Grand Terrace Budget

More financial obstacles await Grand Terrace
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/29/2010 04:58:09 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - The city managed to close a $423,000 budget gap this year, but more challenges lie ahead next year.
Officials anticipate an $800,000 shortfall in the General Fund for the 2010-2011 budget year starting July 1.
"I think next year is going to be another tough year, but I'm optimistic that this isn't going to last forever," Mayor Maryetta Ferre said.
Unspecified service reductions and the use of reserves will have to be considered to close the gap, City Manager Betsy Adams said in a report to the City Council last week.
Adams said the proposed operating budget for 2010-2011 will be presented to the council May 25.
"I'm concerned, but I do feel confident that the city will be able to address that budget challenge," Adams said.
There are a number of unknowns that could add to the projected $800,000 shortfall next year, she said.
Sales and property tax revenues are not expected to grow next year.
The city's contract with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement could go up nearly 8 percent.
Another concern is the state could take an unknown amount of the city's money to help balance its budget next year.
Adams said the city plans to achieve savings in next year's budget by paying parts of the salaries of some public works employees out of the gas tax fund instead of the General Fund.
Employees also agreed to reduce their work week from 40 to 36 hours, producing a budget savings of $155,000 next year. The new work schedule means the Civic Center will close 30 minutes earlier. Starting May 17, City Hall will be open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday.
Adams noted the reduced work hours equate to a 10 percent pay cut for 23 full-time employees.
"This is a group that stepped forward," Adams said in praise of city employees. "They thought it was a priority to save jobs."
stephen.wall@inlandnewspapers.com

Who Pays for Jacobsen's Weed Abatement.

Gramps:

In regards to the question, "Why were City Workers clearing the weeds adjacent to Jacobsen Owned Property. All of us have to take care of our parkways that the City has the right of way. Was Jacobsen billed?"

The property had to be mowed by the City. The City allows fireworks to be sold on that property.

Jacobsen has not taken care of his property.

Maybe Jacobsen is waiting for Jack Brown to take ownership the property and Staters can have the responsibility.

Nameless

Who in the State Can Citizens Write? From Email InBox

Pa
Who in the State can the Citizens of Grand Terrace write to hold back the amount and use of Debt Financing for the City's Redevelopment Agency.

It is hard to believe that this Expansion of RDA Debt is only done by the City. Isn't there some agency that has to approve it at the State Level?

Paw answers. I don't know... a great question. The State of California is sort of the co-signer of the bonds, so it makes since that there would be a regulator or approval process at the State level.

Miller Case Limps Along....

Case FSB902916 Defendant 3210349
MILLER, JAMES THOMAS
Action: DISPO/RESET
Date: 03/01/2010
Time: 8:30 AM

Division: S26
Hearing Status: DISPOSED
BRYAN F FOSTER
CLERK: RL1-ROSA LEEDHAM
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER: LPT-LAWANA VASQUEZ CSR# LPT-12582
BAILIFF LUIS PEREZ
-
APPEARANCES
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOHN GORITZ PRESENT.
ATTORNEY (RT) RICHARD EWANISZYK PRESENT.
DEFENDANT PRESENT NOT IN CUSTODY.
-
PROCEEDINGS
ACTION COMES ON FOR DISPO/RESET
MATTER CONTINUED BY STIPULATION.
-
HEARINGS
DISPO/RESET HEARING SET ON 05/04/2010 AT 8:30 IN DEPT S26
DEFENDANT ORDERED TO APPEAR ON HEARING DATE.
-
TIME WAIVERS
TIME WAIVED FOR TRIAL; PLUS 60 DAYS.
TIME WAIVED TO 07/06/2010.
SET LAST DATE FOR TRIAL TO 07/06/2010.
-
CUSTODY STATUS
CASE CUSTODY - BAIL BOND
CURRENT BAIL BOND CONTINUED.
============= MINUTE ORDER END ================

At some time the case needs to be resolved, for the Millers and the citizens of Grand Terrace.

The investigation of Bea Cortes and Marretta Ferre still has not been acted upon by the D.A.'s Office

Debt Aproved. New Council Members Needed.

With the new debt levels available for the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and City Staff we are forced to ask can we trust the City Council/Mayor and Staff to hold each of the expenditures and use of that money to the use intended and desired by the public.

We know that Mayor Ferre, Bea Cortez and Lee Ann Garcia are rubber stamp voters and will continue to be blindly guided or directed by Staff Recommendations and Reports. Can you identify any time they directed staff to reverse a proposal or action?

Jim Miller forced the use of bidding for contracts for services such as the city's air conditioner, and other large purchases. Walt asks good questions but has not yet shown sufficient strength to violate the Council's practice of just going along with the first and only staff presentation on an idea or issue.

It is a fair to ask the staff for the presentation of alternative options to such things as expanding the debt levels. Then allow the citizens to have input, and the council decide without an indication of the "Staff's Desires". The city does or should not be run for the satisfaction of the City Staff. If the city can't run without debt funds... Perhaps we should not be a city. Or we should have a smaller City Government.

True, it is a new city staff. But, as of yet we are not all sure that the new City Manager, has a team with our best interest in mind. Much of the old management is still entrenched in city hall. She may not be getting the best advise. The consultant who helped with the general plan, works for businesses outside of Grand Terrace. It does not list the Grand Terrace Citizens as its clients.

Citizens were informed of the Planning and RDA meeting after the Staff and Hired help had already prepared their reports. Citizen input was not front loaded. No alternatives were provided the council or the citizens.

The Citizens who attend the meetings are limited to 3 minute presentations, and it is clear that the council has already determined to support Staff Recommendations prior to the Public Hearings. The Staff gets an unlimited amount of time to present to the Council. The ONLY reason the public participates in the process is in the event there is a need to take the City to Court. We know the Council is not impacted by even a single point, or word that is spoken from the Public Lectern.

Mayor Ferre's rude response to allow just one more minute not any more than one minute to one of the speakers finishing up a well written presentation of facts indicates her mind is closed to any input. It also was rude. Mrs Ferre if you don't have time to hear a complete idea and issues from a citizen on such a large and costly proposition, perhaps you should not be Mayor or a Council Member. A City Council Member should want to hear all the possibilities and input on an issue PRIOR to making their decision. Even if that means the staff is directed to write up a study of an alternative plan of action for a future meeting.

No one presented a realistic bare bones plan. This would include the things we are currently obligated to do, things that are needed like flood control, and stop lights, sidewalks, and road repair.

No one presented a plan that would finish up just the Barton Road General Plan, and the above.

No one presented real alternatives for the SW Land that should be developed in conjunction with the freeway plan, not prior to Cal Trans. The city could say, this land is zoned, temporary hold... for Freeway Construction Preserve Area. When the freeway is done, then see what is needed and available.

Grand Terrace will not benefit by following the path of building stores like the Colton RDA did in Cooley Ranch. Yet the presentations to date all indicate this backward looking planning as a means to "Fill In" the remaining land in Grand Terrace. Copy what isn't working... now that sounds like a great idea.

Citizens are right. The City and the Council has not done a good job in the past. This needs to be changed. RDA Projects should be held to a minimum and the Debt Bonds should only be sold IF it is a REQUIRED or NECESSARY Project, not a folly, like the Outdoor Adventure Center or Schwab/Jacobsen Town Center.

