The recall an abuse of power? You're joking, right?
I noticed a quote by Jerry Allen on the anti-recall site indicating that the recall was "An outrageous abuse of power." Being a former mayor, I would suspect that Mr. Allen is quite familiar with abuses of power.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Monday, April 11, 2005
65 Comments:
You are as ignorant as Rick Gibbs. Do you know Jerry Allen? Oh, I forgot, you and your heroes haven't been in town long enough to know Jack Shit, let alone a pioneer like Jerry Allen. Jerry Allen and his family before him were HELPING the people of this valley, fighting fires, rescuing people from floods, putting on community BBQ's when we actually had a community, and being one of the first and guiding forces ELECTED by the residents of this great town. To impugn Jerry Allens name and suggest he abused power simply because he was one of our early council members and Mayor is ignorant, short sighted and just a downright cowardly stunt - in short, just what we expect from an RM stooge.
Keep up the good work blowhole - glad to see your kinder, gentler phase lasted about as long as Rick Gibbs' did.
C. Ed Dodge
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:29:00 PM
Right on CED. Lots of ignorance in RM. Did you see them email Faunce sent out canceling the RM forum? They had to cancel because they "were unable to find a sufficiently knowledgeable moderator to conduct the forum". 84,000 people in Murrieta and they couldn't find one bright enough to ask their prepared questions? Maybe he should import one of his genius friends from Orange County to come enlighten us hicks in the backwoods. And the RM people are such sheep they don't even realize they've been insulted. You get what you deserve.
no Wonder
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 12, 2005 5:38:00 PM
I heard there was going to be a Yes on Recall/ Recall Murrieta sign burning BBQ up near Mappleton...... At least those signs will finally be put to good use!
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:14:00 PM
Outside of the myopic group of property owners along Jefferson Ave, Nutmeg and Washington and the and other westside areas, there does not seem to be much of a concentration of pro recall support in the rest of the city. Why? Where is the overwhelming public support for this recall? Maybe the socially inbread RM supporters are about to find out May 3.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 15, 2005 8:01:00 AM
I saw some pro recall supporters on a couple of street corners with signs today. Maybe they would get more support if they would wipe the angry scowls off their faces. Who wants to be on the side of angry and insane people anyway?
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, April 16, 2005 4:05:00 PM
If Jack, Doug, and Kelly are the Three Amigos, then Larry, Dick and Warnie are The Three Stooges. Boy that Larry guy is an awesome candidate. A bankrupcy, tax liens, and malpractice claims. If this guy cannot manage his personal life, then how can he manage a city? After May 3 maybe we should have recall 2 and kick Warnie and Dick out of office. Those two are incompetent clowns and should be the real recall targets. They are next.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, April 17, 2005 4:32:00 PM
Can anyone explain to me why the overwhelming financial support for the recall targets is from outside the city of Murrieta?
See Recall campaign sets spending records
By: LAURA MITCHELL - Staff Writer NC Times Saturday, March 26, 2005
How can these councilmen represent the residents of Murrieta when their financial support is from external interests?
Thank you, JM
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 18, 2005 10:34:00 PM
To C. Ed Dodge,
I am sure that Jerry Allen is as fine a man as any who has ever lived in Murrieta.
However, to state that the Murrieta recall election is an "outrageous abuse of power" is, in my opinion, a sad mis-representation of the facts.
In fact, the recall process is no more an "outrageous abuse of power" than voting. It is within the law, and is perfectly legitimate. Perhaps dumping Gray Davis was an "outrageous abuse of power too?"
Is it also an "outrageous abuse of power" to petition the government for redress of greivance? Is it an "outrageous abuse of power" to sign a recall petition?
JM
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 18, 2005 10:59:00 PM
Rholmgren,
You stated:
"After May 3 maybe we should have recall 2 and kick Warnie and Dick out of office. Those two are incompetent clowns and should be the real recall targets. They are next."
I am just curious....
How many signatures have you collected? Are you serious (i.e. sincere?) Or are you just blowing hot air?
JM
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 18, 2005 11:04:00 PM
JM - the recall process itself is not an abuse of power. However, the recall process was designed to address cases where an elected official has exhibited egregious wrongdoing, malfeasance in office and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Those types of allegations are not only not present in this situation, they aren't even alleged by the most rabid recall advocate. The worst RM can say in support of Kelly's recall is that he isn't a warm & fuzzy guy, and they have even less to say about Doug, other than he didn't start voting their way right out of the chute and has enjoyed the financial support of the business community. Even the allegations against Van Haaster have not been proven and in fact have been debunked as being overblown and, in the case of the 'sewer hookup scandal', completely without merit.
Thus, while the recall procees itself is not an abuse of power, the abuse of the recall process, as this case exhibits, is an abuse of power. I imagine that is the point Jerry Allen was making - as has been made by many of our more progressive citizens. This isn't about any real wrongdoing by the council members, it's just because a certain group didn't get their way in a zoning conflict. Because this same group often advocates incorrect responses to zoning requests and project development, they often don't get their way and so they decided to make an issue of it. This is an inappropriate use of the recall process, a waste of time and city money and a divisive issue foisted on us by people who haven't been happy with anything our city does for years. Perpetual & habitual outsiders. These same people have been fighting the city from outside for years, never bothering to get involved, become part of the process for change or ever contributing anything other than overt negativity. They never will.
