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.
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.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Thursday, January 13, 2005
9 Comments:
Aren't the parcels of land that you are speaking of zoned for single family homes? If that is the case, I would welcome the change in zoning to whatever would allow the current golf range to remain in business. Also, if they can provide more parking for the downtown business district on the remaining land instead of cramming more houses in, I would be in favor of that too. It appears that some people who are printing this stuff have a lot of hostility towards government in general and their comments reflect a lack of understanding about lots of issues.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, January 16, 2005 8:47:00 PM
Perhaps Travis can help me to understand what those personal interests are. When I read the comments from people who are involved in the recall effort, I hear complaints about too many houses, too much traffic, not enough infrastructure which would include parking lots. It would seem to me that changing the zoning on this parcel of land to allow for something other than houses is not conflicting with the will of the people. In fact, it is acting, in responsible fashion, on the will of the people. So, back to my question for Travis, what self-interest would any of the councilmembers have regarding this issue that conflicts with the will of the people?
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:23:00 PM
If Mr. Anonymous would be so kind as to look at the zoning map for that section of Murrieta, he or she will no doubt see that the area in question is zoned ER-2, or max. 2 dwelling units per acre. This is hardly the high density type of development that would contribute overmuch to traffic problems along the Washington corridor. This zoning does, however, make it much more difficult and expensive for the City to use eminent domain to steal people's property.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:40:00 PM
So with about 30 acres of land available at 2 houses allowed per acre that would create enough room for about 60 more houses. I thought the argument was that there were too many houses being built. 60 houses is 60 houses. Somewhere I heard that the trips created per day for a house was about 10 so that would add another 600 trips per day for an area that many argue can't take anymore traffic. I would think that the trips per day being created by the golf range would be substantially less. The original commentary on this appeared to accuse the mayor of having his own interests in mind while ignoring what the citizens are saying they want. I don't see some big conspiracy, I see a representative trying to accomplish something that a majority of the citizens would like to see. Again, I'll take a nice green golf range and some additional parking over any amount of houses. I'll bet if we put that to a vote in the community, that's what the community would want too.
Also, I read in the paper the other day that the suit on the daycare was almost completely thrown out. The attorney gave their lawyer 30 days to come up with some evidence on the last count. It doesn't appear that the suit has much legal merit.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:41:00 PM
From my experiences over the last almost 15 years of living here in Murrieta, Mayor VanHaaster has attempted to purchase land in/around Old Town for his own benefit. Basically, the Mayor can't be trusted to have anything but his personal interests or that of his family take priority over the desires of the people. It seems that he is willing, along with his daughter, to increase traffic and congestion in an already very problematic area around Murrieta Valley High School, Thompson Middle School, and Creekside. Mr. Seyarto and Mr. McAllister were more concerned with the "feelings" of the mayor's daughter during public comments, than listening to the public. Mr. Seyarto says he will not be swayed on any decisions by the "small minority" and yet he decides to do a "personal observation" of the traffic situation in and around the schools and decides, in his opinion, that a daycare would have no impact on the area, other than to provide a needed service. Why not have the daycare location in Old Town? Why not have the daycare on the Madison corridor or near the low income apartments, or near the latest group of condos on Adams? One thing is for certain. Mr. Seyarto is so blinded by his personal need for a feeling of power and authority, he can't even see traffic when he's stuck in it. One would think the recall signatures would get the attention of those involved. Instead, they seem more determined than ever to fight for their own special interests and the developers that back them. Mr. Seyarto and his buddies need to "re-educate" the citizens of Murrieta? I don't need re-educated. I've watched the lack of responsible growth, the lack of listening and the lack of respect they show the citizens. I've watched Mr. Seyarto in particular, imply he knows what is best for us, the citizens. I've watched and experienced his condescending ways and it's time he faced the facts. More people want him out of office than he ever received in voting him into office. One would think such an "educated" person could see the writing on the wall and do the math.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:06:00 PM
Just because the mayor and his family have the "right" to build a daycare on the proposed property, does not make it RIGHT for the city or the rest of us who already fight traffic on the West side.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:07:00 PM
It is expected that VanHaaster will try to ramrod maximum self-interested council decisions through before he gets booted out. Now's the time to look real carefully at his antics.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:06:00 AM
The issue raised in this blog, I thought, was about bringing land up for rezoning without the owners consent. This is an issue if/when the Mayor does it but the issue escapes those members of GPAC who have done the same-multiple times. i.e. Tomosian, Levenger, Butler, Denstedt. Is there a legitimate reason for the requests other than agenda's? That's what should be asked.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, January 29, 2005 9:35:00 PM
I would appreciate it if anonymous who posted the last comment would provide substantiating evidence to support the claims of multiple zoning manipulations by Thomasian, Levenger, Butler, and Dennstedt. If true, We need facts. I don't want this blog to turn into a mudslinging venue. (though these bouts are entertaining)
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:38:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home