Front Office Manager
Reply to: mailto:wdarwin@earthlink.net?subject=Front%20Office%20ManagerDate: 2007-08-14, 11:46AM PDTWant to help us grow to the next level and have fun in the process? We're looking for a full-time front desk person for our general dentistry practice to help us expand. Our practice is high-tech, but with a gentle touch. The treatment we provide for our patients is caring and personal. Our friendly team of dental professionals is committed to providing a clinically advanced, and comfortable, dental experience. We are looking for an experienced team-player for our Front Office Manager position, and we offer great pay for the right candidate. If you have the qualities we are looking for, please email your resume to wdarwin@earthlink.net or fax to: (909)783-0603
Location: Grand Terrace
Compensation: $22 - $25 an hour
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Reply to: see belowDate: 2007-08-10, 3:07PM PDTLOOKING FOR 2 CUSTOMER SERVICE REPS (1FT 1PT) LOOKING TO HIRE THIS COMING WEEK. LOOKING FOR BILINGUAL, RELIABLE, GOOD ON THE PHONE, AND COMPUTER LITERATE. YOU MAY APPLY IN PERSON OR EMAIL FOR FOR INFORMATION. 21900 BARTON ROAD #106 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 ADRIAN@CISNEROSINSURANCE.COM
Location: GRAND TERRACE
Compensation: PAY BASED ON EXPERIENCE
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Phone calls about this job are ok.
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
Chemist
Reply to: kelso@clinical-lab.comDate: 2007-08-09, 3:23PM PDTEnvironmental laboratory located in Grand Terrace, CA seeks an inorganic chemist to perform metals analyses on drinking water and wastewater samples. A bachelors degree in the sciences and experience with ICP and GFAA is required.
Location: Grand Terrace, CA
Compensation: Dependent on experience.
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.
Part of being a Green Community is Living and Working in the same community. Reduction in the distance one commutes to work should be an employee and employer goal. Hire Local, Work Local.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
A Problem and A Solution:
A Practical Solution to the Problems of AES, Rail Road Tracks, Traffic, and School Cost and Location.
Build a Small High School for 750 students that will host GT Students and Some who want to attend an Arts and Sciences Magnet Only High School NO SPORTS... Dance For Physical Education. No Large Sports Fields.
For those GT Students and Parents who want Sports they can attend CHS as a Sports School.
Put the Large Stater's Store near the AES Power Plant, and it will serve both communities GT and Highgrove and the UCR Community... That location may even be able to get an ABC License as it is not located so close to a school or other sales points. The current Stater Brothers let's hope will be a smaller store that sales more produce at lower cost...
Mr Jacobsen can feel what it is like to have Eminent Domain Used on his property.
The Lumber Company can move and Stater Brothers can buy the land from the School District, and return the rest to the City of Grand Terrace RDA that lead them and the citizens to believe that the Power Plant was Dead and would stay Dead... But now will not say booo about the proposed new power plant.
The Folks who are still on their property the court case by CJUSD can be stopped and they can retain their property.
Gee... it seems so logical.... a GT High School for GT.... that fits GT.... in a Place of Pride Mid Town. Not next to a Power Plant Near Rail Road Traffic... who knows what kind of manufacturing in Riverside in the future....
From In the NEWS:
School money woes
Board mulls scaled-down funding for GT high school
Carolyn G. Schatz, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/18/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
At a meeting to discuss financing for the first high school in Grand Terrace, the Colton Joint Unified School District board spent the evening debating just how much of a high school it could be.
And considering the financial obstacles that remain, a sparkling, brand-new high school doesn't seem to have moved any closer to reality.
Voters in the school district passed Measure B six years ago to fund several schools. This included the proposed high school, which would be the district's third.
But only a fraction of the $102 million remains. And none of the schools were ever built.
A presentation on Thursday outlined the funding shortfalls and provided recommendations for issuing millions of dollars in lease-revenue bonds to pay for the high school.
Members of the board and residents in the packed audience registered frustration alike as the prospect for a shiny, fully finished new high school dimmed.
Projected costs for a full campus have now more than doubled, from $75 million two years ago to almost $170 million, as construction costs have skyrocketed.
On Thursday, Gene Hartline of California Financial Services attempted to illustrate just how the board might go
about putting in a new high school - when only $31 million in bond money remains.
The district now is deciding which of three configurations to use for the new high school.
Hartline's conclusion that all three proposals could entail issuing lease-revenue bonds left even some on the board groaning.
The three configurations include a full campus design - which appeared increasingly unlikely, judging from the sentiment after his presentation - a less-expensive base design, or a severely pared-down version.
"You're not suggesting we go to voters with another bond?" asked board member Kent Taylor in dismay.
The comment received the first of several rounds of applause. The audience seemed anxious to hear how the board plans to deal with the glaring deficit in funds.
Even if the board were to ultimately go with just an initial-phase design - leaving out certain amenities such as a gymnasium until later - the school would leave the district needing an additional $7 million, after remaining bond funds and state grants are factored in.
The district already has spent $25 million on the project.
A base design, with some of the amenities excluded and others deferred, would leave the district short $45 million.
And the full campus design, complete with a pool, tennis courts and synthetic turf, would come in at $66 million over budget.
California Financial suggested using revenue bonds to make up the difference in all three options.
But at full bonding capacity, the district still would not be able to overcome the deficit on the full-campus project with lease-revenue bonds alone. It would need another way to come up with an extra $17.3 million.
"At what point do we need future revenue without going to the general fund?" asked board member Marge Mendoza-Ware.
Hartline tried to mollify her concerns. Some 2,500 new residential units, now in the tentative or final planning stages, would back up the bonds, he said.
"The general fund won't be the first call," Hartline said. "Developer revenue is. So, it's less egregious."
But that didn't seem to appease the board.
"Foreclosures are skyrocketing," said board member Mel Albiso. "But we're borrowing against potential development?"
Hartline's charts showed that even with the 2,500 homes in the planning stages, the developer revenue from those homes would not be enough to cover the full-campus design.
To pay for the deluxe high school, the district would have to consider relying on additional developer revenue from future developments or selling off vacant properties, Hartline said.
Otherwise, the district might have to consider a follow-up bond to Measure B, Hartline said. But his presentation was dedicated to the lease-revenue bond concept. He steered away from talking about the possibility of dipping into the general fund, as others have suggested.
"As a board, we need to decide what amenities to omit," board member David Zamora said. "No one knows what's ahead economically. We don't want to compromise the quality of the high school. But I don't think it would be fair or ethical to ask residents to support another bond."
Hartline told board members his figures were predicated on the base-campus design, and that there would be no need to go back to the voters with another bond request, if they stuck to that.
Lease-revenue bonds do not require voter approval, whereas general-obligation bonds do.
"The issue is a promise not fulfilled yet," said a clearly vexed Taylor . "We made a commitment to Grand Terrace 10 to 12 years ago, and I stand firm with that commitment. Will this board stay firm with this commitment and this promise?"
Build a Small High School for 750 students that will host GT Students and Some who want to attend an Arts and Sciences Magnet Only High School NO SPORTS... Dance For Physical Education. No Large Sports Fields.
For those GT Students and Parents who want Sports they can attend CHS as a Sports School.
Put the Large Stater's Store near the AES Power Plant, and it will serve both communities GT and Highgrove and the UCR Community... That location may even be able to get an ABC License as it is not located so close to a school or other sales points. The current Stater Brothers let's hope will be a smaller store that sales more produce at lower cost...
Mr Jacobsen can feel what it is like to have Eminent Domain Used on his property.
The Lumber Company can move and Stater Brothers can buy the land from the School District, and return the rest to the City of Grand Terrace RDA that lead them and the citizens to believe that the Power Plant was Dead and would stay Dead... But now will not say booo about the proposed new power plant.
The Folks who are still on their property the court case by CJUSD can be stopped and they can retain their property.
Gee... it seems so logical.... a GT High School for GT.... that fits GT.... in a Place of Pride Mid Town. Not next to a Power Plant Near Rail Road Traffic... who knows what kind of manufacturing in Riverside in the future....
From In the NEWS:
School money woes
Board mulls scaled-down funding for GT high school
Carolyn G. Schatz, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/18/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
At a meeting to discuss financing for the first high school in Grand Terrace, the Colton Joint Unified School District board spent the evening debating just how much of a high school it could be.
And considering the financial obstacles that remain, a sparkling, brand-new high school doesn't seem to have moved any closer to reality.
Voters in the school district passed Measure B six years ago to fund several schools. This included the proposed high school, which would be the district's third.
But only a fraction of the $102 million remains. And none of the schools were ever built.
A presentation on Thursday outlined the funding shortfalls and provided recommendations for issuing millions of dollars in lease-revenue bonds to pay for the high school.
Members of the board and residents in the packed audience registered frustration alike as the prospect for a shiny, fully finished new high school dimmed.
Projected costs for a full campus have now more than doubled, from $75 million two years ago to almost $170 million, as construction costs have skyrocketed.
On Thursday, Gene Hartline of California Financial Services attempted to illustrate just how the board might go
about putting in a new high school - when only $31 million in bond money remains.
The district now is deciding which of three configurations to use for the new high school.
Hartline's conclusion that all three proposals could entail issuing lease-revenue bonds left even some on the board groaning.
The three configurations include a full campus design - which appeared increasingly unlikely, judging from the sentiment after his presentation - a less-expensive base design, or a severely pared-down version.
"You're not suggesting we go to voters with another bond?" asked board member Kent Taylor in dismay.
The comment received the first of several rounds of applause. The audience seemed anxious to hear how the board plans to deal with the glaring deficit in funds.
Even if the board were to ultimately go with just an initial-phase design - leaving out certain amenities such as a gymnasium until later - the school would leave the district needing an additional $7 million, after remaining bond funds and state grants are factored in.
The district already has spent $25 million on the project.
A base design, with some of the amenities excluded and others deferred, would leave the district short $45 million.
And the full campus design, complete with a pool, tennis courts and synthetic turf, would come in at $66 million over budget.
California Financial suggested using revenue bonds to make up the difference in all three options.
But at full bonding capacity, the district still would not be able to overcome the deficit on the full-campus project with lease-revenue bonds alone. It would need another way to come up with an extra $17.3 million.
"At what point do we need future revenue without going to the general fund?" asked board member Marge Mendoza-Ware.
Hartline tried to mollify her concerns. Some 2,500 new residential units, now in the tentative or final planning stages, would back up the bonds, he said.
"The general fund won't be the first call," Hartline said. "Developer revenue is. So, it's less egregious."
But that didn't seem to appease the board.
"Foreclosures are skyrocketing," said board member Mel Albiso. "But we're borrowing against potential development?"
Hartline's charts showed that even with the 2,500 homes in the planning stages, the developer revenue from those homes would not be enough to cover the full-campus design.
To pay for the deluxe high school, the district would have to consider relying on additional developer revenue from future developments or selling off vacant properties, Hartline said.
Otherwise, the district might have to consider a follow-up bond to Measure B, Hartline said. But his presentation was dedicated to the lease-revenue bond concept. He steered away from talking about the possibility of dipping into the general fund, as others have suggested.
"As a board, we need to decide what amenities to omit," board member David Zamora said. "No one knows what's ahead economically. We don't want to compromise the quality of the high school. But I don't think it would be fair or ethical to ask residents to support another bond."
Hartline told board members his figures were predicated on the base-campus design, and that there would be no need to go back to the voters with another bond request, if they stuck to that.
Lease-revenue bonds do not require voter approval, whereas general-obligation bonds do.
"The issue is a promise not fulfilled yet," said a clearly vexed Taylor . "We made a commitment to Grand Terrace 10 to 12 years ago, and I stand firm with that commitment. Will this board stay firm with this commitment and this promise?"
Friday, August 17, 2007
GT: Green? Sustainable? and Ag Overlay
The City of Grand Terrace going Green as reported in the
Grand Terrace City News has some major problems,
if not down right misrepresentations.