Question: Why is CVS allowed to have storage containers in their parking lot? This is not acceptable per the code.
Why were City Workers clearing the weeds adjacent to Jacobsen Owned Property. All of us have to take care of our parkways that the City has the right of way. Was Jacobsen billed?

Some one will pay for GT RDA... We should be not getting more than we can support ourselves. Taking money from Needles or Oakland is nothing to take pride in.

Grand Terrace Triples Debt Levels.

The Members of the Grand Terrace City Council attending the meeting today voted to extend the life of the Redevelopment Agency and Triple its allowable Debt Level.

WHY: Well they were convinced by city staff that there was no other way to run a city government. Fear of reverting back to County or being a non City motivated the council's vote.

This should be a warning to the Bond Purchasers in the Future and the State of California who is the effective underwriter. Grand Terrace is on the edge of non existence with out the additional debt bonds and the allotment increases that increased debt will bring the city.

That Debt comes with obligations, like building low and very low income housing. That Debt comes with obligations to comply with state law and regulations regarding Development. Grand Terrace City has not been real good about doing well in the past. Future investors should be warned Grand Terrace is on the edge... of non existence without additional debt.

Have any of you gone to the bank for a loan when you were desperate for the money, had no other way of getting it, or even have a questionable way of paying it back? Have any of you gone to the bank for a non necessity like a nose job, with the same economics of this city. You'd be escorted out of the bank. Lets hope the State Regulators, Bond Sales, and Investors know the facts about Grand Terrace.

The public was told that the City Staff (Inside City Hall) has taken a 10 Percent Reduction in their hours. This effectively is a greater than 10 percent savings to the city. The Mayor offered to have her gas stipend held back until such time the staff is restored to full time. She also offered 10 percent of her meeting stipend. No Other Council Member made such an offer in public. The Mayor after all is a former School District Employee, she has a full retirement with health care and is old enough to have medicare/medical. The City Council's benefit package includes CALPERS Retirement, Medical, Gas, and Meeting Stipend. For a few hours of work a week.

What is wrong with the above decision. Well, in the decision making process the City Staff did not present to the public or city council any other option. The Staff could have been very specific on a Must Do list of roads and Infrastructure improvements. This list and the other "Obligations Outstanding" should be the maximum debt funds asked for. Grand Terrace should not be so foolhardy and selfish to exceed the bare minimum for absolute necessities for the next few years. Empty New Buildings, or Empty Old Buildings do not add to the economy of Grand Terrace. Like a fancy sign, it creates a hole to pour more and more money down in one way or another.

The Citizens and the City Council have been ill served by tonight's decision. We may not survive as a City, but it was written so now they will make it so.

TONIGHT MEETING IS IMPORTANT

REMINDER: IF YOU DO NOT BRING YOUR ISSUES TO THE CITY COUNCIL YOU MAY LOSE YOUR ABILITY TO BRING AN ISSUE TO THE COURTS.

Grand Terrace council to take up growth plan

10:00 PM PDT on Monday, April 26, 2010
The City Council will hold a public hearing Tuesday night on an update to the city's general plan to guide future growth.
The document updates a plan originally adopted in 1988 that spells out guidelines for everything from open space to housing.
The council meets at 6 p.m. in its chambers at 22795 Barton Road in Grand Terrace.
--Darrell R. Santschi
dsantschi@PE.com

Comment on this story
PLAN TO INCREASE DEBT IS INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA

GT Neighbor Said: They will also be proposing to raise the RDA Debt and extend the life. The Redevelopment Agency doesn't expire until 2012, however, they are in a hurry to raise the limit from $74,000,000 to $224,000,000. There is very little accountability to the citizens who will be paying back the bond debt created by the RDA. The money does not come out of thin air.

Increasing RDA Debt Levels

First look at the past use of Debt. Was the money spent well. No.

Second was the money spent as it was supposed to be spent. No. The RDA funding the "General Fund" or giving the city a loan never intended to be paid back (sic) Tom Schwab. This is not legal use of the funds. Why has no one been charged with a crime?

Third look at the grandiose pie in the sky plans or objectives for the expanded debt and test of reason says it is unsustainable.

This is like a friend or a relative who asks for 20.00 and never pays you back. Then comes and asks for 200.00. You know he spent the last 20.00 on a party, and the 200.00 is for who knows what.

Nope.. The RDA and the City of Grand Terrace should not raise the debt level and any bonding agency should not fund or sell those debt bonds if it does. This is the time to live within our means. That is what the city tells the citizens. Well do it.

Begin to rebuild trust in the City/RDA by a complete accounting for every dime Mr. Schwab and Mr. Berry spent. A complete accounting and review of the building and running of the Senior Apartments and Senior Center. If there is a way to recover funds do it. Even if you have to claw back on the inflated incomes and retirement packages paid to Schwab and Berry. Or if there is proven fraud on their parts it may be a civil case where damages can be attached to a judgement and their assets subject to sale like Bernie Maddoff's.

Until there is LEADERSHIP on the City Council and in the City Hall, the citizens will not support an expanded debt level or the Development Plan/General Plan. These duo plans are not for the Citizens Benefit. They benefit developers and a select few retail type businesses. Increase in Retail Stores will not provide sustainable economic viability. It will increase blight and empty stores. You must increase the Income of the Population and or Produce a Export to increase Economic Value. Shifting current sales from one store to another will not be an increase in the total economic health of Grand Terrace. Burdened with debt it will sink the city.

Open Letter to Walt re RDA

In response to Councilman Walt's RDA Letter (Grand Terrace City News)
Friday, April 23, 2010 3:32 PM
To: "Grand PaTerrace"
From Sylvia Robles:

1. Why the urgency to pass the RDA Amendment, when the current plan does not expire until 2012?

2. If the City knew it's ability to incur debt was to expire in 2012, why did we incur or obligate bond debt we had no authority to pledge?

3. Why do we continue to avoid a thorough discussion on funding commercial and retail projects? There is $ 7.4 mil for "Southwest Commercial Site Improvements", $7.5 for in-articulated, "Additional Commercial and Economic Programs," $300,000 for Town Center Land Assembly." $5 mil for "Additional Public Infrastructure Projects." Private developers can use assessment districts to pay for their own infrastructure improvements.

4. We should only use RDA to directly benefit our citizens. Giving RDA money to private developers is like giving a bank bail-out to Wall Street.

5. I reached the same conclusion, in order for the City of Grand Terrace to exist it needs some RDA. I recognized that 30 plus years ago. I was willing to tolerate RDA to limited areas it if if directly benefited our community. But the entire City designated as blight? No, never.

6. As a legislative body we you can negotiate with Sacramento to redirect RDA tax increment to the city coffers. This will be a long and thoughtful process.


But it cannot happen if we incur more debt on failed private development. The time has come for the state and local government to do some give and take. We cannot continue on this road of unsustaniable debt.

end

Support Community Action

The Grand Terrace City News, has printed a coupon that you bring to the Food Connection on May 8th and you eat and pay, and present the coupon with your payment the Tata Trotters will get 30 percent of the sale to support Breast Cancer Research and Education. If you are taking that special some one out to eat than make it double special. Oh heck you have to eat anyway. Go to the Food Connection May 8th and Support the Tata Trotters.

