IF City Manager was doing his job he would have reported that he could cut his pay in half and cover about half of the budget shortfall for the up comming year. He could also suggest to the City Council to stop all trips, and travel expences they make to learn how to use Eminent Domain. The City could end it's support for the California "Welcome Center". Just for starters long before they suggest cut back in law enforcement.
The City could Sell the City Owned and Insured Car the City Manager Drives.
Just a FEW SUGGESTED CUTS the city could make.
Those "Reserves" are funded by DEBT and are not just sitting there without an obligation to Repay the Debt the RDA has the City as the Co-signer. Dipping INTO these funds to fund the DIPS is not a wise answer to a budget short fall.
Below is how it is represented in the Local Press...
Grand Terrace to avoid layoffs, major program cuts despite expected budget shortfall
10:00 PM PDT on Wednesday, May 14, 2008
By JULIE FARREN
The Press-Enterprise
Grand Terrace won't have to lay off any employees or make major program cuts next year despite expectations for a $194,000 deficit in its 2008-09 budget.
City Manager Tom Schwab and Finance Director Larry Ronnow presented details of the coming fiscal year to the City Council during a budget workshop Tuesday.
The city's general fund is estimated at $5.5 million, with revenues at $5.3 million. The city will transfer funds out of its undesignated reserves to make up for the $194,693 deficit, said Schwab.
Saving money each year over the last two decades has put the city in good financial shape for balancing the budget, he said.
Ronnow, who is retiring in September after seven years as finance director, said varying estimates for property tax and sales tax income made this year's task challenging. "This has probably been the most difficult budget," said Ronnow.
There has been very little increase in sales tax and a 2 percent to 3 percent increase in property tax. Schwab said Grand Terrace is not heavily dependent on sales tax.
Ronnow said the city is being conservative by not overestimating the amount of taxes to be collected this coming year.
Most of the general fund revenue, 47 percent, will come from property and sales tax; fees and charges accounted for 24 percent, followed by licenses and permits at 14 percent.
The city's largest expenditure is for law enforcement, at $1.7 million. Administrative costs are $1.2 million.
Councilman Dan Buchanan teased Ronnow about the final budget he prepared for the city.
"I hate to end on a sour note, Larry, but this is a really boring budget -- nothing sexy, nothing sneaky," Buchanan said.
But he did have a serious question for Ronnow and Schwab about cutting costs if the city wanted to save the $194,000 taken from the undesignated reserve fund.
Schwab said the quickest cut would be the sheriff's deputy funded through a $100,000 cops grant. Other capital items such as a new generator could be eliminated, he said.
Councilman Jim Miller said that he doesn't foresee an increase in sales tax revenue for Grand Terrace, so the city can't count on that money.
He said he also is concerned about the property tax estimates from the county assessor's office and the final state budget.
Miller said he believes that the reserve fund should be used for special projects and not to cover deficits. "That worries me," he said. He advised that staff look into new sources of income to offset the deficit and asked if the council could receive mid-year forecasts rather than wait a year for the report.
Reach Julie Farren at 909-806-3066 or jfarren@PE.com
Friday, May 16, 2008
Review of Meeting and Prediction of Legal Action
Pawww...
Went to Wed. meeting which related to older A.O.C. site (not the Stater Bros. site as previously mentioned elsewhere).
My estimate is that was a 80 percent to 20 percent crowd NOT in favor of the project. Which is generally a hard sell.
Overall project was "Picture-wise" most vague.
Although stated initially that it was a cooperative project between new developer and city based Redevelopment, during the public discussion period Gary Koontz stepped in to contradict what ever had been stated. That ratio noted above could have easily gotten more balanced had he not stepped in so often. My feeling is that those in attendance have a natural mis-trust of whatever Gary now says. He is tainted meat.
Was a significant amount of overlapping going on. "We are planning on doing this here" and illustrative maps showed otherwise. One big boner was in that the maps overlapped the O.E.C. site and then a quick mention towards the end of the event that the maps were all drawn wrong.
Other points were in that the project was stated to be fully cooperative with new adjoining High School, when the illustration did not show plans covering the northern boundary of that site which many residents received via mail months ago.
Although a lot of time and money must have been spent on this project already, this basic mistake of not using curent and easily avaiable materials turned the crowd against the project.
The leader went on to mention that no more public meetings would be held, they were going ahead with a planned E.I.R. and site plan now. Then on to Planning Commisssion and City Council.
I smell lawsuit once again.
Went to Wed. meeting which related to older A.O.C. site (not the Stater Bros. site as previously mentioned elsewhere).
My estimate is that was a 80 percent to 20 percent crowd NOT in favor of the project. Which is generally a hard sell.
Overall project was "Picture-wise" most vague.
Although stated initially that it was a cooperative project between new developer and city based Redevelopment, during the public discussion period Gary Koontz stepped in to contradict what ever had been stated. That ratio noted above could have easily gotten more balanced had he not stepped in so often. My feeling is that those in attendance have a natural mis-trust of whatever Gary now says. He is tainted meat.
Was a significant amount of overlapping going on. "We are planning on doing this here" and illustrative maps showed otherwise. One big boner was in that the maps overlapped the O.E.C. site and then a quick mention towards the end of the event that the maps were all drawn wrong.
Other points were in that the project was stated to be fully cooperative with new adjoining High School, when the illustration did not show plans covering the northern boundary of that site which many residents received via mail months ago.
Although a lot of time and money must have been spent on this project already, this basic mistake of not using curent and easily avaiable materials turned the crowd against the project.
The leader went on to mention that no more public meetings would be held, they were going ahead with a planned E.I.R. and site plan now. Then on to Planning Commisssion and City Council.
I smell lawsuit once again.
Meetings Conflict:
Notice of Meeting
On May 29th, a meeting will be held at Colton High School hosted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District at about 6:30 PM. Part of discussion is regarding information and the implications of the findings regarding Riverside Cement Co. and California (Colton) Cement properties.
You may want to ask a few questions regarding recent projects within City of Grand Terrace related to the topic. Including the AES Power Plant ? Mayor Feree High School ? and the EIRS approved by the City Planning Department such as, the Manhole Cover Plant, and the location of a High School next to some future designed Development and a Rail Road Track.
This date also conflicts with a proposed reading of new City ordinace regarding H.A.M. radio tower placements.
On May 29th, a meeting will be held at Colton High School hosted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District at about 6:30 PM. Part of discussion is regarding information and the implications of the findings regarding Riverside Cement Co. and California (Colton) Cement properties.
You may want to ask a few questions regarding recent projects within City of Grand Terrace related to the topic. Including the AES Power Plant ? Mayor Feree High School ? and the EIRS approved by the City Planning Department such as, the Manhole Cover Plant, and the location of a High School next to some future designed Development and a Rail Road Track.
This date also conflicts with a proposed reading of new City ordinace regarding H.A.M. radio tower placements.
SUPPORT Prop 98 / NO on Prop 99
Thu, 15 May 2008 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Props. 98 and 99
(NOTE THERE IS NO RENT CONTROL IN GRAND TERRACE)
Below is an article from the Orange Co. Register regarding Props 98 and99. When you get around to discussing these propositions I ask that you consider the backer of 99. The main backer is the League of Ca. Cities. This is a private organization that cities join for a fee. Their"Gold" and "Platinum" sponsors are Utilities, Labor Unions and Developers.
The League of Ca. Cities hold seminars for cities on how to use and takeprivate property by using Eminent Domain. The later is the largest lobbying group in Sacramento.
If "Arnie" wants to save money for the State he should eliminate State and local Redevelopment Agencies. They cost taxpayers over a billion a year and is nothing more than free money for developers. Our property taxes go to pay off redevelopment agencies debt instead of going for what it is intended like schools, police and fire protection and infrastructure.
Both this propositions are being advertised on KFI at present. Please read this article below and help inform the voters as to how the developers and the League of Ca. Cities are trying to scam the voters once again. They were successful in our last election. Please don't let these crooks do it
ArticleMay 12, 2008
Difference between Props. 98, 99
Orange County Register
By GARY M. GALLES
The June ballot is bringing the issue of rent control back into the political spotlight in California.
