Why Rescue Murrieta? By Ed Faunce

Recalls happen when citizens become so fed up over an issue that they explode into action. When Rescue Murrieta (RM) exploded into existence, it was because Murrietans sensed that they had lost any meaningful control over our City’s massive development. But just taking a whack at the current City Council members will not bring permanent change unless RM stays involved beyond this recall effort.
RM members realize that it’s not enough for residents to restrict their involvement to voting for the City Council candidates. Murrietans have been there, done that. It doesn’t work! City Council election results show that incumbents are often returned to office even though the total number of votes for their opposition candidates exceeds the vote for the incumbent. But with so many candidates splitting the opposition vote, the incumbents are reelected without a mandate.
In fast developing areas, like Southwest Riverside County, residents’ predominant complaint is that developer interests always seem to get the upper-hand over residents’ concerns. And why not? The developers are constantly vigilant identifying acceptable candidates and supporting them financially. Ordinary residents, who are trying to cope with busy schedules, raising families, commuting to work, and paying the bills, cannot individually devote their time and effort to supporting candidates.
So what’s the answer? Are we Murrietans forever condemned to just complain about how we - the ordinary residents - aren’t heard? Isn’t there something we can do that will ensure that our interests are paramount with our elected representatives?
RM believes that there is a new idea in town. RM asks, what if the residents actually organized? You know, businesses have their Chamber of Commerce why not a Chamber of Residents? What if Murrieta residents formed a Political Action Committee, a PAC? What if Murrietans formed a nonpartisan PAC whose mission is to identify those residents among us willing to be our representatives? What if Murrietans were involved in the grooming, selection and financial support of their future elected leaders? And then, what if thousands, even tens of thousands, of Murrietans voted for their endorsed candidates? It would be a 10.0 quake on the political landscape.
Murrietans would be organized, on a long-term basis, for selecting and running our own representatives for the City Council, the School Board, the Water District Board, etc. Murrietans could plan initiatives to cover such issues as term limits, campaign contributions, rate of growth, quality of businesses developed and the like. But wouldn’t the developers simply outspend Murrietans? Wouldn’t the developers defeat our efforts by running their own candidates and pouring in their financial contributions? Wouldn’t the developers go outside the City, even outside the County, to get the finances to whip us?
In fact, the developers are already doing exactly that. The Southwest County Taxpayers for Responsible Government (we call it "Developers’ Inc.") has raised 40% of its reported $111,000 from outside of Riverside County. Developers’ Inc. But Developers’ Inc. has raised only $320 from individual Murrietans.
RM has raised $5,000, nearly all of that from individual Murrietans. When RM’s $5,000 contributions are compared to the Developers’ Inc.'s miserly $320, isn’t it clear that RM is the overwhelming choice of individual Murrietans?
But the Developers’ Inc. still has a financial advantage of $106,000. Why does RM still believe it can prevail over such financial excess? Because there is one thing individual Murrietans control that the Developers cannot touch. That one thing is the BALLOT BOX.
If Murrietans join RM, support this new kid in town in its efforts to find and endorse suitable candidates and then vote for those RM endorsed candidates, the Developers Inc. can spend all the money they have - THEY WILL NOT WIN.
When that happens, it will be the "shot heard round California." You will be sending the message that pay-to-play development is over in Murrieta! Those Murrietans are "Mad as Heck," and they aren’t taking it any more! Murrieta is no longer for sale!
If you agree with these ideas, then join RM and register to vote, vote a permanent absentee ballot and vote for the RM endorsed candidates. We live here! We will defend our City!
Edward Faunce, Rescue Murrieta Spokesman

Cash is a weird thing.

$80,000 for a recall election is supposedly bad, but racking up another $12 million in bond debt is good.

The city council has granted themselves permission through the Murrieta Redevelopment Agency (of which they are members) to issue $12 million dollars in bonds to pay for infrastructure improvements.

Great! You say, we’ll finally get some things fixed around here. It would be nice!

One snag, The MRDA has control of Murrieta acreage to the tune of 1100 acres that could be declared urban blight areas (more info in other posts to this blog and the purple title link). The MRDA is empowered to condemn these properties and take them away from the current owners with the use of eminent domain. They are also allowed to give the land to other businesses along with rebates, free improvements, and outright cash grants. Increases in property taxes in these areas are used at the sole discretion of the MRDA and are supposedly used to pay back the bonds, almost $25 million worth of them.

