will have moved by then, she said.
The park, along with other property, was purchased for development by a company called D&MJFHI, LLC, last summer, Sandlin said. The land where the park sits will be the home of the Lowe's Garden Center, she said.
Sandlin said she began meeting with residents in October to talk about selling their mobile homes and relocation options.
"My main goal was not to push them out there and say 'Good luck to you,' " said Sandlin, a marketing assistant for the property developer. "It was 'What is the best solution for you?' "
The residents had lived at the park between six months and 22 years, said Sandlin.
The amount of money given to each owner depended on their circumstances, along with the year and model of the mobile home.
Sandlin said the owners were paid $9,000 and up for their homes.
Half of the owners received help finding a new home.
Twenty-one of the 27 owners already have moved, Sandlin said.
Alex Belforti, 30, and her family chose to move to a rental house in Bloomington.
Belforti, her father, Giuseppe, 82; mother, Yoleida, 54; and sister, Gioconda, 32, lived at Space 24 in the park for almost two years.
When she heard that the park was going to be sold, Belforti decided she wanted to live in another mobile-home park, she said.
"At the beginning, I wanted to be relocated," she said. "But then I found out that my (mobile home) was too old so it couldn't be moved."
She saw a newspaper ad for a four-bedroom home rental and the family moved in late January.
The Garcias chose a mobile home in Reche Canyon but plan to live with their son, Daniel, for several weeks at his house. Leo Garcia said they will have to keep things in storage before they can move in to their new home.
They moved to Grand Terrace 14 years ago after living in Riverside, Garcia said. He was impressed with the mobile-home park when they first moved in.
"It was real quiet, real clean, real nice people," he said.
But over the last few years, the park had started to deteriorate, residents said.
Craig Freeman, 49, said he had noticed the difference. He and his wife, Laurel, moved into the park seven years ago after selling their home in Perris.
Freeman said the park did not have an on-site manager. The lawns, which were the owners' responsibility, were not being kept up. Even the streetlights were not being replaced.
Freeman, who moved with his wife in late January to a mobile-home park in Colton, said he supports the town center project and believes it's a good move for the city.
"I think it's going to bring in needed revenue," Freeman said. "The city of Grand Terrace just needs to progress."
Reach Julie Farren at (909) 806-3066 or jfarren@PE.com
During the 15 months Jacobsen has had this property in escrow, he was supposed to assemble ALL the land parcels and SIGN tenants and provide approved building plans.
He was supposed to apply for permits & pay all fees (page 12) and meet all environmental requirements BEFORE getting title and closing escrow on the city land parcels.
Permits, fees and environmental are for approved projects. This project has not even been before the planning commission! until last Thursday's PR meeting.
This is the purpose of the 15 month exclusive due dilligence period from the Dec 2004 Development Agreement which expired on 4-15-2006!
IF the city allows 4 land sales now, without all the parcels there is no guarantee WHAT kind project will be approved there is no guarantee that a LIBRARY will be included.
With NO traffic studies done or environmental issues addressed, what will need mitigation, and how will it get done later?
Do the traffic study and the environmental report first. What are you waiting for? Quick cheap land sales?
If the city sells land at half price, the developer could sell to another and make double his money at a market rate sale of land.
Approvals first, environmental reports first, LAND sales after.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The readers and citizens should note that the threatening Letters below were written at a time Council Member Miller was prior his election to the City Council (Nov., 2004). (His Name is not on the letterhead). We can wonder just how much is disclosed to new Council Members upon their taking their seats. Do they do a full historical audit of the past, and pending actions of the City Management. If they did attempt this level of discovery, would their investigations be welcome?
During Council Meetings, Mr. Hilkey and Mr. Miller have stated a bit of dissatisfaction with the dissemination of information from the Staff and City Management. So one can wonder how much back ground material is provided to the new council members as they come in.
Full and total access to documents, all documents and records is only the first step needed to discover the truth of the Relationship between the City Management, City Council, Developers and other's who deal with the CRA AND City. The absolute end of closed meetings for land and contract negotiations is required. The interpretation that May hold closed meetings can and in GT should be interpreted as YOU DON'T HAVE TO CLOSE THE MEETING, thus it is an OPEN MEETING. Read the Brown act you will see the WORD "MAY", not the WORD "MUST".
To whose convince and advantage is the word being interpreted as necessitating closed meetings? The Citizens don't benefit.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
THIS AND AND
These are the tactics which limited the negotiation position of the Property Owners. The Use of the Power of the City Redevelopment agency makes this a Redevelopment Project. This is another example of a fine mess Mr. Schwab has gotten us all in. We the City-zens and the Property Owners have been ill served by Mr. Schwab and the Council if they were aware of these letters being issued, and their content.
For years now neighbors have been meeting over their fences in confusion about the dealings and decisions the City Council has been making. Nobody seems to know what these people stand for. When written to or asked they simply get defensive and in your face and don't answer the questions. So several good hearted people have been meeting on the third Monday night of every month at 7:00 to learn the truth about the "behind closed door" dealings of the City.
