MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.

Friday, January 28, 2005

The Sykes Ranch House

Pulte Homes, who is developing the Vineyard housing tract on the west side has offered $100,000 to the city so that they can demolish the Sykes Ranch House. It seems a couple "consultants" have decided for us Murrietans that the building isn't worth saving. Perhaps not, but it sure seems like another developer trying to homogenize Murrieta culture into a typical SoCal town model. For profit.

I think that permission to demolish historical structures in Murrieta should be based on mitigation, not on a laughingly meagre cash offering. The type of mitigation I am talking about is one historical building goes but another one gets refurbished. We still have the old school and the mill standing. Is the city that hard up for cash to where they want to pawn our old buildings and throw away the ticket?

According to Laura Mitchell, the original project by Greenhill development had set aside 5 acres in the center of the project to preserve the house, windmill and barn. With the house gone, isn’t Pulte free to build more houses, at a profit far in excess of $100,000? The original agreement should stand or their permit to build should be revoked.

By the way, the Vineyard area is zoned SP215, I wonder what that means?

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Here’s some info I would like to share:

According to the Riverside County registrar of voters, in the Nov 4th election in 2003, out of 14,723 votes cast for city council, Councilman McAllister was elected with 2,955 votes. In this same election Councilman Enochs received 3,158 votes. In the Nov. 6th, 2001 election out of a total of 15,975 votes cast, Councilman vanHaaster received 2,463 votes, Kelly Seyarto received 2,413, and Councilman Ostling received 2,212. In the 2000 census, Murrieta had 44,282 residents, it is estimated by ESRI GIS that at the present time, Murrieta has grown to a population of 72,000.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger ousted Gray Davis in 2003, he received 70.38% of the 403,408 votes cast. This was interpreted to be a mandate for Arnie to fix California.

You will have until April 18th, 2005 to register to vote or update your registration information before the May 17, 2005 election. You can register online at http://www.election.co.riverside.ca.us/ .

Murrieta Unified School District

Citizens For Responsible Government

Rescue Murrieta

Zoning Districts

In case anyone was wondering what all this zoning gibberish was about, (i.e. should a parcel in the general plan be allowed to be re-zoned from ER-2 designation to C/I), the title of this post has a link that will take you to the development code section of the Murrieta municipal code. It is available online or you can obtain a copy from the city. Enjoy!

Section 16.06.010 Zoning Districts Established.

The city of Murrieta shall be divided into zoning districts which consistently implement the general plan. The following zoning districts are established and shall be shown on the official zoning map (16.06.020).

TABLE 2-1 - ZONING DISTRICTS

Land Use & Zoning Map Symbol
General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District Name

Residential designations:

RR - Residential Rural 0.1- 0.4 d.u./acre (dwelling units)

ER-1 - Estate Residential 1, 0.5-1.0 d.u./acre

ER-2 - Estate Residential 2, 1.1-2.0 d.u./acre

ER-3 - Estate Residential 3, 2.1-3.0 d.u./acre

SF-1 - Single-Family 1 Residential, 2.1-5 d.u./acre

SF-2 - Single-Family 2 Residential, 5.1-10 d.u./acre

MF-1 - Multi-Family 1 Residential, 10.1-15 d.u./acre

MF-2 - Multi-Family 2 Residential, 15.1-18 d.u./acre

Commercial designations:

PC - Professional Commercial

NC - Neighborhood Commercial

CC - Community Commercial

RRC - Recreational/Resort Commercial

RC - Regional Commercial

MU-1 - Multiple Use-1, Golden Triangle

MU-2 - Multiple Use-2

MU-3 - Multiple Use-3

Industrial designations:

SI - Special Industrial

BP - Business Park

GI - General Industrial

Special Purpose Zoning Districts:

P&R - Parks and Recreation

PR - Private Recreation

OS - Open Space



ZONING DISTRICTS

Land Use & Zoning Map Symbol
General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District Name

Special Purpose Zoning Districts:

C/I - Civic/Institutional

SP - Specific Plan

Combining and Overlay Districts:

SP - Specific Plan

MPO - Master Plan Overlay


(Ord. 182 § 2 (part) 1997) – details of these symbols are in sections 16.8, 16.10, 16.12, 16.14, and 16.16 of the Murrieta municipal development code, title 16.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

California Environmental Quality Act

The following is a message from Nancy Knight:

The conspiracy theory is bogus. The truth is that Warnie and I both support the voices of the people as does Richard Ostling. That is a threat to the powers that put Seyarto, van Haaster, and McAllister in office.