Drive in your Washed Car.... Remember the Firemen are washing cars this weekend... Ladies that is always a fun event... so I hear.

Dog Park Meet this Sat... Bark Bark... go if you have a tail...

RDA End? Expand? or Limited Expansion Plan B

PRESENTED BY CITIZEN

SYLVIA ROBLES & CYNTHIA BIDNEY

Redevelopment Agency Extend or Let Die:

There is a need for readers or co readers of a Power Point Presentation on Alternatives to extending the Redevelopment Agency. Email Grandterracenews@yahoo.com if you are willing to assist in the presentation that has to be broken up into 3 minute segments.

The Staff and the "Professionals" of course are not limited to their time in making a presentation.

Each of the presentations will be available to the press and audience and council and will be requested to be included in full into the official record of the minutes as printed.

Your help is needed to allow the viewers on CH 3 to hear what is being included into the record and to be sure the City Council has HEARD the views of the public at least voiced once.

Thank You All.

Redevelopment Agency Extend or Reform?

Grand Pa here is my issue with the proposal to extend the life and debt level of the Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency:


"The Agency has no power to levy a property tax." This is wholly deceptive. The Agency does have the power to issue Tax Allocation Bonds without voter approval, as we have seen over the years and has been the cause of our indebtedness. They do have the power to redirect our property taxes to repay these bonds and not for what the original intentions of property taxes were meant. "Property taxes will not increase as a result of this proposed section". Perhaps not, but they most assuredly will be taken from the citizen to pay for the development and to the developers. Grand Terrace was incorporated by a hand full of land speculators with the sole purpose of making a profit with no regard of the people that had lived here much longer than them. One was a former Mayor of Colton. One was is a former Mayor of Grand Terrace and sold his property to the City/RDA for over three million for the Town Center. On it's best day his property was not worth three million. This is what the "good old boy" network has brought upon Grand Terrace . Martetta Ferre is a representative of this network. I recall the Sun article where she claimed she wanted to out do her father in development in Grand Terrace. For anyone to think Ferre is there to protect the citizens from unscrupulous developers is ludicrous. Her record says just the opposite. That is an historical fact.

To "eliminate the agency's authority to acquire property by eminent domain".

Just how stupid do they think we are. So if the agency does not acquire property by eminent domain the City will, as we witnessed by Tom Schwab and the residents that were threatened off their property on Barton Road. How else will they acquire property from citizens unwilling to give up their homes unless through eminent domain. It may not be the agency (City Council is the CRA/RDA) but it will still be used. Just by the City Council. Whats in a name.

The Arco, if memory serves, is scheduled to either be taken out as well as Auto Zone and the business adjoining. The problem here is that they may have to be compensated for lost business. There is case law. This, if ruled in favor of the injured which may well be the case can run into millions. Will the RDA and Council just raise our indebted limit if the State allows.

We cannot get a pothole fixed and these people are trying to put us millions of dollars farther into debt. Remember, it is our property taxes that should go for Police protection, fire protection, schools, road repair, park maintainence and the things a city is responsible for to it citizens for that will suffer.

Any tax revenue generated by an RDA cannot go into the city general fund. It must go to the RDA for the use of more development, yet our property taxes will be used to repay these bonds for RDA development and not the revenue generated by the RDA.

If you will look at only the RDA project completed, The Senior Housing, how well has that worked out with the present crew of armatures. Walt excluded. He was not a member of the council when this was voted for over the objections of the citizens.

http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/domain_inverse/

"Or here after amended" Here is their out. You can rest assured it will be amended after they pass it after the pretense of listening to the citizens. This is a done deal. If it were not they wouldn't have the required by law public meeting. Again history should tell you this City Hall does not do the required public meetings unless they have already agreed among themselves to past whatever they choose to place on the agenda.



The Agency has no power to levy a property tax or any other tax and property taxes will not increase as a result of this proposed action.The proposed Amendment would increase the total amount of tax increment revenue that can be collected and bonded indebtedness that can be issued, extend the duration of the Plan and date to receive tax increment revenue, eliminate the Agency’s authority to acquire property by eminent domain, and replace the description of land uses in the Plan with language that directly refers to the City’s General Plan, zoning ordinances, and other applicable land use policies and standards, as they exist today or are hereafter amended.The general goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area will remain the same and are set forth in Section 400 of the Plan. Overall, the primary goal of the Plan is to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration within the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project (“Project Area”).The Project Area includes all properties within the City boundary

It is simply impossible to understand the U.S. Constitution without first possessing a thorough understanding of property rights. If you traveled back in time to enter James Madison’s mind as he wrote and debated such weighty issues as free speech, the right of self-defense, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience, but came away lacking knowledge of his and the other Framers’ views on property, you still would be woefully ignorant of the Constitution, and even of U.S. history; for it was a whole series of property disputes that gave rise to both the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention itself. To understand the rights of property in a constitutional context you must know two things: just how important these rights were to the Framers and just what they meant by the term.

In a political context, virtually nothing was as important to the Framers as property rights. As Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier point out in their book Decision in Philadelphia, those men had “an almost religious respect” for property, that “the rights of property were inviolable,” and that the Constitution itself is the embodiment of the rights of property as developed primarily by John Locke in the 17th century.

As Walter B. Mead points out in his book The United States Constitution, the Framers were favorably disposed to history’s great philosophers who held that “concerns for freedom could not be separated from concerns for property” and that the Framers knew “inadequately secured property rights could render vulnerable even the fundamental liberties of speech, press, and meaningful political participation.” Or, as the Framers themselves said,

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. (John Adams) Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty. (John Adams) Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (James Madison)

Most startling of all, perhaps, was Forrest McDonald’s observation in his book Novus Ordo Seclorum that property rights were so important to the Framers that all but 4 of the 55 men at the Constitutional Convention placed their protection behind only liberty itself as the sacred charge of government. And of the four who disagreed on this point, three of them differed not because they valued property rights less than their fellows but because they actually “put [their] protection ahead of liberty as the main object of society.”

Readers will note that the above formulation does indeed place property ahead of freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly, the right to petition the government, the right of self-defense, the right to be secure in one’s home, and the rights of the accused, including the right against self-incrimination and the right to a fair and speedy trial in which one may face one’s accusers. In short, the Framers placed property rights higher than all the rights that are most commonly associated with them.

Tuesday April 27, 2010 6:00 PM YOU MUST SPEAK

This is important:

IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN BE THERE, BRING YOUR STATEMENT AND CONCERNS IN WRITING FOR THE RECORD. YOU ARE ALLOWED ONLY 3 MINUTES TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC VIEW WHEN THE STAFF/DEVELOPERS AND WRITER OF THE PLAN HAVE UNLIMITED TIME AND RESOURCES.

CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING

TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE GRAND TERRACE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

In accordance with the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 33452, Public Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace (“City Council”) and the City of Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”) will hold joint public hearings on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, at the Grand Terrace City Hall in the City Council Chambers located at 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, to consider the following matters:

Amendment No. 6 (“Amendment”) to the Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project (“Plan”)

Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Grand Terrace General Plan Update and Amendment No. 6 to Redevelopment Plan for the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project.

The Agency has no power to levy a property tax or any other tax and property taxes will not increase as a result of this proposed action.

