REFRESH YOUR MEMORY>> This was way back in Feb 2010. AFTER a closed Door Meeting about the land negotiations. The state money will not fully fund the construction of the park. WARNING this is a Budget Buster.
If the City can find 50,000 for new park operations then it can find money to pay the Sports Teams not to sell fireworks.
If the city can find 50,000.00 to spend it should be spent to retire the Loan Mr. Schwab never intended to pay back the RDA.
If the city has 50,000.00 a year in its budget that is free to spend some where else how about an after school music program for Jr, and Sr High School students.
If the city has 50,000.00 a year in its budget to spend how about finishing up the base of Blue Mt Park, or the Dog Park... Or at least get the fence around the dog park and some doggie doo trash cans... Dogs don't mind a natural park setting.
If the city has 50,000.00 a year it could be used to support the up keep of the CJUSD fields we use as parks after school hours.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2010
Jacobsen Bailout Park Will Cost Taxpayers
The location of the Proposed Jacobsen Bailout Park is shown in this picture made available in the Lion's Club News Letter. Note many readers are less than pleased that the Lion's Club and only a FEW SELECT people have been informed of this proposed land purchase and the building of an additional park. This is a Bail out for Jacobsen and nothing more. There is a need for real improvements on Grand Terrace Rd. There is a real need to replace the Terrace Pines Mobile Home Park that Jacobsen Raised in his and Schwabs Grand Plan for a SUPER CENTER along Barton Rd.The City of Grand Terrace does not need to add to its land ownership. The City already owns property that could be developed for park land. This additional purchase has the single purpose of bailing out Jacobsen who was following the directions of Former City Manager Tom Schwab when he purchased and distroyed the Terrace Pines Mobile Home Park.
The city may not get an approval for a park in that location given that the housing element removed has not been replaced.
Nope Mr. Jacobsen, sell your property on the OPEN FREE MARKET and yes you will have to suffer a loss. This is almost fair as the land you forced people to sell to you or the city was not able to go on the OPEN FREE MARKET.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2010
Jacobsen Bail Out: GT or TaxPayers will PAY... SAY NO
Pawww...
There have already been "Public Meetings" on the new park and all the parameters, but went to the meeting as noted within here on Thursday afternoon. This regarding a preliminary, proposed public park on the west side of GT.
There have already been "Public Meetings" on the new park and all the parameters, but went to the meeting as noted within here on Thursday afternoon. This regarding a preliminary, proposed public park on the west side of GT.
It mainly was lead off by Barrie of the City of GT Code Enforcement and weak public attendance. The property under thought for the P.P.P.P. is lying just north of the mobile home park now on Grand Terrace Road (to north of Barton Road).
This property was or is currently owned by the Jacobsen Family as the facts (based upon summer 2009 conversations) are in doubt at this time. An old subdivision lies underneath, and was up for heated comment at a past GT Planning Commission meeting.
1. Zero, nada, zippo Environmental investigation or reports have been done. The process is being done at this time by city of GT staff, and will be done at such time and approved by Sacramento, thus avoiding the City Council and residents. The public, the GT city council, and many others will not be be able to see nor read the whole thing until minutes before it is placed into some big package for mailing. Let us hope it is 100% correct and truthful.
2. The whole situation is based in hurry-up mode as funds are being sought from Sacramento, in the thrilling amount of $5 whole million dollars. An additional $3 million (total of eight then) can become available within one or two years, provided that Sacramento then gives an Okay.
3. Regarding #2 above, the $5 to $8 million in funds are to be used for purchase of two parcels, plus the tear down of two residences lying on north side of the subject property, that plus the main purchase price of the Jaconsen property.
4. Zero, nada, and zippo, street improvements are going to be installed. Even though near every other project in the County of San Beranrdino and the various cities require such, it is not in the budget on this project. The acquisition of the latent properties, and simple construction on-site, have knowingly used up most all of the allocated funds. And so, zero street improvements are being sought.
1. Zero, nada, zippo Environmental investigation or reports have been done. The process is being done at this time by city of GT staff, and will be done at such time and approved by Sacramento, thus avoiding the City Council and residents. The public, the GT city council, and many others will not be be able to see nor read the whole thing until minutes before it is placed into some big package for mailing. Let us hope it is 100% correct and truthful.
2. The whole situation is based in hurry-up mode as funds are being sought from Sacramento, in the thrilling amount of $5 whole million dollars. An additional $3 million (total of eight then) can become available within one or two years, provided that Sacramento then gives an Okay.
3. Regarding #2 above, the $5 to $8 million in funds are to be used for purchase of two parcels, plus the tear down of two residences lying on north side of the subject property, that plus the main purchase price of the Jaconsen property.
4. Zero, nada, and zippo, street improvements are going to be installed. Even though near every other project in the County of San Beranrdino and the various cities require such, it is not in the budget on this project. The acquisition of the latent properties, and simple construction on-site, have knowingly used up most all of the allocated funds. And so, zero street improvements are being sought.
If enough people make a stink, the improvements will be installed, but the entire city of GT residents will have to foot the bill. If you intend to utilize the park, then you cannot park along the street but instead use the Parking lot.
Residents of GT are also being asked to foot the bill for street improvements associated with improvements along the south side of Barton Road, and those over all connected with the new GT High school. The latter includes widening of Michigan street, and the widening to Center street, and storm drain improvements. The relocation of "In the Way" water lines has already been paid via the residents. (May be why no one has stepped forward with a grant).
5. Why was that particular site chosen then? Best explanation derived from the conversation is that it is based upon the passage a few years ago of Megan's Law. The singular parcel is within near 2000 feet of many parcels on west side of city, that makes it difficult for "New" sex offenders (those that register) to move in to the area. If we have some already, (like living in the trailer park on the south edge) they are supposedly exempt then.