Having a friend on the MRDA will be like owning a piece of the rock.

Another snag, if the MRDA loses access to these funds, the bonds will have to be paid back with city general funds that would otherwise go to the Murrieta police and fire departments.

Our kids are going to be stuck with horrendous property taxes because us parents let this happen. If Seyarto really cared about affordable housing in Murrieta, why would he help to put such an enormous tax burden on young home buyers?



- To “Actively market available sites in Town Square” – this is one of the stated 2004-05 goals of the Murrieta economic development department. My question is, who defines what “available” means? I think we already know the answer to that.

These sound very much like facts...

I'm pretty sure that if Nancy Knight posted a comment on this blog, she would use her real name. Follow the purple link for more info.

ALERT !!

Another post on behalf of Ms. Nugent:

A notice for alcohol sales at the Rite Aid located at the corner of Cal Oaks and Jackson was posted on Feb. 11.   It is immediately adjacent to Cal Oaks sports park and a short distance from Shivela Middle School.   If you are not aware or don't remember, in October 1999 the City Council denied an application by Rite Aid for the sale of alcohol at this location.  Due to the proximity with the park and school, the denial was based on the City Ordinance in place at the time of the application.  During the public hearing, numerous residents, including members of the PTSA, spoke against the application for alcohol sales.

In the past, the City of Murrieta Development code was actually stricter than the State of California Business and Professions code with regard to alcohol sales near homes, schools, parks, churches, etc.  This past April, the planning commission and city council changed the city development code to allow alcohol sales near schools, parks, etc., as long as the building was over a certain size.   The city does not issue a liquor license, only the Department of Alcoholic Beverages (ABC) issues or denies the license application.  Below is the section from the California Business and Professions Code that applies to this situation.  Once protests are filed and verified, the application may be denied, or there may be a hearing by the ABC. 

Since the denial of the application, other then the City Ordinance, the only thing that has changed since 1999 is the usage of the park is higher due.  Due to the exploding population of Murrieta, and since it is the largest park in the City, many more youth leagues and civic organizations use the park these days.  The park is also used as a host location for many youth sports tournaments, bringing in people from outside of Murrieta.  In addition, the adjacent and un-developed parking lot located at the rear of store provides for perfect and concealed consumption area, especially during night hours.

Our City's low crime rate can be attributed to the restrictions such as the current non-sale of alcohol at this Rite Aid store.  If Murrieta's distinction for low crime rate is to continue, then restrictions in place today must continue to be in place tomorrow.  And the only way to do this is to write a letter to the ABC in protest of the application.

Letters must be received by the ABC within 30 days of the notice of posting.  This means all letters must be received by no later then March 11th.  Attached is a form letter you can you use to file the protest.  Fill in your name and address where indicated and mail it today.

 If you have questions you may contact the ABC in Riverside at 782-4400.   Also, cc the letter to the Riverside office at 3737 Main Street, Suite 900, Riverside 92501 (the original letter goes to Sacramento).

Business Code:

23789.  (a) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the
issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within the immediate vicinity of
churches and hospitals.
   (b) The department is specifically authorized to refuse the
issuance, other than renewal or ownership transfer, of any retail
license for premises located within at least 600 feet of schools and
public playgrounds or nonprofit youth facilities, including, but not
limited to, facilities serving Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or Campfire
Girls.  This distance shall be measured pursuant to rules of the
department.

Bon Voyage to Kelly's Coward.

Mr. Seyarto has managed to intimidate a person who disagrees with him into no longer contributing to this blog. Kelly's Coward posted many interesting counter views to Mr. Seyarto, but Mr. Seyarto has built an impenetrable wall around himself and his actions that Kelly's Coward gave up trying to breach. An exchange of ideas to this man is a one-way process, all outward. However, Mr. Seyartro has posted enough commentary onto this blog that any Murrieta citizen who wants to know the true Kelly Seyarto, need only read them to form a pretty definite opinion of what kind of man he is. Bon Voyage, Kelly's Coward.

Mr. Seyarto says...