Proposition 98 would protect all Californians from abuses of eminent domain, government's power to take private property, and phase outrent control.
Prop. 99 is a decoy measure that would override Prop.98 if it attracts more votes, was written by beneficiaries of eminent-domain abuse, and that the state's Legislative Analyst's Office concluded involved so little reform that it "is not likely to significantly alter current land-acquisition practices.
"Prop. 99 offers precious little protection. It wouldn't protect farmland, churches, businesses or rental properties from eminent-domain abuse. It wouldn't restrict the almost unlimited purposes for which governments can take private property, provided they provide some compensation. It leaves a gaping loophole for "blight," which includes anything government decides it doesn't like. It does notcompensate owners for fighting abuses.
So, Prop. 99's backers are trying to reframe the real reforms of Prop. 98 as an attack on renters. Renters and renters' advocates offer horror-story scenarios if rent controls were ended.
However, they omit the fact that Prop. 98 would only end rent controls after current residents leave a rental property. It also ignores the fact that rent control is simply a majority of voters (current renters) in a jurisdiction taking the property of a minority (landlords), which is why Prop. 98 includes it with other forms of government theft. Rent control is theft because it removes landlords' rights to accept better rental offers and takes away a large portion of their property's value (as shown in plummeting market values wherever controls are enacted) and gives the "savings" to current tenants (which why those tenants almost never leave).
However, tenants voting themselves $500 monthly rent reductions is no different than each of them robbing their landlords of $500 a month. But while robbery is a felony, the beneficiaries call rent control "democracyin action," as though a majority vote legitimizes theft. This can be seen by analogy to the labor market, where renters are sellers rather than buyers. Since a rent cap limits what landlordscan earn as well as what tenants must pay, the labor-marketequivalent would be a law prohibiting employers from paying workers more than, say, $10 an hour.
Renters would recognize a maximum-wagelaw as theft, even though it does the same thing rent control does to their landlords. The arguments made against ending rent control also demonstrate that it is theft.
Worries that rents would rise sharply without controls make senseonly if rents are being held below what apartments are worth (whatothers would be willing to pay). And Prop. 98 does nothing to change rents as long as tenants remain where they are, stopping only subsequent theft. Claims that landlords would evict tenants to gethigher rents or that rent control would reduce low-income housing reveal the same thing, because both scenarios assume that rents are now forcibly underpriced (they also ignore the fact that any government assistance should be financed by Californians, not forced on landlords).
Mobile-home owners complain that ending rent control would lower their home values. But that is only because rent control has transferred much of the value of the park's owners to the tenants. Prop. 98 would only undo that theft.
Subject: Props. 98 and 99
(NOTE THERE IS NO RENT CONTROL IN GRAND TERRACE)
Below is an article from the Orange Co. Register regarding Props 98 and99. When you get around to discussing these propositions I ask that you consider the backer of 99. The main backer is the League of Ca. Cities. This is a private organization that cities join for a fee. Their"Gold" and "Platinum" sponsors are Utilities, Labor Unions and Developers.
The League of Ca. Cities hold seminars for cities on how to use and takeprivate property by using Eminent Domain. The later is the largest lobbying group in Sacramento.
If "Arnie" wants to save money for the State he should eliminate State and local Redevelopment Agencies. They cost taxpayers over a billion a year and is nothing more than free money for developers. Our property taxes go to pay off redevelopment agencies debt instead of going for what it is intended like schools, police and fire protection and infrastructure.
Both this propositions are being advertised on KFI at present. Please read this article below and help inform the voters as to how the developers and the League of Ca. Cities are trying to scam the voters once again. They were successful in our last election. Please don't let these crooks do it
ArticleMay 12, 2008
Difference between Props. 98, 99
Orange County Register
By GARY M. GALLES
The June ballot is bringing the issue of rent control back into the political spotlight in California.
Proposition 98 would protect all Californians from abuses of eminent domain, government's power to take private property, and phase outrent control.
Prop. 99 is a decoy measure that would override Prop.98 if it attracts more votes, was written by beneficiaries of eminent-domain abuse, and that the state's Legislative Analyst's Office concluded involved so little reform that it "is not likely to significantly alter current land-acquisition practices.
"Prop. 99 offers precious little protection. It wouldn't protect farmland, churches, businesses or rental properties from eminent-domain abuse. It wouldn't restrict the almost unlimited purposes for which governments can take private property, provided they provide some compensation. It leaves a gaping loophole for "blight," which includes anything government decides it doesn't like. It does notcompensate owners for fighting abuses.
So, Prop. 99's backers are trying to reframe the real reforms of Prop. 98 as an attack on renters. Renters and renters' advocates offer horror-story scenarios if rent controls were ended.
However, they omit the fact that Prop. 98 would only end rent controls after current residents leave a rental property. It also ignores the fact that rent control is simply a majority of voters (current renters) in a jurisdiction taking the property of a minority (landlords), which is why Prop. 98 includes it with other forms of government theft. Rent control is theft because it removes landlords' rights to accept better rental offers and takes away a large portion of their property's value (as shown in plummeting market values wherever controls are enacted) and gives the "savings" to current tenants (which why those tenants almost never leave).
However, tenants voting themselves $500 monthly rent reductions is no different than each of them robbing their landlords of $500 a month. But while robbery is a felony, the beneficiaries call rent control "democracyin action," as though a majority vote legitimizes theft. This can be seen by analogy to the labor market, where renters are sellers rather than buyers. Since a rent cap limits what landlordscan earn as well as what tenants must pay, the labor-marketequivalent would be a law prohibiting employers from paying workers more than, say, $10 an hour.
Renters would recognize a maximum-wagelaw as theft, even though it does the same thing rent control does to their landlords. The arguments made against ending rent control also demonstrate that it is theft.
Worries that rents would rise sharply without controls make senseonly if rents are being held below what apartments are worth (whatothers would be willing to pay). And Prop. 98 does nothing to change rents as long as tenants remain where they are, stopping only subsequent theft. Claims that landlords would evict tenants to gethigher rents or that rent control would reduce low-income housing reveal the same thing, because both scenarios assume that rents are now forcibly underpriced (they also ignore the fact that any government assistance should be financed by Californians, not forced on landlords).
Mobile-home owners complain that ending rent control would lower their home values. But that is only because rent control has transferred much of the value of the park's owners to the tenants. Prop. 98 would only undo that theft.
New Plans Being Formed: Keep an Eye On This
Why should you be interested as a Citizen:One: The City Redevelopment Agency has title to about 50 Percent of the Property and this was purchased with the treat of use of Eminent Domain or Zone Changes that limited the property owners use or sale of the property to non City Buyers or Users of the Property.
Two: The Developer Mar Ventures was the great brain trust behind an ill thought out "Outdoor Adventure Center".
Three: The City's Selection of Mar Venture Development was done without bid and an open request for Proposals.
Four: The City's Planning Department has on staff a person who double dips with outside developers.
Five: The End of Pico is where Pico Park is, and where the High School and Power Plant are intended to share traffic, air and space.
Six: Infrastructure: Streets, Lights, Sewer, Water must be put in this area at the "Developers" Cost not the City's.
Seventh: PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO BENEFIT FROM THEIR PROPERTY. THERE SHOULD BE NO FORCE or EMINENT DOMAIN USED to CAPTURE the REMAINING PROPERTY. THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE ISSUING LETTERS THAT THREATEN THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, OR FORCE CURRENT LAND OWNERS TO NEGOTIATE WITH MAR VENTURES. PERHAPS THE CURRENT OWNERS COULD BE OFFERED SHARES IN THE DEVELOPMENT. REGARDLESS THE CITY SHOULD STAY OUT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN PRIVATE OWNERS AND A PRIVATE DEVELOPER.
Friday, May 02, 2008
IS YOUR BUSINESS or HOME AFFECTED???
Meeting to be held for 215 freeway development
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/01/2008 06:10:42 PM PDT
GRAND TERRACE - A community meeting is scheduled for May 14 in which preliminary plans will be unveiled to develop a 100-acre commercial, office and residential gateway project adjacent the 215 Freeway.
