Dear Gramps: I have to Help Virginia Harford Understand.... I will do so by inserting clarification point by point into her article in Italics and OH pick Red for a color.
Virginia’s View Point by Virginia Harford
…….
I attended the meeting on January 4 which someone decided to call a “Scoping” meeting and I have yet to know what that means or why such an unfamiliar term was used. The meeting was attended by about 32 persons.
The "Scope of a Report" defines the areas to be covered or addressed by a report. In this case the Report to be Written is an Environmental Impact Report on an allegedly Revised Senior Housing and Senior Center. A Scoping Meeting is an attempt to refine the areas to include in the Environmental Impact Study and Report, in Preparation to do a Report. The problem is. IF there is not a Plan with sufficient design parameters specified, public comment is not legally binding as public comment as the public has been asked to comment on a hypothetical plan. So although it was an opportunity to collect data the use of that data and the opinions collected is limited.
Virginia was observed to leave the meeting 10 Minutes after it started. If she had stayed she may have grown to understand many of the topics and issues she seems to be ill informed upon.
It is obvious that only a few persons were interested in attending.
The number of people there was sufficient for the purpose of the meeting, and represented all points of view.. no one was held out of the meeting.
Patricia Farley was on hand to voice her opinion and she was unusually soft and short on wording. She may be coming to the conclusion that even when you are forceful as she has been in the past, no one much considers what she has to say nor does anyone ever respond to the questions.
What is Virginia's Point in making such remarks about Patricia Farley? OR, is this more a statement of fact that when you speak at a public meeting regardless of your words, tone, conduct, or content of your speech the decisions are pre-made and no one is given any consideration, no input is added to the recommendations and guidance of the "Staff", and no one answers a question... Is that what Virginia is saying? IS this NEWS to her?
Bill Hays spoke and explained about the section of HUD that is covered by this project that says that the accommodations will be for low, low income persons. I fail to understand why this is a bad thing, people with low, low income need a place to live in comfort and safety.
Virginia, understand that the reason HUD accommodations was covered by Mr. Hays is because the PUBLIC and the Grand Terrace Seniors were told that they would be put on the list and have a priority for housing in the Senior Villas. Now with the HUD Regulations in Place for all but 10 of the 120 apartments the likelihood of a Grand Terrace Resident, or Family Member Qualifying is limited, and the Deal Presented to the Seniors and Public is not the Deal They/We are getting. That Virginia is the point. Yes Low Income Senior Housing can be managed well. However, We have yet to see good management of the Senior Housing Plan, Design, and Community Information up to this time. Future conduct is predicted on past conduct.
Carl Winter, senior environmental planner for LSA Associates Inc., the company that is drawing up the environmental impact study that was apparently not included in the planning of the Senior project some months ago.
That effort was discontinued by a judge who heard some of the residents involved and their objections. I still do not understand how he could do such a thing without considering the other side of the question.
The Judge was not making a Judgement on the Popularity of the Idea of Senior Housing in Grand Terrace. The Judge was making a determination regarding the Plans, and Impact of the Council and Planning Approved Senior Housing Project. The Judge Determined that there was sufficient problem in the area of the Environmental Impact Study and Traffic and Road Conditions to cause an order for there to be a Environmental Impact Study Report. The City and Corporation For Better Housing have decided to approach this by going forward with a Environmental Impact Study... apparently on a new plan, and an Appeal of the Judges Decision. Apparently, they want to use the old plan if they can get Judge Wade's Decision Reversed, otherwise, why the Appeal?
Winter was overwhelmed by the admittedly tiny turnout of residents but one of whom dominated the portable microphone and droned pm for much more time than is usually allotted speakers. Winter did not know what to do with this person.
Virginia, your selection of who to name in your articles is interesting. However, these meetings should not have time limits for speaker. If you were to cut off a speaker at this type of meeting, and it ended up in court that a citizen said, I tried to object or raise a concern but was cut off by a clock, the court would not be happy with this type of public meeting, and would most likely rule that a case has merit and will be heard in court to its conclusion.
Grand Terrace has a chance to build a senior complex that will accommodate several dozen persons who need lodging. I cannot see the common sense in the objections. The builder has agreed to build and not obscure the view of those who complained. The other objections seem fallacious to me.
Fallacious: adj, Containing or based on a fallacy: a fallacious assumption. Tending to mislead; deceptive: fallacious testimony. A word you you may want to remember.