Mr. Seyarto has posted many challenges to reveal real names on this blog. I feel he has done this in an attempt to intimidate people and disrupt communication between citizens of Murrieta. In one comment he mentions slander, but I think an examination of many of Mr. Seyarto's letters, forums and posts on this blog will suffice to reveal a man in a glass house preparing to throw stones. He obviously feels that he has vastly improved the lifestyle for citizens of Murrieta, and any challenge to this image he has built of himself is taken very VERY personally. So continue to post anonymously. It is better to voice an opinion than to be bullied into silence.

A message from Ms. Nugent

Good morning everyone,

Two important meetings this week - the GPAC on Monday at 6 pm City Hall, and then the City Council meeting on Tuesday, 7 pm, City Hall. 

 Mark your calendars and make the time to attend.  The GPAC should have an interesting agenda and you will see two of our candidates there as Rick Gibbs is Vice Chair and Gary Thomasian is a voting member  on the committee.

 Word is that the Chamber of Commerce  is going to continue speaking out against the Recall at Council meetings and making efforts to derail attention from the trio to Warnie, etc.  We need to be there to speak about staying focused, our issues and concerns....... and the Public Forum 3 minutes is a wonderful way to keep pounding away.   I am speaking on a consent item - the Redevelopment Agency second series bond issue for over $12 million dollars!    Review the agenda, make the time to come and learn what is going on currently in our city and see the process in action.  One visit to a meeting and you will understand why we are so involved and so adamant that changes must occur in our Council. 

 Also check out the www.rescuemurrieta.com to read new comments, take the Wildomar Annexation poll, learn about the candidates Rescue Murrieta is backing for City Council.   We need your help, your active participation, and appreciate your willingness to answer the calls we make on your time.  Hope to see you this week at City Hall.

No intimidation allowed.

Could everyone who posts anonymously please put a distinct number at the end of the "anonymous" or get handles so others can follow thought chains more effectively? Thanks.

Properties up for re-zoning at Monday's GPAC

General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) - February 14, 2005 - 6:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 26442 BECKMAN COURT, Murrieta

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

Site #22 – Southwest corner of Washington Avenue and Hawthorne Street: The owner’s representative, Ernest Perea, is requesting to keep the current ER-1 zone, but to add the Master Plan Overlay for this 29.2-acre site. The APN for this site is 909-090-005.

Site #32 – East side of Washington Avenue, between Guava Street and Fig Street: GPAC committee member, Dan Lovinger, is requesting a change from Special Industrial zoning to a commercial, industrial, light industrial or business park zone. The owner of APN 909-060-032, Buck Kemmis, and the owner of APN’s 909-060-017, 041, 045 and 046, Terry Lovinger, are requesting a change from SI to General Industrial (GI: 0.4 Floor Area Ratio). The ten (10) parcels in the request total 68.2 acres.

Site #33 – West of Washington Avenue, north of Elm Street, and north and south of Guava Street: GPAC committee member, Dan Lovinger, is requesting a change from Rural Residential (RR; 2.5 Acre Residential Lot Size) to Business Park (BP; 0.4 Floor Area Ratio) for 11 parcels totaling 103 acres. The owners of APN’s 909-100-050 and 051, Gary and Patty Bruesch, made a separate request to change their zoning from RR to BP.

Site #40 – Northeast corner of Washington Avenue and Guava Street: Debbie Smith, the property owner, is requesting to change the zoning from RR (2.5 Acre Residential Lot Size) to Business Park (BP: 0.40 FAR). Records show the property was previously zoned BP. The APN for this site is 909-180-009.

These are the replacement candidates thus far:

Andre Hurst, VP Franciscan Health Care System, to replace Douglas R. McAllister.

Nancy Knight, publisher, to replace Douglas R. McAllister.

Jon Sparks, Attorney, to replace Douglas R. McAllister.
(RM endorsed)

Gary Thomasian, dental technology business, to replace Kelly Seyarto.
(RM endorsed)

Jerry Rice, newspaper feature editor, to replace Kelly Seyarto.

Robert Ross, 677-2679 business owner, to replace Kelly Seyarto.
(indicated papers would not be filed)

Brenda Dennstedt, Water District Director, to replace Kelly Seyarto.