"We're introducing the project and general concept. We expect to get input from the public on what they think the general uses should be out there," said Gary Koontz, the city's community development director.
He said the project is in the "very preliminary" stages, and that the city is working with developer Mar Ventures, Inc. on a specific plan for the area they're hoping is completed within the next year.
The city has been pondering the development of the land east of the 215 Freeway, south of Barton Road, west of Michigan Street and north of Pico Street for the last 20 years. It entered into a formal agreement with the Torrance-based Mar Ventures, Inc. in late 2007 to prepare a development plan for the area that would provide a strong retail base for city residents, healthy sales and property tax revenue for the city and "an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the community."
At the May 14 meeting, which will be held in the Community Room at City Hall, 22795 Barton Rd., representatives of the City and Mar Ventures will seek input and comments from citizens regarding how the area will be developed. The information gathered at the meeting will be used in developing the specific plan, which will contain development standards and issues in the area where the project is to occur.
Mar Ventures is paying for the specific plan.
Once complete, the specific plan and environmental impact report will be available for public review and comment. Public hearings will also be scheduled for the Planning Commission and city Council, where the public will also be able to provide additional comment.
The city redevelopment agency owns about 50 percent of the land, and the rest is privately owned. Mar Ventures is currently in negotiation for the remaining 50 acres, Koontz said.
The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. May 14. For more information, call (909) 430-2247
joe.nelson@sbsun.com, (909) 386-3874
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/01/2008 06:10:42 PM PDT
GRAND TERRACE - A community meeting is scheduled for May 14 in which preliminary plans will be unveiled to develop a 100-acre commercial, office and residential gateway project adjacent the 215 Freeway.
"We're introducing the project and general concept. We expect to get input from the public on what they think the general uses should be out there," said Gary Koontz, the city's community development director.
He said the project is in the "very preliminary" stages, and that the city is working with developer Mar Ventures, Inc. on a specific plan for the area they're hoping is completed within the next year.
The city has been pondering the development of the land east of the 215 Freeway, south of Barton Road, west of Michigan Street and north of Pico Street for the last 20 years. It entered into a formal agreement with the Torrance-based Mar Ventures, Inc. in late 2007 to prepare a development plan for the area that would provide a strong retail base for city residents, healthy sales and property tax revenue for the city and "an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the community."
At the May 14 meeting, which will be held in the Community Room at City Hall, 22795 Barton Rd., representatives of the City and Mar Ventures will seek input and comments from citizens regarding how the area will be developed. The information gathered at the meeting will be used in developing the specific plan, which will contain development standards and issues in the area where the project is to occur.
Mar Ventures is paying for the specific plan.
Once complete, the specific plan and environmental impact report will be available for public review and comment. Public hearings will also be scheduled for the Planning Commission and city Council, where the public will also be able to provide additional comment.
The city redevelopment agency owns about 50 percent of the land, and the rest is privately owned. Mar Ventures is currently in negotiation for the remaining 50 acres, Koontz said.
The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. May 14. For more information, call (909) 430-2247
joe.nelson@sbsun.com, (909) 386-3874
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
SAVE YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS
Supports Proposition 99
The CSEA Board of Directors voted to oppose Proposition 98- The California Property and Farmland Protection Act and support Proposition 99 – The Homeowners Protection Act; both measures will be on the June 2008 ballot.
These two ballot measures address the government’s power of eminent domain and should not be confused with the Proposition 98 education funding formula passed by the voters in 1988.
A national battle over eminent domain has been raging since a 2005 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld the right of governments to take homes for commercial development. Since that ruling, more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws.
CSEA opposes Proposition 98 because it is backed by wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners who are spending millions on a deceptive campaign to pass Proposition 98 for their own financial gain. These landlords want voters to believe that Proposition 98 is about eminent domain, but their hidden agenda is to eliminate rent control so they can make hundreds of millions of dollars by raising rents on seniors and working families.
Proposition 98 would deliver a devastating one-two punch to renters and mobile homeowners by eliminating rent control laws and laws protecting renters against unfair evictions. This would result in landlords kicking tenants out of their homes regardless of cause, therefore allowing landlords to take their newly vacated units and raise rents as high as they want.
Proposition 98 also eliminates additional renter protections such as:
60 day notice before forcing renters out of their housing,
Affordable housing,
Return of security deposits,
Seniors and disabled provisions against drastic rent increases and requirements that landlords provide ample notice before forcing seniors out of rental housing.
Proposition 98 also eliminates laws to combat global warming and protect our natural resources. It jeopardizes the state’s ability to secure new water sources to protect the environment and fuel our economy.
Under Proposition 98, CSEA members and retirees who rent could be forced out of their residences based purely on a landlord’s desire to make more money. Because of the landlord’s ability to raise rents, CSEA members would be subject to increasing housing costs which would put increasing pressure on their paychecks. In addition, this proposal would jeopardize current protections for seniors and disabled individuals from drastic rent increases and ample notice before eviction.
By contrast, CSEA supports Proposition 99 because it is a grass roots effort backed by over 1 million signatures that addresses real eminent domain reform without hidden agendas or adverse consequences. Proposition 99 would:
Prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home and transfer it to a private developer.
Place these protections in the state constitution to ensure that they cannot be removed unless by a vote of the people.
Proposition 99 is a common sense approach to eminent domain reform that balances the well-being of homeowners with government’s ability to acquire property for public use, protect public health and safety and enforce environmental standards. Proposition 99 is supported by a broad coalition of over 80 organizations made up of homeowners, business, labor, cities and environmentalists.
http://www.no98yes99.com
In Solidarity…and good health,
Benjamin Gamboa
Political Action Coordinator
California School Employee Association
Chapter #291
909.384.4308
909.825.1567 fax
Essential work Extraordinary workers
The CSEA Board of Directors voted to oppose Proposition 98- The California Property and Farmland Protection Act and support Proposition 99 – The Homeowners Protection Act; both measures will be on the June 2008 ballot.
These two ballot measures address the government’s power of eminent domain and should not be confused with the Proposition 98 education funding formula passed by the voters in 1988.
A national battle over eminent domain has been raging since a 2005 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which upheld the right of governments to take homes for commercial development. Since that ruling, more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws.
CSEA opposes Proposition 98 because it is backed by wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners who are spending millions on a deceptive campaign to pass Proposition 98 for their own financial gain. These landlords want voters to believe that Proposition 98 is about eminent domain, but their hidden agenda is to eliminate rent control so they can make hundreds of millions of dollars by raising rents on seniors and working families.
Proposition 98 would deliver a devastating one-two punch to renters and mobile homeowners by eliminating rent control laws and laws protecting renters against unfair evictions. This would result in landlords kicking tenants out of their homes regardless of cause, therefore allowing landlords to take their newly vacated units and raise rents as high as they want.
Proposition 98 also eliminates additional renter protections such as:
60 day notice before forcing renters out of their housing,
Affordable housing,
Return of security deposits,
Seniors and disabled provisions against drastic rent increases and requirements that landlords provide ample notice before forcing seniors out of rental housing.
Proposition 98 also eliminates laws to combat global warming and protect our natural resources. It jeopardizes the state’s ability to secure new water sources to protect the environment and fuel our economy.
Under Proposition 98, CSEA members and retirees who rent could be forced out of their residences based purely on a landlord’s desire to make more money. Because of the landlord’s ability to raise rents, CSEA members would be subject to increasing housing costs which would put increasing pressure on their paychecks. In addition, this proposal would jeopardize current protections for seniors and disabled individuals from drastic rent increases and ample notice before eviction.
By contrast, CSEA supports Proposition 99 because it is a grass roots effort backed by over 1 million signatures that addresses real eminent domain reform without hidden agendas or adverse consequences. Proposition 99 would:
Prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home and transfer it to a private developer.
Place these protections in the state constitution to ensure that they cannot be removed unless by a vote of the people.
