GT after the RDA

The vote to approve the offer of 29 Million in Muni/RDA Bonds is not going to make GT Sustainable as a City. As a matter of fact it can be argued the added debt forces the tax allocation/RDA funds to be returned to Bond Holders first and pay for construction and the Planning/Economic Development Department will have some of their costs funded.

Will the projects inspire businesses to move to GT and increase the Tax Revenue Base? Well first we should ask what businesses have said to the City or Planning Department, gee we'd like to move here but for the fact the infrastructure is lacking. Who has rejected the city because of the infrastructure? Lets look around, there are large buildings and entire complexes that are empty in the IE. What makes GT / RDA / City think that your all that? Well let's see, the freeway frontage would be attractive to some businesses. However, what freeway frontage? What business has 10 to 20 years to wait for Caltrans to finish design and construction. During that 20 years the traffic on our legendary bottle neck freeway will not be conducive to additional customer traffic or easy logistics.

Let's look further into the proposed improvement in the GT Storm Drains that are supposed to make the land attractive to developers. First of all the idea of capturing all the run off and directing it to the freeways drainage system is a bit troubling to anyone who has driven on the freeway during the rains. The section of road between Iowa and Center already floods, will we be adding to the freeways drainage problem? Has CalTrans been advised of this grand water diversion plan? Has the EPA or who ever is concerned with the water quality of the Santa Anna River approved such a plan?

Hillside stabilization of Mt. Vernon Ave. is a nice thought but any weight you put on the upper hill side will cause the road bed and below to be stressed and potentially damaged. The road was a temporary cut in for light traffic. One of the first things that should be done to aid in the safety and longevity of that road is to stop all heavy traffic on the road. No school buses, or commercial vehicles over 1 ton should be allowed on that hill. To "Fix" that hill side would cost more than the 29 Million the city is issuing in bonds. Did the RDA/City even get a rough idea of what the proposed projects would cost prior to commuting the bond issue to specific projects? Where is that documentation? It was not in the published support detail in the Council RDA Packets.

To raise funds for ill planned or ill projected projects does not serve our community. This serves only the employees of the Planning Department and the perks the RDA Board / City Council receive. It is time to eliminate the Planning and Economic Development Department and all the RDA functions and turn these functions over to the County of San Bernardino.

Our own city is not collecting taxes and business license fees from out of town realtors who let bank owned foreclosed homes become eye sores. What is the good of Code Enforcement if they aren't doing even the easy stuff? How many business are listed on Craig's List that do not have a business license in GT? Why isn't the fiance department going after these free loaders? Have a yard sale without a permit you get all jumped on. Run a business, sell homes in GT oh never mind.

What we need to do is plan a GT after the fall out of this added debt load, and the end days of GT that are no doubt coming in our future. The RDA debt will go away when the RDA does, so we are told.

Who is buying Muni Bonds these days?