What is an outrageous abuse of power is standing outside markets actively lying to citizens to entice them to sign a petition. 'Stop the traffic mess - vote to recall". Does anybody actually believe that will happen if Francis or Gibbs is elected? With 90,000 people moving to Riverside County last year, is it a service to our community to give people the impression you can actually stop growth in our community by electing Knight? Is it fair or honest to our citizens to stick Hope deSmith out in front markets repeating the same tired lies that our council members take pay-offs and daily perform illegal duties? No, this is abuse of the system in the basest, most self-serving and vile manner. But thanks for asking.
C. Ed Dodge
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:26:00 AM
Jerry Allen owes the council for his job and his retirement in texas. Who else would have made him cheif. you fools know nothing and act like experts on the city. you all need is a good old ass woppin.
gary fenderson
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:30:00 PM
to Mr. Dodge ...."the recall process itself is not an abuse of power. However, the recall process was designed to address cases where an elected official has exhibited egregious wrongdoing, malfeasance in office and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Those types of allegations are not only not present in this situation; they aren't even alleged by the most rabid recall advocate."
This was all I had to read regarding your post, I didn't even read on because you have totally missed the point of this recall. Pure and simple, these three councilmen are not listening to their constituents, they vote the way they feel is best and disregard the will of the people. I think that is a very “egregious wrongdoing”
a “malfeasance”. If the three councilmen were on the council of a mental hospital in charge of the patients, maybe that would be an acceptable situation. That is not the case and the majority of the voters are not being listened to. X gov. Davis said that he should have listened to the voters more instead of relying on advisors and staff. That’s what your three amigos will be saying soon…
by the way.. why you brown nosing so much?
T Parris
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 19, 2005 6:24:00 PM
Well JM you had better hope it's alot of hot air. If RM gets it way after May 3 a Recall 2 will absolutley be necessary. I will even hire you to gather signatures for it. My threat of a recall 2 is about as serious as RM's threat was last year. But I seriously doubt it will be necessary. I forecast a serious ass kick'n at the polls May 3 against RM and its pathetically childish recall. Mr Dodge the truth is RM's enemy and Bigger lies are their only hope.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:28:00 PM
Also JM: To RMers money from interests outside the city (developers)is somehow demonic. To the rest of us who are normal it represents the level of interest others have in doing business in our city. RM frames this battle as developer interests vs. residents' interests. The real battle is the truth distorters (RM) vs the real truth. RM is full of self centered NIMBY's who care more about their views (visual and mental) than the overall welfare of Murrieta.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:07:00 PM
Again it's shocking how much you people don't know and how proud you are to display your ignorance. Jerry Allen was fire chief before Murrieta was a city, genius, so his job and retirment were not dependent on the city. I believe we know who the fool is who doesn't know anything about the city. Now in addition to lies and innuendo, we get threatened by an 'ass woppin'. Ed Faunce must be so proud of his minions with a braniac like you on the loose.
T. Parris - no I didn't miss the point of the recall. There are legal issues to a recall process and none have been satisfied with this kangaroo court. You claim the council didn't listen to their constituents - which constituents would that be? The NIMBY's who moved into a home next to a commercial lot and then wanted it changed, (Nutmeg & Jackson), the NIMBY's who moved in next to a commercial lot and bitched until they got it changed to residential contravening the general plan (Cal Oaks & Clinton Keith). YOU confuse listening to constituents with acting in an appropriate manner for the best interest of our whole city. You seem to think - as most RM's do, that just because the council majority hears from 300 or more people regarding an issue that they have to do what those people want. Wrong. The city isn't run by the whims of individuals or individual neighborhoods. It's run in the best interest of the entire city. Just because you, Faunce and RM seem to wind up on the wrong end of decisions isn't because the city doesn't listen - it's because your ideas are wrong and you can't seem to come to grips with why.
Oh, I know, you probably stopped reading after the first couple lines. On May 3rd, however, you will be listening to the voters and my vote will be one of many you won't like much.
By the way - I'm curious about who I'm supposed to be brown noseing. I'm not running for anything, I don't work for the city, I just like to come on here once in awhile to tweak you. I know you don't listen, you'll probably never learn, for the most part you are incapable of rational thought and resort to name calling and 'ass woppin' when confronted by facts - but it's better than what's on TV tonight - especially now that the council meeting is nearly over and I can't listen to that other genius Enochs display his ignorance on live TV anymore tonight. That man is as sharp as a bag of hammers.
C. Ed Dodge
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:08:00 PM
What the hell is an ass woppin? Is that what happens at Burger King if you don't serve the french fries on time? They must run a pretty tight ship! And remember, i before e except after c.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:39:00 PM
All it take is one misspelled word to have Kelly show his horns. So predictable. HA HA HA There coming to take you away!!!
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:28:00 AM
Hey Sherlock. Unless I miss my guess, Kelly was sitting up in front of the City Council meeting last night at 10:08:18 when that was posted. Too thrilled with getting your snappy comment posted on the old computer machine to be bothered by facts, eh? Typical RM.
no Wonder
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:51:00 AM
to C. Ed Dodge,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As far as what is required to legitimize a recall election (and I am no legal scholar), havent the 8000+ signatures of registered Murrieta voters provided the needed legal legitimacy? If not, I would assume that a legal challenge would have quieted this insubordinate rebellion long ago. With respect to your personal requirement of egregious wrong doing, do you not believe that the zero value emminent domain battle was wrongfully thrust upon the four residents in question? I think that in the olden days, that type of offer would have elicited a shot gun response! Perhaps a lynching! And before you say that the property values would have increased (bla, bla, bla,)-- I think that the property values down the street, and around the block, etc. would all have been increased. Increased property values as a lame excuse for taking someones property by force of government was not satisfactory in this case. I believe a tremendous, inexcusable wrong doing has been committed in this case.