First of all going Green and handing out a few light bulbs and having a couple of city owned buildings built more energy efficient does not add up to being a Green City. The City does not allow people to get off the grid. If you are not connected to the SCE your house can’t be occupied. If you are not connected to the gas company your house can’t be occupied. Are there alternatives to these utilities? Yes. Even water and sewage treatment alternatives can be implemented to be truly green. However, the City of Grand Terrace does not allow by code Wind Mills, Full Photo Voltaic Solar Cells on Roofs (PV Systems shall not be seen from the street.) Building materials and code will not allow more efficient materials such as straw bail houses. Try going off all the “Utilities” and you will be in violation of numerous City Codes.
A Green City should have all codes open to the use and promotion of all alternatives that not only reduce the need for the use of carbon based fuels and excessive water use. The City of Grand Terrace is not a Green City unless you are talking about the Green Realtors stick in their pockets every time a house is sold, and re-sold.
The term Sustainable Community is also misused in the Grand Terrace City News. A Sustainable Community would be able to sustain its self within its own resources. That means, there needs to be housing, jobs, and production all within the city limits. While there would be production of some sort for trade with neighboring communities a Sustainable Community can and should be able to support its entire community in all aspects of its needs, natural and nurture.
This brings me to the recent discussion of property zoning and land use in Grand Terrace. Once upon a time there were a few pigs, cows, horses, chickens, goats in Grand Terrace. Now there may be a few goats here and there… However, in spite of the “Agricultural Overlay” zoning on the east end of town and in the flood area the city staff and I dare say much of the City Council have a dismay for Farming, be it of the livestock nature or crops in the ground or groves. Some of the Agriculture Overlay Area is required by State Law and due to the existence of the Gage Canal which runs through town. Other areas or bits of land here and there were allowed to continue Agriculture use in spite of the zoning being changed by the City Manager. If the owners of this land stop the agricultural activity they may be stopped from restarting it, even if the property remains in the same ownership.
So as the City is rethinking its General Plan… and Land Use or Zoning we should think what would we do if the Economy Crashes, Stater Brothers closes, or the cost of delivering food becomes prohibitive. Are we sustainable? Or, are we doing everything possible to become incapable of being self sustaining? We may not ever be truly self sustaining as a community, but there is a lot of room to improve our Sustainable Status. Part of that should be a small number of livestock, and farms, and fruit producing trees and plants. Watering ornamentals is fine in a limited expression of aesthetics, but it is wasteful of time and resources.
From the Email InBox:
Agricultural Overlays At the September meeting of the G.T. Planning
Commission the subject of where to place agricultural overlays will be discussed. An agricultural overlay is just one of those ways in which the city land management is making convenient for residents to do what they have done over a goodly period of years, and not be taken to task for it. Two groups of persons have already come forth and asked that they be zoned or included into any new legislation which legalizes what they are already doing.
Much of the talk about an agricultural overlay is obsolete, or based upon a carryover from the days of the management by the County of San Bernardino. It is a paper means of support for owning and maintaining a few farm bred animals. If you own a horse, goat or whatever, be sure to be heard, otherwise your neighbors will be able to team up against you and get them out. Do you own a lot of cats and dogs? The operation of too many animals, like at a kennel, can also be discussed as applicable.
And thus the question is being asked. Do you want your area included or not?
A NO will not take them away, but may mean your property will essentially be the last use and demonstration of such. Once they die off or you move away, no more animals will be permitted on that parcel. A YES will tell everyone, that your neighbors may also now own several, even if they did not in the past. So it is sort of a loaded question which you need to discuss with your neighbor as depending upon each case it may lower of raise the desirability of your property in the future.. Several horse owners on the east side of town have already stated they too now want to be legal, but do the remainder of the residents want this also? Shall we become the Norco of San Bernardino County or the San Marino of San Bernardino County?
Grand Terrace City News has some major problems,
if not down right misrepresentations.
First of all going Green and handing out a few light bulbs and having a couple of city owned buildings built more energy efficient does not add up to being a Green City. The City does not allow people to get off the grid. If you are not connected to the SCE your house can’t be occupied. If you are not connected to the gas company your house can’t be occupied. Are there alternatives to these utilities? Yes. Even water and sewage treatment alternatives can be implemented to be truly green. However, the City of Grand Terrace does not allow by code Wind Mills, Full Photo Voltaic Solar Cells on Roofs (PV Systems shall not be seen from the street.) Building materials and code will not allow more efficient materials such as straw bail houses. Try going off all the “Utilities” and you will be in violation of numerous City Codes.
A Green City should have all codes open to the use and promotion of all alternatives that not only reduce the need for the use of carbon based fuels and excessive water use. The City of Grand Terrace is not a Green City unless you are talking about the Green Realtors stick in their pockets every time a house is sold, and re-sold.
The term Sustainable Community is also misused in the Grand Terrace City News. A Sustainable Community would be able to sustain its self within its own resources. That means, there needs to be housing, jobs, and production all within the city limits. While there would be production of some sort for trade with neighboring communities a Sustainable Community can and should be able to support its entire community in all aspects of its needs, natural and nurture.
This brings me to the recent discussion of property zoning and land use in Grand Terrace. Once upon a time there were a few pigs, cows, horses, chickens, goats in Grand Terrace. Now there may be a few goats here and there… However, in spite of the “Agricultural Overlay” zoning on the east end of town and in the flood area the city staff and I dare say much of the City Council have a dismay for Farming, be it of the livestock nature or crops in the ground or groves. Some of the Agriculture Overlay Area is required by State Law and due to the existence of the Gage Canal which runs through town. Other areas or bits of land here and there were allowed to continue Agriculture use in spite of the zoning being changed by the City Manager. If the owners of this land stop the agricultural activity they may be stopped from restarting it, even if the property remains in the same ownership.
So as the City is rethinking its General Plan… and Land Use or Zoning we should think what would we do if the Economy Crashes, Stater Brothers closes, or the cost of delivering food becomes prohibitive. Are we sustainable? Or, are we doing everything possible to become incapable of being self sustaining? We may not ever be truly self sustaining as a community, but there is a lot of room to improve our Sustainable Status. Part of that should be a small number of livestock, and farms, and fruit producing trees and plants. Watering ornamentals is fine in a limited expression of aesthetics, but it is wasteful of time and resources.
From the Email InBox:
Agricultural Overlays At the September meeting of the G.T. Planning
Commission the subject of where to place agricultural overlays will be discussed. An agricultural overlay is just one of those ways in which the city land management is making convenient for residents to do what they have done over a goodly period of years, and not be taken to task for it. Two groups of persons have already come forth and asked that they be zoned or included into any new legislation which legalizes what they are already doing.
Much of the talk about an agricultural overlay is obsolete, or based upon a carryover from the days of the management by the County of San Bernardino. It is a paper means of support for owning and maintaining a few farm bred animals. If you own a horse, goat or whatever, be sure to be heard, otherwise your neighbors will be able to team up against you and get them out. Do you own a lot of cats and dogs? The operation of too many animals, like at a kennel, can also be discussed as applicable.
And thus the question is being asked. Do you want your area included or not?
A NO will not take them away, but may mean your property will essentially be the last use and demonstration of such. Once they die off or you move away, no more animals will be permitted on that parcel. A YES will tell everyone, that your neighbors may also now own several, even if they did not in the past. So it is sort of a loaded question which you need to discuss with your neighbor as depending upon each case it may lower of raise the desirability of your property in the future.. Several horse owners on the east side of town have already stated they too now want to be legal, but do the remainder of the residents want this also? Shall we become the Norco of San Bernardino County or the San Marino of San Bernardino County?
Ban all Big Box Retail in Little GT...
Remember when the City Council and City Manager were trying to bring a BIG BOX Hardware store to GT? Remember how eagerly the majority of them belittled the citizens who brought up issues including environmental and social impacts of Big Box Hardware Stores? Here is an example of what can happen. Here is an example of why GT is not Ready for Big Box Any Store. We do not have the City Resources to make sure the day to day operations of such a large facility are properly regulated nor do we have the City Capacity to off set the negatives of Big Box Stores..
When and IF Jacobsen shows up with a "Revised Plan" and holds a "Community Meeting" as promised. Be Cautious VERY Cautious.
Home Depot To Pay $10 Million In Hazardous Waste Lawsuit
POSTED: 3:40 pm PDT August 17, 2007
UPDATED: 3:41 pm PDT August 17, 2007
LOS ANGELES -- The Home Depot agreed Friday to pay nearly $10 million in penalties and investigative costs to settle a lawsuit involving hazardous waste storage and transportation, Los Angeles County prosecutors announced.
The settlement is one of the largest of its kind in the nation for violations of hazardous waste laws by a large retail store chain, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.
The $9.9 million that the company agreed to pay includes $837,000 in civil penalties and costs for the District Attorney's Office and $250,000 for the county Fire Department, according to prosecutors.
The Home Depot also will help pay for environmental training programs that benefit the state, said Deputy District Attorney Dan Wright.
The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by the state Attorney General's Office, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and the district attorney's offices of Los Angeles, Riverside, Monterey, San Joaquin and Santa Clara counties.
The filing came after the contents of a large drum exploded at a Home Depot store in Marina Del Rey in May 2004, causing a fire and the evacuation of employees and customers, Wright said.
Later, a truck transporting hazardous materials was stopped by the California Highway Patrol in Ripon, in San Joaquin County, according to Wright.
An investigation by multiple agencies that ensued after the explosion and the subsequent stopping of the truck determined Home Depot had "routinely collected hazardous waste that had been created, released, spilled or accumulated at its stores across California," according to a district attorney's office statement.
The Home Depot has agreed as part of the settlement to contract with qualified waste haulers, according to Wright.
Copyright 2007 by KNBC.com and KNBC (NBC4 Los Angeles). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
When and IF Jacobsen shows up with a "Revised Plan" and holds a "Community Meeting" as promised. Be Cautious VERY Cautious.
Home Depot To Pay $10 Million In Hazardous Waste Lawsuit
POSTED: 3:40 pm PDT August 17, 2007
UPDATED: 3:41 pm PDT August 17, 2007
LOS ANGELES -- The Home Depot agreed Friday to pay nearly $10 million in penalties and investigative costs to settle a lawsuit involving hazardous waste storage and transportation, Los Angeles County prosecutors announced.
The settlement is one of the largest of its kind in the nation for violations of hazardous waste laws by a large retail store chain, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.
The $9.9 million that the company agreed to pay includes $837,000 in civil penalties and costs for the District Attorney's Office and $250,000 for the county Fire Department, according to prosecutors.
The Home Depot also will help pay for environmental training programs that benefit the state, said Deputy District Attorney Dan Wright.
The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by the state Attorney General's Office, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office and the district attorney's offices of Los Angeles, Riverside, Monterey, San Joaquin and Santa Clara counties.
The filing came after the contents of a large drum exploded at a Home Depot store in Marina Del Rey in May 2004, causing a fire and the evacuation of employees and customers, Wright said.
Later, a truck transporting hazardous materials was stopped by the California Highway Patrol in Ripon, in San Joaquin County, according to Wright.
An investigation by multiple agencies that ensued after the explosion and the subsequent stopping of the truck determined Home Depot had "routinely collected hazardous waste that had been created, released, spilled or accumulated at its stores across California," according to a district attorney's office statement.
The Home Depot has agreed as part of the settlement to contract with qualified waste haulers, according to Wright.
Copyright 2007 by KNBC.com and KNBC (NBC4 Los Angeles). All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
GT Planning Commission Meeting Aug 16th, 2007
Pawww...
Not a lot to say about G.T. Planning Commission Meeting for night of the 16th.