Warnie has a very different viewpoint and rationale for his decisions. I have analyzed the General Plan and know there is more to approvals than just the zoning aspect of Land Use. If more councilmembers would look for where the developer's projects failed in the stipulations of the other aspects of the General Plan we would not be in the situation we are today with traffic congestion. We have been failing the stipulation of the General Plan's Circulation Element for a long time but the voting block has continued to approve more houses and high density apartments and condominiums which only compounded the problem.

Staff has the ability to write a report that supports denial of a project just as easily as a negative declaration that supports a project. They proved that to me with the Meadowlane project on Adams. The initial study and negative declaration was so biased toward the developer it was easy to argue the project based on CEQA law. Even the developer finally admitted it was a bad study and had the city hire a new consultant to redo the initial study. The point is that staff had written a biased report even though the initial study was highly flawed. Who do you think they work for?

The Meadowlane project on Adams is 159 units by Horton Continental in the midst of estate residential housing that has been here for over 30 years. The public outcry convinced Youens (just before the November 2003 election) to vote with Enochs and Ostling and the project was denied. Staff turned their report around and gave their "findings" for denial. Van Haaster had other ideas and he knew he would get a second chance to approve the project if he got Youens convinced that he could negotiate money from the developer for a street improvement. The money was minimal of course and the developer's agreement left the burden to do the street improvements on the City. Van Haaster got his second chance at a vote and Youens was so misinformed he didn't even know what was happening but he flip-flopped his vote and the project was approved. Then in November van Haaster turned on Youens and did a major campaign to support McAllister.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the protection that citizens have against overdevelopment. Unfortunately the city attorney and the council voting block refuse to cite CEQA law to deny projects. Instead the city attorney leaves us open to law suits because the hearings do not cite CEQA arguments in the administrative record (what they call the documents and testimony given at the public hearing). That is why the City attorney is always telling the council the developer will sue. If the city attorney was working for us he would give the council CEQA reasons for denial. Maybe our attorney does not know CEQA law well enough to protect us.

Warnie and Dick Ostling know a good project when they see one. Most these days are not good for the community and that is why they vote no. The people get emotional but they do not know how to argue a project in terms of CEQA law. That is what it takes together with a city attorney who can defend the citizens based on law rather than threaten the council that they will be sued.

I think that is what the developers are afraid of. Someone gets in there with CEQA case law to object to projects and they are finished here.

This Recall is not a power play by Warnie and Nancy, it is a power play by the people of the community who feel the impact of not following the General Plan.

- Nancy

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

To Fix Murrieta.

It would be good to hear some commentary or bios from candidates who will be running in May’s recall election. This includes those who are defending their places on the council, McAllister, Seyarto, and VanHaaster. Look at this blog in the coming months for candidate’s plans to fix Murrieta.

Some Parcels to be Rezoned. . .

Barbara Nugent requested that I post this. There is information regarding current zone change requests and commentary by concerned citizens is sought:

To Murrietans,
Let me know if any of these properties are a special concern to anyone; if there are concerns that should be presented to the GPAC Committee, etc. Again, this is a good meeting to attend - you can learn a lot from the discussions and see how people present themselves, what their agenda might be, etc.
Barbara N.

AGENDA - General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) - January 10, 2005

6:00 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 26442 BECKMAN COURT, Murrieta

All meetings are scheduled to end no later than 10:00 P.M.

At approximately 9:00 P.M., the Committee will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M., and may continue all other items that will require additional time until a future meeting.

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Adoption of Minutes - (Action Item) - None

5. Correspondence - (Information Item) - None

6. Public Comments - Any member of the public may address the Committee during the public comments portion of the agenda on items within the Committee's jurisdiction that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. However, the Committee can take no action on matters that are not part of the posted agenda. A time limit of three (3) minutes may be applied on each individual addressing the Committee. Any individual or group desiring to make a presentation to the Committee of more than three (3) minutes in length must make arrangements with the Planning Manager in advance.

7. Consideration of Land Use Map Change
Requests-Continued from November 8, 2004 (Action Items) - 6:00 p.m.

Site #41 - Northeast Corner of Jackson Avenue and Fig Street: The applicant, Advantage Consultants, is requesting a change from Business Park (BP; 0.40 Floor Area Ratio) to Single Family 1 (SF-1; 5 DU/Ac.). The site is an 8.8-acre parcel.