JM
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:08:00 PM
Rholmgren,
To respond to your statement (quoted below), isnt this kinda like when the Chinese were bribing (Woops! I mean supporting with campaign contributions) Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the election?
Rholmgren said...
"Also JM: To RMers money from interests outside the city (developers)is somehow demonic. To the rest of us who are normal it represents the level of interest others have in doing business in our city."
I would like to point out also, that the City of Murrieta does not need to beg, borrow, and give away the farm to entice developers into making money here. It just so happens that the City of Murrieta is in a prime geographic location between Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego, which guarantees a desire for people to live here, and also guarantees an interest in developing businesses here.
It is the responsibility of the City Council to represent the people who live in Murrieta, as opposed to representing any outside interest (business, government, or otherwise.), hence the need to obtain votes, instead of just campaign contributions.
Also it seems to me that you are not disputing which side of the bread is buttered for the Councilmen, but rather, you seem to be stating that the greedy lame-brained people who live here should just be happy with zoning changes around their homes? Quit being such whiner nimbys?
Well I'm sorry, but representing the residents, and improving the quality of life in my neighborhood is a pre-requisite to obtaining my vote. I vote for what is in MY interest, and anyone who wants my vote better do the same (at least in good faith). Yes that does make me a greedy, self-important, very selfish NIMBY, but hey, welcome to my reality!
JM
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:05:00 PM
a question to any who can and will answer--
With this question, I am not throwing any stones at anyone. I just am curious....
If the city cannot raise the funds to build new parks, and widen streets, install light signals, etc., without waiting for full development around the area first (as well as development in other areas), then where has the money come from to build the police station, and where is the money comming from to build the library, senior center, and new city hall? Is this money from the "general fund" of the city, or is the new city hall complex being built from a bond or something?-- There is a phenomenon that commonly occurs in government, where everyone wants to build their special pet project, but no-one can ever fix a pot hole or wided a street!
It seems to me that some serious money has been spent in aquiring a city police department, whose function could have been served (as previous) by the county on a contract basis. Obviously, the City has expended a large initial investment, and taken on significant liability in commissioning the police department. This is something that I have questioned in my mind for some time now. Observe the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which has very successfully contracted with the County of San Bernardino for many years now their policing services. All of the staff training, etc. is the responsibility of the larger county-wide sherrif's department, which is also liable for mis-conduct, etc.
As I said previously, I am not throwing stones with this question, but it seems like a potential vulnerability to those who say that property taxes are not sufficient to develop the basic infrastructure around neighborhoods. I have also wondered if Old town would have received any attention from City Hall, if the new City Hall Complex were not planned to be located there?-- I dont think so -- more city general fund money right?
Also, to anyone who can answer-- how was the city hall complex addressed in the general plan?
Thank you!
JM
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:29:00 PM
JM Good try at trying to draw a parallel between the Chinese and developers. Accepting donations from fellow Americans is apple pie. Accepting donations from Chinese nationals borders on treason to me. Also thanks for helping me make my point. NIMBYISM is a community cancer. It eats away at the greater well being of the community. It benefits the greedy few and harms the overall well being of the many. And is that what this recall is really about? The only mistake the city council made was that it set a bad precedent by rezoning at Clinton Keith and Calle de Oso Oro and Clinton Keith and Califonia Oaks Rd. They should have stuck with the idea of decentralized shopping areas around the city. Guess what parts of town still need more shopping areas? It seems to me that the West Side Whiners (RM) started this recall more for their own gain than for the improvement of the community as a whole. The City council and developers make easy scapegoats, but many of us in the community reject your "US" vs the evil developers arguement. RM people truly are members of the "glass is half empty club." What version of the truth can you RMers come up with next? ( Have you noticed that most postings now try to avoid using the word rescue along with Murrieta? Maybe Ruin Murrieta would be better)
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:43:00 PM
Don't think Old Town would have gotten much attention if it weren't for Jack buying up a lot of property there. Wants to make sure his investment gets some beautification at the city's expense. How convenient.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:47:00 PM
Rholmgren,
When you answered me about the 2nd recall, you said " I will even hire you to gather signatures for it."
How much does this position pay? I know you Southwest County Taxpayer People have a ton of money.......lets talk!
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:48:00 PM
woops!
Rolmgren, that was me, JM about the job.
Show me the money!!!!
JM
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:49:00 PM
Rholmgren,
The chinese/delveloper scenario holds water. The fact is that the developers interest is often in conflict with the residents interest. Exactly the same as a foreign interest can easily conflict with our national interest, much the same that a Nevada interest can easily conflict with a California interest, or an Orange County interest can easily conflict with a Riverside County interest.-- Treason is your word, I wouldnt really apply it here, but people I vote for need to represent my interest, which will most assuredly conflict with somebody else's
As per your quote below, I was thinking that this re-zoning was a mistake as well, when it was used to justify the re-zoning of Washington and Nutmeg!
You said:
"The only mistake the city council made was that it set a bad precedent by rezoning at Clinton Keith and Calle de Oso Oro and Clinton Keith and Califonia Oaks Rd. They should have stuck with the idea of decentralized shopping areas around the city. Guess what parts of town still need more shopping areas?"
However, I dont agree that this was the only mistake, we just agree that this was clearly a mistake!
JM
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:56:00 PM
Rholmgren,
you said:
"NIMBYISM is a community cancer. It eats away at the greater well being of the community. It benefits the greedy few and harms the overall well being of the many."