But why not choose a more visible empty lot along LaCrosse street then? One in which the visitors and public could readily see from the Interstate Highway? It comes down to the 2000 feet radii, or if the legislature would have said more feet or less then the parcel would not have been considered.
It is also assumed that part of the Sacramento grant would be for mailing out of letters to the registered Sex offenders to get out of town, for a park is about to be built, and if not, they are going to get the full force of the S.B. County DA's office on their backs then. After all that is one of the major points in locating the park where is is at, and has nothing to do with Jacobsen or the GT city council. Isn't it?
6. During the period up to end of 2009, it was exclaimed loud and clear by former Planner Koontz (on many occasions) that the City of GT had just a couple of percent over the required (by Sacramento) land set aside for public parks. Now that figure included the parcel set aside via the GT Retirement Home. According to Barrie, we are now shy of such a figure by a few percent. The kiddies use of Pico park for baseball purposes, is no longer a consideration now, it is assumed. Thus either the new senior citizen's reflective parks got pulled from the estimate, or someone was lying to us long ago.
7. As a part of #2 and #4 noted above, the city will not be including any lighting for the park. Too expensive. Persons who intend to visit the park are expected to run around during daylight hours only and listen to the boom box music.
8. How many people are for this new park? It was asked if 100% of GT residents are going to be happy with it or not? I understand that via Barrie, "Far" from that sort of quantity approve of such.
9. Per #7 above, there already are insufficient funds to foot the bill for any traffic study, or TRUCKs Prohibited signing that indicates for Truck Traffic to use an alternate way of entering the SCE property on Newport Road (once we get the County Sherrif's Department to patrol and enforce the signage, it will pay for itself then.
5. Why was that particular site chosen then? Best explanation derived from the conversation is that it is based upon the passage a few years ago of Megan's Law. The singular parcel is within near 2000 feet of many parcels on west side of city, that makes it difficult for "New" sex offenders (those that register) to move in to the area. If we have some already, (like living in the trailer park on the south edge) they are supposedly exempt then.
But why not choose a more visible empty lot along LaCrosse street then? One in which the visitors and public could readily see from the Interstate Highway? It comes down to the 2000 feet radii, or if the legislature would have said more feet or less then the parcel would not have been considered.
It is also assumed that part of the Sacramento grant would be for mailing out of letters to the registered Sex offenders to get out of town, for a park is about to be built, and if not, they are going to get the full force of the S.B. County DA's office on their backs then. After all that is one of the major points in locating the park where is is at, and has nothing to do with Jacobsen or the GT city council. Isn't it?
6. During the period up to end of 2009, it was exclaimed loud and clear by former Planner Koontz (on many occasions) that the City of GT had just a couple of percent over the required (by Sacramento) land set aside for public parks. Now that figure included the parcel set aside via the GT Retirement Home. According to Barrie, we are now shy of such a figure by a few percent. The kiddies use of Pico park for baseball purposes, is no longer a consideration now, it is assumed. Thus either the new senior citizen's reflective parks got pulled from the estimate, or someone was lying to us long ago.
7. As a part of #2 and #4 noted above, the city will not be including any lighting for the park. Too expensive. Persons who intend to visit the park are expected to run around during daylight hours only and listen to the boom box music.
8. How many people are for this new park? It was asked if 100% of GT residents are going to be happy with it or not? I understand that via Barrie, "Far" from that sort of quantity approve of such.
9. Per #7 above, there already are insufficient funds to foot the bill for any traffic study, or TRUCKs Prohibited signing that indicates for Truck Traffic to use an alternate way of entering the SCE property on Newport Road (once we get the County Sherrif's Department to patrol and enforce the signage, it will pay for itself then.
It has already been mentioned by a (female) representative of SCE Co. during a city council meeting, although the facilities at the point on cliffs has been in place longer that the city has been incorporated, the SCE Co. will easily pack up and leave for better property they already have, if enough complaints come in via deliveries from truck traffic every day.
Thus the west side would gain a park, and loose the SCE facilities eventually. With every park we gain a few and loose a few.
10. Although the Yet to be Approved City of GT Land Use map says differently, the park property is rubbing elbows with a residential area, across the street, and to north. Guess they will have to move too.
10. Although the Yet to be Approved City of GT Land Use map says differently, the park property is rubbing elbows with a residential area, across the street, and to north. Guess they will have to move too.
Here is what PAWW THINKS
Doug Jacobsen and the GT RDA would have been REQUIRED to Replace the Mobile Home Park on Michigan that they removed as part of their grand plan of Town Center or what ever it is being called this week.
Doug Jacobsen is now trying to off load this obligation, and the property he purchased for that purpose at the expense of the Grand Terrace City Budget and Expense. Parks cost money, grant or no grant. The investigation of the purchase of those properties may well include the use of the threat of Eminent Domain like the practices use on Barton Road.
Don't support the rush job on this park. The Public should be well informed of the cost, and plan and who is benefiting from the purchase of the land. Why not put the funds into Blue Mt. Park. and still have that land for other purposes. Nope, I am against relieving the burden on Jacobsen. It is time he enjoys the benefits of having used the City of Grand Terrace as his strong arm. He should continue to have to pay taxes on that property. He should also be fined for allowing it to be weed filled.
The Sex Offender Logic is just an example of smoke and mirrors being used to misdirect what is the truth behind the deal.
Nope Bailing Out Doug Jacobsen is not on my agenda as a Citizen of California, or Grand Terrace. It is Time for a Root Beer Float Party in GT.