However, there was some Oops and embarrassments expressed on behalf of the City Staff. On or about, last day of July a notice was mailed out to residents up and down Grand Terrace Road, Vivienda and vicinity. Seems there was to be a discussion to be held on possible Re-zoning of areas and reconfiguring of platitudes in existing zoning in order to permit......
Don't know where the mailing last came up, but only four households along the affected streets got a letter, plus two more several streets well outside and away from the area. A big screw up. All considerations and discussion concerning what ever was in the latter, were immediately dismissed an pulled off agenda. The P.C. refused to discuss the contents, for they were equally caught unaware. A whole new mailing is proposed now, and a new date to be scheduled up for the discussion. This did not stop those who received the letter from holding an impromptu meeting on the 10th of August to question and talk about the implications. Perhaps the City Staff may now want to hold the meeting at some secret location on some secret date, and some inconvenient hour now to assure low attendance. The residents may not understand the contents of the letter, but they know when they are being bamboozled at a last moment in hopes of their Non-attendance.
The evening "Workshop" did not progress, for Planning Director Gary Koontz was not present. An earlier talk (with zero opposition) about a new residence in the Honey Hills area consumed the first half hour.
Instead the meeting was a whole "Public Comment" night. Seems many in the audience had questions, same as a couple of the actual Planning Commissioners did. Everyone seemed Lost. But what was asked for the upcoming September Workshop was a clarification as to what is possible to have, own and operate within a simple R-1 or R-2 zone within the city limits, plus what is permitted within an Agricultural overlay area.
The city staff is going to be returning with an evening dedicated as to zoning designations. Much issue was raised by Patricia Farley concerning Michigan. For what is permitted within the strip is regularly being overstepped and violated as to use and intent. Patricia pointed out errors in designations on official Zoning map being handed out at Public Counter. The colorful document has a bit too much color, and alters the current or intended uses up and down the street. Thus per the colorful error laden map, the empty lot property across the street make look to be designated for a high-rise apartment or a Mega-Plex.
Commissioner Addington asked Patricia to walk up and down the street and meet with neighbors to get their feedback as to what is preferred zones, and land uses currently and in future. He then would like to re-draw if possible the official zoning map to match the intentions of residents.
So thus if any residents along Michigan would like it to remain or be altered as such, contact Patricia. Don’t' be quiet and assume it will all remain the same for it may not.
A third request was made as to the significance of a new "Specific Plan" contents, and how long, how active, etc. A discussion about what goes on inside these and a report is due for same meeting. Which later on brought up a point as to what can be said about the G.T. Town Center Specific Plan?
Seems after all the litigation the developer (Jacobsen) contacted the City Offices about three weeks ago, had a new idea, and wanted to run it past the staff. He never showed up. You may see dirt there right now, well it looks to remain the same 'least until Christmas for it takes that long. Seems G.T. residents are a bit slow in all this fancy talk, but once it soaks in they either like it or don't.
Zone Code is:
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/business/zoning_code/zoning_nav.html
A couple of questions from Gramps:
First: Wasn't it DOUG JACOBSEN who said he'd be keeping the CITIZENS INFORMED and INVOLVED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN Center...????? Hasn't his agreement with the City Redevelopment Agency and City Council lapsed? Isn't he in violation on the terms of that agreement in several paragraphs?
When does a property officially have a zone change?
When Schwab thinks it.
When Planning Department Inks it
When Planning Commission Passes it
When the Council approves it
When it is changed on the County Land and Tax Records and when it is sold to the “next owner” eliminating the grand father zoning, or when the current owner requests and gets approved a zone change and puts the land to a different use.
(If you or I wanted to change the zone classification of our homes I bet we would have a hell of a time with the city.)
The Map Patricia and the City have has been posted on the blog… it is the one showing GT Elm School as Commercial… All I have to say is that no development or zoning changes should be allowed by the county or the state until the freeway and roads are laid out and planned. IF GT Elm has to be MUSHED to the East fine… but there is no reason to increase the cost of the roads or the Mushing needed for the ELM School.
Isn’t it interesting that Patricia is now charged with making a zone change list… Just love the idea of that.
Next question… If there is a zone change on Grand Terrace Rd. and Vivienda… or anywhere in town shouldn’t all citizens be informed not just the ones that have property there? Or lets say citizens within 2 miles of the property…
I am thinking of putting a Hooters next door to Mayor Ferre’s House… Nice Hill Top View… But, now I am thinking to use ED on her house as it is owned by a Trust and so she is not an “Owner Occupant” and the increased taxes will help the city… (I’ll even have a traffic plan so that the traffic will go into Reche Canyon (Colton), not GT and this will make an EIR easier to pass muster. We all know getting a zone change in GT is done for "Financial Reasons".
Not a lot to say about G.T. Planning Commission Meeting for night of the 16th.
However, there was some Oops and embarrassments expressed on behalf of the City Staff. On or about, last day of July a notice was mailed out to residents up and down Grand Terrace Road, Vivienda and vicinity. Seems there was to be a discussion to be held on possible Re-zoning of areas and reconfiguring of platitudes in existing zoning in order to permit......
Don't know where the mailing last came up, but only four households along the affected streets got a letter, plus two more several streets well outside and away from the area. A big screw up. All considerations and discussion concerning what ever was in the latter, were immediately dismissed an pulled off agenda. The P.C. refused to discuss the contents, for they were equally caught unaware. A whole new mailing is proposed now, and a new date to be scheduled up for the discussion. This did not stop those who received the letter from holding an impromptu meeting on the 10th of August to question and talk about the implications. Perhaps the City Staff may now want to hold the meeting at some secret location on some secret date, and some inconvenient hour now to assure low attendance. The residents may not understand the contents of the letter, but they know when they are being bamboozled at a last moment in hopes of their Non-attendance.
The evening "Workshop" did not progress, for Planning Director Gary Koontz was not present. An earlier talk (with zero opposition) about a new residence in the Honey Hills area consumed the first half hour.
Instead the meeting was a whole "Public Comment" night. Seems many in the audience had questions, same as a couple of the actual Planning Commissioners did. Everyone seemed Lost. But what was asked for the upcoming September Workshop was a clarification as to what is possible to have, own and operate within a simple R-1 or R-2 zone within the city limits, plus what is permitted within an Agricultural overlay area.
The city staff is going to be returning with an evening dedicated as to zoning designations. Much issue was raised by Patricia Farley concerning Michigan. For what is permitted within the strip is regularly being overstepped and violated as to use and intent. Patricia pointed out errors in designations on official Zoning map being handed out at Public Counter. The colorful document has a bit too much color, and alters the current or intended uses up and down the street. Thus per the colorful error laden map, the empty lot property across the street make look to be designated for a high-rise apartment or a Mega-Plex.
Commissioner Addington asked Patricia to walk up and down the street and meet with neighbors to get their feedback as to what is preferred zones, and land uses currently and in future. He then would like to re-draw if possible the official zoning map to match the intentions of residents.
So thus if any residents along Michigan would like it to remain or be altered as such, contact Patricia. Don’t' be quiet and assume it will all remain the same for it may not.
A third request was made as to the significance of a new "Specific Plan" contents, and how long, how active, etc. A discussion about what goes on inside these and a report is due for same meeting. Which later on brought up a point as to what can be said about the G.T. Town Center Specific Plan?
Seems after all the litigation the developer (Jacobsen) contacted the City Offices about three weeks ago, had a new idea, and wanted to run it past the staff. He never showed up. You may see dirt there right now, well it looks to remain the same 'least until Christmas for it takes that long. Seems G.T. residents are a bit slow in all this fancy talk, but once it soaks in they either like it or don't.
Zone Code is:
http://www.cityofgrandterrace.org/business/zoning_code/zoning_nav.html
A couple of questions from Gramps:
First: Wasn't it DOUG JACOBSEN who said he'd be keeping the CITIZENS INFORMED and INVOLVED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN Center...????? Hasn't his agreement with the City Redevelopment Agency and City Council lapsed? Isn't he in violation on the terms of that agreement in several paragraphs?
When does a property officially have a zone change?
When Schwab thinks it.
When Planning Department Inks it
When Planning Commission Passes it
When the Council approves it
When it is changed on the County Land and Tax Records and when it is sold to the “next owner” eliminating the grand father zoning, or when the current owner requests and gets approved a zone change and puts the land to a different use.
(If you or I wanted to change the zone classification of our homes I bet we would have a hell of a time with the city.)
The Map Patricia and the City have has been posted on the blog… it is the one showing GT Elm School as Commercial… All I have to say is that no development or zoning changes should be allowed by the county or the state until the freeway and roads are laid out and planned. IF GT Elm has to be MUSHED to the East fine… but there is no reason to increase the cost of the roads or the Mushing needed for the ELM School.
Isn’t it interesting that Patricia is now charged with making a zone change list… Just love the idea of that.
Next question… If there is a zone change on Grand Terrace Rd. and Vivienda… or anywhere in town shouldn’t all citizens be informed not just the ones that have property there? Or lets say citizens within 2 miles of the property…
I am thinking of putting a Hooters next door to Mayor Ferre’s House… Nice Hill Top View… But, now I am thinking to use ED on her house as it is owned by a Trust and so she is not an “Owner Occupant” and the increased taxes will help the city… (I’ll even have a traffic plan so that the traffic will go into Reche Canyon (Colton), not GT and this will make an EIR easier to pass muster. We all know getting a zone change in GT is done for "Financial Reasons".
From the Email InBox: Crimes in GT
Dear Gramps,
I thought our city would like to know that the new traffic camera on Michigan and Barton Road has been tagged. I feel this is a statement that these gangs don’t take the city seriously, even though they have added two more policemen. I’m hoping they will spend their energy on shutting down the gangs in GT. I know the captain is aware of who they are, I just can’t understand why they can’t eliminate the problem, except that more kids are growing up without guidance in GT. I don’t see this as a problem for the law. I see it as a problem for the city.
The City has asked the citizens of GT to show up at the school board meeting tonight to help get High School #3 build in Grand Terrace. For ten years we have been asking for the City to bring back the Recreation Department, help to support after school programs and develop more parks and recreation for children and families who live in Grand Terrace. All they have said is that they need more money.
Families are sending their children to Redlands to be educated and to participate in their programs. This is a huge burden on the families who can’t afford it, but the children come first. Many families don’t have time to follow-up on the lies and deceit the council and managers have woven, so I really thank you for the time and energy you put into posting the truth on the blogg.
Maryetta loves to tell people she is Mayor and the ex-principal of Terrace View Elementary School. She say’s we should support the children by building a High School. I feel it is time she take off her childish blinders and act like a Mayor. Take the responsibility of protecting our children. Quit creating more pollution, traffic and danger. Our children are growing up with so much more danger than ever thought possible. What does she plan to do about it? If a pedophile lives in your area, and they do, they have already taken the sole of innocent children. A child may survive being molested, but they will never be the same. We do not have to accept filth in our city. Maryetta and her cohorts have sold their soles to making money. It’s time for a change.
Dear Poster:
Please send an Email to Steve Berry at sberry@cityofgrandterrace.org about the graffiti as the city has blocked any email from the blog or GrandPa Terrace... Some employees have informed Gramps that they have been told Not to Read the Blog on the City's Computers. I do know some of them read at home or when logged on via other connections. So I did post your observations for their benefit.
With regards to the city having the right to exclude Pedophiles from the pool of humanity that is allowed to live in Grand Terrace:
If the Pedophile has "served their time" they have not only the right to live amongst the citizens of Grand Terrace, some may actually be court assigned to their housing situations. The ACLU will take GT to task if there is NO Place in GT for a Sex Offender to live. Jessica's law is being challenged and the ACLU likes to take on small towns rather than say a BIG COUNTY when they go to court on these issues. Remember Redlands and the Cross in their City Seal. Redlands was used as a test case. Well the ACLU has not filed a Jessica's Law test case in California yet.