8. Consideration of Land Use Map Change Requests – New (Action Items) - 7:00 p.m.

Site #36 - Northwest corner of Adams Avenue and Brown Street: Donald Vierstra requested a change from ER-1 and MU-3 to ER-2 for his 4.2-acre parcel. The remaining five (5) parcels were added to this request by the City Council. At a recent City Council meeting it was agreed that the split zoning should be reviewed by the General Plan Advisory Committee. The six parcels total 30.2 acres.

Site #1 - East of Jefferson Avenue and north of Lemon Street: The applicant, Lennar Communities, is requesting a change from Business Park with Master Plan Overlay (BP w/MPO) to Multi-Family 1 (MF-1) for 50.76 acres.

Site #24 - Northwest corner of Washington Avenue and Vineyard Parkway: The owners, Konstantions & Maria Melahoures, are requesting a change from ER-2 to a commercial zone for a 5.9-acre parcel.

Site #49 - Northwest corner of Kalmia Street and Washington Avenue: The request by Mayor vanHaaster is to change 23.92 acres from SF-1 to a C/I and open space zoning designation.

Site #47 - North of Kalmia Street and on the west side of Washington Avenue: The owner, Arlea Johnson, is requesting a change from Single Family 1 (SF-1) to a commercial zone for a 0.58-acre parcel.

Site #50 - West side of Jefferson Avenue and south of Lemon Street: Neil Farr made the original request after discussions with his neighbors about changing the zoning from ER-2 to a commercial designation. Four of those neighbors have also asked to be added to this request for a change to a commercial zone. The five parcels total 3.07 acres

9. Committee Member Comments - 8:45 p.m.

10. Adjourn - 9:00 p.m.

Staff Liaison: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
Consultant: David Lepo - (909) 461-6414
Hogle-Ireland, Inc.

If you own or know someone who owns properties in these areas, we'd like to hear from you, good or bad.

Monday, January 24, 2005

Code Enforcement

I saw some city code enforcement guys moseying around old town yesterday. Has anyone been served with a blight notice yet? If so, it would be good to hear about it.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

"It seems that...."

There has been too much "it seems that" in this recall. There are definitely many possibilities; VanHaaster and MacAllister are/are not operating their council seats with a blind eye towards conflicts of interest, Enochs has/has not been deliberately kept out of the mayoral slot, RM is or is not a power grab by Enochs and Nancy Knight. The nonsense is building up by the hour and unless some unspun truths come out, by the time of the election this town will be completely polarized between those who value developer money and those who value quality of life in Murrieta.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

We Need Proof!

I would just like someone to provide proof that Mr. Enochs is or is not involved with Rescue Murrieta. If Enochs could manage this skillfully to keep it a secret in this small town, he should get a job working for the CIA.

Another thing that I would like to know is whether he is involved or not is at all relevant. The facts about both sides need to come out. The people in this town are not idiots and I think they have minds of their own to evaluate what both sides have to say and reach their own conclusions.

Right now with VanHaaster's seeming improprieties, the imminent domain threats that are looming, and the continued chaos on Murrieta's streets, I would say the ball seems to be in Rescue Murrieta's court.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Disengenuine

Most of the public commentary was highly critical of the three councilmembers. During Kelly Seyarto’s address, it became quickly apparent to the audience that he still refuses to believe that this recall isn’t a conspiracy created by Warnie Enochs.

Tom Butler delivered a blistering speech to the council that raised eyebrows on both sides of the room. In other news, during one of his speeches, Kelly Seyarto gave out with an interesting malapropism that I think he should have copyrighted, “Disengenuine” I think I’ll use that one myself from time to time.

Recall date set

There was still much debate about the schedule of the recall election clashing with tax season, and both sides, the sooners and the laters, had valid points. No one bothered to mention that if the three council members would just resign, they could do their taxes free of any additional demands on their time. The downside being that the City would be operating with only a two-man council until the three replacements could be elected and trained. You decide whether this is a good or a bad thing.

The City Council, after deliberating awhile followed Doug McAllister’s secondary motion to hold the recall election on May 3rd. (the registrar of voters indicates that the election is slated for May 27th). Though there is insufficient time to put full measures on the ballot before this, the council agreed to include advisory questions on the ballot. One of these might be a slow growth proposal, but because it is advisory, the results would not be binding on whatever council is sitting after the election.