Casey Evans, 698-6498 businessman/helicopter pilot, to replace Jack van Haaster

Rick Gibbs, retired Air Force officer/businessman, to replace Jack van Haaster.
(RM endorsed)

Some possible first steps

Finger pointing is not nice, but occasionally it must be done when trying to locate the true cause of a negative effect. When we as a community are in a state of damage control as I believe Murrieta is, we are hard pressed to find solutions to the past mismanagement. There is no magic bullet that is going to make everything okay.

These are four steps that I feel a newly elected replacement for city council would likely do (if we choose the right one)

Step 1 - To have a long heart-to-heart with Lori Moss, and other city employees to determine if they are truly qualified to hold the positions they now hold, and to determine what county, state and federal funds are available to Murrieta, as well as determining whether the funds available are being applied where they would properly maintain and upgrade Murrieta infrastructure.

Step 2 – Review of all planning decisions made over the last two years to determine if all fee burdens have been met by developers and if there is any environmental impact information with regards to permit issuance that has been improperly addressed.

Step 3 – An honest appraisal of all the hatchet-work that has been done to the general plan and to find which modifications are not permanent. This to design an exit strategy that will steer Murrieta back on course towards the spirit of the original city plan.

Step 4 – To modify the language in future construction contracts to stiffen what is meant by a “qualifying bidder” and to reconcile the city attorney’s job performance, especially when applied to advisory statements to council members with emphasis put on permit issuance and conflicts of interest.

Rationale

There have been persistent attempts made by those who have endangered their jobs in the Murrieta City Council. These are attempts to try and point fingers anywhere but at themselves. Especially when facing criticism on their handling of the office granted to them by the town’s citizens. Because of this defensive response, there has been much mudslinging, but no corresponding acceptance of personal responsibility is taking place. I joined the recall effort because I saw the Murrieta that I have lived in since 1987 being buried under cookie-cutter developments, unchecked population growth, and rapidly deteriorating infrastructure.

That said, I will attempt to explain what I feel are the real reasons behind this recall: This recall is not a power grab, nor is it motivated by revenge. This recall has come to pass because enough people thought that the council was doing a bad job. When they went to council meetings to try and voice their dissatisfaction, they were silenced. Contrary to popular belief, Rescue Murrieta did not really create this recall, they just provided a focal point for the people’s frustration. Do I agree with the recall? Not completely, but it was something that would have never occurred if the council had been taking care of people instead of (developer) business. RM needed one thing to get this recall on the ballot, angry people. The unapproachable arrogance of the Murrieta city council provided 8,000 of these.

I don’t care how much of a baldfaced liar someone might be, if they tell me something is so and put a signature sheet in my face, I will (and do) ask what the signatures are about, get information and if necessary research the issue further before signing. There were many like me who asked for information one day, researched what they were told and came back the next day to sign the petitions. For some, the conditions of the streets was enough. Citizens who are denied any voice to stop the deterioration of their town will find a way to take back control. This recall is on the ballot May 3rd for this very reason.

If you must find someone to blame for the $80,000 cost of this election, look no further than the five seats in the council chambers. They have been at the helm and have steered us right into a storm, but we are the ones who must navigate back out of it. We cannot allow bad government free reign any more. If we Murrietans vote yes on this recall, it will send a tangible message to this and future city councils; “don’t ever forget about us citizens again.”

No Means "NO"

There was some vocal opposition to the annexation of Wildomar at the Feb 1st city council meeting, this and the next several posts offer a simple paraphrase of what was said. The first speaker, a businesswoman and new joinee to the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce likened Murrieta’s repeated attempts to annexation of Wildomar to a masher who wouldn’t take “NO” for an answer. Good analogy.

A simple minority

Another woman (I haven’t obtained permission to use names) quoted statistics from 2 opinion polls presented to LAFCO. Together they indicated that out of a field of a little more than 3,000 signatures, only 29 favored annexation.

A dry sense of humor

A Wildomar man spoke ironically about how grateful he is for all the paved roads, police protection and other amenities in Wildomar that Murrieta taxpayers will be paying for. He estimated that the only tax burden that Wildomar residents would have to pay is $130 per year with the rest of the burden falling on Murrieta taxpayers. Why is it exactly that we want to annex Wildomar? To expand the zone of buildout perhaps?