We as Citizens should know of the Sex Offenders and Pedophiles amongst us. We need to protect our children accordingly. That means have adult supervision and safe places for children at all times. We must also unfortunately educate our children to be cautious. The use of phones, Internet, where they hang out, and who they are with is all part of the day we live in.
What can the city do? The city can provide the mechanism for youth programs. The city can understand that the ever increasing housing prices also equals ever increasing need for higher incomes and more time away from our children. The stress of this artificial economic value or source of pride amongst our city leaders and Realtors amongst us is in fact a feeder to the risk we load the burden on our children and society.
Our children are at risk from Drugs, Drunks, Gangs, Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Neglect by a Family Member and Pedophiles. Sexual Crimes against Children and Pedophiles are not to be ignored, but the other risks are more frequent.
If Mayor Ferre has any chops of being an "Educator" she would know a large High School is not the most effective for education for the students being served be they "Ours" or "Theirs". I could repeat my evaluation of the flaws of her logic, and thinking and actions... but I tire of the redundancy... As far as I am concerned her political 3 minutes should have been up years ago. She has no excuse to sit in the chair and assume the pretence of acting for the betterment of our community.
I thought our city would like to know that the new traffic camera on Michigan and Barton Road has been tagged. I feel this is a statement that these gangs don’t take the city seriously, even though they have added two more policemen. I’m hoping they will spend their energy on shutting down the gangs in GT. I know the captain is aware of who they are, I just can’t understand why they can’t eliminate the problem, except that more kids are growing up without guidance in GT. I don’t see this as a problem for the law. I see it as a problem for the city.
The City has asked the citizens of GT to show up at the school board meeting tonight to help get High School #3 build in Grand Terrace. For ten years we have been asking for the City to bring back the Recreation Department, help to support after school programs and develop more parks and recreation for children and families who live in Grand Terrace. All they have said is that they need more money.
Families are sending their children to Redlands to be educated and to participate in their programs. This is a huge burden on the families who can’t afford it, but the children come first. Many families don’t have time to follow-up on the lies and deceit the council and managers have woven, so I really thank you for the time and energy you put into posting the truth on the blogg.
Maryetta loves to tell people she is Mayor and the ex-principal of Terrace View Elementary School. She say’s we should support the children by building a High School. I feel it is time she take off her childish blinders and act like a Mayor. Take the responsibility of protecting our children. Quit creating more pollution, traffic and danger. Our children are growing up with so much more danger than ever thought possible. What does she plan to do about it? If a pedophile lives in your area, and they do, they have already taken the sole of innocent children. A child may survive being molested, but they will never be the same. We do not have to accept filth in our city. Maryetta and her cohorts have sold their soles to making money. It’s time for a change.
Dear Poster:
Please send an Email to Steve Berry at sberry@cityofgrandterrace.org about the graffiti as the city has blocked any email from the blog or GrandPa Terrace... Some employees have informed Gramps that they have been told Not to Read the Blog on the City's Computers. I do know some of them read at home or when logged on via other connections. So I did post your observations for their benefit.
With regards to the city having the right to exclude Pedophiles from the pool of humanity that is allowed to live in Grand Terrace:
If the Pedophile has "served their time" they have not only the right to live amongst the citizens of Grand Terrace, some may actually be court assigned to their housing situations. The ACLU will take GT to task if there is NO Place in GT for a Sex Offender to live. Jessica's law is being challenged and the ACLU likes to take on small towns rather than say a BIG COUNTY when they go to court on these issues. Remember Redlands and the Cross in their City Seal. Redlands was used as a test case. Well the ACLU has not filed a Jessica's Law test case in California yet.
We as Citizens should know of the Sex Offenders and Pedophiles amongst us. We need to protect our children accordingly. That means have adult supervision and safe places for children at all times. We must also unfortunately educate our children to be cautious. The use of phones, Internet, where they hang out, and who they are with is all part of the day we live in.
What can the city do? The city can provide the mechanism for youth programs. The city can understand that the ever increasing housing prices also equals ever increasing need for higher incomes and more time away from our children. The stress of this artificial economic value or source of pride amongst our city leaders and Realtors amongst us is in fact a feeder to the risk we load the burden on our children and society.
Our children are at risk from Drugs, Drunks, Gangs, Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Neglect by a Family Member and Pedophiles. Sexual Crimes against Children and Pedophiles are not to be ignored, but the other risks are more frequent.
If Mayor Ferre has any chops of being an "Educator" she would know a large High School is not the most effective for education for the students being served be they "Ours" or "Theirs". I could repeat my evaluation of the flaws of her logic, and thinking and actions... but I tire of the redundancy... As far as I am concerned her political 3 minutes should have been up years ago. She has no excuse to sit in the chair and assume the pretence of acting for the betterment of our community.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Who is Being Regulated as We Invite the ACLU to GT
American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review ...
... unprecedented law that restricts where sex offenders with victims under the age ... ACLU Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Iowa's Sex Offender Residency Restriction ...www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/20127prs20050929.html
... unprecedented law that restricts where sex offenders with victims under the age ... ACLU Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review Iowa's Sex Offender Residency Restriction ...www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/20127prs20050929.html
Higher Law Needed to Protect Your Property in GT
IT IS CLEAR:
THE CITY MANAGER AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR TOM SCHWAB WILL NOT ALLOW EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM ON THE AGENDA OF EITHER THE RDA OR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
IT IS CLEAR:
RETAINING THE RIGHT TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF "REDEVELOPMENT" MEANS TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SELLING IT TO OTHER PRIVET PARTIES FOR "DEVELOPMENT".
IT IS CLEAR: NO HOME IS SAFE AS ZONE CHANGES CAN HAPPEN IN A SNAP OF MR. SCHWABS FINGERS.
IT IS CLEAR: ALL BUSINESSES AND 1/3 OR MORE OF THE HOMES/RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN GRAND TERRACE ARE UNPROTECTED FROM THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE THEM FROM THEIR OWNERS.
THERE IS A NEED TO SAY NO MORE... STOP THIS PERHAPS A STATE WIDE INITIATIVE IS THE ONLY ANSWER. TO COLLECT SIGNATURES AND PUT THE PROTECTIONS ON YOUR PROPERTY PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS POST.
http://www.yesonpropertyrights.com/action/petition
1251. (07-0018)
Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment.Summary Date: 7/5/07 Circulation Deadline: 12/03/07 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: Christopher K. McKenzie, Susan Smartt and Kenneth Willis c/o Steve Lucas (415) 389-6800
Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity. Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would likely not have a significant fiscal impact on state or local governments. (Initiative 07-0018.) (Full Text)
READ THE INITIATIVE
The California Property Owner & Farmland Protection Act is simple -- it provides property rights protections for all. Right now, government has the right to take private property - our homes, family farms, mom-and-pop small businesses - to build a sports stadium, big-box chain store, or a hotel. Politically connected special interests use and abuse government's power of eminent domain to take and develop private property. The is what the initiative does:
· Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (i.e. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).
· Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (i.e. freeway construction, parks, schools).
· Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (i.e. residential housing cannot be used for government housing).
· Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the natural resources.
· If a public agency takes property under false pretenses, or abandons its plans, the property must be offered for sale to the original owner at the original price and the property tax would be assessed at the value of the property when it was originally condemned.
· If farmers or business owners are evicted by eminent domain, they would be entitled to compensation for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs and other reasonable expenses.
· Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property.
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
(a) Our state Constitution, while granting government the power of eminent domain, also provides that the people have an inalienable right to own, possess, and protect private property. It further provides that no person may be deprived of property without due process of law, and that private property may not be taken or damaged by eminent domain except for public use and only after just compensation has been paid to the property owner.
(b) Notwithstanding these clear constitutional guarantees, the courts have not protected the people's rights from being violated by state and local governments through the exercise of their power of eminent domain.
(c) For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, held that the government may use eminent domain to take property from its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer. In other cases, the courts have allowed the government to set the price an owner can charge to sell or rent his or her property, and have allowed the government to take property for the purpose of seizing the income or business assets of the property. (d) Farmland is especially vulnerable to these types of eminent domain abuses.
SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) State and local governments may use eminent domain to take private property only for public uses, such as roads, parks, and public facilities.
(b) State and local governments may not use their power to take or damage property for the benefit of any private person or entity.
(c) State and local governments may not take private property by eminent domain to put it to the same use as that made by the private owner.
(d) When state or local governments use eminent domain to take or damage private property for public uses, the owner shall receive just compensation for what has been taken or damaged.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act."SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19(a) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Taken" includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.
(2) "Public use" means use and ownership by a public agency or a regulated public utility for the public use stated at the time of the taking, including public facilities, public transportation, and public utilities, except that nothing herein prohibits leasing limited space for private uses incidental to the stated public use; nor is the exercise of eminent domain prohibited to restore utilities or access to a public road for any private property which is cut off from utilities or access to a public road as a result of a taking for public use as otherwise defined herein.
(3) "Private use" means:
(i) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to any person or entity other than a public agency or a regulated public utility;
(ii) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner; or
(iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.
(4) "Public agency" means the state, special district, county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, and any other local or regional governmental entity, municipal corporation, public agency-owned utility or utility district, or the electorate of any public agency.
(5) "Just compensation" means:
(i) for property or associated property rights taken, its fair market value;
(ii) for property or associated property rights damaged, the value fixed by a jury, or by the court if a jury is waived;
(iii) an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by a public agency as defined herein; and
(iv) any additional actual and necessary amounts to compensate the property owner for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs, other actual and reasonable expenses incurred and other expenses deemed compensable by the Legislature.
(6) "Prompt release" means that the property owner can have immediate possession of the money deposited by the condemnor without prejudicing his or her right to challenge the determination of fair market value or his or her right to challenge the taking as being for a private use.
(7) "Owner" includes a lessee whose property rights are taken or damaged.
(8) "Regulated public utility" means any public utility as described in Article XII, section 3 that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and is not owned or operated by a public agency. Regulated public utilities are private property owners for purposes of this article.
(c) In any action by a property owner challenging a taking or damaging of his or her property, the court shall consider all relevant evidence and exercise its independent judgment, not limited to the administrative record and without deference to the findings of the public agency. The property owner shall be entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the court finds that the agency's actions are not in compliance with this section. In addition to other legal and equitable remedies that may be available, an owner whose property is taken or damaged for private use may bring an action for an injunction, a writ of mandate, or a declaration invalidating the action of the public agency.
(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency or regulated public utility from entering into an agreement with a private property owner for the voluntary sale of property not subject to eminent domain, or a stipulation regarding the payment of just compensation.
(e) If property is acquired by a public agency through eminent domain, then before the agency may put the property to a use substantially different from the stated public use, or convey the property to another person or unaffiliated agency, the condemning agency must make a good faith effort to locate the private owner from whom the property was taken, and make a written offer to sell the property to him at the price which the agency paid for the property, increased only by the fair market value of any improvements, fixtures, or appurtenances added by the public agency, and reduced by the value attributable to any removal, destruction or waste of improvements, fixtures or appurtenances that had been acquired with the property. If property is repurchased by the former owner under this subdivision, it shall be taxed based on its pre-condemnation enrolled value, increased or decreased only as allowed herein, plus any inflationary adjustments authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA. The right to repurchase shall apply only to the owner from which the property was taken, and does not apply to heirs or successors of the owner or, if the owner was not a natural person, to an entity which ceases to legally exist.
(f) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency from exercising its power of eminent domain to abate public nuisances or criminal activity;
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or impair voluntary agreements between a property owner and a public agency to develop or rehabilitate affordable housing. (h) Nothing in this section prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(i) Nothing in this section shall restrict the powers of the Governor to take or damage private property in connection with his or her powers under a declared state of emergency.SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or Article XVIII.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Act shall become effective on the day following the election ("effective date"); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residential rental unit ("unit") or mobile home space ("space") may remain in effect as to such unit or space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date ("qualified tenant") continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence. At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has: (a) voluntarily vacated; (b) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order; (c) abandoned; (d) died; or he or she has (e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this Act shall be effective immediately as to such unit or space.