In the event of a tie between two or more replacement candidates, instead of having a runoff election at a cost of an additional $70,000, the Council and the spectators at the Jan. 18th Council Meeting agreed to yield to Riverside County election rules. According to these rules, if there is a tie between candidates, the contest will be decided by drawing lots.

Hot Asphalt vs. Cold Patch

According to Tom Holston, there is not enough hot asphalt to be found to properly patch the roads that are torn up by construction, necessitating the use of easily degraded (and inexpensive) cold patch on all potholes. Does that sound like a contractor put-off or what?

Great speeches to the city council

The following is a speech I gave in front of the City Council on Jan. 18. There were some great speeches from both sides of the issues and it would be great if the people who gave them could e-mail me the text of them at jockodinbuster@yahoo.com so I could post them here. (don’t forget authorship credit)

In the previous council meeting, Councilman Seyarto suggested that other measures should be found to add to the recall ballot to get more value out of the 80,000 dollars spent. I would like to suggest at this time that a slow-growth initiative would be just such a measure. Many towns like Fillmore, in Ventura County are currently in similar situations to Murrieta’s, With new building outstripping infrastructure, they have brought forth a slow growth initiative called “SOAR” which stands for Save Open Space And Agricultural Resources. These measures require all future rezoning decisions be subject to voter approval at normally scheduled local elections. A measure such as this will not bring things to a screeching halt in Murrieta, but it will slow down the building just long enough for infrastructure to catch up. Thank you.

Contact Information

These are from the Murrieta City Website: http://www.murrieta.org/

Lori Moss (lmoss@murrieta.org)
City Manager
461-6010

Elena Bloxton (ebloxton@murrieta.org)
Executive Secretary
461-6010

Al Vollbrecht (avollbrecht@murrieta.org)
Sr. Mgmt. Analyst
461-6003

Can anyone tell me what a Senior Management Analyst does?

Teri Ferro
Deputy City Manager


Jim Holston
Deputy City Manager


Chris Paxton
Deputy City Manager

Here’s some info I gleaned from the web regarding our illustrious downtown builders. You can go to https://www.dca.ca.gov/dca/secure/gencomplaint.htm and file a complaint online. Maybe enough complaints at the state level will get these bozos to speed it up.

From the Contractor’s State License Board (CSLB) website.

Search: GRIFFITH COMPANY

Result: http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=88

Griffith Company - Ca. Contractor’s License #88
Issued 9-24-1929/reissued 9-01-2000/expires 9-30-2006
Griffith Company
P.O. Box 2150
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Bus. Telephone #(562) 929-1128

Class A – General Engineering Contractor
Class B – General Building Contractor
Class C-8 – Concrete
Class C-12 – Earthwork and Paving

Hazmat Cert. HAZ
Hazardous Substances Removal

Search: YEAGER SKANSKA

Result: http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=140069

Yeager Skanska Inc. Contractor’s License #140069
Issued 8-03-1953 – Expires 5-31-2006
Yeager Skanska Inc.
P.O. Box 87
Riverside, CA 92502-0087
Bus. Telephone #(909) 684-5360

Class A – General Engineering Contractor
Class B – General Building Contractor
Class C-57 – Well Drilling (water)

Tell your friends and neighbors about this weblog.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Slow Growth Initiative

The City Council expressed a desire to put other items on the recall ballot to get maximum value out of this special election. Here’s an idea, how about a slow growth initiative?

Mayor VanHaaster attempts rezoning without property owner's consent.

There are parcels along Washington North of Kalmia (Golf Driving Range) that Mr. Mayor VanHaaster wishes to change from it’s current multi-use status to “institutional”. The reasoning behind this zoning change is supposedly to create a park and parking lot for the city center that is yet to be built and to the “Historic Downtown” area. If you want to replicate the old town theme exactly like Temecula, you got to have parking. Is there other benefits inherent in the “Historic” designation?
The current owners of these parcels, long, long-time Murrieta residents, indicated that they had no intention or desire to make this zone change. The zone change came at the request of Mayor VanHaaster, and was originated independent of current property owner’s input. Now why would he want to do this?
Perhaps he is considering a new location for the hotly debated daycare center? He would have a good reason if he wanted to avoid the class action lawsuit currently against him. Since the current property owners are resisting the re-zoning, there is a possibility of another imminent domain land grab by the city taking place.
Look back here in the upcoming days for more information on the status of the “blight” designation that is threatening to turn many old town residents out of their homes in the near future.