The proposed Amendment would increase the total amount of tax increment revenue that can be collected and bonded indebtedness that can be issued, extend the duration of the Plan and date to receive tax increment revenue, eliminate the Agency’s authority to acquire property by eminent domain, and replace the description of land uses in the Plan with language that directly refers to the City’s General Plan, zoning ordinances, and other applicable land use policies and standards, as they exist today or are hereafter amended.

The general goals and objectives for redevelopment of the Project Area will remain the same and are set forth in Section 400 of the Plan. Overall, the primary goal of the Plan is to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration within the Grand Terrace Community Redevelopment Project (“Project Area”).

The Project Area includes all properties within the City boundary. Copies of the legal descriptions of the boundaries and map of the Project Area are available, free of charge, at the office of the City Clerk, City of Grand Terrace, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California. The legal descriptions of the boundaries of Project Area are also available at the County Recorder’s Office of the County of San Bernardino.

All interested persons are invited to appear and present evidence and testimony concerning any or all of the matters described in this notice. Due to time constraints and the number of persons wishing to give oral testimony, each speaker will be limited to three minutes. You may wish to make your comments in writing and submit them to the City Clerk for inclusion into the public record.

If you challenge any portion of this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the joint public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the joint public hearing.

Any persons unable to attend the joint public hearing may submit written comments to the City Clerk, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92313.

If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact Joyce Powers, at (909) 430-2225 during regular business hours.

Trying to Inform the Public.

Dear Grandpa,

My husband and I hosted a "Meet and Greet" this past Sunday at Rollins Park for Republican assembly candidate Mike Morrell from Rancho Cucamonga. 500 postcards at my expense were sent from a list provided by his campaign of high propensity voters, these are voters that vote in almost or all elections.

The turn-out was dismal.

I was in a bit of a spot because when I ordered the postcards; I expected some co-hosts. So the designation: Friends of Mike Morrell.

The other issue is the rumor that the Morrell campaign hired Steve Berry as an consultant. This is not true.

The good active citizens of the community have understandably been through a difficult and sad chapter in relation to the continuing battle Jim Miller faces in court. His supporters are probably battle worn. Other good citizens are battle worn from fighting for our high school's rightful name and the future planning of our city with tax dollars to be dedicated to underwriting private commercial development.

I am pleased to have provided a public venue for people to come out and meet a candidate for an important seat that will represent our City in Sacramento.

Please visit his website, or contact him directly and get to know him. It is important to have an informed choice among the candidates. http://www.morrellforassembly.com/?p=1

Gramps Says:

Yes go check out his web site. Contrast and Compare your choices among the candidates.

This blog has said that Steve Berry had been hired by the Meg Whitman Campaign, and was also listed as the contact point for a Tea Party Candidate fundraiser in Riverside.

Morrell has not been associated with Berry by this blog other than by your email, and the fact they are both apparently Republicans looking for work.

Trying for Political Favor: Ferre Supports Dog Park

Stephen Wall again gets the story wrong.
The Property "Acquired" by the city was condemned unsafe as it was preparing to tumble down the Cliff. The demolition was required to relieve the surface weight of the pool and house slab. The City paid for the property and the demolition. The former property owner received more than market value for property that cant or should not be built on. Recall the public statements of concern about the demolition equipment being operated in a way that it did not collapse the hill side onto the road below.

What the city is trying to do is take a lemon and turn it into lemonade. This is not a bad thing. But say what is true. Don't pretend that the underlying purpose of the purchase was to provide space for a dog park. That was not the motivation in the purchase. IF it were the prior property owner may be able to have a legal action against the city's condemnation of the property and the process the city used to acquire the land.

What you have here is a piece of property that is not suitable for building a replacement home upon it. What you have here is a piece of property that should not be irrigated or watered excessively. What you have here is a piece of property that will need expensive fencing for safety of anyone visiting it. The Cliff Line is always shifting. (Just look at the dirt below).

Mulch will still need to be weeded. The existing trees should be reserved and pruned. Trees cut down should provide wood for benches or other features.

Why does Mr. Wall work so hard to make the City Council and the Mayor look better than they really are?

I support a dog park, but why does Mr. Wall have to swallow the pretence of the City's Mayor. Her statements exaggerate the Credit Due to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. IF the property had any other possible use, KNOW FOR SURE. the dog park would not be the use of the land.

(Source: San Bernardino County Sun)By Stephen Wall, San Bernardino County Sun, Calif.
Apr. 15--GRAND TERRACE -- The city is moving forward with plans for a dog park.

The Redevelopment Agency spent about $60,000 to purchase a 15,000-square-foot site for the park. The city took title to the property in May.
Officials want the community's help to raise money to buy play equipment such as hurdles and teeter totters, as well as people benches and a water fountain for dogs.
A fundraising kickoff event is scheduled from 10 a.m. to noon April 24 at the proposed park site, 22720 Vista Grande Way.
Mayor Maryetta Ferre said the lot is the perfect size to have separate play areas for large and small dogs.
The property is on a hill with a beautiful view of the valley below, she said.
An abandoned home, detached garage and swimming pool that were demolished to make way for the park, officials said.
Joyce Powers, the city's community and economic development director, came up with the idea for the park.
"It's just to provide an additional community amenity," Powers said. "I like dogs. I like to see dogs have fun."
Powers said the city wants to keep maintenance costs down by using mulch covering rather than planting grass and purchasing "extra sturdy" equipment.
Ferre said the Foundation of Grand Terrace at one time tried to find property for a dog park, but it never happened.
-----

City Council on Fireworks:

Tonight the City Council Voted to offer a limited amount of safety to a limited number of people. People and homes with the highest property values may we add. Including the homes of Mayor Ferre and Council Member Garcia.

Walt tried to explain that if the Council Banned Fireworks that ban would only be as good as the Council. Walt this is a half explanation and you know it. This City Council or the Majority support having fireworks and this Council would not pass a ban. IF it would it could have had it both ways. This Council could have written a ban for now and have an election on a GT Measure that would increase the strength of the ban. We know Walt is against fireworks in general. He also knows he does not have the support of his fellow or fella council members on this issue.

The Council could have issued a no use map that covered all of Grand Terrace. Or allowed them in a controlled area at the parks. Nope, lets pretend that this safety zone will make GT Safer. It is a FRAUD on the citizens of GT yet again.

What are the fines for having fireworks in the safety zone? What are the fees for illegal fireworks in the rest of Grand Terrace? The Fire Department makes no arrests of issues a code violation that carries a financial penalty for breaking the law. The Sheriff's Department said they do what the Fire Department Does. Violators will get a talking to and an "Education".

Active Civil Case Against City Of Grand Terrace

Meeting Behind Closed Doors: Civil Case Against the City of Grand Terrace. What, who , why, when, and HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST THE CITY?

Looking in the San Bernardino Court Records the following case is open and pending. It is interesting that the City, Schwab and the Sheriff and the County are all named as defendants. One of the Plaintiffs has a similar name to a home owner near Tom Schwab's House. Other than that a preliminary look see into what is possibly facing the city additional information is not available on line.

Note the Date of 7/15/2008 is an interesting date.