THE CITY MANAGER AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR TOM SCHWAB WILL NOT ALLOW EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM ON THE AGENDA OF EITHER THE RDA OR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
IT IS CLEAR:
RETAINING THE RIGHT TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF "REDEVELOPMENT" MEANS TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SELLING IT TO OTHER PRIVET PARTIES FOR "DEVELOPMENT".
IT IS CLEAR: NO HOME IS SAFE AS ZONE CHANGES CAN HAPPEN IN A SNAP OF MR. SCHWABS FINGERS.
IT IS CLEAR: ALL BUSINESSES AND 1/3 OR MORE OF THE HOMES/RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN GRAND TERRACE ARE UNPROTECTED FROM THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE THEM FROM THEIR OWNERS.
THERE IS A NEED TO SAY NO MORE... STOP THIS PERHAPS A STATE WIDE INITIATIVE IS THE ONLY ANSWER. TO COLLECT SIGNATURES AND PUT THE PROTECTIONS ON YOUR PROPERTY PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS POST.
http://www.yesonpropertyrights.com/action/petition
1251. (07-0018)
Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment.Summary Date: 7/5/07 Circulation Deadline: 12/03/07 Signatures Required: 694,354
Proponent: Christopher K. McKenzie, Susan Smartt and Kenneth Willis c/o Steve Lucas (415) 389-6800
Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity. Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would likely not have a significant fiscal impact on state or local governments. (Initiative 07-0018.) (Full Text)
READ THE INITIATIVE
The California Property Owner & Farmland Protection Act is simple -- it provides property rights protections for all. Right now, government has the right to take private property - our homes, family farms, mom-and-pop small businesses - to build a sports stadium, big-box chain store, or a hotel. Politically connected special interests use and abuse government's power of eminent domain to take and develop private property. The is what the initiative does:
· Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (i.e. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).
· Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (i.e. freeway construction, parks, schools).
· Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (i.e. residential housing cannot be used for government housing).
· Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the natural resources.
· If a public agency takes property under false pretenses, or abandons its plans, the property must be offered for sale to the original owner at the original price and the property tax would be assessed at the value of the property when it was originally condemned.
· If farmers or business owners are evicted by eminent domain, they would be entitled to compensation for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs and other reasonable expenses.
· Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property.
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
(a) Our state Constitution, while granting government the power of eminent domain, also provides that the people have an inalienable right to own, possess, and protect private property. It further provides that no person may be deprived of property without due process of law, and that private property may not be taken or damaged by eminent domain except for public use and only after just compensation has been paid to the property owner.
(b) Notwithstanding these clear constitutional guarantees, the courts have not protected the people's rights from being violated by state and local governments through the exercise of their power of eminent domain.
(c) For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, held that the government may use eminent domain to take property from its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer. In other cases, the courts have allowed the government to set the price an owner can charge to sell or rent his or her property, and have allowed the government to take property for the purpose of seizing the income or business assets of the property. (d) Farmland is especially vulnerable to these types of eminent domain abuses.
SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) State and local governments may use eminent domain to take private property only for public uses, such as roads, parks, and public facilities.
(b) State and local governments may not use their power to take or damage property for the benefit of any private person or entity.
(c) State and local governments may not take private property by eminent domain to put it to the same use as that made by the private owner.
(d) When state or local governments use eminent domain to take or damage private property for public uses, the owner shall receive just compensation for what has been taken or damaged.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act."SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19(a) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Taken" includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.
(2) "Public use" means use and ownership by a public agency or a regulated public utility for the public use stated at the time of the taking, including public facilities, public transportation, and public utilities, except that nothing herein prohibits leasing limited space for private uses incidental to the stated public use; nor is the exercise of eminent domain prohibited to restore utilities or access to a public road for any private property which is cut off from utilities or access to a public road as a result of a taking for public use as otherwise defined herein.
(3) "Private use" means:
(i) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to any person or entity other than a public agency or a regulated public utility;
(ii) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner; or
(iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.
(4) "Public agency" means the state, special district, county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, and any other local or regional governmental entity, municipal corporation, public agency-owned utility or utility district, or the electorate of any public agency.
(5) "Just compensation" means:
(i) for property or associated property rights taken, its fair market value;
(ii) for property or associated property rights damaged, the value fixed by a jury, or by the court if a jury is waived;
(iii) an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by a public agency as defined herein; and
(iv) any additional actual and necessary amounts to compensate the property owner for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs, other actual and reasonable expenses incurred and other expenses deemed compensable by the Legislature.
(6) "Prompt release" means that the property owner can have immediate possession of the money deposited by the condemnor without prejudicing his or her right to challenge the determination of fair market value or his or her right to challenge the taking as being for a private use.
(7) "Owner" includes a lessee whose property rights are taken or damaged.
(8) "Regulated public utility" means any public utility as described in Article XII, section 3 that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and is not owned or operated by a public agency. Regulated public utilities are private property owners for purposes of this article.
(c) In any action by a property owner challenging a taking or damaging of his or her property, the court shall consider all relevant evidence and exercise its independent judgment, not limited to the administrative record and without deference to the findings of the public agency. The property owner shall be entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the court finds that the agency's actions are not in compliance with this section. In addition to other legal and equitable remedies that may be available, an owner whose property is taken or damaged for private use may bring an action for an injunction, a writ of mandate, or a declaration invalidating the action of the public agency.
(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency or regulated public utility from entering into an agreement with a private property owner for the voluntary sale of property not subject to eminent domain, or a stipulation regarding the payment of just compensation.
(e) If property is acquired by a public agency through eminent domain, then before the agency may put the property to a use substantially different from the stated public use, or convey the property to another person or unaffiliated agency, the condemning agency must make a good faith effort to locate the private owner from whom the property was taken, and make a written offer to sell the property to him at the price which the agency paid for the property, increased only by the fair market value of any improvements, fixtures, or appurtenances added by the public agency, and reduced by the value attributable to any removal, destruction or waste of improvements, fixtures or appurtenances that had been acquired with the property. If property is repurchased by the former owner under this subdivision, it shall be taxed based on its pre-condemnation enrolled value, increased or decreased only as allowed herein, plus any inflationary adjustments authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA. The right to repurchase shall apply only to the owner from which the property was taken, and does not apply to heirs or successors of the owner or, if the owner was not a natural person, to an entity which ceases to legally exist.
(f) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency from exercising its power of eminent domain to abate public nuisances or criminal activity;
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or impair voluntary agreements between a property owner and a public agency to develop or rehabilitate affordable housing. (h) Nothing in this section prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(i) Nothing in this section shall restrict the powers of the Governor to take or damage private property in connection with his or her powers under a declared state of emergency.SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or Article XVIII.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Act shall become effective on the day following the election ("effective date"); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residential rental unit ("unit") or mobile home space ("space") may remain in effect as to such unit or space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date ("qualified tenant") continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence. At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has: (a) voluntarily vacated; (b) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order; (c) abandoned; (d) died; or he or she has (e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this Act shall be effective immediately as to such unit or space.
From the Email InBox: More on 8/14/07 Meeting
Hey Gramps,
Have you noticed that our City Council Meetings are a side show and entertainment rather than serious business that affects the lives of the families in Grand Terrace.
Case in point – when Lee Ann Garcia was talking, Bea Cortez turned to Schwab and was laughing and laughing.
Maryetta Ferre’s story of her life of being involved with the building of the high school in Grand Terrace was boring to say the least. If she doesn’t show more enthusiasm and stand up to AES, I will only see this as another showboat political move.
Why didn’t anyone take the measure to eliminate eminent domain seriously? Because they still want the option to use it in the future. I am sure this is the only thing keeping Jacobson in the loop. It was the original negotiating factor and it is the way he develops all his projects. I am seriously doubting their competency to understand the implications this will have on the generations to follow. Of course, they are only thinking of the money they will make now.
Gramps writes:
Yes,
The City Manager, and Members of the City Council are RUDE.
Their collective dismay and wonderment at why on earth the CJUSD is thinking about not building HS#3. Gee you are right AES is the only thing they did not bring up and it is the thing that they refuse to take an action on.... If in fact they are so ill informed they need to resign from the RDA and the City Council after they fire Tom Schwab and Steve Berry. The City Clerk can run the city more effectively and efficiently. OH Heck Jimmy Carter and a UN Oversight Team would do a better job.
Have you noticed that our City Council Meetings are a side show and entertainment rather than serious business that affects the lives of the families in Grand Terrace.
Case in point – when Lee Ann Garcia was talking, Bea Cortez turned to Schwab and was laughing and laughing.
Maryetta Ferre’s story of her life of being involved with the building of the high school in Grand Terrace was boring to say the least. If she doesn’t show more enthusiasm and stand up to AES, I will only see this as another showboat political move.
Why didn’t anyone take the measure to eliminate eminent domain seriously? Because they still want the option to use it in the future. I am sure this is the only thing keeping Jacobson in the loop. It was the original negotiating factor and it is the way he develops all his projects. I am seriously doubting their competency to understand the implications this will have on the generations to follow. Of course, they are only thinking of the money they will make now.
Gramps writes:
Yes,
The City Manager, and Members of the City Council are RUDE.
Their collective dismay and wonderment at why on earth the CJUSD is thinking about not building HS#3. Gee you are right AES is the only thing they did not bring up and it is the thing that they refuse to take an action on.... If in fact they are so ill informed they need to resign from the RDA and the City Council after they fire Tom Schwab and Steve Berry. The City Clerk can run the city more effectively and efficiently. OH Heck Jimmy Carter and a UN Oversight Team would do a better job.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Time To REMBEMBER AES REPORT
Remember:The OLD POWER PLANT is going to stay and Steve Berry is Promoting it as a Movie Set..
The Tank Plant and NEW PROPOSED AES POWER PLANT IS IN YELLOW...
THE HS#3 location is inclusive of Property in front or adjacent to the Tank Field where the AES PROPOSED POWER PLANT IS to be Located. AS a matter of fact the "Students" will be at their highest activity and risk level as the area is where Physical Activity will be done, not where the students will be protected by air conditioned classrooms.
ALSO note the Proposed area and the location of the Rail Road Tracks, and Freeway.
The above is from AES's own representation. Their most recent representation does not show the school's proposed site to include PICO Park and the Athletic Field to the West of Pico Park. The City of Grand Terrace and the CJUSD have signed a MOU to share the Pico Park as part of the City's Concessions to the CJUSD... REMEMBER the Planned Football field... and athletic fields. Increasing the risk of the pollution exposure during heavy physical activity.
SNIFF SNIFF AES you are shifting the story... and the representation.....
From the Email INBOX:
The old generating portion of the existing plant will in most respects never be run again. Once they knock the fuel tanks down, it is gone there. Once they replace the N.Gas line it will by pass the old route and go just a bit further to north and connect into the AEC property. Should a train derail and the boxcars fly into their property should be protected by a berm and retainment walls. In one of the short talks on Aug. 1st, it was mentioned how that the power plant will produce fewer emittants of a certain element than iffn' the O.A.C.were to have been built. For there would have been more automotive, truck travels from that off ramp than the stationary power plant could produce. ,,,,silence.
When someone says, we are good because we are not as bad as..... there is a problem in their logic...
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF VISUAL IMPACT (Mayor Ferre will Plant Roses)
it is
NOISE POLLUTION
POLLUTION FROM Combustion of Natural Gas
Rail Derailment Risk
Particulate Pollution
Risk from Ammonia Tanks and Deliveries
From the Email Inbox: SHIFT HAPPENS ALRIGHT
Shift happens all right, and a lot of it happens at the city council meetings.
Colton School District - may be short on funds, they may be tired of dealing with the lumber company - but what they have said is they don't want a power company built near any of their schools. So it really isn't too surprising that they are looking at other options - especially when the city of Grand Terrace will not take a stand against the AES power plant (although they are bending backwards, frontwards, and sideways).