Proposition 99 is a common sense approach to eminent domain reform that balances the well-being of homeowners with government’s ability to acquire property for public use, protect public health and safety and enforce environmental standards. Proposition 99 is supported by a broad coalition of over 80 organizations made up of homeowners, business, labor, cities and environmentalists.
http://www.no98yes99.com
In Solidarity…and good health,
Benjamin Gamboa
Political Action Coordinator
California School Employee Association
Chapter #291
909.384.4308
909.825.1567 fax
Essential work Extraordinary workers
Action Needed...
Why is apathy, another term for passivity, submissiveness, and even numbness, reaching epidemic proportions when it comes to social, economic, environmental, and political issues? Symptoms include lack of awareness, concern, social responsibility and action, which includes voting.
Among the factors that cause apathy is our society's orientation toward entertainment. We have become a nation of observers watching with increasing enthusiasm as the sensationalism of the show intensifies. Presidential debates have even become an integral part of the entertainment industry.
Within our own city of Grand Terrace, there is little interest in what is going on behind the scenes in City Hall, until it comes to your own neighborhood. Who is responsible for the lack of funds for children's programs, the increased density housing, increased traffic, and overall lack of freedom in our City and the disrepair of our streets and parks? The answer is City Council, who takes direction from the Planning Department and most of all City Manager, Tom Schwab. City Council votes to impose more restrictions on the citizens of Grand Terrace and then tells you about it after it has been done. I'm wondering if the purpose is just to fine as many citizens as they can to raise more money.
The botched attempt of a survey was for the sole purpose of attracting developers to Grand Terrace. The main concerns are the Barton Road Project and the Outdoor Adventure Center (or whatever they are calling it now). While Council was forcing people out of their homes by voting in eminent domain and empowering developer Jacobsen, Highgrove is building, and the High school project is being neglected.
We are now forced to increase Mt.Vernon and Michigan to four lanes to accommodate the projected traffic through Grand Terrace. This is encouraging to the present Council, as they would like nothing more than to build box stores on Barton Road to bring in revenue. The problem with this project is the impact of noise, pollution and privacy on the neighborhoods surrounding this project.
Grand Terrace is so small, but the developers who are behind major building only see dollars and the present City Council supports them.
I know the people of Grand Terrace are hard working and many travel more than an hour to get to work, find it difficult to find enough time to spend with their family, take care of their property, and make ends meet. But if the old timers aren't dethroned, we will all be forced to live with increased traffic, pollution and noise and they will be moving to quiet states with our dollars.
It will take strong citizens to turn the City of Grand Terrace back into a community for the citizens who live here. I personally would love to see lots of people run for city council and force a more democratic society. I would like to see more people who have a vision for the citizens and not themselves. I would support and vote for someone who isn't afraid to stand up and be counted. I would love to see those people who have put together the community my family enjoys - the real citizens who have put together the sports and activities involved in building a new City Council come November.
anonymous
Among the factors that cause apathy is our society's orientation toward entertainment. We have become a nation of observers watching with increasing enthusiasm as the sensationalism of the show intensifies. Presidential debates have even become an integral part of the entertainment industry.
Within our own city of Grand Terrace, there is little interest in what is going on behind the scenes in City Hall, until it comes to your own neighborhood. Who is responsible for the lack of funds for children's programs, the increased density housing, increased traffic, and overall lack of freedom in our City and the disrepair of our streets and parks? The answer is City Council, who takes direction from the Planning Department and most of all City Manager, Tom Schwab. City Council votes to impose more restrictions on the citizens of Grand Terrace and then tells you about it after it has been done. I'm wondering if the purpose is just to fine as many citizens as they can to raise more money.
The botched attempt of a survey was for the sole purpose of attracting developers to Grand Terrace. The main concerns are the Barton Road Project and the Outdoor Adventure Center (or whatever they are calling it now). While Council was forcing people out of their homes by voting in eminent domain and empowering developer Jacobsen, Highgrove is building, and the High school project is being neglected.
We are now forced to increase Mt.Vernon and Michigan to four lanes to accommodate the projected traffic through Grand Terrace. This is encouraging to the present Council, as they would like nothing more than to build box stores on Barton Road to bring in revenue. The problem with this project is the impact of noise, pollution and privacy on the neighborhoods surrounding this project.
Grand Terrace is so small, but the developers who are behind major building only see dollars and the present City Council supports them.
I know the people of Grand Terrace are hard working and many travel more than an hour to get to work, find it difficult to find enough time to spend with their family, take care of their property, and make ends meet. But if the old timers aren't dethroned, we will all be forced to live with increased traffic, pollution and noise and they will be moving to quiet states with our dollars.
It will take strong citizens to turn the City of Grand Terrace back into a community for the citizens who live here. I personally would love to see lots of people run for city council and force a more democratic society. I would like to see more people who have a vision for the citizens and not themselves. I would support and vote for someone who isn't afraid to stand up and be counted. I would love to see those people who have put together the community my family enjoys - the real citizens who have put together the sports and activities involved in building a new City Council come November.
anonymous
Monday, April 21, 2008
Where in the World is GrandPaTerrace
Friends thanks for all the email... I appreciate the input and have posted most of it....
I am fine, just have had a limit put on my efforts of late. I may be a tad bit quiet for several more months... so if you could continue to look for and report via email, I will try to get into the posting of your fine contributions.
I don't think we need to repeat issues unless there are new developments to report. I look forward to learning of any one who has taken out Papers to Run for City Council...
Be Well.
Gramps.
I am fine, just have had a limit put on my efforts of late. I may be a tad bit quiet for several more months... so if you could continue to look for and report via email, I will try to get into the posting of your fine contributions.
I don't think we need to repeat issues unless there are new developments to report. I look forward to learning of any one who has taken out Papers to Run for City Council...
Be Well.
Gramps.
RE Planning & Town Square PLAN 112222341111B
Pawww...
Is yet another upcoming meeting going on at G.T.
At 6PM of May 14th, Wed. a meeting is going to take palce in Council Room, on the development over the downtown vacant parcel.
This project has been known as Towne Square or Town Center.
The P.C. and Plan. Dept. already has problems with it. Grading and slopes being one. The supermarket pad has been moved over to extreme west end now.
There is new Money involved here now, and looks like a new lead person too. But project is at standstill. The developer needs input.
GrandPa Has to ADD:
Gee ya think the "Developer" is interested in input... shucks, I think the community has spoken loud and clear, no Large Big Box Retail, no need for another struggling Drug Store, and a Bigger Stater Brothers, with a Drug Store is not really needed in GT if the current location is left vacant... No they don't want our input... they just want us to agree with them... More Drug Stores, and we know that is really a Liquor Store in a Dress Suit. More Bars, or added traffic near school children... The Citizens have been right in the past, simply put we don't need more retail, we need to have PRODUCTIVE JOBS in GT, not RETAIL JOBS...
Paww... SHARRON ABBOT and the CITIZENS HAD IT RIGHT.... AGAIN
Heard news this evening regarding the lawsuit against Riveside Cement.
Aparently, the locals claim the blowing cement dust causes (lung) cancer.
About 3-4months ago, the company agreed to tarp all exposed piles of cement and then do some watering of the avenues also. All in a manner to control dust.
Someone got upset, and called the A.Q.M.D. on them and said "listen....!!" Riverside Cement was asked asked to show proof that cement dust did not cause the cancers. They cited some old A.Q.M.D. study.
Apparently this study was flawed in the research data, and drew wrong conclusions then too. The locals have filed suit against the A.Q.M.D. and Riverside Cememnt. "Lets see your proof, and don't show us that old 1950's study again. Lets see somenewer data" In turn the A.Q.M.D. has said this will take some time to regenerate data. The locals want Riverside Cement to either stop manufacturing cement, go out of business, do better on stopping the dust, or....
Now, as of today, the court has yet to rule if there ought to be a cease action (or manufacure of cement) .
I remember a couple years ago, that Manhole Builders and the Planning Dept. cited the same old A.Q.M.D. study. It's safe....
Sharon Abbot mentioned there had been numerous questions regarding the A.Q.M.D. back then, but data was old (like 1950's quality with an update of 1960's quality) but M.B. was shot down, however the City of G.T. Planning Dept. was still quoting this older study as proof.