Case CIVSS809432 Grove – V- City of Grand Terrace
Complaint Filed 7/15/2008
Complaint Number 1:
Complaint Type: Complaint (Unlimited)
Filing Date: 07/15/2008
Complaint Status: Active
7/12/2010 8:30 AM Case Management Conference
Party
Plaintiff(s) Represented by Carroll M Lawson)
1) Micheal Grove
2) Gary Gray
3) Gloria Esquibel-Smiley
4) John Clarke
5) Rick Sandberg
6) Ricardo Dorame
7) Bobby Morgan
8) Micheal R Brewster
Defendants
9) City of Grand Terrace (City Attorney)
10) Thomas Schwab (City Attorney)
11) DEFENDANT Deputy F Hernandes ( No Representatation listed)
12) Defendants County of San Bernardino ( No Representative Listed)

Mayor Protects Blue Mountain and Her House Not Yours.

"I'm definitely in favor of the election," Mayor Maryetta Ferre said. "I'm in favor of allowing the youth groups to sell fireworks this Fourth of July. And I would very much like to safeguard Blue Mountain."

The Mayor's words and actions are telling. She will protect Blue Mountain, but won't support protecting your homes and lives and limbs.

In "protecting" Blue Mountain she also protects her home as she lives in the Firework Free Area in Honey Hills.

Any of the council members who live in the Protected Zones should be banned from voting on the agenda item as this is a Conflict of Interest on a scale that could include the potential loss of a life or a home, but not theirs...

Investigation of Steve Berry, Bea Cortes and Tom Schwab

The triad of actors who have been the subject of many posts should be updated periodically.

Steve Berry is active in the Republican Party Politics of the Inland Empire and the Tea Party. If this is the quality of the Republican Party fund raiser and coordinators, well make your judgements as you will folks. We know what Steve Berry did for Grand Terrace, to embrace him at the Republican Party Level, including fund raising.... not what I would recommend the Republican Party Leaders to do... But, perhaps they like Horse Traders and alleged embezzlers on their committees. The saying judge me by the quality of my friends comes to mind. I wouldn't think adding Steve Berry to your "Friends List" is a wise political act.

Tom Schwab has appeared at many City Council Meetings. He speaks as a Citizen during Public Speaking Time. However, he openly is challenging the authority of the Current City Manager all the while he admits to allowing the RDA to "Loan" the City Funds he never intended to "Pay Back". If that is not an illegal act it should be. Note the "Investment Policy" of the RDA does not allow such transactions.

Bea Cortes is still under investigation for Conflict of Interest Issues of her own. The DA's Office has not yet Cleared her of the complaint filed by several brave citizens. If her case proceeds to charges Mayor Ferre and perhaps even Council Member Garcia may face similar problems depending on how far back the investigation goes. It may also include prior Council Members if the DA's Office is going to follow the letter of the law, as they have in the case against Jim Miller.

Jim Miller's case was pushed forward on the judicial calender again. Perhaps this time because of his health problem. What is known is that Cortes and Berry used their relationship with DA Ramos to push the Miller Case to the Investigation and Arrest in the MOST EXTREME MEASURES possible for their own political and employment objectives.

Fireworks From the Email InBox

Pa:

1) In the paper it said the fireworks were going to be sold at Stater's parking lot. Not so. Staters would not lease a spot for $1.

2) Council is afraid to take a stand against it. It is an election year.

3) Council picks what area it wants safe from fire. The rest of GT can burn.


Paw Answers:

You are right one of the articles said Stater's Parking Lot. It was not posted here because of that error. However, I think it is correct to say Future Stater's parking lot on property currently owned by the City, being held for Jack Brown at the City's Expense. Which brings additional logic problems regarding the City's Ban of Use of Fireworks in City Parks.

You are right that the City Council is fearful of the Sports Team Parents. Yet if you polled the Parents not the Management of the Teams you'll find many who are against the firework sales.

You are part right about the City Council Picking where there is a need for protection or designation of High Risk Areas. They used a Fire Marshals Map to draw the lines. I'd like to see the original Fire Marshals Map to see if they adjusted the lines. Most notable about the problem with the map is the fact that the Colton side of Canal can not be regulated as a high risk fire area. The idea that the fire would not spread once started is also fiction. Ask the folks who got burned out in San Diego. The City's Proposed code should ban all use of fireworks during a red flag week and day. Perhaps even stopping the sale if the NOAA predicts Red Flag days during the period of sale and use. Perhaps they should close Canal Street for the week.

YOU ARE RIGHT THEY ARE STILL WILLING TO LET YOUR HOUSE BURN, in exchange for sports trophies for every child. The teams could economise the income from the Fireworks is spent on trinkets and dust collectors. It is not right to risk a home or an eye or a burned person for this reason. You are Right is just Wrong.

IT Will take a massive fire to wake up this Council and perhaps the general population. They are not good leaders in this issue and others I don't think many of them will be elected because they supported fireworks. The accumulation of their acts have pre determined the election outcome. To bad they have not got the guts to do something right before they leave office. But, like the Fonz they can't say they did something Wr.. wrrr wrrr wrrr WRONG.

Here is the News Paper Article that has WRONG information.

'Fireworks free' zone studied in Grand Terrace
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/11/2010 09:31:42 PM PDT
Updated: 04/11/2010 09:41:25 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - Setting aside an area where fireworks could not be discharged on the Fourth of July will be discussed Tuesday by the City Council.
In February, the council agreed to let voters decide in November whether to ban the sale and discharge of fireworks citywide. At the same time, the council said it would allow fireworks to be sold and discharged this year.
The council also directed city staff to prepare a map designating a "no fireworks" zone in parts of the city where the fire hazard is greatest.
Most of the proposed "no fireworks" area is around the base of Blue Mountain.
The boundaries of the zone are west of La Cadena Drive; east of Oriole Avenue; east of Whistler Street; east of Dos Rios Avenue; east of Preston Street; and north of Brentwood Street.
The cost to enforce the ban in the safety zone would be included in the city's operating budget for law enforcement services, according to a report by Joyce Powers, community and economic development director.
Grand Terrace is not the first area to consider designating a "no fireworks" area. San Bernardino prohibits fireworks in the foothills north of 30th Street.
In separate but related matter, the council will discuss a proposed agreement with TNT Fireworks for city sports leagues to sell fireworks from a booth in front of a Stater Bros. market on Barton Road.
Under the agreement, fireworks could be sold on the property from June 28 through July 4.
"I'm definitely in favor of the election," Mayor Maryetta Ferre said. "I'm in favor of allowing the youth groups to sell fireworks this Fourth of July. And I would very much like to safeguard Blue Mountain."

From in the NEWS: Fireworks

Grand Terrace council to consider fireworks stand
10:00 PM PDT on Friday, April 9, 2010

The Grand Terrace City Council will be asked Tuesday night to allow the Grand Terrace Little League to sell fireworks on city-owned property this summer.
The council, sitting as the governing body of the city-wide Redevelopment Agency, will consider charging $1 to use two parcels on Barton Road to sell fireworks from June 28 through July 4.
The council voted in February to allow voters to decide in November whether to ban fireworks sales, but agreed to allow the sales this summer.
The council meets at 6 p.m. in its chambers at 22795 Barton Road.
--Darrell R. Santschi
dsantschi@PE.com

Go buy your fireworks and try and set them off on City Property. If it is safe in neighborhoods with palm trees, cars, and homes just feet from one another it should be safe in Pico Park. If it is not safe at Pico Park or at the Senior Housing or Petta park, then it is not safe anywhere. Let's hope that the records of fires and injury is kept for election information.