The two officers being recognized was very nice. It's hard to imagine how the city can say there's no crime in this town after hearing how many crime reports, arrests, and tickets those two officers have handled. Wonder how we got ranked 92nd best city in Money Magazine, must have been our low crime rate, right?
The city attorney was astonished that residents would think the hearing about eminent domain was about eminent domain - it's not the same thing he said. Okay if you say so? Mr. city attorney, you failed to explain how eminent domain and eminent domain are not the same - aren't you getting paid for this?
Mr. Buchanan rambled on and on and somewhere in his ramblings he said to his knowledge the city had never taken property by eminent domain - the city attorney agreed and he's been there since day one (too many days - perhaps?). Does it not matter to them that residents on Barton Road were sent letters threating eminent domain and letters to relocate? Maybe we should build a beautiful park in the city...hmmm, I think Honey Hills would be a nice spot for this park, but there are houses there... what to do about this? How about eminent domain? Will take the property for the betterment of the city.
Colton School District - may be short on funds, they may be tired of dealing with the lumber company - but what they have said is they don't want a power company built near any of their schools. So it really isn't too surprising that they are looking at other options - especially when the city of Grand Terrace will not take a stand against the AES power plant (although they are bending backwards, frontwards, and sideways).
The two officers being recognized was very nice. It's hard to imagine how the city can say there's no crime in this town after hearing how many crime reports, arrests, and tickets those two officers have handled. Wonder how we got ranked 92nd best city in Money Magazine, must have been our low crime rate, right?
The city attorney was astonished that residents would think the hearing about eminent domain was about eminent domain - it's not the same thing he said. Okay if you say so? Mr. city attorney, you failed to explain how eminent domain and eminent domain are not the same - aren't you getting paid for this?
Mr. Buchanan rambled on and on and somewhere in his ramblings he said to his knowledge the city had never taken property by eminent domain - the city attorney agreed and he's been there since day one (too many days - perhaps?). Does it not matter to them that residents on Barton Road were sent letters threating eminent domain and letters to relocate? Maybe we should build a beautiful park in the city...hmmm, I think Honey Hills would be a nice spot for this park, but there are houses there... what to do about this? How about eminent domain? Will take the property for the betterment of the city.
Limited Private Property Rights in GT...
SOME EXAMPLES OF THE THREAT TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE "CITY OF GRAND TERRACE" ON CITY STATIONARY.
THE CITY WENT EVEN FARTHER ALONG THAT PATH BY PUTTING A HOLD ON PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO GET IT ASSESED FOR AN OFFER FOR THE PURPOSES OF USING EMINENT DOMAIN TO QUIRE THE PROPERTY AND PROVIDE IT TO JACOBESEN FOR THE TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT.
WHERE ON EARTH WAS COUNCIL MEMBER BUCHANAN WHEN THIS WAS HAPPENING?
From the Email Inbox:
What do you think?
To be in one of the top 100 cities to live in, did the city mention they were going to vote for eminent domain when the city was evaluated?
Wouldn't it be better to be a city that believed in the right to private property and that it should be a fundamental right.
The right to own property free from government interference is a fundamental right, because the Founders found it so important and put it in the Bill of Rights. The government should not be allowed to use eminent domain to increase its tax revenue by transferring private property from one private party to another.
The government should not be allowed to give a person two choices. "Take this money or we'll kick you out" or the government/developer unveils a map with a shopping center replacing your home.
This is the abuse and threat of eminent domain.
It does not matter if it is one person or a dozen people, it is still abuse.
If the city votes for it, then they are planning on using it.
Well, they the RDA Voted For it. By it... they voted to pass an RDA Code that will be submitted LATE to the State Agency that Required the Eminent Domain Code to be Sent to the State as written in the "Redevelopment Plan".
Businesses, Landlords and Homeowners who's land can be REZONED should avoid investing in Grand Terrace. That is what I think. I'd take my investment to a place that would secure my property rights, not perpetuate the use of Eminent Domain in any way, "even "IF" it hasn't been filed all the way to the courts".
Council Member Buchanan's Comments indicated a level of ignorance of recent history of the Threats of Eminent Domain and how close it came to be used right here in Grand Terrace. Perhaps he is unsuited to address the issue if he is so ill informed.
In addition it is clear the City's Demand to Negotiate is stated as being from the Redevelopment Agency, but the Stationary is from the City of Grand Terrace, so this Dual Communication increases the intimidation factor and is improper. It is time the Redevelopment Agency of the "City of Grand Terrace" be dissolved.
It is also clear that the RDA and the City does shift assets and funds from account to account for example the RDA House sold to the City and then Provided to the City Manager, when he was getting divorced and needed a house. Or the Purchase of land in the area of the Former OAC Area, (A case Mr. Johnson won). Purchased from a Friend of the City Manager/RDA Director, negotiated by the Mayors Campaign Manager and key contributor to her political funds.) You know what I think... Now it is time to see if the Citizens have had enough to take action needed to end the RDA and the Power's of the City Manager.
The Miguel's Case was decided in favor of Miguel's but this is not a statement by the court that it finds that "THE PLAN", or "A Plan" was followed. It was a statement that Miguel's complied with the requirements the City IMPOSED, at the time Miguel's Presented Plans and Applications. When the final decision is posted on the Courts Web Page, it will be posted. Miguel's may have "Won" but the City Did NOT.
"The City sold land to the CJUSD"... Land the RDA Purchased... and transfered from here to there on the books... Like the RDA Land being sold on the Market by the City because it can't or won't be used for Low and or Moderate Income Housing... after "Property Values have gone so high"... So what would happen if the City or the RDA sold a house below Market Value to a Low Income Person? How would that be different from providing a house to the City Manager, and paying him an income 4 times that of the average household?
ALVARADO ARRESTED FOR MURDER....
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_R_region14.3f66b82.html
Man arrested in High Desert slayings
A Grand Terrace resident was arrested Saturday in connection with the deaths of two people in the High Desert earlier this year, officials said.
Jose Garcia Alvarado, 37, was tracked to Pomona and arrested on two felony homicide warrants, said San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Beavers.
He had been charged in the March 28 slaying of Juan Sotelo in Adelanto and the May 25 shooting of Francisco Sanchez-Lemus at a Victorville apartment complex.
Detectives found Alvarado in a car on Garey Avenue with a large quantity of drugs, according to a sheriff's news release. He was booked into West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on suspicion of two counts of murder and witness intimidation.
On the day of his arrest, Beavers said that Alvarado had told an ex-girlfriend who had cooperated with investigators that he was on his way to Huntington Beach to kill her and her family.
--Paul LaRocco
plarocco@PE.com
Regional briefs 08/14/2007
Man arrested in High Desert slayings
A Grand Terrace resident was arrested Saturday in connection with the deaths of two people in the High Desert earlier this year, officials said.
Jose Garcia Alvarado, 37, was tracked to Pomona and arrested on two felony homicide warrants, said San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Beavers.
He had been charged in the March 28 slaying of Juan Sotelo in Adelanto and the May 25 shooting of Francisco Sanchez-Lemus at a Victorville apartment complex.
Detectives found Alvarado in a car on Garey Avenue with a large quantity of drugs, according to a sheriff's news release. He was booked into West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on suspicion of two counts of murder and witness intimidation.
On the day of his arrest, Beavers said that Alvarado had told an ex-girlfriend who had cooperated with investigators that he was on his way to Huntington Beach to kill her and her family.
--Paul LaRocco
plarocco@PE.com
Regional briefs 08/14/2007
Grand Terrace: Codes and Ordinances
Sex Offender Regulation to Mirror the County Ordinance.
The ACLU has filed a law suit and will now target Grand Terrace to be included because the county restrictions applied to GT leaves no residential place available for Sex Offenders to be located... The city can not fully exclude Sex Offenders from living in the city... In order to not be included in the ACLU Law Suit the city should map where Sex Offenders can Live in GT and not be in violation of the newly adopted code.
Sex Offenders are bad, but this is an example of Go Along Politics that don't serve the interests of Grand Terrace. The "Go Along" has an impact to Grand Terrace that larger cities will not have. Where in Grand Terrace is far enough from a school, day care, or park? You had better get out your map and mark it up and send it to the ACLU before they file against the city.
Passed without comment..
Second reading... Tree Trimming:
Pass without public comment... why wait for 30 days?
Richard Rollings Crime Prevention Memorial:
Council Members Reports Key Points:
High School and Tom Schwab Met with the Super Internment...
If it can be done elsewhere they will do it if they can.....
Remember this is the same Tom Schwab that saw Signed Contracts on Jack Browns Desk... or said Jack Brown Said...
So trust him as far as you want...
The EIR the CJUSD filed, depended on the Power Plant not being a Generation Station but only a transfer station.
Relocating the Lumber Company is only a part of the delay..
City will help in any way??? Except to address the AES Power Plant as a Conflicting Use, and water run off problems.
We have done what the city could do... We sold the land the city did over half the site... we moved the 30" water line out of their way... We have bent over backward to make it work...
They will lose 10 to 15 million dollars if they walk away. But It rests with them to determine the location of the building and only Kent Taylor is supporting keeping the school in GT.
"The Biggest problem is Relocating Inland Lumber"... (Not the AES Power Plant)
But, let's not address the AES POWER PLANT ..... not being factored in...
Let's not talk about the risks of movie productions being promoted by Steve Berry...
RDA... Funds are not commingled... we have different accounts... in one bank account...
AES will contact with film studio. Liability would be covered by AES... ( So why is Steve trumping up business for AES, when that may bring added strain on our emergency services.)
Ferre Enters Her Comments on High School
Short history on bond. GT Voters Passed the bond... Specifically for a High School in Grand Terrace..... 23 ac of land at a bargain discount price. and moved the water pipe. Large sign is up.
"It is very disturbing that the school district is considering backing out of the high school entirely".
Press forward.... and fulfill the commitments...
Mayor calls upon the citizens to tell the school district to fulfill its commitment...
Needs of GT Families? 750 Students... Not 2500 Students...
Lee Ann Garcia:
Kids first... 25 million spent, and walking away is not an option the school board should take.
SanBag: Earthquake Preparedness Importance: An Event is Inevitable... Management of the Event is the Key to minimize the degree of the complications of a Disaster or Event.
Shift Happens
Cajon Pass a Lifeline for shipping and communications will be adversely affected in a major earth quake.\
Bea Cortez: SanBag Management Jumps Ship... and she can't report why or more information on that. No news on how that will affect the 215 and other transportation issues related to GT area.
School District is at odds with GT City Council and she has no idea why...
Dare we say AES and Cost Over Runs...
Tom Schwab turns 50.. Mature at last.... recieves cake hat...
Councilmember Miller's Report
We need to meet with the CJUSD and go with an agenda and set our terms and understanding of purpose any differences and get the problems nipped in the bud...
Thursday 5:30 School Board Meeting on Mt. Vernon at the Board Room... Facilities will be on the agenda..
Graffitti is not going away... It has been in the news. Union Pacific... City signes being tagged with graffitti..
Councilmember Buchanan... Redevelopment Agency... "Eminent Domain Has not been used..."
WRONG THE THREAT OF EMINENT DOMAIN WAS USED...
It has never been the case in Grand Terrace...
I don't understand... Our Redevelopment Agency Hasn't Abused its use...
He clearly needs to be schooled on the history of the Redevelopments Agency's Letters Threatening its use, even in homes Occupied by Residents.
If it can be done elsewhere they will do it if they can.....
Remember this is the same Tom Schwab that saw Signed Contracts on Jack Browns Desk... or said Jack Brown Said...
So trust him as far as you want...
The EIR the CJUSD filed, depended on the Power Plant not being a Generation Station but only a transfer station.
Relocating the Lumber Company is only a part of the delay..