Again actions of G.T. falls into place with neighbor. She had a bump of vehicles at the western most end of Newport. Is visually impacted there. Cannot see anyway except for in your auto rear view mirror. This was reported to city several months ago. Just after the building of new chain link fence along lower Vivienda. Per city staff, no problem, we know who is at fault in these instances. And we generally side with the affected local party.
Thus if you get hit, damaged (or killed) the city will then come to your defence, and state it was all the fault of...."I had thought the city was supposed to look out for or investigate possible impacts, now they backed off that until an incident happends and will point the finger as to who was wrong. Yepp. "I am sorry that ____ died because of our actions, but if you need us further in a lawsuit against _____ just give us a call and we will be therefor you with moral support."
"I am sorry that your husband died because of our actions, but if you need us further in a lawsuit against the cement company just give us a call and we will be there for you with moral support.""I am sorry that beloved one died because of our actions, but if you need us further in a lawsuit against Southern California Edison Company (or Edison International) just give us a call and we will bethere for you with moral support."
"I am sorry that mother died because of our actions,but if you need us further in a lawsuit against the actions of the City Council and City Manager of G.T. just give us a call and we will be there for you with moral support.
"Planning Commission meeting on the 17th. Expect a report. Main thing on agenda is review of General Plan(again). In early January P.C. meeting, the Director(Gary) said everything had been reviewed once or twice already (in 2007) No, meetings were planned to discuss such unless a misunderstanding came up.
Apparently some one is confused about the language as we all are.
Is yet another upcoming meeting going on at G.T.
At 6PM of May 14th, Wed. a meeting is going to take palce in Council Room, on the development over the downtown vacant parcel.
This project has been known as Towne Square or Town Center.
The P.C. and Plan. Dept. already has problems with it. Grading and slopes being one. The supermarket pad has been moved over to extreme west end now.
There is new Money involved here now, and looks like a new lead person too. But project is at standstill. The developer needs input.
GrandPa Has to ADD:
Gee ya think the "Developer" is interested in input... shucks, I think the community has spoken loud and clear, no Large Big Box Retail, no need for another struggling Drug Store, and a Bigger Stater Brothers, with a Drug Store is not really needed in GT if the current location is left vacant... No they don't want our input... they just want us to agree with them... More Drug Stores, and we know that is really a Liquor Store in a Dress Suit. More Bars, or added traffic near school children... The Citizens have been right in the past, simply put we don't need more retail, we need to have PRODUCTIVE JOBS in GT, not RETAIL JOBS...
Paww... SHARRON ABBOT and the CITIZENS HAD IT RIGHT.... AGAIN
Heard news this evening regarding the lawsuit against Riveside Cement.
Aparently, the locals claim the blowing cement dust causes (lung) cancer.
About 3-4months ago, the company agreed to tarp all exposed piles of cement and then do some watering of the avenues also. All in a manner to control dust.
Someone got upset, and called the A.Q.M.D. on them and said "listen....!!" Riverside Cement was asked asked to show proof that cement dust did not cause the cancers. They cited some old A.Q.M.D. study.
Apparently this study was flawed in the research data, and drew wrong conclusions then too. The locals have filed suit against the A.Q.M.D. and Riverside Cememnt. "Lets see your proof, and don't show us that old 1950's study again. Lets see somenewer data" In turn the A.Q.M.D. has said this will take some time to regenerate data. The locals want Riverside Cement to either stop manufacturing cement, go out of business, do better on stopping the dust, or....
Now, as of today, the court has yet to rule if there ought to be a cease action (or manufacure of cement) .
I remember a couple years ago, that Manhole Builders and the Planning Dept. cited the same old A.Q.M.D. study. It's safe....
Sharon Abbot mentioned there had been numerous questions regarding the A.Q.M.D. back then, but data was old (like 1950's quality with an update of 1960's quality) but M.B. was shot down, however the City of G.T. Planning Dept. was still quoting this older study as proof.
Again actions of G.T. falls into place with neighbor. She had a bump of vehicles at the western most end of Newport. Is visually impacted there. Cannot see anyway except for in your auto rear view mirror. This was reported to city several months ago. Just after the building of new chain link fence along lower Vivienda. Per city staff, no problem, we know who is at fault in these instances. And we generally side with the affected local party.
Thus if you get hit, damaged (or killed) the city will then come to your defence, and state it was all the fault of...."I had thought the city was supposed to look out for or investigate possible impacts, now they backed off that until an incident happends and will point the finger as to who was wrong. Yepp. "I am sorry that ____ died because of our actions, but if you need us further in a lawsuit against _____ just give us a call and we will be therefor you with moral support."
"I am sorry that your husband died because of our actions, but if you need us further in a lawsuit against the cement company just give us a call and we will be there for you with moral support.""I am sorry that beloved one died because of our actions, but if you need us further in a lawsuit against Southern California Edison Company (or Edison International) just give us a call and we will bethere for you with moral support."
"I am sorry that mother died because of our actions,but if you need us further in a lawsuit against the actions of the City Council and City Manager of G.T. just give us a call and we will be there for you with moral support.
"Planning Commission meeting on the 17th. Expect a report. Main thing on agenda is review of General Plan(again). In early January P.C. meeting, the Director(Gary) said everything had been reviewed once or twice already (in 2007) No, meetings were planned to discuss such unless a misunderstanding came up.
Apparently some one is confused about the language as we all are.
Wilden Pump News: and Employment
08:32 PM PDT on Monday, April 14, 2008
PRESS ETERPRISE
Dover Corp. combines pump companies
Grand Terrace-based Wilden Pump and Engineering announced last week itsparent company, New York conglomerate Dover Corp., had consolidated allof its pump companies under one umbrella to be headquartered at Wilden.
The newly formed Pump Solutions Group combines Wilden, which makesair-operated pumps used to move liquids ranging from chemicals to crudeoil, with three other pump companies.
Dover also announced on last week it had acquired a Lansdale,Penn.-based chemical pump company that will also be part of the Pump Solutions Group.
JOSH BROWN
NOTE:
There was an Employment Offer for a Auto Cad Designer at Wilden Pump... on Craigs List... This would save some one a long commute... Good Luck...
PRESS ETERPRISE
Dover Corp. combines pump companies
Grand Terrace-based Wilden Pump and Engineering announced last week itsparent company, New York conglomerate Dover Corp., had consolidated allof its pump companies under one umbrella to be headquartered at Wilden.
The newly formed Pump Solutions Group combines Wilden, which makesair-operated pumps used to move liquids ranging from chemicals to crudeoil, with three other pump companies.
Dover also announced on last week it had acquired a Lansdale,Penn.-based chemical pump company that will also be part of the Pump Solutions Group.
JOSH BROWN
NOTE:
There was an Employment Offer for a Auto Cad Designer at Wilden Pump... on Craigs List... This would save some one a long commute... Good Luck...
School Lot Moves Forward... Revenue Moves
For SB, new money source
Lumber yard may bring hope
Michael Sorba, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/13/2008 09:09:29 PM PDT
SAN BERNARDINO - As some city officials focus on ways to reverse $3 million in red ink, others are growing jittery over a city budget crisis looming on the horizon.
Some financial heartburn could be easing, however, as the city may have landed a major deal to bring a lumber yard to the city, considered a plum business that could draw a steady stream of sales taxes and other fees to boost the city's coffers.
City Manager Fred Wilson has said the city could be looking at a $10 million deficit for the fiscal year beginning July 1, certainly ominous news in a time when the economy is weakening.
But there could be some hope.
During a special City Council meeting in March, 3rd Ward Councilman Tobin Brinker spoke of Inland Timber, a lumber yard in Grand Terrace that has been forced to relocate after the Colton Joint Unified School District acquired the land it's located on through eminent domain.
The district plans to build its third comprehensive high school at the site. According to the city's Planning Department, Inland Timber plans to relocate to San Bernardino, at a 36.2 acre site on Orange Show Road east of Waterman Avenue.
"They're a $100 million a year business," Brinker said in a phone interview. "I want the city to help this go as quickly as possible."
With the current budget crunch, Brinker says it's in the city's best interests to work "sooner than later" to bring a new, revenue-generating lode to the city.