FireWorks/Trucking/Safety Zones On Next Agenda

http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=484

This is the link for the Next City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting.

Of Notice.
1) The explanation for the closed door meeting regarding the Change Orders and Furniture Issue seems to this reader being in the interest of hiding possible illegal activity rather than the need for a Negotiation behind closed doors. The public and law enforcement should be informed of the contractual adjustments and the way they were done.

2) Staff recommends approval of Trucking Rehab Company Swartsenfinger to have approval of their CUP application.

3) Fireworks Ordinance and Agreement is to be approved. Read it and see if you can get your neighbor to sign such an agreement prior to their use of fireworks that will endanger your business or home.

4) Fireworks Ban Safety Zones. There is going to be some problem in enforcement.For Example the map reads "North of Brentwood". Does that include all the houses on Brentwood, or just the homes on the north side up to the school. Will the city of Colton be protecting the cliff to the west of the Grand Terrace "Safety Zone" or will they keep the fire from crossing the street?

5) Why is there no regulation of a Red Flag Warning or Red Flag Day as being a condition to call off the use of all fireworks? At best the map gives responders a few moments more to get to a fire, but if there is wind, they won't be able to stop the fire's spread.

The down load of the packet is fairly quick. I have not checked the check register item by item.

TRASH DUMP DAY THIS WEEKEND
Bring ID Enter at Barton and Canal.

Whoops... on the 215S

JUST IN: I-215S closed for overpass repairs, traffic jammed
By

PE News on April 8, 2010 8:37 AM

Traffic is jammed for a couple of miles along I-215 in Grand Terrace where all southbound lanes are closed while crews make emergency repairs to a freeway overpass, according to the California Highway Patrol.
A big-rig hit the Barton Road overcrossing at 5:23 a.m. while hauling a back-hoe, the top of which struck the top of the bridge, said CHP Officer Jaci Parent.
Fallen concrete debris punctured the tires of some passing vehicles, but traffic continued to flow. The closure came at 8 a.m. when crews began working on the bridge to prevent additional concrete from falling.
"They're caulking it now," Parent said shortly before 8:30 a.m. while viewing closed-circuit television cameras from the Traffic Management Center in San Bernardino. "The backup is pretty ugly - all the way to (Interstate) 10."
—Richard Brooksrbrooks@PE.com

Horse Trading in GT or Illegal Contracting Practices?

From the Email INBOX:
Paw:
I am new to the Blue Mt. Villas. I am worried about the building. There have been a number of problems with the building already. Add what we can see as residents and the "Horse Trading" with the contract conditions I worry about what we can't see. Is this building safe? Was it constructed to survive an earth quake? Will the fire alarms work? How will the people all get off the second floor? Who checked on all these things when it was being built... one of the Horse Traders?

I am moving as soon as I can, so are several others I know of. We are looking for a building that is sound, and IS close to shopping and public transportation. I have met some nice people in GT, but that is not enough reason to stay and suffer with this Brown Elephant of a Building and Location and the Management. Good luck GT. Good Luck.

SMART TIME FOOD STORE.ROBBED 3rd Time.

Man wanted in two-county robbery spree
By Melissa Pinion-Whitt
Posted: 04/06/2010 02:01:50 PM PDT
San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies released a current photo.

Sheriff's officials today released surveillance photos of a man suspected in as many as 10 robberies, including one in Grand Terrace on Friday.
The man walked into Smart Tyme Food Store at 22310 Barton Road at 8:15 p.m., San Bernardino County sheriff's officials said. He approached the clerk and held the clerk at gunpoint while demanding money.
The man ran north on Canal Street and got into an older Toyota Camry that was being driven by a second man. The driver headed east on McClarren Street.
Deputies say the same man robbed Smart Tyme in August and September, and is wanted in as many as 10 robberies in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Officials said he robbed stores in Highgrove and Mira Loma.
The man is Latino, 18 to 25-years-old, 5-feet-9 to 6-feet-tall and 200 to 220 pounds. He has dark hair and brown eyes. He wore a dark hooded sweatshirt and a baseball cap.

Anyone with information may call (909)387-3545. Read more:

http://www.sbsun.com/breakingnews/ci_14830476#ixzz0kTElDP6i

GT MOST WANTED.... CALL SHERIFF

(909) 387-3545 or 911 DANGER GUN

Authorities suspect man robbed same Grand Terrace convenience store three times

Photo from Prior Event:

Posted: 10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday,

April 6, 2010 Press Enterprize

A man armed with a semi-automatic handgun may have robbed the same Grand Terrace convenience store three times and is wanted for up to 10 robberies in the Inland area, according to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.

The latest incident was about 8:15 p.m. Friday. The robber was last seen running north on Canal Street, where he got into a dark-colored, late-model Toyota Camry driven by an unidentified man that headed east on McClarren Street, a news release stated.

The previous robberies at the store were in August and December.
Anyone with information is asked to call the central sheriff's station Detective Bureau at 909-387-3545.

--Gail Wesson mailto:Wessongwesson@PE.com

Missing from Online GTCN Councilmember Forum

April 1, 2010 Council Member Forum Walt Stanckiewitz authored an open letter to the Management of Blue Mt. Senior Villas, and Property Management of the Senior Center. (CBH = Corporation for Better Housing)

Dear Mr Hardt:

I am the newest member of the Grand Terrace City Council and therefore have the least amount of personal history with the Blue Mountain Seniors Villas and the adjoining Senior Center. What I have been exposed to are documents, letters, emails, and a tour of the unfinished facilities in February, 2009. One of the themes mentioned in an August 6, 2009 letter to the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was CBH's desire to "be a good partner". Your actions on March 22,2010, in removing the furniture from various rooms of the Senior Center does not seem to support this concept. In fact, they seem quite contrary. I am left wondering just what your firm desires in this relationship to be. Many residents of the Villa's (your customers who pay the rent) also use the Se. Center for recreational activities as well as the Sr. Lunch Program. The removal of the furniture hurt the very people that I have been led to believe you care about. Possibly I have been misled.

Again I refer to the August 6, 2009 letter from Mr. Sclafani, in which he refers to a "mutual understanding" between City Staff including past City Managers, Tom Schwab and Steve Berry and past Community Development Director, Gary Koontz and CBH. This "partnership" was the driving force in successfully completing this project. Mr. Sclafani then proceeds to attribute "HORSE TRADING" as the concept used throughout the development process. Was he saying a project of this magnitude used the development contracts and building plans as just guidelines and alterations/changes were handled with hand-shake deals? I do not understand how a private enterprise, such as yours, can enter into such arrangements with a government entity. For your own protection I would assume that you would have wanted such changes memorialized. As written, the Agreement has a lifetime in excess of 50 years. It seems obvious that representatives from both organizations will change many times during this contract period. How can questions in 2025 concerning the development period be answered if accurate and proper documentation does no exist? I doubt that the future members of the City Council?RDA will accept verbal reference to past City officials.