The Builder has a revised Plan... A Revised Plan that has not been approved, nor has it provided the Court with a Revised Environmental Impact Study on the Original Plan. You can't ask for Public Comment and have it binding if the Plan has not Been Approved, or even made PUBLIC. Words is all the Public have been given, and those words are not contracts, or drawings. It is much more than a question of some one's view. To over simplify it this way is Fallacious. To Promote the Building of Senior Housing and a Senior Center for "Our Seniors" is Fallacious. To negate the importance of the flaws in the "Deal" including the Debt and Promotion of the Deal is Fallacious.
One of those is that the place will engender more crime. I don’t understand this—senior citizens are not known to commit crimes. Other objections are the l46 parking spaces that are planned. I don’t believe that all of the residents will have automobiles. I know of at least three people who want to live there and who do not drive at all.………Senior Citizens may not be the highest population of Active Criminals. The Corporation for Better Housing has assured the Council that their Management Plan requires no Prior Felony Convictions as part of the tenant requirements. However, there is no way to know about the Children, or Grand Children who will be come to visit. Senior Citizen is often the prey for Criminals will we have sufficient support to protect this increased and localized population of Crime Targets? That being said, the HUD Regulations and the Very Low Income Resident Restriction is brought to the forefront because it negates the oppotunity for GRAND TERRACE SENIORS to live in Housing Provided at Tax Payer's Expence. Yes the GT Tax Payer will be paying off the RDA DEBT.
Virginia has 3 of the 10 available to GT Citizen Apartments committed... that leaves 7 up for grabs. Remember this is a location far from the stores, and public transportation. It is not an assisted living situation, and if you don't drive because you can't drive you may be not well served in the Blue Mt. Senior Villas, as they will not be providing transportation for Doctor's Appointments and Shopping. The apartments will need parking for the residents and the Senior Center will need parking for the "Other Regular GT Seniors who will be sharing the Senior Center with them".
Highgrove Happenings Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this article are the viewpoints of its author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of the “Highgrove Happenings”
Highgrove Happenings Page 14 Nov 2007 This is only on Virginia's Writing...
From the Email In Box:
Add to the Review of Virginia's View Point:
The question is not totally section 8 it's that our Seniors will most likely not be able to live there. The priority list turned into an interest list then into we will have little say who lives there because of the H.U.D. waiting list.
From the Email InBox:
More on Virginia's View Point
How she could have any first hand knowledge of the meeting. She stayed no more than ten minutes and was not there for any public speaking. She left way before the representative from CHB even got 1/4 through his presention.
The meeting came to an end when Mr. Johnson told them they could not hold a scoping meeting until there had been a plan submitted and there hadn't been so that ended the meeting.
Johnson said how can you hold a scoping meeting and have people have input when they have seen no plan. You can't...........
From the Email InBox:
Very well done on V. Harfords article. Also Remember: Not too long ago at a City Council Meeting the Mayor would not allow Mrs. Harford an extra 30 seconds to read a prepared statement. After which her "Please Summerize" she left and did not hear Council member Hilkey complain about the Mayor not allowing Mrs. Harford to complete her statement. The Mayor did not poll the rest of the Council to see if they wanted to giver her additional time as the NEW RULES provide for. Virginia should realize by now that the Mayor disallows anyone but Tom Schwab to answer questions from the taxpayers. If you have follwed her column for any time her research is nill and her logic is greatly lacking.
From the Email InBox:
I thought the City said they had done everything right in the press releases on the subject of the Blue Mt. Senior Villas. Remember how many times the City Manager said the suits had "No Merit". That the reason they have to do an EIR is because "people will sue for any reason." If CHB is the builder should they not have done the EIR and not the City. Why do they need LSA if they have done everything correctly. If they had complied with the law on all the projects they wouldn't be in the mess Schwab has the City in now.
There seems to be a pattern here with the City and it's projects. The OAC had a deficient EIR. The High School has one and a half acres that is contaminated. Judge Wade has warned the City about continuing on Miguel's and the plan for it is flawed and the State has no record of the City acquiring the permits that are necessary from them. The Mayor needs to start being an in charge Mayor. She is the Captain of the ship and the buck stops with her. The way she is preforming her duties now and in the past, the buck will never stop until she turns all of Grand Terrace into strip malls broken up by the homes on Money Hills, opps thats Honey Hills.
