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.
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.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Monday, February 07, 2005
14 Comments:
1). While I can appreciate going after outside dollars makes sense, the true reality is that the state is bankrupt. Let's not add to the burden already in existence as a solution for problems, if any, created at the local level.
2). Builders are required to abide by the conditions of approval associated with the development of any specific tract. While reviews are nice, let's not add to the bureaucratic nightmare by scheduling reviews which do nothing but look back in time when staff time should be spent looking towards the future.
3). General Plans are living breathing organisms. The idea that we can somehow get back to a fixed, unchangeable plan is ludicrous. Instead, what is required is the knowledge of staff and council to understand all aspects of planning as they interrelate to burdens on infrastructure and quality of life considerations.
4). What's the point?
Murrieta resident since 1993
By
Anonymous, at Monday, February 07, 2005 4:56:00 PM
Perhaps "Since 1993" should read this post again, he/she seems to have missed the point entirely. The general purpose of a general plan is to keep a city aimed in a certain pre-determined DIRECTION. That's why they call it a GENERAL plan. A virus is a living breathing organism, a city plan is a PLAN of ideas that will eventually lead to a community that supposedly is a nice place to live. By allowing excessive flexibility you also allow manipulation by special interests that may or may not be to the communities' long term benefit. That is the point, read it again.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Monday, February 07, 2005 10:34:00 PM
"No one wants to work in a city where you have a bunch of elected officials who think they have suddenly become experts on city management simply because they got elected."
Mr. Seyarto has done a nice job describing himself and the very reason we have lost some very qualified and equally frustrated planners at the City level.
"If you choose to treat them with disrespect and mistrust, they can and will find ample opportunities for employment elsewhere."
The very complaint the departing parties have stated about Mr. Seyarto.
"We need to rise to the level of intellectual sophistication that it takes to truly deal with the issues that today's society presents."
Mr. Seyarto... this isn't rocket-science and it isn't beyond the local citizens to understand that issues are complex and involved. You have chosen to subscribe to the theory that growth is a sign of progress. The problem with your reasoning is that the type of growth and density approved in our city are a recipe for the same problems so many fast-growing communities have experienced before us. All one needs to do is look at the previous "boom towns" up and down Southern California to see what kinds of problems high density creates.
As Mr. Seyarto so apply states...
"This type of thinking is very small minded and that is something we simply can't afford at this point in our City's development."
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 08, 2005 4:34:00 PM
I find the comment that we should return to the "original City plan" ludicrous. Which plan might that be? The most recent, the one before that or?
If I were the vindictive sort I would wish that the RM folks were successful in their efforts to put forth their own representatives, then when they REALLY muck things up they would have no one but themselves to blame.
I have seen no constructive suggestions from anyone associated with RM. Not one individual has proposed the use of qualified traffice engineers to solve current problems. Instead, RM insists on focusing on their own self-interested zoning issues rather than the good of the entire community. In case you haven't yet figure it out, a middle position is what is required, not one on either extreme.
Murrieta resident since 1993
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 08, 2005 9:18:00 PM
To Murrieta resident since 1993, you said: "I have seen no constructive suggestions from anyone associated with RM."
Actually, you have not seen RM's suggestions for addressing the problems because the recall candidates are still in the process of filing the necessary paperwork with the City. The deadline for filing papers is February 17th. I know that after that date, the RM endorsed candidates will be making their platforms very clear.
You also said: "Instead, RM insists on focusing on their own self-interested zoning issues rather than the good of the entire community." RM has not appeared before the council on a single zoning dispute to my knowledge. Some members of RM have, in the past, been involved in zoning disputes, but RM, as an organization, has not done so.
To date, RM has been focused on assisting the three recall committees to obtain the necessary signatures to place the ruling trio on a recall ballot. After that effort was successful, the next two goals are to get out the recall vote and to listen to and evaluate those recall candidates who asked for RM's endorsement.
I invite you to read our explanation of "What's the difference about Rescue Murrieta ?" found at the Rescue Murrieta website at http://rescuemurrieta.com/news/newsitem.php?section=ACM&id=2716&showcat=3&seq=22. RM is setup to be the Murrieta residents' Political Action Committee for all elected representatives, City council, School Board, Water District, etc. This is a new idea so it needs some time to be developed and implemented.
Edward Faunce
Rescue Murrieta Spokesman
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 09, 2005 6:34:00 AM
The city designed a plan shortly after incorporation in 1991. It contained the new city's boundaries and all that was within it was subject to zoning restrictions based on maintaining the pre-incorporation environment in Murrieta. The thought that Murrieta would grow to be a city of 110,000 people was "ludicrous" back then.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:22:00 PM
I'd be curious to know how the current Council expects the 110,000 to be a secure/firm projection. There was a time when 70,000 seemed out of the question. Are there any plans to actually keep the 110,000 as a "limit" or will it be 200,000 ten years from now?