City will help in any way??? Except to address the AES Power Plant as a Conflicting Use, and water run off problems.
We have done what the city could do... We sold the land the city did over half the site... we moved the 30" water line out of their way... We have bent over backward to make it work...
They will lose 10 to 15 million dollars if they walk away. But It rests with them to determine the location of the building and only Kent Taylor is supporting keeping the school in GT.
"The Biggest problem is Relocating Inland Lumber"... (Not the AES Power Plant)
But, let's not address the AES POWER PLANT ..... not being factored in...
Let's not talk about the risks of movie productions being promoted by Steve Berry...
RDA... Funds are not commingled... we have different accounts... in one bank account...
AES will contact with film studio. Liability would be covered by AES... ( So why is Steve trumping up business for AES, when that may bring added strain on our emergency services.)
Ferre Enters Her Comments on High School
Short history on bond. GT Voters Passed the bond... Specifically for a High School in Grand Terrace..... 23 ac of land at a bargain discount price. and moved the water pipe. Large sign is up.
"It is very disturbing that the school district is considering backing out of the high school entirely".
Press forward.... and fulfill the commitments...
Mayor calls upon the citizens to tell the school district to fulfill its commitment...
Needs of GT Families? 750 Students... Not 2500 Students...
Lee Ann Garcia:
Kids first... 25 million spent, and walking away is not an option the school board should take.
SanBag: Earthquake Preparedness Importance: An Event is Inevitable... Management of the Event is the Key to minimize the degree of the complications of a Disaster or Event.
Shift Happens
Cajon Pass a Lifeline for shipping and communications will be adversely affected in a major earth quake.\
Bea Cortez: SanBag Management Jumps Ship... and she can't report why or more information on that. No news on how that will affect the 215 and other transportation issues related to GT area.
School District is at odds with GT City Council and she has no idea why...
Dare we say AES and Cost Over Runs...
Tom Schwab turns 50.. Mature at last.... recieves cake hat...
Councilmember Miller's Report
We need to meet with the CJUSD and go with an agenda and set our terms and understanding of purpose any differences and get the problems nipped in the bud...
Thursday 5:30 School Board Meeting on Mt. Vernon at the Board Room... Facilities will be on the agenda..
Graffitti is not going away... It has been in the news. Union Pacific... City signes being tagged with graffitti..
Councilmember Buchanan... Redevelopment Agency... "Eminent Domain Has not been used..."
WRONG THE THREAT OF EMINENT DOMAIN WAS USED...
It has never been the case in Grand Terrace...
I don't understand... Our Redevelopment Agency Hasn't Abused its use...
He clearly needs to be schooled on the history of the Redevelopments Agency's Letters Threatening its use, even in homes Occupied by Residents.
REDLIGHTs Went Live Aug 13... Sept 14th Tickets are Real...
You get a ticket if you pass the cross walk Break the Line Before it has turned RED... IF you get a ticket you can review the video...
Right Truns with a REAL STOP... are OK...
NO CALIFORNIA STOPS for RIGHT TURNS
East and West Traffic is not being Monitored...
North and South Traffic is...
Lee Ann Garcia Got it Right and Voted NO!!!!
Mayor Pro Tem Lee Ann Garcia
lgarcia@cityofgrandterrace.org
909 430-2236
SHE GOT IT RIGHT A Vote No on the Eminent Domain Ordinance would aid in protecting your Property rights.
THE OTHER 4 voted to continue the Potential Practice and Threat of the use of Eminent Domain In Grand Terrace. Stating that "Owner Occupied" Property is exempt or protected from Eminent Domain.
Well Mayor Ferre, and Tony Petta and others who have their property in trusts, may want to know that a House Held in Trust is not technically a Home that is Owner Occupied. So they too may find themselves on the Eminent Domain Take List of the Redevelopment Manager's Whim.
WARNING TO ALL WHO INVEST IN GRAND TERRACE THE 1979 PLAN LISTS ALMOST ALL OF GRAND TERRACE AS BEING IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT. YOUR INVESTMENT IS SUBJECT TO EMINENT DOMAIN IN PERPETUITY. (FOREVER).
WILL THIS ATTRACT INVESTMENT and or QUALITY HOME BUYERS... NO...
WE also got a lesson on the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IS IN CHARGE AND HAS MORE POWER THAN THE CITY.
The Practices and Procedures of the RDA need to be modified and restricted in addition to the Restrictions on the City. Let's put it on the Agenda and get it done and stop sliding by the issue.
Note the Good thing is. The Ordinance is being signed after the deadline for filing it. So the GT RDA did not comply with the requirement and is filing the document LATE and it may be challenged based upon this reason if there is sufficient number of letters sent to the State Redevelopment Agency and the State Attorney General Jerry Brown.
lgarcia@cityofgrandterrace.org
909 430-2236
SHE GOT IT RIGHT A Vote No on the Eminent Domain Ordinance would aid in protecting your Property rights.
THE OTHER 4 voted to continue the Potential Practice and Threat of the use of Eminent Domain In Grand Terrace. Stating that "Owner Occupied" Property is exempt or protected from Eminent Domain.
Well Mayor Ferre, and Tony Petta and others who have their property in trusts, may want to know that a House Held in Trust is not technically a Home that is Owner Occupied. So they too may find themselves on the Eminent Domain Take List of the Redevelopment Manager's Whim.
WARNING TO ALL WHO INVEST IN GRAND TERRACE THE 1979 PLAN LISTS ALMOST ALL OF GRAND TERRACE AS BEING IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT. YOUR INVESTMENT IS SUBJECT TO EMINENT DOMAIN IN PERPETUITY. (FOREVER).
WILL THIS ATTRACT INVESTMENT and or QUALITY HOME BUYERS... NO...
WE also got a lesson on the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IS IN CHARGE AND HAS MORE POWER THAN THE CITY.
The Practices and Procedures of the RDA need to be modified and restricted in addition to the Restrictions on the City. Let's put it on the Agenda and get it done and stop sliding by the issue.
Note the Good thing is. The Ordinance is being signed after the deadline for filing it. So the GT RDA did not comply with the requirement and is filing the document LATE and it may be challenged based upon this reason if there is sufficient number of letters sent to the State Redevelopment Agency and the State Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Monday, August 13, 2007
IT is HOT out there PEOPLE
FROM NOAA Weather Special Warnings For Our Area:
TAKE PRECAUTIONS WHILE OUTDOORS TO AVOID HEAT EXHAUSTION OR HEATSTROKE.
DRINK PLENTY OF WATER...
WEAR LIGHT COLORED LOOSE FITTING CLOTHING...AND
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SHADED AREAS AND AIR CONDITIONED BUILDINGS
THOUGH HUMIDITIES WILL NOT BE EXTREMELY LOW...
THE HOT GUSTY WINDS CAUSED BY AFTERNOON HEATING WILL CAUSE ELEVATED FIRE DANGER INTHE FOOTHILLS...PARTICULARLY TODAY. HUMIDITY IS EXPECTED TO RISE TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY AS THE MONSOON GETS CLOSE.
THEN...APOSSIBILITY OF DRY LIGHTNING FROM HIGH BASED MONSOON THUNDERSTORMS COULD INCREASE FIRE DANGER IN THE MOUNTAINS TUESDAY THROUGH THURSDAY.
TAKE PRECAUTIONS WHILE OUTDOORS TO AVOID HEAT EXHAUSTION OR HEATSTROKE.
DRINK PLENTY OF WATER...
WEAR LIGHT COLORED LOOSE FITTING CLOTHING...AND
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SHADED AREAS AND AIR CONDITIONED BUILDINGS
THOUGH HUMIDITIES WILL NOT BE EXTREMELY LOW...
THE HOT GUSTY WINDS CAUSED BY AFTERNOON HEATING WILL CAUSE ELEVATED FIRE DANGER INTHE FOOTHILLS...PARTICULARLY TODAY. HUMIDITY IS EXPECTED TO RISE TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY AS THE MONSOON GETS CLOSE.
THEN...APOSSIBILITY OF DRY LIGHTNING FROM HIGH BASED MONSOON THUNDERSTORMS COULD INCREASE FIRE DANGER IN THE MOUNTAINS TUESDAY THROUGH THURSDAY.
It is about Artificial Appearances
Dear Gramps:
Graffiti is a sign of an underlying problem. Drugs, Gangs, and Youth not having structure. Arrests for Graffiti have been in the mid to late 20's. Youth or Juvenile Arrests are unknown. Graffiti is a symptom not the systemic disease eating away at our community.
The Looks of the Power Plant is getting more attention from the City Council and City Management than the Cancer Causing Pollution, or Low Frequency Noise it will add to our pollution soup we call home.
Examine the conflict the City Council and City Management must feel. On one hand they want to shoot movies at the old power plant with all its "Interesting Features"... On the Other hand they say the "Old Ugly Plant" will be removed and the new plant will be hidden with trees and a berm. On one hand they said the Power Plant is Decommissioned and Never being started up again. This turns out to be half correct, they didn't say a "REPLACEMENT PLANT" Could not be built. Directly across from the High School Site or at least the Sports Facilities for that High School.
No Place in the City's General Plan or the EIR for the AES Power Plant investigates Alternative Power Generation Methods or conservation so that the "Demand" for more power is mitigated rather than the option of more power and more pollution into our environment.
No Place in the City would be allowed to have dead trees and look like Cage Park... Is AES exempt from Code Enforcement? Is the City of Grand Terrace exempt from its own code enforcement and weed abatement requirements?
It is great to want a High School, a Power Plant that is a Zero Emissions and Noise would be Great, and a Movie Set and a Park, all nice things. However, it may not be the best idea to put them all as neighbors. Particularly if the Power Plant is going to be your typical noise and pollution making power plant.
Regarding Goats: Later is Better than Never... How many of our citizens have wanted goats and a couple of chickens but the Code Prohibits these in "Residential Zoned Areas". How many of the folks that have goats in GT have been harassed by the City because the city has a distaste for "Agricultural" Use as it does not promote the "Highest Possible Value for Land USE"?
This city should encourage sustainable use of every property in GT. This includes the keeping of an occasional milk goat, some egg laying chickens, and or rabbits for the stew pot. People should be encouraged to plant not just trees, but fruit trees, and grow plants that produce food rather than just ornamental. These basic things make a connection to place and community in a healthy expression. Dare I suggest some of the Graffiti would be removed if there were other ways to connect to place and community. Of course the Drug Dealer Markers will need other action.
Graffiti is a sign of an underlying problem. Drugs, Gangs, and Youth not having structure. Arrests for Graffiti have been in the mid to late 20's. Youth or Juvenile Arrests are unknown. Graffiti is a symptom not the systemic disease eating away at our community.
The Looks of the Power Plant is getting more attention from the City Council and City Management than the Cancer Causing Pollution, or Low Frequency Noise it will add to our pollution soup we call home.
Examine the conflict the City Council and City Management must feel. On one hand they want to shoot movies at the old power plant with all its "Interesting Features"... On the Other hand they say the "Old Ugly Plant" will be removed and the new plant will be hidden with trees and a berm. On one hand they said the Power Plant is Decommissioned and Never being started up again. This turns out to be half correct, they didn't say a "REPLACEMENT PLANT" Could not be built. Directly across from the High School Site or at least the Sports Facilities for that High School.
No Place in the City's General Plan or the EIR for the AES Power Plant investigates Alternative Power Generation Methods or conservation so that the "Demand" for more power is mitigated rather than the option of more power and more pollution into our environment.
No Place in the City would be allowed to have dead trees and look like Cage Park... Is AES exempt from Code Enforcement? Is the City of Grand Terrace exempt from its own code enforcement and weed abatement requirements?
It is great to want a High School, a Power Plant that is a Zero Emissions and Noise would be Great, and a Movie Set and a Park, all nice things. However, it may not be the best idea to put them all as neighbors. Particularly if the Power Plant is going to be your typical noise and pollution making power plant.