Several attending the meeting who have been spending a lot of time to discover facts and figures about the decisions the City Council makes will share their findings with anyone who wants to know. I believe it is a general concensus that they don't trust the decisions the Council is making.
The meeting is growing over the major issues: Town Project is wrong for Grand Terrace' bedroom community. Jacobsen' way of doing business by using eminent domain (taking peoples homes for profit) is wrong. Lowe's is wrong for Grand Terrace and belongs in the OAC by the freeway.
If you would like more information or if you would like to support the group who supports you, you can write to email@example.com
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Thursday's Colton School Board Meeting looks to be volatile.
Thursday April 20th, 2006
12:57 AM PDT on Tuesday, April 18, 2006
GRAND TERRACE - A single-family house was damaged in a fire Monday afternoon that San Bernardino County firefighters said appeared to be electrical in cause. A woman and an infant were inside the house at the time but escaped unharmed, said Jerry Abshier, a county fire captain.
The fire was confined to a family room in the house on the 22000 block of Cardinal Street but smoke damage spread throughout the dwelling, he said.
Four engines and 14 firefighters responded to the scene at 3:22 p.m. and had the blaze out in several minutes.
Monday, April 17, 2006
For more information: Libertarian Party of NY, 516-767-4688, www.ny.lp.org; John Clifton, firstname.lastname@example.org; Eric Sundwall, email@example.com; Jeff Russell, firstname.lastname@example.org
RALLY TO STOP EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE
BELLPORT, NY -- (03/29/2006; 1115)(EIS) -- Libertarian Party of New York officials and concerned candidates, crying "No More Land Grabs," are launching a "spring offensive" to influence legislators towards amending state law to ban eminent domain abuse. Local Libertarians such as Eric Sundwall of Columbia County (running for Congress, 20th District) and Jeff Russell (of Clifton Park, candidate for U.S. Senate) have announced they will be emphasizing the misuse of eminent domain throughout their campaigns.
Representatives of groups who have been victimized by such property seizures have been contacted to participate, including African-Americans from the Park South community in Albany, and Develop-Don't-Destroy Brooklyn, where residents are threatened with being kicked out of their homes to build a new stadium for the NY Nets. A demonstration in the Capitol building area has been scheduled for Friday, April 28 to draw attention to stalled and piecemeal legislation currently pending on the issue.
"New Yorkers grow impatient that, nine months after the U.S. Supreme Court's widely criticized Kelo decision, no bill has yet emerged from the NY Legislature to prevent state or local government from using eminent domain to take property from homeowners, to benefit private developers," says LPNY Chair John Clifton. He asks: "Many states have already passed laws to halt this type of theft of land and housing, within weeks of the Kelo ruling. Why is New York lagging behind the country on this subject?"
Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, now running for Governor of New York, opposes eminent domain abuse and has said giving broad leeway to local governments to seize property reminded him of "Communist China." Weld is himself a past victim of an eminent domain seizure of one of his properties. He has challenged would-be opponent and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to define his position on the issue.
"This case stands as an example of government overreaching and constraining a fundamental liberty. Title to every property in this nation is now effectively clouded by the threat of a government taking and transfer in the name of increasing the value upon which government can levy imposts. This practice must stop," Weld said.
Language to amend the current law was also drafted in 2005 by then-LPNY Legislative Director Jeff Shapiro, immediately following the Supreme Court decision. Clifton says the party prefers its "clean" version, to address the disruption of neighborhoods occurring across the state by way of the corporate demolition ball. "Eminent domain abuse for commercial and economic development purposes should be specifically outlawed, and the term 'blighted' needs to be very precisely defined in the law, before the designation is applied to deprive citizens or whole communities of their property."
Libertarians are determined to nominate a strong pro-property rights, anti-EDA candidate for Governor at its state convention at the Best Western in Albany on Saturday, April 29.
Yasin, Ashraf A., DBA as GT Pitstop, DBA Smog Pros
Chapter 7 is known as Straight Bankruptcy. A potion of the debtors assist is liquidated and distributed amongst creditors by court appointed trustee to satisfy debts. Assets are listed at $ 11,343, and debt of $90,637 the case number 06-10651.
This is related to the Town Center Development. This will cost us in one way or another. It can be in the form of raised prices, or a directly traceable cost to the Redevelopment Agency as their action contribute to the business's cash flow. Is this part of the fancy accounting provided by Jacobsen Family Holdings? This chapter is yet to be fully understood.
Monday Night, April 17, 7:00 p.m.
At the community center Lions Club on Barton Road
Featuring Mark Jolstead as the speaker
Mark is very knowledgeable on organizing.
Learn what your city government is doing to you.
Learn What You Can Do to Manage City Government .
We have no 3 minute rule
The Grand Terrace news printed a story last week saying Jacobsen development owned 13 of the 14 properties needed for the proposed development. This was actually factually incorrect. Only about a third of the lots are owned by the developer so far. A majority of the property along the Barton Road and Michigan Street intersection is still privately owned as of this date. So just like the story about the signed leases, which are not signed; and sold lots are not yet purchased.