Personally, I feel that this argument contains a very slight socialist overtone, but actually there is some truth to what you say. I mean, everyone knows we need a few more prisons, maybe you wouldnt mind having one next door to your house? How about a half way house for child abusers? Are you ok with one of those in your neighborhood? How about a homeless shelter? You wouldn't mind a few people sleeping on your lawn, would you? The bottom line is this-- Everyone wants their house near a park, the ocean, mountains, etc. No one wants their house near a nuclear fuel rod reprocessing plant. This is a fact of life, it is why we have zoning laws. I am not the first NIMBY, and I am not the last. I doubt that you are a whole hearted non-NIMBY, who really doesnt mind what goes up near your house. I may be wrong.
Again, I will happily admit that I am a NIMBY capitalist pig. Regardless of this fact, the City Councilmen earn my vote by representing me! They do not earn my vote by telling me that they need to re-zone a large tract of "open-space zoned land" into a million appartment houses, so that they can build the road to accomodate the appartments!
JM
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:18:00 PM
JM
How long have you lived in Murrieta? A short amount of years like Mr.Gibbs?
In my opinion those who have moved here in the last 7 years from San Diego, LA, Orange or Military stations are the cause for this huge development.
Yes Murrieta is a prime location for many people to live here and for businesses to build. They are still heading this way. Can you stop it this far into development? No!Murrieta is already 80% bulit out. The other 20% is spoken for. Stoping it or slowing it down is only going to hurt Murrieta.
The 8000+ signatures of registered Murrieta voters you speak about were lied to or not told the whole truth. I know this because I was a victim. Given only partical information. The gal asked me if I was unhappy with traffic and hell yeah I am. So I signed the petition. They didnt say anymore than that. Now that I see the whole picture. It makes me sick that I even signed. The traffic issue is a much bigger problem. Its not just a City of Murrieta issue. It's everywhere you go in California! When I signed that petition I thought it was going straight to Sacramento.
I am glad that there are over 33,000 registered voters here in Murrieta and out of those 8000+ that you speak about, only 150 of them will say yes to the recall. Those 150 are still holding on to farm land.
I noticed one of my neighbors has a sticker on his car supporting RM and the recall. I couldnt make sense of it. He just moved into a brand new home from Orange Co. My neighborhood is less than 3 years old. He IS apart of the growing development or the problem RM is so angry about. The 'Developer' made his house for goodness sakes.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:22:00 PM
Anonymous,
You are correct in assuming that I am relatively new here to Murrieta. I have been living here for about 3-4 years.
I am not a memeber of Rescue Murrieta, and I am currently undecided on how I will vote. However, I will tell you that I am very sensitive to zoning changes around my house. I do not like them. I also do not like a City Council who will drag innocent people into court (asserting that the city can use emminent domain laws to take their land for zero compensation), threaten them, spend all kinds of money in fighting them, then later admit that they were wrong. I do not think I am the only person who was shocked by the City's action.
As far as I am concerned, the City might as well have dragged those people into the street and beaten obeyance and agreement into them.
The City council has utilized, in my opinion, poor judgement, and has relied on poor advice from attorneys, consultants, etc.
I believe that people have a right to expect good-faith representation from their elected officials.
I am not against growth or development. I am against the City Council abusing people.
I am sorry that you were under the impression that your recall petition was going to Schwartzenegger. I was aware who was going to get mine.
Here is what I need to know before I cast my absentee ballot in the next couple of days... Who is going to represent me?
Who is going to stand firm against zoning changes?
Who is going to fight for development of facilities and infrastructure in the areas of the city experiencing the growth?
Who is going to hold developers accountable to their contractual committments to the City-- and who will ensure that those commitments are just, and in-line with what can be demanded?
Who will ensure that the City will not abuse its residents, and later blame it on bad advice from consultants? Who will be accountable?
That is who I want in the council--If that is the existing councilmen, perhaps they should start making oaths to the local papers swearing out their allegiance to me, the voter!
And for all the Riverside County Republican Party people out there, excuse me for having the right to vote! Bye the way, I do not buy the crap they are trying to sell me on Ed Faunce. First the City should deal with the real issues at home (instead of denying them), then we can talk about how horrible the "RM" people are!
JM
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:45:00 PM
JM The bad precedent was set when the city council allowed the two zoning changes along Clinton Keith. However it made total sense to also change the zoning at Washinton and Nutmeg. It would have evened the scale in relation to the Clinton Keith and Calle de Oso Oro rezone. It also made total sense because it's next to the Ralphs Shopping Center. Your other weak analogies about homeless shelters and halfway houses are starting to sound like RM insanity ramblings. The point here is retail/ commercial vs residential zoning changes remember? Hey JM maybe we should merge with Temecula and let them supply us with police and fire protection. Or maybe we never should have incorporated in the first place. Or fiscal sanity be damned let's just go on a binge and spend all of the city's cash reserves. How about running our city like Lake Elsinore Yeah thats it that's the ticket! JM you're starting to sound like a loon.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 22, 2005 8:22:00 AM
Rholmgren,
I am dissapointed that you are unable to argue your case without resorting to insults.
Changing the zoning at Washington and Nutmeg makes no more sense than the other zoning changes. It is my understanding that the General Plan calls for decentralized commercial areas, does it not? Why are you now flip flopping, and trying to centralize and concentrate the commercial into one particular area? (according to the general plan, this commercial development belongs elsewhere due to the fact that Ralph's is already there.)
As far as the analogies are concerned, I was merely responding to your assertion that nimbyism is the social cancer, something or other. I believe you are the one bringing us off topic with that one....
I am confused as to why you would wish that we merge with the city of Temecula? (or maybe you are thinking that I would have it that way?)-- I never suggested anything of the sort.
as far as the fiscal sanity be damned statement, who is to say that that has not already occurred.