Un-neighborly conduct

A man wondered why Murrieta city could not extend the same courtesy to Wildomar in allowing them to become an independent city that Temecula gave to Murrieta. It does seem rude, doesn’t it?

Its all in the marketing

In other speeches, Barbara Nugent mentioned getting a phone call from a firm called “pro marketing”. The person at the other end of the line was soliciting opinions about the recall. The telemarketer would pose scenarios and would request an opinion about it. The questions she cited were: “if you supported the recall, would you be upset if your taxes went up? . . . Your police and fire protection were reduced? . . . Your schools were deteriorated as a result?” Ed Faunce also mentioned fielding a call such as this, but when he mentioned his name, the line went dead. They weren’t the only ones who were called, anyone care to relate their experiences with pro-marketing?

Don't ever call me here.

A lady who had received a call from pro marketing wondered where they had obtained her phone number, mentioning that her family had registered on the “don’t call” registry and pro marketing was breaking the law. She was incensed and demanded who was responsible.

Cash donation to RM gets applause in chambers

A lady representing those opposed to Wildomar annexation donated $1,020 to Rescue Murrieta.

Can we declare a do-over?

Two candidates endorsed by Rescue Murrieta, Gary Thomasian and ? Sparks ( he didn’t mention his name at the podium) introduced themselves to the council. Councilman Seyarto suggested that a debate between the new guys and the guys at risk of being fired take place. Later during the pulled items public commentary, a man stated that a debate would be unnecessary, considering the recall as a referendum on the job they have done, the track record of which should speak for itself. They should be denied the opportunity to debate.

Where's Waldo?

A third RM endorsed candidate, Rip Gibbs, was unable to introduce himself at the council meeting and had Ed Faunce do it instead. I guess he was busy or something. I hope he takes these meetings a little more seriously if he gets elected.

Burning the midnight oil

Councilman Seyarto spent 36 hours stick time on a computer checking the minutes of council votes on agendas since 1998. He has assembled some statistics that should be checked with one’s own count before doubting his. Just remember that a good vs. a bad decision is in the eye of the beholder, and the types of issues being voted on do have a bearing on these statistics.

These are his counts:
Since 1998 – 2,730 decisions were made by the council.
Of these – 91.21% were unanimous this dropped to 85% during election years.
Of the remaining, 5.2% were with one dissenting vote.
There were 3.46% that were split.
81% of the remaining 3.46 votes were by the bloc of Seyarto, McAllister and VanHaaster.

Can I say that?

As I observed the council meeting, I was amused at the amount of deferring to John Harper that McAllister did during the meeting. Can this man think for himself? It seemed that at the same time as he knew very little about what was going on, he was demanding more information to be gathered. Maybe he should read the information that is already there?

During the meeting, City Attorney John Harper indicated that a slow growth question on the ballot would only be an advisory item and could be gainsaid by the council. I agree with this summation, but I also think that a sufficient quantity of votes (a mandate) might indicate to even the densest politician that the people of a community want something done.

Florida 2000, Murrieta 2005

Warnie Enochs originally proposed three advisory items to be added to the ballot in May, but he removed his proposals once he realized that the simplest path would be best. This election is confusing enough without adding other confusing measures that aren’t really measures on the ballot. Well if you put it that way. . .

Term Limits for City Council

One of Warnie’s ideas for advisory initiatives was term limits for the City Council – If this passed, both he and VanHaaster would become ineligible, talk about taking one for the team!

Private drives on public thoroughfares

Kelly Seyarto intended to propose an advisory ballot item to remove the gate that is currently blocking Hayes at Kalmia. He decided against it when some (2) residents of that neighborhood discussed it further with him, so he let sleeping dogs lie. His reasoning for the change was a little questionable however. He cited a couple named Cooperman along this street who had purchased their home with the belief that the street would remain blocked forever. If they open it now, then they bought their property under false pretenses.

As a result of this gate, traffic flow in Murrieta is further and permanently impaired.

I don’t get the distinction between the people who have had zoning changes with civil works that have required them to adjust for the good of the many, and these people who have somehow managed to get a public thoroughfare blocked for their own benefit. Could someone please explain this to me?