Blight Designations from "murrieta old timer"

The following post is a comment from “Murrieta Old Timer” about the blight issue. If you live in old town you might want to give it a read.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT YOU CAN LOSE YOUR HOME, PROPERTY OR BUSINESS TO THE CITY OF MURRIETA?

How? Murrieta Redevelopment plan has instituted in it a BLIGHT clause “to eliminate the conditions of blight existing in the project area and to prevent the recurrence of blighting conditions in the project area.” The agency would exist to eliminate these conditions of the property, which gives them the police power to file eminent domain against your Home, Property Or Business.

What is Redevelopment or RDA and how does it work? To eliminate alleged blight, a redevelopment agency, once created, has four extraordinary powers held by no other government authority:

1. Tax Increment: A redevelopment agency has the exclusive use of all increases in property tax revenues ("tax increment") generated in its designated project areas.

2. Bonded Debt: An agency has the power to sell bonds secured against future tax increment, and may do so without voter approval.

3. Business Subsidies: An agency has the power to give public money directly to developers and other private businesses in the form of cash grants, tax rebates, free land or public improvements.

4.Eminent Domain: An agency has expanded powers to condemn private property, not just for public use, but to transfer to other private owners.

These four powers represent an enormous expansion of government intrusion into our traditional system of private property and free enterprise. Under redevelopment, "public use" now includes privately owned shopping centers, auto malls and movie theaters. "Public use" is now anything a favored developer wants to do with another individual's land. Eminent domain is used to effect what once were purely private transactions. Its use nearly always favors large developers at the expense of small property owners. In a typical redevelopment project, a developer is given an "exclusive negotiating agreement," or the sole right to develop property still owned by others.

Once such an agreement is made, small property owners are pressured to sell to the redevelopment agency, which acquires the land on behalf of the developer. If refused, the agency holds a public hearing to determine "public need and necessity" to impose eminent domain. By law, this must be an impartial hearing. In reality, the agency has already committed itself to acquire the property for the developer, so there is little doubt of the outcome.