Rholmgren, you have been unable to make and back up arguments since I began reading this board. All you do is start throwing insults when others disagree with you.
JM
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 22, 2005 5:00:00 PM
Rholmgren,
I believe that you will stubbornly insist that the attempted re-zoning at Washington and Nutmeg was the correct thing to do.
I believe that the one and only reason that you will insist that this particular attempted zoning change was correct (even after having asserted that the two previous zoning changes were wrong), is because this is the zoning change that promted the formation of Rescue Murrieta.
God forbid that you should ever agree with those people! Rholmgren, they are Americans! (and Murrietan's)-- Agreeing with them is "apple pie!"-- Nothing wrong with agreeing with people who have a valid point. You, yourself stated that the previous two zoning changes were wrong. You also said that the purpose of this third zoning change was to accomodate the incorrect zoning changes.
Logic, and the General Plan, dictate that all three zoning changes were incorrect.
JM
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 22, 2005 5:30:00 PM
Does this make sense? The city council changed the zoning at Clinton Keith and Calle de Oso Oro and Clinton Keith California Oaks Rd at the request of local residents. So now the city is short two retail areas. Rezoning Washington and Nutmeg in order remedy the shortfall of retail space made sense even though it did go counter to the general plan's intent of decentralized retail areas. You are some how trying to say that all three zone changes were wrong. I am trying to say that the first two zone changes led to the third at Washington and Nutmeg. The council was trying to reaquire retail space that had been lost in the first two zone changes. The third zone change would have been unnessesary if the first two had never taken place. As for my other so called insulting comments: I was mocking your previous postings because the subject matter was all over the place. My comments after:Hey JM maybe... were a weak attempt at making fun of some of your previous postings. Lighten up they are just words right?
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 22, 2005 5:34:00 PM
Also I did not state that the first two zoning changes were "wrong" or "incorrect." I said it was a mistake to set that kind of precedent. After those first two zoning changes every neighborhood in Murrieta probably thought they could fill the council chambers to influence the zoning outcome of the last few empty lots in their area. And the first time the council went against a neighborhood BOOM! Recall! Boo Hoo Poor West Side Whiners (RM) Like I said before this Recall is not about evil developers or traffic. It is about cry babies who had their views threatened.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 22, 2005 9:07:00 PM
Rholmgren,
Actually, the zoning change at Calle del Oso Oro and Clinton Keith (hereinafter referred to as the "Calle corner") from NC to residential was done AFTER the initial proposal to change Nutmeg/Washington ("Nutmeg corner") to CC from ER-3. Also, the developer representative, Larry Markham, is the one who petitioned the change on behalf of the developer. Of course the residents agreed with it, particularly those in Bear Creek, right across the street. And who wouldn't??
At the 2003 Planning Commission meeting following the initial denial of the Nutmeg corner zoning change (thanks to Youens as the third vote), Markham spoke and requested the change; the change was granted. The puzzling thing here is, the Nutmeg corner Staff Report dated April 9, 2003, on page 8, states, "The land zoned for commercial development within the Copper Canton (misspelled in the report) Specific Plan area is being proposed for residential development." Now, how is it that a proposal (which hadn't happened yet) was considered for the 2003 zone-change request of the Nutmeg corner? The justification given for the commercial to residential re-zoning at the Calle corner was that because it was only NC (and I think there were conditions on the use), there was nothing they could develop there. I am not purporting to be an expert on city procedure or land-use, but to the average person, it seems suspicious that Markham's proposal that had not yet been formally requested at the Planning Commision level, was put as consideration to change the Nutmeg corner.
The second go-around with the zone change request was done by the new owner in 2004; by then Youens was out and McAllister was in. It was no secret to anyone that it would now be a 3-2 vote in favor of the re-zoning. The problem people are having is that it seemed the three already had their minds made up. I could not understand why, if commercial was so desperately needed in that area, the Calle corner would be approved as residential AFTER the initial 2003 Nutmeg corner zone-change denial. Now, of course, it is used as justification to change the Nutmeg corner. In fact, you are stating the same thing, "The third zone change would have been unneccesary if the first two had never taken place." Therefore, by your logic and mine, the Calle corner could have been kept as NC, because the Nutmeg corner had been "lost" (at that point anyway), right?
Furthermore, there is reason to believe the developer was confident the Nutmeg corner zone-change to commercial was going to be granted; they had spoken to at least two of the councilmen prior to purchasing the land (that is a FACT). They bought the land when it was residential feeling quite confident it would be changed to commercial. It is the perception of impropriety here that is the problem. The stage was set, Markham's property (Calle) was going to go residential and Nutmeg was going to go commercial. It goes deeper than simply one neighborhood wanting its way. --M.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 22, 2005 10:17:00 PM
I stand by what I said and yes a few of my neighbors are RM supporters. Many more are not. Boy you truth distorters are getting pissed! I can't wait till May 3! Hey ME even if it takes a million dollars to defeat the Recall Ranters it will be money well spent. I hope you enjoy my sign on Nutmeg and Jackson next week!