Inland Timber's 62 employees could also generate additional tax revenue by purchasing fuel at gas pumps for its trucks and employees, Brinker said.
The number of employees also may result in additional retail spending in the area, he observed.
This is good news, especially since city officials have attributed the current deficit to a major drop in sales-tax revenue due to the slumping economy.
Employees with the Planning Department said Inland Timber is in the process of addressing environmental issues with the site.
An item on Thursday's agenda for the city's Development and Environmental Review Committee shows Inland Timber wants to build a 5,322-square-foot, one-story office building; a 12,000-square-foot storage shed; and a 29,000-square foot-milling building at the 36.2 acre site on Orange Show Road.
The site is adjacent to the Stock Building Supply store at 595 E. Orange Show Road. Stock Building Supply is the North Carolina-based parent company of Inland Timber.
Jeff Meiter, a project manager with Associated Engineers, the civil engineering firm that will design Inland Timber's Orange Show Road project, says he's looking to wrap up the planning process in the next 30 to 60 days.
Representatives from Stock Building Supply could not be reached Friday to comment on when construction might begin.
The Colton Joint Unified School District is still in the process of negotiating a settlement with Inland Timber for the land it acquired through eminent domain, said Katie Orloff, district spokeswoman.
The district has no estimate of when a settlement will be reached, Orloff said. The district has plans to begin building the high school sometime next year, she said. "We can't build the school until they're (Inland Timber) gone," Orloff said.
Inverse the financial reality.
Grand Terrace is losing taxes and employee shopping and eating at our shops and restaurants.... and getting a financial burden with the high schools, as there will be a need for additional law enforcement, and road repair and so forth.
In addition... the Lumber Yard sold US Products, and the rush to Retail sells imported items from China... so the skimming off of the sales tax is less than a fair exchange. Perhaps the School should have been built on Barton Rd, and the Lumber Yard kept in GT.... OH... I forgot... we have Doug Jacobsen and Tom Schwab to think these things out for us....
Lumber yard may bring hope
Michael Sorba, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/13/2008 09:09:29 PM PDT
SAN BERNARDINO - As some city officials focus on ways to reverse $3 million in red ink, others are growing jittery over a city budget crisis looming on the horizon.
Some financial heartburn could be easing, however, as the city may have landed a major deal to bring a lumber yard to the city, considered a plum business that could draw a steady stream of sales taxes and other fees to boost the city's coffers.
City Manager Fred Wilson has said the city could be looking at a $10 million deficit for the fiscal year beginning July 1, certainly ominous news in a time when the economy is weakening.
But there could be some hope.
During a special City Council meeting in March, 3rd Ward Councilman Tobin Brinker spoke of Inland Timber, a lumber yard in Grand Terrace that has been forced to relocate after the Colton Joint Unified School District acquired the land it's located on through eminent domain.
The district plans to build its third comprehensive high school at the site. According to the city's Planning Department, Inland Timber plans to relocate to San Bernardino, at a 36.2 acre site on Orange Show Road east of Waterman Avenue.
"They're a $100 million a year business," Brinker said in a phone interview. "I want the city to help this go as quickly as possible."
With the current budget crunch, Brinker says it's in the city's best interests to work "sooner than later" to bring a new, revenue-generating lode to the city.
Inland Timber's 62 employees could also generate additional tax revenue by purchasing fuel at gas pumps for its trucks and employees, Brinker said.
The number of employees also may result in additional retail spending in the area, he observed.
This is good news, especially since city officials have attributed the current deficit to a major drop in sales-tax revenue due to the slumping economy.
Employees with the Planning Department said Inland Timber is in the process of addressing environmental issues with the site.
An item on Thursday's agenda for the city's Development and Environmental Review Committee shows Inland Timber wants to build a 5,322-square-foot, one-story office building; a 12,000-square-foot storage shed; and a 29,000-square foot-milling building at the 36.2 acre site on Orange Show Road.
The site is adjacent to the Stock Building Supply store at 595 E. Orange Show Road. Stock Building Supply is the North Carolina-based parent company of Inland Timber.
Jeff Meiter, a project manager with Associated Engineers, the civil engineering firm that will design Inland Timber's Orange Show Road project, says he's looking to wrap up the planning process in the next 30 to 60 days.
Representatives from Stock Building Supply could not be reached Friday to comment on when construction might begin.
The Colton Joint Unified School District is still in the process of negotiating a settlement with Inland Timber for the land it acquired through eminent domain, said Katie Orloff, district spokeswoman.
The district has no estimate of when a settlement will be reached, Orloff said. The district has plans to begin building the high school sometime next year, she said. "We can't build the school until they're (Inland Timber) gone," Orloff said.
Inverse the financial reality.
Grand Terrace is losing taxes and employee shopping and eating at our shops and restaurants.... and getting a financial burden with the high schools, as there will be a need for additional law enforcement, and road repair and so forth.
In addition... the Lumber Yard sold US Products, and the rush to Retail sells imported items from China... so the skimming off of the sales tax is less than a fair exchange. Perhaps the School should have been built on Barton Rd, and the Lumber Yard kept in GT.... OH... I forgot... we have Doug Jacobsen and Tom Schwab to think these things out for us....
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
GALATI & BLEK, LLP: Read the Blog
GALATI & BLEK, LLP are the legal advisers for AES Power Plant. One could assume they are looking out for the interests of their client by monitoring the posting on the Internet.
In the past their visits to the web page indicate that there is some kind of action taken in Sacramento that may be of interest to those keeping us posted on all things AES/HS#3 and RDA....
This seems to be the quiet period of all things Political. Remember 3 seats are up for election in November for our own City Council.
IF you think you want to run..... and bring NEW INDEPENDENT VIEWS to the City Council... PLEASE SEE THE CITY CLERK about the process. It is never to early to get started.
Remember there is no "Income" from being a member of the City Council. However, there is medical coverage, and other insurance benefits, and 200.00 per month automatic travel payments, in addition to the meeting stipend, and city paid trips and events to "Off Set" the time and efforts spent by the Council Members and to attend training and "learn to Lobby" at the larger local and national levels. Including being a member of the PAC that wants to promote the use of Eminent Domain for the use of "Economic Development by RDA's and Developers".
So if you want to represent the interests of Youth, or the Young Family in Grand Terrace, or bring a new voice and vision to the City Council.... PLEASE RUN....
In the past their visits to the web page indicate that there is some kind of action taken in Sacramento that may be of interest to those keeping us posted on all things AES/HS#3 and RDA....
This seems to be the quiet period of all things Political. Remember 3 seats are up for election in November for our own City Council.
IF you think you want to run..... and bring NEW INDEPENDENT VIEWS to the City Council... PLEASE SEE THE CITY CLERK about the process. It is never to early to get started.
Remember there is no "Income" from being a member of the City Council. However, there is medical coverage, and other insurance benefits, and 200.00 per month automatic travel payments, in addition to the meeting stipend, and city paid trips and events to "Off Set" the time and efforts spent by the Council Members and to attend training and "learn to Lobby" at the larger local and national levels. Including being a member of the PAC that wants to promote the use of Eminent Domain for the use of "Economic Development by RDA's and Developers".
So if you want to represent the interests of Youth, or the Young Family in Grand Terrace, or bring a new voice and vision to the City Council.... PLEASE RUN....
Friday, March 21, 2008
Support Prop 98.... These Folks DO...
Protect your Property Rights as a Business Owner and Home Owner...