The proposed “Town Square” development area has been the subject of spirited public debate in recent weeks. Residents are stressing a need to return to the city’s general plan and specific plan for guidance. Proposals for big box stores and a sea of asphalt parking lots, has infuriated some residents who protested at city hall before the council meeting this past week. Further public scrutiny has uncovered the threat posed to the local Terrace elementary school which could soon be displaced by the improvements to on & off ramps at the 215 Freeway and widening of the Barton Road overpass.
We checked the county public tax records and discovered that only 4 parcels are now actually owned by the proposed developer: they are 22209, 22219, 22257 Barton, and the trailer park at 12135 Michigan, owned jointly by the developer with Robert & Heidi Brun. These 4 lots total 6.13 acres. An additional 4 lots are still owned by the City of Grand Terrace or the Redevelopment Agency, and total 5.39 acres. The development agreement outlines the sale of these lots to the developer at the bargain basement price of $7.50/sf. This land price has not changed since the initial 2003 city proposed sale.
Finally, six other parcels within the rectangular area of the proposed development site are still privately owned. This shows clearly on public tax records and has been confirmed by each of the property owners. These parcels total 7.73 acres. In this group, Miguel’s is the only private owner of land in “the project area” that the city has allowed to participate in the development. Miguel’s has been allowed to plan their restaurant and apply for approvals on project land that to not now own, nor will they later occupy. Reciprocal parking agreements and land swaps have been granted only to this owner to the exclusion of any other participants, land owners or tenants.
Another of these land owners has confirmed an option sale of their property to the developer in the price range of $26/sf of land. However a third owner said he had never been contacted about loosing his property to this development and was shocked to hear the news. A forth owner has just filed for bankruptcy protection, one day after the council vote approving the city’s chosen site developer threatening his property with ED.
The largest parcel of all, containing 3 acres of land is still in private hands and belongs to the former Mayor of Grand Terrace. He was the mayor who actually signed Ordinance 187 in 1999 authorizing the taking of private property by eminent domain. It is distressing but noteworthy that this former public official often speaks in favor of this development project, while he still owns property to be acquired. If this property has been subject to a private sale, the value would have a bearing on other values. It would be a useful yardstick of value for other nearby land parcels and city appraisals. If it has not been sold and will be acquired by the power eminent domain that information should not be concealed but should be made public to taxpayers now. Grand Terrace residents were unaware that this 1999 ordinance could allow homes to be taken. A careful reading of the ordinance appears not to allow that result, stating “The Agency is hereby empowered under this plan to use eminent domain in order to execute the Plan, but only as to property which is not residentially zoned or as to property acquired with the consent of the property owner.” Most residents also understood that this “takings” power would be reserved by government only for continued public use and for the public good.
Public opinion mandates that this power of eminent domain to take property be reserved for actual public uses for all such as roads, schools, fire stations, flood channels, public buildings or utilities. The residents of Grand Terrace never authorized Ordinance 187 to take private property merely for the economic benefits of others, even for city taxes.
Citizens should be alerted to the fact that many of those who speak in favor of the proposed project either already have or will gain financially from the development. These include property sellers, real estate brokers, the Chamber of Commerce, city staff who have received support for Grand Terrace days and public officials who have accepted the maximum campaign contributions from the developer and his wife.
Let’s not be for sale. Let’s plan our community right. Let’s go back to our master plan and not sell out the soul of Grand Terrace to the highest bidder. Let’s plan and do it right!
While the atmosphere was wonderful - people gathering in celebration that our Lord has risen - There was still a political agenda. Just tacky.
I was enjoying a conversation with a friend at the coffee booth when I overheard Mr. Berry giving Cynthia a tongue lashing about buying a house behind the town center. "What did you think would happen?" He said in an angry voice. He said that if we don't build on Barton Road we won't have enough tax base to run the City.
Just how much tax base do we need, I wondered? They already plan to build the OAC. That would be a wonderful place to put their project. Why aren't they working on that?
I find the social behavior an example of the attitude of the Council it is not unexpected. I also want to bring to the readers awareness of how the Parade of Presentations which Delayed the Council Meeting from getting to the Real Issue of the nights concern, trying to tire out the citizens in the audience. Presentation after Presentation wa s read, and given to the recipient, who got a hand shake over the counter. But, when the presentation involved an Photo Op with Mr. Jack Brown the Mayor walked all around the counter, and Posed for the Political See Me Shot.
This social behavior is attractive to some, but to most of the citizens it is offensive. You are right the council and the city staff have an arrogance about their conduct which is distasteful.
With regards to How Much Tax they want. As MUCH as they can get. Greed is not just a character flaw of individuals, it transfers to institutions as well. Some folks provide services and are paid minimum wage and looked down upon for their low social economic status, while the rich drug dealer, realtors, and booze pushers are elevated in social status. They have big cars, houses, and bank accounts.
The OAC and the Future of Grand Terrace Elementary School are tied with the 215 reconstruction. Who Knows how that will go?