Regarding Goats: Later is Better than Never... How many of our citizens have wanted goats and a couple of chickens but the Code Prohibits these in "Residential Zoned Areas". How many of the folks that have goats in GT have been harassed by the City because the city has a distaste for "Agricultural" Use as it does not promote the "Highest Possible Value for Land USE"?
This city should encourage sustainable use of every property in GT. This includes the keeping of an occasional milk goat, some egg laying chickens, and or rabbits for the stew pot. People should be encouraged to plant not just trees, but fruit trees, and grow plants that produce food rather than just ornamental. These basic things make a connection to place and community in a healthy expression. Dare I suggest some of the Graffiti would be removed if there were other ways to connect to place and community. Of course the Drug Dealer Markers will need other action.
Responce to GT in the NEWS
Gramps: Regarding Graffiti on Bridge:
Of course he is embarrassed. He should be!
But what about the citizens of Grand Terrace who are harrassed by these gang members? I am shocked that he doesn't put as much energy into protecting the citizens as he does trying to make the City of Grand Terrace look like it doesn't have any problems.
But what about the citizens of Grand Terrace who are harrassed by these gang members? I am shocked that he doesn't put as much energy into protecting the citizens as he does trying to make the City of Grand Terrace look like it doesn't have any problems.
GT wants graffiti on bridge gone
City doesn't want tagging to tarnish
image as one of the top places to live
Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
Article
Launched: 08/09/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
GRAND TERRACE - It comes in all shapes, sizes and colors.
Some consider it an art. Others call it an eyesore.
Officials here just want it gone.For a city that Money Magazine recently named one of the 100 best places to live in America, the thought of graffiti anywhere is almost too much to bear.
But it's especially bothersome when the graffiti is scrawled across a major railroad bridge that serves as a gateway to the city.
Of all the markings, the words, "We Bomb," in large white letters are clearly the most visible to passing motorists on the 215 Freeway.
"It's an embarrassment when you are coming into Grand Terrace and you have to see it," Assistant City Manager Steve Berry said. "It's like a graffiti billboard on the face of our city."
The graffiti in question has covered the Union Pacific railroad bridge over the 215 for about eight months, Berry said. The railroad owns the bridge and is solely responsible for removing the graffiti. The bridge, known as the Taylor Street overcrossing, is just south of the Barton Road exit. It is reserved for train traffic.
Berry has flooded Union Pacific with e-mails urging the company to take action. But nothing has been done and the problem is getting worse. "It keeps accumulating and accumulating and accumulating," he said in frustration.
Nestled between two mountain ridges, the town of roughly 13,000 residents has managed to escape the big city ills that have plagued many of its neighbors. Its low crime, high-performing schools, clean streets and affordable housing were reasons it made Money Magazine's Top 100 list announced last month. Residents and city officials marked the occasion by sharing a large carrot cake at a City Council meeting.
While graffiti might not be such a big deal in some cities with larger worries, Grand Terrace doesn't want anything to harm its lofty reputation as a great place to live.
"As a Realtor, I know graffiti negatively affects home values and it seriously detracts from the city's image as a safe, quiet bedroom community," said Jeff McConnell, a Walnut Avenue resident. Union Pacific spokeswoman Lupe Valdez said she is working to address the city's concerns. Valdez said removing the graffiti isn't as simple as it might seem. "It's a little more complicated than just going out there and cleaning it because it is over an interstate,"
Valdez said. The California Department of Transportation has rules and regulations for doing work over a freeway, she said. "What I told the city is first I need to find out what is involved before we can determine what can and can't be done," Valdez said. Caltrans spokeswoman Ivy Estrada said the process to get a permit to remove graffiti is simple, straightforward and free of charge.
"They would file an application telling us what they propose to do and what the impact to traffic would be," Estrada said. "We would be concerned about motorists' safety and their workers' safety above the freeway."
The review and approval process typically takes just a few days, Estrada said. "We would certainly be willing to have a meeting with the railroad to expedite things," Estrada said. Berry said the BNSF Railway has a bridge over the freeway just south of the Union Pacific bridge. BNSF regularly removes graffiti that appears on its bridge, he said. "There is no excuse for Union Pacific not to take care of this immediately," Berry said.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
August 14, 2007
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Rick Doucette, Calvary The Brook Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6 PM
1. Approval of 07-24-2007 Minutes
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
August 14, 2007
GRAND TERRACE CIVIC CENTER 6:00 PM
22795 Barton Road
* Call to Order -
* Invocation - Pastor Rick Doucette, Calvary The Brook Church
* Pledge of Allegiance -
* Roll Call -
AGENDA ITEMS
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6 PM
1. Approval of 07-24-2007 Minutes
2. Public Hearing - An Ordinance of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace Containing a Description of the Agency’s Program to Acquire Real Property by Eminent Domain
ADJOURN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Items to Delete
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
A. Introduce Sheriff’s Department Deputies
B. Commendation - Laurie Shearer
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Council Member, Staff Member, or Citizen may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
A. Approve Check Register Dated August 14, 2007
B. Waive Full Reading of Ordinances on Agenda
THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK=S OFFICE AT (909) 824-6621 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. IF YOU DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, PLEASE COMPLETE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM AVAILABLE AT THE ENTRANCE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON BY THE MAYOR AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
C. Approval of 07-24-2007 Minutes
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the opportunity for members of the public to comment on any items not appearing on the regular agenda. Because of restrictions contained in California Law, the City Council may not discuss or act on any item not on the agenda, but may briefly respond to statements made or ask a question for clarification. The Mayor may also request a brief response from staff to questions raised during public comment or may request a matter be agendized for a future meeting.
5. REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
1. Emergency Operations Committee
a. Minutes of July 3, 2007
A. Council Reports
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace, Adding Chapter 9.32 to the Municipal Code Relating to Regulation of Registered Sex Offenders
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Second Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council Amending Chapter 12.28 of the Municipal Code and Establishing Maintenance and Pruning Requirements for Trees on Local Residential, Arterial and Major Streets in the City of Grand Terrace
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Declare Richard Rollins Crime Prevention Committee Member Memorial
B. Adoption of Amended Integrated Waste Management Franchise Agreement as a Result of Transfer (Burrtec Waste Industries)
9. CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOURN
THE NEXT CRA/CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2007 AT 6:00 P.M.
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE NO LATER THAN 14 CALENDAR DAYS PRECEDING THE MEETING.
In the News: IF You Can Bear to Read It..
GT wants graffiti on bridge gone San Bernardino Sun - Aug 09 12:02 AM
GRAND TERRACE - It comes in all shapes, sizes and colors. Some consider it an art. Others call it an eyesore. Officials here just want it gone. For a city that Money Magazine recently named one of the 100 best places to live in America, the thought of graffiti anywhere is almost too much to bear.
Steve Berry says GT HAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.... well then why the need for a Senior Center and other RDA Projects in such a Blighted Community?
GRAND TERRACE - It comes in all shapes, sizes and colors. Some consider it an art. Others call it an eyesore. Officials here just want it gone. For a city that Money Magazine recently named one of the 100 best places to live in America, the thought of graffiti anywhere is almost too much to bear.
Steve Berry says GT HAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.... well then why the need for a Senior Center and other RDA Projects in such a Blighted Community?
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Looking For Grandpa Terrace:
For those of you still looking for Grandpa Terrace.
Your looking for one of several people who post to this blog.
IF you want to Post an Opinion or Counter a Post's Points Email GrandTerraceNews@yahoo.com and put PLEASE POST IN THE SUBJECT...
Documents supporting your point can be attached.. jpg or bmp are the easiest to post.
Your looking for one of several people who post to this blog.
IF you want to Post an Opinion or Counter a Post's Points Email GrandTerraceNews@yahoo.com and put PLEASE POST IN THE SUBJECT...
Documents supporting your point can be attached.. jpg or bmp are the easiest to post.
Eminent Domain Ordinance Time Requirements:
NOTE THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING HAS 2 PUBLIC MEETINGS
EMINENT DOMAIN (CAN THEY TAKE YOUR HOUSE OR BUSINESS)
AND
SEX OFFENDERS REGULATION AND REGISTRATION BY THE CITY
BUT
THE CITY CAN'T PROVIDE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES
OR "REGULATIONS" ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE
The next GT City Council Meeting has on the agenda a Public Meeting Regarding the Redevelopment Agency's authority to use Eminent Domain. (The Forced Taking of Private Property by the Redevelopment Agency.) The "Redevelopment Plan" has been negated several times by changes by City Council and Redevelopment Agency Action to the extent one could argue there is no Plan, and or no Plan is being followed as any time a "Preferred Developer" or Designated Developer or the RDA wants a change to "The Plan" the "Plan" is changed. The location of the Senior Housing and New Senior Center is an example of this. The approved construction of CVS and MIGUELS do not match the "Plan" for exterior features to the RDA Design Plan. The Plan also has the Removal of Grand Terrace Elementary School. The school's planned removal by the RDA and the City Planning Department was News to the School District and some of the City Council Members but the Planning maps still have that area as Commercial Property not Public School. Perhaps this is so the ABC Board will not exclude more Alcohol Licenses in "New Developments" near the school.
http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/2007/06/compliance-with.html
To review SB 53, click here.
To review SB 1809, click here.
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
CRA ORDINANCE NO.____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CONTAINING A DESCRIPTION OF THE AGENCY’S PROGRAM TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. ____— dated September 27, 1979, the Redevelopment Plan (the “Plan”) for the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace (the “Project”) was adopted pursuant to procedures codified within the California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL; Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace (“Agency”) has been designated as the official redevelopment agency to carry out the functions and requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 33342.7 of the Health and Safety Code, which was added by Senate Bill 53, which took effect on January 1, 2007, requires the legislative body which adopted a redevelopment plan containing eminent domain authority before January 1, 2007, adopt an ordinance containing a description of the Agency’s program to acquire real property by eminent domain.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Agency does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Agency is authorized to use the power of eminent domain to acquire real property within the Project, excluding all owner-occupied residentially zoned properties.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33367(d)(6), the Agency hereby finds that the adopted Redevelopment Plan requires the use of eminent domain.
SECTION 3. The Agency Secretary is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the California Redevelopment Association.
SECTION 4. If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and this Agency hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace at a regular meeting held on _____________, 2007.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
July 23, 2007
_________________________________________
Chairperson, Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Grand Terrace.
ATTEST:
Secretary, Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
I, Brenda Mesa, Secretary to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency held on ___________________, and thereafter at a regular meeting of said Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace, California, duly held on __________2007, when it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace.
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace, California, on _________________________, 2007.
_______________________________
Secretary, Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Grand Terrace, California.
WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace (“Agency”) has been designated as the official redevelopment agency to carry out the functions and requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 33342.7 of the Health and Safety Code, which was added by Senate Bill 53, which took effect on January 1, 2007, requires the legislative body which adopted a redevelopment plan containing eminent domain authority before January 1, 2007, adopt an ordinance containing a description of the Agency’s program to acquire real property by eminent domain.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Agency does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Agency is authorized to use the power of eminent domain to acquire real property within the Project, excluding all owner-occupied residentially zoned properties.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33367(d)(6), the Agency hereby finds that the adopted Redevelopment Plan requires the use of eminent domain.
SECTION 3. The Agency Secretary is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the California Redevelopment Association.
SECTION 4. If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and this Agency hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace at a regular meeting held on _____________, 2007.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
July 23, 2007
_________________________________________
Chairperson, Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Grand Terrace.
ATTEST:
Secretary, Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Grand Terrace
I, Brenda Mesa, Secretary to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency held on ___________________, and thereafter at a regular meeting of said Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace, California, duly held on __________2007, when it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace.
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace, California, on _________________________, 2007.
_______________________________
Secretary, Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Grand Terrace, California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)