Vote YES on Prop 98
IF ANY GT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HERO's PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS JUST LET US KNOW
Supporters of Prop. 98
Cities City of Rancho Santa Margarita
City of Westminster
Elected Officials - Statewide
Senator Jim Battin
Senator Dave Cox
Senator Jeff Denham
Senator Bob Dutton
Senator Tom Harman
Senator Dennis Hollingsworth
Senator Tom McClintock
Senator George Runner
Assemblymember Joel Anderson
Assemblymember John J. Benoit
Assemblymember Chuck DeVore
Assemblymember Ted Gaines
Assemblymember Bonnie Garcia
Assemblymember Bob Huff
Assemblymember Doug La Malfa
Assemblymember Bill Maze
Assemblymember Sharon Runner
Assemblymember Jim Silva
Assemblymember Audra Strickland
Assemblymember Van Tran
Assemblymember Mimi Walters Bill Leonard,
Board of Equalization
Elected Officials - Local Stephen Atchley,
Pomona City Council Bill Crawford,
South Lake Tahoe City Council Jack Fuller,
Oceanside City Council Kevin Hanley,
Auburn City Council Diane Harkey,
Dana Point City Council Calvin Hinton,
Pacifica City Council Sue Horne,
Nevada County Board of Supervisors Bruce Kranz,
Placer County Board of Supervisors Dan Logue,
Yuba County Board of Supervisors Jack Lynch,
Angels Camp City Council Roberta MacGlashan,
Sacramento Board of Supervisors Jeff Miller,
Corona City Council John Nicoletti,
Yuba County Board of Supervisors Chris Norby,
Orange County Board of Supervisors Brian Oneto,
Amador County Board of Supervisors Curt Pringle,
Anaheim City Council Gail Reavis,
Mission Viejo City Council David Sanders,
Rancho Cordova City Council Neil Blais,
Rancho Santa Margarita City Council Leo Trujillo,
Santa Maria City Council Robert Twist,
San Marino City Council Kurt Vander Weide,
Turlock City Council Kim Dolbow Vann,
Colusa County Board of Supervisors Larry Wahl,
Chico City Council Marie Waldron,
Escondido City Council Eric Ziedrich,
Healdsburg City Council
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Sub Business in GT gets Soggy
Sub Depot is for lease:
In the Press Ent:
Sub Shop for Lease.... Sign Lease only......
Barton Rd... Grand Terrace.... and a phone number and address...
Yep. The "Redevelopment" of Down Town, having a Sub Way, move into Grand Terrace stressed a Existing Family Owned Business.... Sub Depot.....
Is this fair Competition.... was the Government of Grand Terrace's Relationship with Doug Jacobsen in anyway party to this?
We should judge the Benefit of New Development as good if and only if EXISTING BUSINESSES also Benefit from the New Development.
Let's Hope what ever business is in Grand Terrace can survive the Additional Development being Pushed by the City of Grand Terrace RDA and Doug Jacobsen. The Chamber of Commerce should be thinking about this rush to additional development as it will reach a saturation point for all types of businesses.
In the Press Ent:
Sub Shop for Lease.... Sign Lease only......
Barton Rd... Grand Terrace.... and a phone number and address...
Yep. The "Redevelopment" of Down Town, having a Sub Way, move into Grand Terrace stressed a Existing Family Owned Business.... Sub Depot.....
Is this fair Competition.... was the Government of Grand Terrace's Relationship with Doug Jacobsen in anyway party to this?
We should judge the Benefit of New Development as good if and only if EXISTING BUSINESSES also Benefit from the New Development.
Let's Hope what ever business is in Grand Terrace can survive the Additional Development being Pushed by the City of Grand Terrace RDA and Doug Jacobsen. The Chamber of Commerce should be thinking about this rush to additional development as it will reach a saturation point for all types of businesses.
GT: City Council .... Putting the Mark on Graffiti-ists
The City Council has moved to make the tools of Graffiti a Code Violation..
This will make it possible for the possession of a marking pen to justify an arrest or search.
I support the idea that Graffiti is a bad thing. The City Council finds it Ugly and lowers Property Values. I see it as a sign of other criminal activity, and I would rather allow the Graffiti be the smoke that the sheriff follows to the more serious crimes. BUT, to make every one with a marking pen a suspect is a stretch. Some Teachers, Shop Owners, or others may have a valid reason for having a sharpie in their possession.
So does this new Code truly serve the goal of the Citizens and City? We must give this and all "New Codes" and "Old Codes" a critical thought as to how an over reaching government could use the Code to breach your Human Rights.
There will be most of you who say.... hey it is a can of paint, a sharpie, or a marking pen... what are you getting all upset about...
Well, I for one do not think that more government or codes will fix the graffiti problem. Address the economic stress in the community, homes and living is costing us to much. Address the lack of attention paid to Youth between ages of 12 to 18. Pay attention and arrest drug dealers and users amongst us. Enforce Loitering and Trespassing Laws and Codes already on the books... There is no need for additional Codes about pens and cans of paint.
I do agree that any parent who has a youth or young adult with a spay can collection who is later found to be painting graffiti, should be publicly humiliated for their lack of parenting skills and shamed as a family, and required to provide not money as restitution, but TIME... picking up trash, removing weeds in curbs, and other tasks while wearing a sign that says. "I raised a Graffiti Artist... I am a bad parent... This is my Graffiti Artist Son... His work is on a Public Place NEAR YOUR HOME... AND a BIG SIGN should be painted and put in their yard for a few months, and on each of their cars...
PUBLIC SHAME for this may be the answer to this conduct, if it is not tied to anyother criminal activity.
This will make it possible for the possession of a marking pen to justify an arrest or search.
I support the idea that Graffiti is a bad thing. The City Council finds it Ugly and lowers Property Values. I see it as a sign of other criminal activity, and I would rather allow the Graffiti be the smoke that the sheriff follows to the more serious crimes. BUT, to make every one with a marking pen a suspect is a stretch. Some Teachers, Shop Owners, or others may have a valid reason for having a sharpie in their possession.
So does this new Code truly serve the goal of the Citizens and City? We must give this and all "New Codes" and "Old Codes" a critical thought as to how an over reaching government could use the Code to breach your Human Rights.
There will be most of you who say.... hey it is a can of paint, a sharpie, or a marking pen... what are you getting all upset about...
Well, I for one do not think that more government or codes will fix the graffiti problem. Address the economic stress in the community, homes and living is costing us to much. Address the lack of attention paid to Youth between ages of 12 to 18. Pay attention and arrest drug dealers and users amongst us. Enforce Loitering and Trespassing Laws and Codes already on the books... There is no need for additional Codes about pens and cans of paint.
I do agree that any parent who has a youth or young adult with a spay can collection who is later found to be painting graffiti, should be publicly humiliated for their lack of parenting skills and shamed as a family, and required to provide not money as restitution, but TIME... picking up trash, removing weeds in curbs, and other tasks while wearing a sign that says. "I raised a Graffiti Artist... I am a bad parent... This is my Graffiti Artist Son... His work is on a Public Place NEAR YOUR HOME... AND a BIG SIGN should be painted and put in their yard for a few months, and on each of their cars...
PUBLIC SHAME for this may be the answer to this conduct, if it is not tied to anyother criminal activity.
Friday, March 14, 2008
City Council of Grand Terrace Is A Part of this :....
Long Beach Press Telegram Blasts League of CA Cities "Slush Fund"
The League of California Cities and their redevelopment allies face continuing critisism for their use of taxpayer dollars to finance a political campaign against property rights protections. The Long Beach Press Telegram says, "voters are used to big-spending campaigns aimed at swaying their decisions at election time, but they shouldn't have their own money used against them. That's what seems to be happening on the issue of eminent domain."
The Press Telegram explains the League's improper use of public funds, saying, "the contributions are coming from the associations themselves, not directly but, they say, from such sources as seminars and advertising revenue in their magazines. But public money at least partly supports those sources. It's a convenient way to create a political slush fund that should be illegal if it isn't already."
The League of California Cities and other public agency associations have spent nearly $4 million dollars from their anonymous so-called "non-public funds" accounts to finance opposition to Proposition 98, a eminent domain reform ballot measure that will restore private property rights protections in California .
Click here to read the full story.
How Can I Help?
Forward this email to 10 friends.
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper - click here for talking points.
Support - click here to join the coalition.
The League of California Cities and their redevelopment allies face continuing critisism for their use of taxpayer dollars to finance a political campaign against property rights protections. The Long Beach Press Telegram says, "voters are used to big-spending campaigns aimed at swaying their decisions at election time, but they shouldn't have their own money used against them. That's what seems to be happening on the issue of eminent domain."