Mr. Hardt, your email of March 23, 2010, to our present City Manager, Betsy Adams, you appear to admit that your firm "in an effort to share a small portion of these expenses with the City, CBH veiled at staff's request the submitted change orders to reflect other costs which were not attributed to furniture for the senior center. If your firm did not desire reimbursement for the furniture, please explain to me why you chose to remove it. What were you thinking? Was this your plan all along? Was this furniture part of your "Marketing Plan" to fill the Villas then remove it for use at another project to do the same? Characteristics most important to me in a business relationship are honesty and trust. If they do not exist, the business relationship does not exist. At this point I am having a difficult time trying to find trust in our relationship.

I have kept silent on another issue related to the Sr. Center, the noncommercial grade kitchen. There seems to be enough blame to spread around to all the players in this deal, but I still wonder why a firm with your experience in these particular types of construction projects missed this detail. It is my belief that your firm should have "flagged" this omission early in the design process. Was this another "Horse Traded" deal? This error is going to cost the City in excess of $75,000.00 And I understand that your firm wants to bid on this project. Are you asking for a second chance to do it right as long as someone else pays for it? Why should the City/RDA even consider your participation in the bid process after the March 22nd incident?

I am only one member of the City Council/RDA and I do not speak for the other members, but I am very confused, upset and concerned as to how your firm and the City can work together in the future. It appears there is a need for much dialogue between your firm and the Council/RDA to clear the air and establish a relationship that can carry us into the future. Your words of preserving the integrity of this partnership offer hope. Your firm's actions in the future will tell the story.

If you or other senior members of CBH would like to discuss these issues in detail, I am willing to meet with any of you.

Sincerely,

Walt Stanckiewitz
Council Member.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Note to Walt Stanckiewitz:

Dear Council Member Walt Stanckiewitz:
Your letter indicates there is a trail of Contract Violations and possible Fraud and Conspiracy to Commit Fraud on the parts of CBH and the former mentioned City Employees. A Contract is a Contract. Failure to preform that contract demands an action. Horse Trading without documentation and Council Approvals goes into a more serious area. It may be time that CBH is ready to talk and identify those areas of the original contract and build design that have not been done and regardless of the horse trades should be done in accordance to the Contracted Obligations. It is time the City take back the Quarter Horse they got when we got a Donkey.

Intentional billing misrepresentations you mention as being costs that were veiled constitutes a FRAUD. The City Council voted to pay for an invoice that was not called out in the contract. Or the city didn't get something that was called out in the contract. This is Fraud, and there had to be 2 or more people involved in the Fraud that makes it a Conspiracy.

Tom Schwab's protection of Steve Berry during the Window Tinting Issue, should be a signal that the conduct was tolerated if not encouraged within the City. This amounts to Conspiracy to Violate Governmental Contracting Regulations and Practices. Federal funds, and Debt Bonds were sold to fund the development. These funds are regulated and dependent on the reliability of the City's Contract with CBH. It may be time to ask Federal Authorities to Audit the entire development and project. With what the council know now it sounds like CBH should have to pay for a complete set of reverse engineered plans and assessments be made at their Cost. The City should be assured that the building materials and practices were as stipulated by contract and the building safety and expected life span has not been diminished by the "Horse Trades".

GTCN of the CNG is now online... Welcome

Grand Terrace City News is now online...

http://www.cng-grandterrace.com/

Grand Terrace City News is not associated with the blog GrandTerraceNews. However, we all respect the service it provides to the community and welcome its web publication.

Will Money Buy Your Vote?

San Bernardino County DA race: Ramos has money, opponents' cupboards are bare
10:00 PM PDT on Friday, April 2, 2010
By RICHARD K. DE ATLEYThe Press-Enterprise

San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos has $393,278 in his campaign account, while each of his opponents show an ending cash balance of zero in their financial statements.
Statements from Grand Terrace attorney Frank Guzman and Hinkley lawyer Bob Conaway show both men have provided what money there has been in their campaigns so far.
The statements cover the period from Jan. 1 through March 17. The election is June 8. To avoid a November runoff, Ramos needs to win 50 percent of the vote, plus one.
Ramos is running for his third term. His statement says he took in $60,390, spent $70,484 and had an ending balance of $393,278.60.
Major contributors during the period include $10,000 each from Dr. Prem Reddy of Victorville; the Riverside law firm of Carter, Spring, Schank & O'Connor; and the San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association.
Reddy is the owner of Prime Healthcare Services Inc. It has 13 hospitals, 12 of which are in Southern California. The law firm is headed by two long-time Inland criminal defense attorneys, James Spring and Earl Carter.
The employee association's 3,100 members include sheriff's deputies, district attorney investigators, probation corrections officers and other agency investigators.
The campaign reported a $3,000 contribution to the association's charity fund during the same period.
Contributors of $5,000 each included Frontier Finance Co. of Rancho Cucamonga, Mitsubishi Cement Corp. of Lucerne Valley, a mining concern, and C. Tate & Associates of Apple Valley.
Payments included $7,500 to the David Ellis Group of Tustin for campaign consultation; another $7,500 to Delta Partners consultancy, also in Tustin.
The campaign put thousands of dollars into campaign literature with expenses including $11,550 for a voter guide, $4,500 for a slate mailer and $2,900 to one company for printing.
Conaway, who previously has run for judge and three times for Congress, said he was financing his own campaign for now. "Right now that seems to be where I'm headed," he said by phone.
Records show Conaway paid the $1,927.30 filing fee to run for the office out of his own pocket.
Guzman, who came in third in the 2006 race against Ramos, made a $33,619 loan to himself to pay for his filing fee and candidate ballot statement. "I am using my own money. I started late," Guzman said by phone, but he said he would start seeking funds.

Reach Richard K. De Atley at 951-368-9573 or redeatley@PE.com

Plan For Development Not for Public Land Rights

Planning Commission Approved Zone Changes without full and documented notification of individual land owners and citizens. Most dramatic amongst the changes is a Zone called Flood Plane / Industrial. This bottom land is subject to a high water table and or flooding on a fairly regular basis. In addition to this the Zone called Agriculture Overlay has been removed from this area and others in GT. The intentional denial of the right to practice Agriculture within the City of Grand Terrace does not support any modern planners idea of a sustainable economy or community.

Read the post below and you'll see who the Stakeholders or the individuals who have an interest in the plan and you'll see your best interests have little to do with the Planners Plan. This city is about to further restrict land use, and force a development plan that will not be a benefit to the General Population but to the developers and Realtors in the community.

The map of Noise Levels in Grand Terrace is a rather telling map. Note this is the expected level of noise levels. Also important to note that the Noise levels are their highest where the Speeds are the Highest on Barton Road and Mt Vernon. There is nothing that the City Council can do about Freeway or Train Noise other than to insist on a Long Wall along the freeway to block the noise.

The City Council could change the speed limit in town to a max of 35 mph city wide and have the Sheriff's Department ticket loud stereos and faulty mufflers, in addition to the speed limit. Noise is a reality of Community Life.

Good Businesses, neighbors and good campers should respect the Ear and Air Space of others. If I can hear your car radio as I sit inside my house, it is to loud. If I can hear your TV when I sit inside my house it is to loud. If after 9:00 School Nights and perhaps 11:00 Weekends, sound escapes your house it is too loud. Simple. If your coming in to town late at night don't make your car motor run at high RPM's or do burn outs as you enter into traffic.