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 22, 2005 11:01:00 PM
Sorry ME let me set you straight; I said that a FEW of my neighbors support the recall. Why should I explain the 400K in developer contributions? I welcome their contribution to the RM defeat. As for saying only 150 people support the recall? There you guys go again distorting the truth! I guess you can't help yourselves. It must be pathological. I never said that statement Like I said even if it takes a million..... And it may surprise you to learn that the majority of Murrietans are not political insiders: we get our information from the news and newspapers and to a lesser extent the internet. So trying to pick me apart with RM detailed analysis is a waste of time . I am results oriented. All I needed to know was that zoning had changed. So if I am uninformed because I am not a politcal insider then so be it . My opinions are partially based on the articles and postings in the newspaper. Oh by the way did you read yesterday's Californian? Boy the people on your side that are submitting letters and articles are really hurting RM's cause. The letter from Leslie Desmith states that this area "is as scummy as Los Angeles" Wow! Another states that what the council is doing with development is similar to a Ponzi scheme. Basically pro recall letters are an irrational read. The anti recall letters seem to always be reasoned and thoughtful WHY? Be careful about labeling me as "uninformed or unjustifiably opinionated" because you are also refering to most Murrietans. Labeling me as such sounds elitist.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, April 23, 2005 10:10:00 AM
Are the facts for public view and if they are where can I find them.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, April 23, 2005 3:40:00 PM
What's with all the heat and light?
Murrieta merely needs to adopt Temecula's practice of having developers put in road improvements bridges before buildings.
It's cheaper for the developers to continue the status quo than adopt Temecula's approach. At least $400,000 cheaper, and the meters still running.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, April 23, 2005 4:20:00 PM
Mr Vatave,
Might I suggest that you vote to recall Mr. Seyarto?
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, April 23, 2005 6:40:00 PM
ME after May 3 you will be forced to admit that: Rm is just the repackaging of past political losers trying to fool the rest of us that Murrieta needs rescuing. That you failed to provide any hard evidence to support your multitude of allegations ( hot air)
And you will be forced to realize that Murrieta has passed you by. Most of us look around town and love seeing not only the work in progress but the results. While you political insiders are stuck in the quagmire of political details(myopia) You ignore all the positive results that have occurred all over the city. Doesn't Old Town look so much better? Can you believe that the flooding problem on Ivy is almost solved? The new high school sure is nice. And how about the progress on the new civic center? When I moved here 10 years ago I dreamed that this city would some day come into its own. It happened faster than I expected and I could not be happier. But the majority of the time all RMers have to offer is critism of the council and all sorts of negative takes on our city. Wow that is really inspirational. Like I said in a previos posting, I am results oriented. Too bad RMers but the results that are around Murrieta and positive cash position our city has shows that our councils have now and the past accomplished far more positve results in our city than negative ones. And now the political losers of this city are trying a new way to gain power; to rescue a city that was never lost. You RMers can try to fool the majority to buy into your power grab, but sorry we are not buying your distortions.Spending 2 million or 4 million to defeat people with your political philosophy would still be a deal.
On May 4 ME you and RMers will be forced once again to the losing side . Well it should not be that bad since all of you are already used to it! ( I have my nice large anti-recall sign for the back wall of my house overlooking Jackson. If it gets stolen I will put up another and another and another...)
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, April 23, 2005 8:48:00 PM
Obviously ME is used to getting the last word. Sorry to inform you that I do bother with the details. They are just not the same distorted details that RMers spew. Every city has a wish list doesn't it? All that I know ME is that this city is way better off financially than 5 years ago. Should I go into detail? Do I need to? I know that most people reading this are educated and not ignorant. I am sure that most people read today's and yesterday's papers and read the same things that I read. Why regurgitate that same facts? As for developers loving people like me: good! I would also like to thank them for my new house. Great job KB homes.( By the way if anyone at KB homes reads this please donate money to the anti recall effort.)It feels different when you are the one being insulted instead of doing the insulting doesn't it? It sure is easier to cut and run than to answer a few questions isn't it. If anyone reads this I have only one question that needs answering. IF LARRY FRANCES CANNOT MANAGE HIS OWN PERSONAL LIFE ( BANKRUPTCY< TAX LIENS, MALPRACTICE ETC) THEN HOW DO EXPECT HIM TO RESPONSIBLY HELP MANAGE THE CITY? What's wrong with fast food anyway? It sure is convenient when it's close to home. I can't wait until the Dendy property is finished.If you feel the need to live in a community with more "class" then maybe Rancho Santa Fe will be more to your liking. The rest of us hard working folk like what we see developing in Murrieta. It sounds like feeling good is an alien concept to RMer's. What is your plan for the city? With RM it is all whine and no plan. Boy you guys sure are full of details when confronted about how you would run things better. All I hear is the claim that development will be "classier" That jobs will be "higher paying." RM sounds like social utopians gone wild. It sounds like the John Kerry "We can do everything better" mantra. That is just so unbelievable! Well this guy with the little self esteem has got to go now. I am running late to my sensitivity group session.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:19:00 PM
Excuse me, Jack vH also has had tax liens against him. Check it out at Riv Co web page. Go to County Clerk and Recorder, Online Services, Grantor/Grantee, Index, Continue, I agree. Type name under Grantor/Grantee and type all the date ranges available. Isn't he a CPA?
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:54:00 PM
I guess Jack has one strike against him. But with Larry it is 1-2-3 strikes You're out! Thanks Anon for the info
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 25, 2005 10:31:00 AM
Hey Ed Dodge, did you ever think that calling people names just makes you sound like a belligerent ass____? I stop reading posts when I get to the first swear word.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Monday, April 25, 2005 7:32:00 PM
Hey RHolmgren, did you have to steal a lot of signs to hold that barbecue?
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Monday, April 25, 2005 7:34:00 PM
JM I agree with much that you say, but Murrieta's police department is made up of local officers who have a stake in keeping Murrieta protected. Building their own police force in Murrieta was the smartest thing the city ever did.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Monday, April 25, 2005 7:48:00 PM
Mr Kunkle with all due respect please do not confuse sarcasm and mockery with reality. I think the sign stealing and the vandalism on both sides is just stupid.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 25, 2005 8:00:00 PM
Rholmgren,
Don't sweat it. Its true, we have gone pretty far off topic at times here. Although it is disappointing to see so much divisiveness in our community, it is really nice to see people who actually care. I think you are one of those people!