The Press Telegram explains the League's improper use of public funds, saying, "the contributions are coming from the associations themselves, not directly but, they say, from such sources as seminars and advertising revenue in their magazines. But public money at least partly supports those sources. It's a convenient way to create a political slush fund that should be illegal if it isn't already."
The League of California Cities and other public agency associations have spent nearly $4 million dollars from their anonymous so-called "non-public funds" accounts to finance opposition to Proposition 98, a eminent domain reform ballot measure that will restore private property rights protections in California .
Click here to read the full story.
How Can I Help?
Forward this email to 10 friends.
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper - click here for talking points.
Support - click here to join the coalition.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Dont Tread On Me... Limit Ement Domain USE
THE FACTS ABOUT: Proposition 98.
California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act. California Constitutional Amendment. Protect property rights for all Californians.Californians for Property Rights Protection is a coalition of homeowners, family farmers, small business owners, and other property owners (small and large) led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, and The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. Together, this powerful coalition has qualified Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA), for the June 3, 2008 ballot.
The CPOFPA is a constitutional amendment. Changes to the constitution made by this initiative can only be made by a majority of voters in the state, not the State Legislature. Summary of key provisions in the initiative: Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (e.g. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).
Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (e.g.. freeway construction, parks, schools). Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (e.g. 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.
However, tenants who live in rent-regulated communities will continue to receive the benefit of those regulations as long as they live in their residences. Key Issues:The Constitution of the State of California provides that "All people by nature are free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property . . ."
Proposition 98 reaffirms and strengthens the private property protections set forth in our state constitution. Property rights are a fundamental, core value among California voters. Statewide survey research shows more than 67% support for an eminent domain reform ballot initiative - Republicans, Democrats, independents, seniors and baby boomers all support the initiative. Enhanced farmland protections provided in this amendment increase support for this measure among environmentally concerned voters. Prohibiting sale or lease price regulations protects property owners when they sell or lease their property to others. At the same time,
Prop. 98 protects current tenants from unanticipated increases in their rents. Nothing in Proposition 98 would prohibit or limit legitimate land use decisions, zoning, work place laws, or environmental protections. Nor would it expose public agencies to costly litigation.
THE Leauge of Cities' flawed measure, Prop. 99 lets YOUR PROPERTY BE TAKEN IF YOU HAVE LIVED IN IT LESS THAN A YEAR, or IF IT IS A FARM OR OPEN SPACE.... IT DOES NOT PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY.... IT IS A FAKE. (Of course this is the one OUR City Council will Support as it will give them MORE POWER OVER YOUR PROPERTY than the Prop 98 does.) Do not be FOOLED...
VOTE FOR PROP 98 in JUNE>>>>>>
California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act. California Constitutional Amendment. Protect property rights for all Californians.Californians for Property Rights Protection is a coalition of homeowners, family farmers, small business owners, and other property owners (small and large) led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, and The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. Together, this powerful coalition has qualified Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA), for the June 3, 2008 ballot.
The CPOFPA is a constitutional amendment. Changes to the constitution made by this initiative can only be made by a majority of voters in the state, not the State Legislature. Summary of key provisions in the initiative: Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (e.g. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).
Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (e.g.. freeway construction, parks, schools). Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (e.g. 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.
However, tenants who live in rent-regulated communities will continue to receive the benefit of those regulations as long as they live in their residences. Key Issues:The Constitution of the State of California provides that "All people by nature are free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property . . ."
Proposition 98 reaffirms and strengthens the private property protections set forth in our state constitution. Property rights are a fundamental, core value among California voters. Statewide survey research shows more than 67% support for an eminent domain reform ballot initiative - Republicans, Democrats, independents, seniors and baby boomers all support the initiative. Enhanced farmland protections provided in this amendment increase support for this measure among environmentally concerned voters. Prohibiting sale or lease price regulations protects property owners when they sell or lease their property to others. At the same time,
Prop. 98 protects current tenants from unanticipated increases in their rents. Nothing in Proposition 98 would prohibit or limit legitimate land use decisions, zoning, work place laws, or environmental protections. Nor would it expose public agencies to costly litigation.
THE Leauge of Cities' flawed measure, Prop. 99 lets YOUR PROPERTY BE TAKEN IF YOU HAVE LIVED IN IT LESS THAN A YEAR, or IF IT IS A FARM OR OPEN SPACE.... IT DOES NOT PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY.... IT IS A FAKE. (Of course this is the one OUR City Council will Support as it will give them MORE POWER OVER YOUR PROPERTY than the Prop 98 does.) Do not be FOOLED...
VOTE FOR PROP 98 in JUNE>>>>>>
Saturday, March 08, 2008
EXPERT REVIEW OF THE 16,000.00 SURVEY
Dear GrandPa:
After consulting 2 statisticians, of which one is a Ph.d., here is some scientific opinion of the Grand Terrace Community survey.
The Problem(S) with Probolsky Survey Design:
The Grand Terrace Community Survey was an opportunity for the city to gauge the opinions of its residents, using statistics as a basis for assessment. Although some portions of the evaluation were correct, other parts of the study reflected poor statistical design, leaving the entire survey open to scientific scrutiny. Listed below are the major comparisons.
Probolsky Design
· Random sample size of 300 based upon names from registered voters only
Better Design
· Random sample size of 300 based upon names from water or electricity bill
Probolsky Design
· Responses generated only by home phone
Better Design
· Responses generated by phone, mail, and web
Probolsky Design
· Poor statistical analysis, with no statistical tests to show differences between subgroups
Better Design
· Stronger statistical analysis, including weighted percent corrections for biased (skewed) samples
Probolsky Design
· Proper framing of questions about the library; bias shown to those about eminent domain, the power plant, and the senior center; use of leading questions
Better Design
· Proper framing of questions, with no bias to issues; use of “Do you agree or disagree…”
Probolsky Design
· Open-ended questions followed by closed-ended question, with exclusions to respondents that weren’t informed on the issue in few questions
Better Design
· Open-ended questions followed by closed-ended question, with exclusions to respondents that weren’t informed on the issue in all questions
Probolsky Design
· Language of eminent domain question was complex
Better Design
· All questions simple
Probolsky Design
· One survey, that is generalized to reflect the opinions of all residents
Better Design
Pilot study or focus group to eliminate bias and complex questions, followed by a properly executed survey
First, although the sample size of 300 was statistically correct, the population of those surveyed was limited only to registered voters, restricting the number of randomly determined surveyees to only those on the voter roles. A truly random population could have better been derived from names from the water or electricity bill. Recall, that “random” means that each resident has the equal probability of being chosen by chance. Yet, if the sample only included registered voters, then immediately non-registered voters were eliminated from the population, creating a bias.
Second, the population of those surveyed was further restricted to only those who had a home phone, and answered that phone between a narrow span of only 4 days. A better design would have allowed random responses from phone, mail, and the web; as much as 20% of residents are estimated to use only their cell phone, rather than home phone.
Third, the survey lacked strong statistical analysis to truly show differences between subgroups. For example, in the raw data tables, the demographics of age groups 35-54 and income group of 100,000+ represented the majority of those surveyed. These groups skewed the data. In addition, proper statistical corrections, such as weighting or log values were not done. Rather, only percents were totaled and grouped, further weakening the data. A better method of analysis would have used stronger statistical tests for true comparisons of differences.
Fourth, only some of the questions were properly framed with an open-ended structure, followed by a closed-ended formation, allowing only respondents who were knowledgeable about a particular issue to respond. This structure properly created a statistical climate in which only those who used the library, for instance, could respond. In addition, the question about the library was one of the few that were not biased or misleading. On the contrary, questions about eminent domain, the power plant, and the senior center were set up to be leading, or the wording was too complex to be understood. A better design would have used questions that were not biased and that included “Do you agree or disagree…”
Finally, the results of this survey should be taken with a grain of salt. Rather than making the survey out to be a generalization of the opinions of all residents of Grand Terrace, the survey should be regarded (upon further completion of statistical analysis) as a pilot study. A better method would have included a focus group first, followed by the actual survey, for that focus group would have eliminated bias and complex questions. Next time, use the science of statistics to get more value for your $16,000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