Whole areas of cities have been acquired, demolished and handed over to developers to recreate in their own image. Historic buildings, local businesses and unique neighborhoods are replaced by generic developments devoid of the special flavor that once gave communities their identity.
Can this happen to downtown Murrieta?
Yes it can…
Typical is the experience of Anaheim. Having demolished its historic central business district in the mid-1970s, the redevelopment agency recently hired consultants to help restore the identity of a downtown that no longer exists. "The complete eradication of the traditional business district has left nothing for the community to relate to as their downtown," admits an internal city memo.
How do they do that?
A developer will look to areas that have future potential, an area that has a redevelopment plan in process. The developer will approach the cities RDA, with complete demographics of the area as well as projected potential for future income to the cities’ coffers by way of sales tax, proving that the business or residences they have to offer will benefit the city much more than the present owners home or business. Again proving this is for the “good of all of the public”, justifying the need for condemnation of the property in question. The cities RDA will then make an agreement with the developer and should the developer fail at acquiring the property(s), business or home then the agency will implement condemnation and proceed with eminent domain. The developer will then approach the owner, offering to purchase their property, business or home. Should the owner(s) accept, business owners are compensated and relocated, but often in distant areas far from their established customer base. Cut off from the community that nurtured them, they often cannot survive.
Unfortunately, the property value is based lower because they are located in a blighted area, this is bad for the owner but good for the developer. The developer is able to purchase at deflated prices, knowing full well that values will triple once the project is in place. But the property owner oft-times is not given enough recompensation to relocate in the city or area they once had, because the amount of the sale is well below what the market will bear.
Should the property owner choose not to sell, then as stated above, the city will enforce a police power through their Code enforcement referring to such conditions as a “public nuisance” and implement the process of condemnation & eminent domain. Small property owners have little chance to participate in redevelopment projects. Consultants and redevelopment planners prefer to work with one huge parcel under a single ownership. Entrepreneurs and homeowners just get in the way.
What is the real truth about Blight?
Basically Blight is anything that is considered undesirable in a city’s eyes, and can constitute condemnation.
California is one of the most active states in condemning properties for the benefit of other private parties. In California, before a city can condemn land and then transfer it to another private party, it must approve a local redevelopment plan and designate the area as blighted. After these two steps, eminent domain can be used against any and all properties within the area. Owners who do not want to be condemned in the future need to challenge the redevelopment plans in their City, in what is called in California a validation action.
Alarm bells should go off when you hear…
“This is a great project”, and “Eminent domain will only be used as a last resort.” That just means that if the residents or businesses don’t agree to sell, eminent domain will be used. “We’ll take care of you.” You may be willing to move if there is sufficient compensation, that’s fine, but don’t be fooled by any oral agreements as to what will happen. If you don’t have it in writing, it doesn’t mean anything at all. On the whole, while there may be a few exceptions, anything that a government employee tells you is not binding on the government agency. “We want to include you in the redevelopment project area, but you won’t be condemned.” Even a written promise that you will not be condemned can’t be enforced later if the government changes its mind. For compensation issues, the only protection is to get it in writing. For condemnation, the only protection is to make sure the agency does not have the power to condemn and that means making sure you are not in the redevelopment area or the agency is not authorized to do condemnations.
Murrieta City Code enforcement is a basis for use of blight. Go to the local police department and ask to see the code enforcement brochure. If your property(s), home or business has any of the violations, they will be enforced and can be used against you as a justification to eliminating your property from the down town project area.
A word about deadlines and dates:
You may receive notices or other information in the mail. You should look at these notices to see if they mention that you must do something by a certain date or in a certain time. A lot of times, owners will see something like this, worry about it for a week, perhaps ask someone about it, wait another week, and then miss the deadline. DO NOT IGNORE DEADLINES. In law, if you miss a date to do something, you may lose important rights.
Discussions between the City and developers:
Discussions at a Redevelopment Agency or City Council about a possible project,
And/or news stories about the possibility of a project: These are the first rumblings about a potential RDA project. When you hear these, start organizing and making it clear that there will be massive citizen opposition to any effort to take people’s property.
Public hearings about designating an area as blighted or a redevelopment zone:
This will happen in some situations but not in others. It is possible to condemn property without a blight designation. Often, however, when the government wants to take away your property, it will designate the property as “blighted.” The advantage of a blight designation (from the perspective of the government) is that once the designation is in place, the government can take property at will within the area. Most Cities refer to designating a property as blighted, but it could also be a designation of the area as an “urban renewal zone,” “redevelopment area,” or something similar.
It is very important to appear at these public hearings and object vigorously to the designation of your property as blighted. Introduce pictures of the properties and even video to show that the property is not blighted. Think of any other evidence that would show the area is thriving, including information about retail sales, lack of crime, property taxes paid, physical improvements you have made. You want to put all of that evidence into the record. It’s helpful to have pictures, video and documents—something more than just testimony, although you want that also. If you can afford it or someone will do it for free, ask an expert to do a study showing that the property is not blighted. Finally, the developer has usually commissioned a study that will claim the area is blighted. Go through it with a fine-toothed comb. Then present every inaccuracy, including as much documentation as you can that the information in the study is false.
Vote that the property or area is blighted:
Once there has been a vote that the property is blighted, you need to know your State’s law on challenging blight designations. In some states, you have 30 days to challenge the designation. In some states, you have 60 days. And in other states, you do not bring the challenge unless and until the government tries to condemn your property. Obviously, it is very important to know what category your state falls into, because you may need to bring a legal challenge very soon. Contact the city manager to find out how long you have.
Hearing on authorization of eminent domain:
In some states, this eminent domain hearing is combined with the hearing on whether the property is blighted. In other states, it is not. In any case, you obviously need to make sure you appear at the hearing and present as vocal and powerful an opposition to the authorization of eminent domain as you possibly can. Cities can authorize redevelopment projects and funding without authorizing eminent domain.
Vote that eminent domain is authorized:
As with the hearing, the vote authorizing eminent domain may or may not be combined with the vote that the property is blighted. In a few states, you will have 30 days, or some other short period of time, to challenge the authorization of eminent domain. In most states, you will challenge eminent domain if and when the city tries to take your property. However, make sure you know if you need to bring a challenge immediately.
An appraiser comes to visit:
That means that the government is going to figure out how much it thinks your property is worth and then make you an offer to purchase it. In some states, the government must give you a copy of the appraisal. In others, that is not required. In most states, you must allow the appraisal to take place. However, there are some states where you can refuse. Also, if the government has no statutory authority to condemn your property at all, you may be able to refuse to let the appraiser on your property. If you want to exclude the appraiser, it’s a good idea to consult a lawyer. Finally, in most states, you can require that the city “indemnify” you for letting the appraiser in. For example, if you own a machine shop, you may want to ask the city to release you from any liability in case the person slips or injures themselves on the visit.
“Good faith” negotiations:
The government is required to at least try to purchase the property from you voluntarily. Representatives of either the government or the developer will approach you and make you an offer to purchase your property. If you wish to, you can talk to them. These negotiations can occur at any time & may also occur sometime during the public hearings process. However most important to realize, get everything in writing, anything spoken by word of mouth can be disputed, again GET IT IN WRITING!
Government files a condemnation action against you:
You will receive a document that indicates it has been filed in court. It may be called a “notice of taking,” “statement of taking,” “statement of compensation,” or something else. However, if it indicates that it has been filed in court, this is probably the beginning of a lawsuit against you to acquire your property. It is possible but very difficult and inadvisable to defend against a lawsuit without an attorney. If you want to fight the condemnation, you should find an attorney at this point.