Your Interests are not the Interests of the City of GT

So who in City Hall has the connection to Hogle-Ireland. I wonder who their lawyer is.
I don't know who their lawyer is however looking at their web site we can see who their clients are. Note to Citizens there are no listing that would make be believe this firm has the "General Public" as a client. This firms expertices is in helping City Managers push City Development Agency Development through the process. It is not a servant to the "General Public Interest".

Private Sector Clients
Hogle-Ireland, Inc. specializes in the development approval processes of governmental agencies for both the public and private sectors.

Allen Matkins Allergan Alter Group American Air Filter Ameron Anthony Forest Products Arnel Development Automobile Club of So. California Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club Bandai America Birtcher Birtcher-Campbell Black & Decker Bolthouse Properties Boston Market Brinderson Development Building Industry Association California Pacific Development Castle & Cook California, Inc. Catellus Development Corporation CB Richard Ellis CEG Design & Engineering Group Chuck E. Cheese CitiMark, Inc. Collins Commercial Crown Realty Davis Partners LLC Development Management Resources Dewey Ballantine Douglas Anderson Eleven Western Builders Empire Commercial Real Estate Erin Madison Ltd. Essex Excel Scientific Exel Logistics Fidelity Development First City Properties First Management Group Flying J Front Porch Senior Housing Fullmer Construction G&K GAF Materials Gertmenian & Sons GFR Enterprises Gimel Properties GRAE Ventures Greenpark Development Greenpark Holdings Hanover Company Hill Pinckert Architects Hilton Group Holmes Group IDI Il Fornaio Restaurants Indomobil (America), Inc. Industrial League of Orange County Ingram Micro Insignia Intelisyn International Conf. of Building Officials Investment Development Services (IDS) Irvine Development Company Irvine First Korean Church Irvine Retail Properties Company Jackson Square Properties JM Development Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Kaiser Medical Group Kaiser Permanente Keller Equity Group Kilroy Realty Corporation Koll Properties Kunzik Construction Laminations Lee & Associates Legacy Partners Lennar Homes Lewis Company Lilburn Lowe's Lyon Co. Marriott Hotels McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson McDonald's Corporation Meer Capital Partners Mercury Insurance Mitsui Montebello Town Center Nelson-von der Ahe Development Newcastle Partners Newhall Land and Farming Company Newport Real Estate Services Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott Oakmont Industrial Group O'Donnell Group Olson Company Oltman's Operating Engineers Trust Fund OPUS West Pacific Bay Pacific Gulf Pacific Newport Properties Penninsula Real Estate Development PGP Partnership Proficiency Capital ProLogis Purkiss Rose RSI Ralphs Grocery Company, Inc Rancho Mission Viejo Co. RCI RFC RGA Architects Riverside Commercial Investors Rox Consulting Group Royal Rangers RREEF Rutan & Tucker Ryland Homes Sanderson-J. Ray Development Sares-Regis SDC Development Shea Properties Southridge Auto Space Center SPS Development Staples Steris, Inc. Strutt & Parker California Sunset Environmental Susie's Deals Taco Bell Corporation Tejon Ranch The Children's Place The Crab Cooker The Howard-Platz Group The Irvine Company The Naiman Company The Rados Companies The Wattson Company The William Lyon Company Tiger Woods Foundation Tokai Bank University City Center Partners Urban Land Institute URS Corp. USA Properties Valencia Company Van Waters & Rogers Verdemont Associates Victorville Motors Vilore Food Co. Ware & Malcomb Architects Warmington Homes Waste Management of No. America Weingarten Realty Investors Western State Univ. College of Law Western Syrup Winthrop Management Wohl Property Group Xebec

Stakeholders in GT Plan Revision are those folks who can afford to eat Steak.

The rest of us were left out in the cold, and will be pushed under the bus if the Plan and Stakeholders want to rid us from GT. At least there may not be any more buses in GT after the Planners and City Management stranded the Seniors at the edge of town away from the inaccessible, insufficiently utilized current down town area and businesses. These senior have been forced to call for a 3.00 to 5.00 Bus Ride to do 4 bags of shopping (One WAY). BRILLIANT.

Who is on the "Stakeholders" List?

This article was posted prior to the Revised Plan Meeting at the Planning Commission... April 1, 2010. Is the Plan Push by the Sun Telegram Intentional or is the idea that the Planning Commission is Listening to any public comment just an April Fools Day Prank? Read additional comments below.

Grand Terrace starts remake of Barton Road business area
By Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Created: 04/01/2010 03:58:58 PM PDT

GRAND TERRACE - The city's main commercial corridor is getting a makeover.
Officials have started the process of updating planning guidelines along Barton Road. The goal is to create a more vibrant and successful area for residents and businesses.
The city received a $125,000 grant from Southern California Association of Governments, a metropolitan planning organization serving six counties including San Bernardino.
The organization hired consultant Hogle-Ireland, Inc. of Riverside, to work with the city to put together design concepts and recommendations for updating the specific plan for Barton Road.
A community meeting was held this week to gather residents' ideas for the types of businesses and amenities they would like to see.
The organization previously interviewed council members and other stakeholders to get input.
The No. 1 request was for sit-down restaurants, said Joyce Powers, community and economic development director.
Retail establishments like shoe and clothing stores also are in demand, she said.
"We would like to expand what we offer retail-wise for the citizens," Powers said.
The Planning Commission and City Council are expected to discuss the concepts and recommendations in June.
After that, the city will look for ways to pay for streetscape improvements such as parkway and median landscaping, new signs and banners along the corridor.
"It's a quality of life issue for the city," Powers said. "Naturally, if businesses chose to move here because the city is involved in making infrastructure improvements that will help them attract customers, then the citizens will feel more positive about patronizing the businesses."
Mayor Maryetta Ferre said she came away impressed after her discussion with the consultant.
"I would like to have a downtown atmosphere that is easily accessible to the public," Ferre said. "That's something we don't have right now."
stephen.wall@inlandnewspapers.com Read more:

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_14802478#ixzz0juQMfjEl

Additional Comments:
What Maryetta Ferre saying. a "atmosphere that is easily accessible to the public,". Is she saying that the plans will improve the air quality of down town? Is she saying that the city is going to put in sidewalks to make travel up and down Mt, Vernon and Barton Road Pedestrian Friendly? Is she saying that people without cars should have access to down town? You know like the Seniors she, aided in stranding in a location without easy access to the existing shops, and restaurants? In the real world the developers would have to pay for a side walk according to plan. In Mayor Ferre's world she will use this to justify expanding the CRA Debt, and the "Stakeholders" will not have to pony up for improvements that other businesses and citizens have. Thus they receive an inducement and advantage over existing citizens and businesses.

Remember, when the City Council thinks stores, they think BIG BOX Monsters that will not be down sized to fit a small town like Grand Terrace. We don't need more retail of imported goods. We need increase in real income not just an increase of sales tax collected in GT. OR we need to make living in GT LESS Costly not more Costly by having increased competition, increased property prices and rents or leases, and increased government size to maintain plants in public spaces. The plan is not a natural sustainable plan that this community should support. No where in the plan is there a place to replace Grand Terrace Elementary School and that area is designated as being in the Redevelopment Area.

I have had enough of this Mayor's problematic communication, decisions, and manipulations. How about you? I have had it with her power plays and the Select Few who get "Interviewed" or are requested for input when others are shut out by procedures and process.