JM
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:57:00 AM
Mr. Kunkle,
The thing about the Police Dept. was really more of a question than any type of an assertion. However, I would assert that other cities have very successfully contracted their policing.
This is not to say that it would work here, or that it is even possible in Riverside County. For all I know, the City could very well have realized a financial gain by establishing our own police department. I just found it a bit suprising, given the difficulty in maintaining a properly staffed, trained, and equipped police dept.
Mostly, I am just wondering whether the construction of the Civic Center has been prioritized higher than widening roads, purchasing park lands, etc. From reading some of the earlier posts, it seems that maybe the City obtained some grants for the Library and Police.
It is just very obvious to me that this Civic Center is a very expensive undertaking, and I am curious how, or if, this was addressed in the general plan. I am also curious how capital improvement projects are prioritized.
JM
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:09:00 AM
Mr. Seyarto,
I would like to tell you that I have read most of your posts on this blog, and I (for one) have found your posts to be specific in nature, generally courteous, and generally inspired with a vision of our city, which has really suprised me considering what I have read about you in the paper!
However, there is one issue, which I do not feel has been adequately addressed, although it has received some considerable mention.
Unless I am mistaken, I believe that you voted in favor of that zero dollar emminent domain offer, and authorized the City to pursue a seemingly very harsh, non-negotiating stance against the four residents on Jefferson.
I must tell you, this is the primary reason I signed the recall petitions. The very close secondary reason was the fear that you will support a zoning change of the old creek-side airport area (currently zoned open space)into a large appartment development (Galaxy Development.)
Now I want you to know that I fully undestand that the land in the emminent domain proceedings was zoned commercial, however, the whole thing about increased property values just never worked for me. I can see this type of arrangement being negotiated, but never forced.
I have posted on here, and other sites, and have never found one person willing to really get behind what the City did in this case. Your staunchest supporters really don't know how to answer this one.
I would really appreciate an honest and sincere assesment of how this occurred, whether you now believe it was a mistake, and any additional insight you can provide.
Also, I would really like to know what your position is on re-zoning the old airport, if you please.
Finally, I would like to tell you that I appreciate you taking the time to read these boards. Of all the candidates/recall-targets, you are the only one I have seen who is willing to put the time and effort into answering concerns and responding to statements made on here.
Best Regards,
Jeff Morell (JM)
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:53:00 AM
Thanks JM. I may disagree with some of your positions and I may mock and be sarcastic of RM's ideas but at no time should these comments be taken as personal insults. Isn't it much more interesting to debate or have a conversation with somebody you do not always see eye to eye with? Our political positions are open season to debate, a little humor, and ridicule aren't they? Any way RMer's I will be sitting in front of Starbucks May 4 with a box of Kleenex so you can dry your tears.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:13:00 AM
All this sound like it comes from the same tired old mind, is someone having a conversation with themself. There is nothing informative or constructive on this blog. Only a bunch of angry old men farting from their faces. None of the hollow drums in this town have a clue. Why does that kelly guy have to answer ever time his name is mentioned. A little obsessive I gather.
Brenda Padberg
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:02:00 PM
Hey BP we're not old or angry. Maybe you are just too young to understand anything on this blog. Go back to school.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:18:00 PM
Mr. Seyarto,
Thank you for your response, which actually provided me with some new insight on the E.D. situation. I can appreciate that an actual value was offered, when you absolve the property owners of any responsibility for paying for street improvements (which can be very expensive). Also, I can appreciate that the cost of street improvements to a particular land owner would be directly proportional to the amount of frontage land being taken. In any event, its not so much that the property will increase in value due to the improvement, but that it will increase in value due to the improvement in combination with the land owner being absolved of having to pay their share.
Well, Mr. Seyarto, Thank you again for taking the time. I sincerely appreciate all of your efforts on behalf of the city, and you have my support! Also, Thank you for inviting me to email you with future questions.
Best Wishes,
Jeff Morell
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 29, 2005 8:17:00 PM
VOTE YES ON RECALL
MAY 3 2005
VOTE YES ON RICK GIBBS
TO REPLACE JACK vanHAASTER
VOTE YES ON GARY THOMASIAN
TO REPLACE KELLY SEYARTO
VOTE YES ON NANCY KNIGHT
TO REPLACE DOUG McALLISTER
Signed- IrishEyes
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, May 01, 2005 12:12:00 AM
VOTE NO ON RECALL
MAY 3 2005
VOTE NO ON RICK GIBBS
What a joke!! He is rude to the public. He has no customer service qualities at all and he is trying to replace the mayor's position...?!!!
VOTE NO ON GARY THOMASIAN
12 liens and many lawsuits. What a great example of leadership. He should fix his personal problems first before trying to fix my city.
VOTE NO ON NANCY KNIGHT How many times has she tried to run for counsil and lost. I believe 6 times. She is not mentally fit to be making major decisions for my city.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:16:00 AM
Gary,
First I believe you as to the Annoymous post.
Second, what is your plan to improve Murrieta? I just haven't heard anything from you all that is better than the current city council that would make me vote for the recall, can you give specific actions that you'd take.
Thanks
MK
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, May 01, 2005 1:06:00 PM
Leave the post. A little slander of Rm"s candidates will be balance all th BS that has been directed at the three amigos. Thomason is not qualified for city council bcause is political positions are extreme. His views do not fit into the red neck unintelligent Murrieta mainstream. ( That is how ME and Rm look down their nose at the majority of us. RM elitists: How is the air up there?