- Murrieta old timer.

Monday, January 10, 2005

Political Capital

If this weblog is going to work, we’ll need to see less use of the “anonymous” or “handle” type of commentary. If we own our comments and stand by our convictions, than there is no reason not to use our real name (unless you work in city hall). The more comments and posts we get, the more political capital the old towners will have in this upcoming RECALL election!

If anyone has articles they would like me to post, you can e-mail them to me at jockodinbuster@yahoo.com. I can only post the ones that have sound factual backing for the same reason that Barbara and Ed had to insist on keeping things to the facts.

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Water Board Meeting

The Murrieta County Water Board meets Tuesday night at 7:00 at the MCWD facility on Ivy. If you have any problems with MCWD, or you just want to meet the people you voted for, this is a good opportunity.

Keep 'em coming

There have been many comments on this blog about the rape of old town Murrieta. “MurrietanEyes” brings up some valid questions about the apparently self serving politics of Mr. VanHaaster. If this was the old West it would be like forcing farmers to sell their land on the cheap by blocking their access to the watering hole. “tdragon” would like to know more info about Temecula’s role in the development of Murrieta, specifically with regards to cement plants and surface roads. Other comments address issues regarding our councilmembers and the RECALL.

In other news, it seemed to me at the last council meeting that the block boys were actually surprised and a little hurt by the RECALL. Mr. VanHaaster gave Mr. Seyarto and Mr. McAllister unlimited time to address their unhappiness about it to the meeting at large, though Mr. VanHaaster had admonished Mr. Enochs earlier about taking up too much time. With the RECALL election on its way, perhaps these councilmembers might be finally starting to see that Rescue Murrieta is not a small group of rabble rousers, but a group that has enabled the many enraged Murrietans to focus their rage where it actually belongs; the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Murrieta who have NOT been representing the citizens of Murrieta.

Saturday, January 08, 2005

Old Town Businesses Waterlogged

Nice day for it.

Property Rights? What About Property Responsibilities?

There has been much said about property rights in the battle for the future of Murrieta. I agree that in this country, property rights are indeed important. People have the right to utilize their property for the betterment of their fortunes, it’s what this country is founded upon. There’s one little problem. Where does property rights end and property responsibilities begin? As an example I would suggest weed abatement. If a property owner neglects this duty and his or her lot becomes overgrown, the eyesore of an overgrown parcel gradually becomes a fire hazard for itself and for adjacent properties. In other words, one owner’s neglect of responsibility can risk the integrity of all.

When a property owner wishes to cash in on the value of their empty parcel, they certainly possess the right as an American to do so. But with this right comes the responsibility to ensure that this suggested improvement, i.e. housing tract, strip mall, etc. does not adversely effect the integrity of surrounding properties or the community as a whole. There’s the rub, because the lines between rights and responsibilities are extremely subjective, and the rights of the city council representing the citizens, to make the determination between how much or how little civic improvement is required is frequently brought into question.