Anonymous1
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:07:00 PM
I forgot to counter Mr. Seyarto’s criticism of starting points. Mr. Seyarto’s false dichotomy explanations are a reiteration of a recurring theme in all of his posts, that he is right and everyone else is naïve. These statements are repeatedly made with an obtuseness that I believe to be out of place in the present context. If a public official shows no ability to compromise on his viewpoints, than he is an autocrat and tyrant. I apologize if Mr. Seyarto finds this comment “low rent” (whatever that means) but he needs to realize that talent, whether real or imagined does not take the place of people skills.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:31:00 AM
Mr. Seyarto: Your reasoning does nothing to assure we won't dramatically exceed the 110,000 projected build-out population. The tendency to change zoning and allow higher density complexes (like those along Washington Avenue near the high school)will definitely contribute to the difficulty in regulating the rate of growth.
I'm very curious as to exactly what Mr. Seyarto would point to as a unique feature of Murrieta's growth under his watch, that does NOT make us just like any other fast paced growth area in the state. It appears we are really just another rapidly growing city, with over-crowded streets, schools, off-ramps, and developer driven agendas. All cities I have witnessed on similar paths have resulted in increased crime, gang activity, and problems related to over-crowding.
What makes us different? Why not promote a larger semi-rural area? Why not make the new roads and developments carry the "new traffic" instead of at the expense of those who have been here for years?
I'm just wondering Mr. Seyarto, what EXACTLY do you see as features that truly make Murrieta unique, special, and different?
For a time, Murrieta seemed to have a good balance. There were talks of horse trails, bike trails, and passages to connect the City. What used to be Tenja Road (now Vineyard Pkwy) was supposed to have one side reserved for a horse trail. This is obviously no longer the plan. I'm not a horse person, and I don't live in a rural community, however, I don't believe it needs to be minimized so dramatically. In fact, I think more of our "roots" need to be preserved and encouraged.
Why is your vision for Murrieta so typical of any other sprawling Southern California city? What's so special about that? If that's something to be feeling so proud about, we'll see what people are feeling when the "Moreno Valley" reputation follows.
Anonymous1
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:02:00 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. So far, I have more friends leaving Murrieta than moving here, and the new people moving in express a lot of frustration when they find the schools impacted and the streets too crowded.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, February 12, 2005 9:43:00 PM
Our local representitives are in a state of denial. In order to fund large public work project in this fiscal enviorment, it takes a near perfect storm. These fools are all still work under the same outdated assumptions that the funds will be there when needed. It is truly the blind leading the blind. This is why RDA bond are their only solution. I wish they would be straight with us. things are going to get worse before they get better.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:22:00 AM
Your circular reasoning leaves no place to get on and no place to get off. You rail at people for showing their frustration the same way you do, but you still will not see that your time in office has NOT been in the citizen's best interest. As far as my credentials go, I am a citizen of this once-fair town and have experienced the heartbreak of seeing its environment destroyed for greed. You are too busy riding high on your master's degree to look at what you are really doing. You steer us into a pit and then think that we will cheer for you when you try to pull us out of it. Don't hold your breath, we will cheer for your replacement.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 5:27:00 PM
Mr. Seyarto,
Your high self-opinion might be misplaced. You persistently accuse others of personal attacks when your posts are riddled with them. There is a name for that, it is called hypocrisy. I don't have a "Deep Throat" in the city government to tell me the sordid insider deals. Deals like Mr. Vanhaaster's private meetings with the city planners, and McAllister hiring on as a consultant for real estate. There are too many closed door meetings made by this council, and with the track record of this council smirched, everything else they do must be cast into doubt.
You have a different view of conflict of interest than I do. Lacking the time to muckrake, I can only form my opinions by evaluating the past performances of the council. The rest is by appearances and attitude. You seem to be an honest man, but between you and your compadres in the block, I have formed the firm opinion that you are not good for the city of Murrieta, and your refusal to resign in the face of recall was what convinced me.
I must rely on my duly elected representatives to tell the truth. Once that credibility is compromised, you are going to be faced with constantly defending your actions. If that is more than you can handle, you are free to resign.
And another thing.
You continuously speak of the developers contributing more than the have to. Have you ever heard of a seller’s market? As supplies dwindle (undeveloped land) the price rises. These developers must build comprehensive infrastructure!
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:34:00 PM
Mr. Seyarto,
In one of your posts you claimed that RM sought to make the developers the enemy. As this recall hopefully will show you, it is not the developers that Murrietans think is the enemy, its you.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:38:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home