The owner would like to sell or build with an eye towards maximum profit, and any demands from the city for improvements or mitigation are resented. The city, in its role as protector of the public’s interests, must require these improvements and mitigations from the property owners for the good of the citizens at large and for the long term. The city must assume that a property owner’s intentions, whether to continue as a resident or to take their profits and move to Switzerland, will indeed effect the city for the long term.

The one-sided assumption that property rights are an absolute must be re-evaluated with an eye towards the long-term health of the city containing this property. There are two sides to every coin. When devising or making changes to a city plan, it must be acknowledged by all property owners within city limits that their property rights are still subject to the good of the whole of its citizens. This also applies to adjacent areas potentially effected. I would like to suggest however, that there is a substantial difference between the good of the whole and the good of the majority. Property responsibilities are subjective, but only with consideration of potential effect on traffic, schools, police/fire protection, and the many other factors involved, and this at just the neighborhood level.

When a city grows past a certain point the need for these systems and all other required city systems to mesh efficiently becomes much more important. The correct balance of commercial, residential, and multi-use property must be maintained. Access and protection for the good of all citizens is of paramount importance. This can only be accomplished with efficient planning, not for the next two years, but for the next two hundred.

The scornful reference to “not in my backyard” by any citizen must be taken much more seriously than in the past because the availability of alternate locations and routes is becoming reduced daily. And just so, this “NIMBY” citizen must also consider, “If not here, where else?” The perception of the city as a component of the global village is not merely hype. It is merely that the size of the backyard where these things are not has become much larger than anyone could imagine.

Friday, January 07, 2005

Public Transit

Murrieta is desperately in need of a public transit system. It would help to ease at least some of the congestion on Murrieta city streets, but only if people use it. It is hard to tell if people would use it because the RTA commuter link bus service in Murrieta is only picked up 4 times a day between 4:13am and 6:39 in front of Wal-Mart and dropped off between 6:05 and 7:28. There is also a bus that goes to the Oceanside Transit center at similar times. If there is any other local transit systems in place I would like to hear about it.

I recently visited San Francisco. Arguably one of the best public transportation systems in the world. I was surprised at how quickly I started to appreciate life unburdened by a car. There was no place that the buses, trains, and trolleys didn’t go and the longest wait I had was about 10 minutes. Most of the time I didn’t even need to change busses. Can you imagine that kind of public mobility in Murrieta?

CDBGF Funds

The doling out (allocation) of Community Development Block Granting Funds at the January 7th council meeting was a haphazard affair with the big winner being the St. Martha’s Catholic Food Bank. Though St. Martha’s Food Bank is a worthy cause, there were other causes just as worthy that were sparsed because of this. Out of $27,750.00, St. Martha’s got over 17,000. The Murrieta Humane Society got zero. In a country where there is supposed to be separation of church and state, this prop to an organization that is already extremely well funded all the way back to the Vatican has me a little concerned. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is perfectly acceptable for school children to say the pledge of allegiance in the old way, but St. Martha’s is a very wealthy parish, and the other non profits (the ones that bothered to show up) were also doing good things in the community that needed funding. Why the favoritism towards St. Martha’s?

Thursday, January 06, 2005

Is The Recall a waste of money?

The signatures are approved and at the city council meeting last Tuesday, Kelly Sayarto, Jack VanHaaster, and Doug McAllister, the council members who will be subject to recall, postponed setting a date for the election until the next city council meeting. The council has allotted $80,000 to pay the expense of conducting this special election which should take place sometime in April. Also during this meeting, the council passed a measure giving Griffith Construction an additional $50,000 to cover the increasing cost of concrete and steel. The contract Griffith signed makes no mention of this obligation on the part of the city. However, during this emotional meeting, Warnie Enochs mentioned something that I think it important that all Murrietans understand. That is that the signatures are in and this recall election WILL be held. There is no stopping it now. Kelly Seyarto suggested that since the money has already been spent, that the council should try and rustle up some other initiatives to include on the ballot so us taxpayers can get more bang for the buck. Please give your comments on the recall election. This divisive issue is generating a lot of negative energy in this town and hopefully, with a neutral place online like this blog, the two perspectives on this issue can communicate and maybe even resolve some of these issues.

Welcome

I have created this blog as a place for all Murrietans to post facts and opinions concerning the city and the people of Murrieta, California. Please keep your comments well thought out and civil. The point of this blog is to communicate openly about the issues in Murrieta and hopefully to come up with solutions to them.


 
Google