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, May 01, 2005 1:55:00 PM
ME I will put aside the blustery side of my blog personality for just a moment to be blunt and serious. The recall attempt is because of political differences. RM and the members of neighborhoods that live near areas that have had their zoning changed are angry. I understand their anger, but to me those changes made sense in relation to the over all greater good of the community.I know that those property owners did not want their views affected or traffic patterns altered.
Some of the numbers that you have stated in previous postings ( 7 million short for Clinton Keith over pass and 86 million short for other capital improvements) are probably accurate at this point in time. A few years ago alot of construction estimates were made for future projects and then around 2 years ago there was a huge run up in concrete and steel prices. I am sure that when all those cost over runs are spread across the entire capital improvemenet budget it amounts to a sum in the millions if not tens of millions. ( I am not trying to say that this explains the shortfall... just a part of it. As I stated in a previous post, we do not live in a static world. A prediction of shortfall this year could change and become a surpluss 5 years down the road. Look at how much revenue growth we have already had in the previous 5 years. I am sorry that I do not believe in your sky is falling mentality. I have the utmost confidence in the current leadership that they can overcome the budgetary issues that you have stated. And I firmly believe that your group and its candidates have the wrong political philophies to deal with Murrieta's future challenges. ME I have a huge personal stake in this community. I own homes in Murrieta proper. If you are right then I have alot to lose. A recall initiated because your group disagrees with council decisions is not only bad for Murrieta now but also for the future. What if the recall wins? Let's say 2 years down the road another large group of citizens disagrees with council decisions. What then Recall 2? With this recall we needed something like: Proof of bribery or maybe conspiracy. Or how about a grand jury or FBI investigation into council conduct. How about some proof that any council members were paid for their vote by developers? And one more question: Why couldn't RM wait until next years election to deal with 2 of the 3 council members that are now faced with recall?
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:17:00 PM
Ahhhh, ME, ever the source of misinformation, aren't we. People tend to ignore Hopeless Smith and Babs Nugent because they are just sweet little grandma's who have a penchant for storytelling - it's the ones like you that sound credible who are the most troublesome. I'm not going point by point thru your whole tirade but just to poke a cople quick holes:
Have you actually read the general plan that you are so fond of quoting? Nowehere does it, or any council member for that matter, say that we will be built out in 5 years. But if we are, there's a plan there to accomodate it and a damn good one. You may be aware that the general plan is being evaluated right now, as it is every 5 years, to make sure it meets the goals and realities of our city. Did you attend any of the meetings to find out first hand what a general plan is and what the guidelines are for growth and preservation of commercial and residential property, as well as green space and raodways? Doesn't sound like it.
2nd - quoting some reporter from Florida talking about doom and gloom in the housing market has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. 600,000 people move to California every year and have been since WWII. 90,000 to Riverside county alone last year. You can ignore the reality of this if it fit's your version of the truth, but you better hope the city has a plan to address it, and our county and region as well.
Downturn in housing prices? Where would that be? Certainly not here and not for the forseeable future. Housing prices have averaged 30%+ increase since 1997, and while the appreciation has slowed this year, it's still over 20%. While the current growth rate is in fact unsustainable over the long haul, the conditions that predicated the 1991 price decline do not exist here now, our city is much more diversified and does not depend on a single source for sustenance as it did then. Whether you like it or not (and I'm not a big fan of growth myself), our area will continue to grow and prosper for a looooong time.
Your comments about shortfalls and schools are equally interesting. You stated that it's not generally known just how desperate the school situation has become - that's because the school situation is not desperate. I don't know what you think you heard last year but the city and the school district are in regular, some might say constant, communication. There is a predicted 30 mil shortfall for the new high school only at this time baesd on anticipated cost of materials. The other schools under construction or planned are fullly funded so don't intimate that there is more shortage on top of this - it's not true. And RHolmgren is correct in saying the 80 mil shortfall for infrastructure will be addressed through increased revenue, not tax revenue born by residents as you claim. The shortfal which you RM'ers seized on is a forecast based on the current tax base. Fortunately due to the foresight of 3/5 of our council, our economic job base and tax revenue is increasing at a nice rate - so while the city treasure can't say today that we have that 80 mil on the books, talk to Terry Ferro and see what the reality is.
In short, ME, your doom and gloom rants simply don't hold water. You have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, you know the buzzwords that get people riled up, you spout the usual platitudes about growth, taxes and dire consequences, but your basic premise is flawed because your evaluations aren't based on real numbers. I thought you used to be a nuclear physicist or something - you should know better. Actually, I suspect you do know better but the facts don't support your suppositions. Too bad. Jeez it'll be nice when you all go away tomorrow and we won't have to listen to your blather for a couple more years.
noWonder
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 02, 2005 7:54:00 AM
ME I have just a few quick points to make on housing. With all the building that is going on it may seem hard to believe but California is somewhere around 250,000 units UNDERBUILT. Why do you think home prices rose so much last year? Too much demand. Do you think home prices have peaked? 4 or 5 years ago Riverside's median price was 50% of the San Diego Median. 2 years ago it was 37% and now it is 30% Do you see a trend here? I have seen all the home inventory around town and don't worry it is starting to sell. I know some people look back at the early 90's and think that that situation could happen again. At that time developers had over built way past the demand curve.
There is no way any sane person would think that there would be a repeat of the housing pop that occured over the last 2 years. One of my old neighbors in Cal Oaks just sold his 1800 sq.ft. house for $20000 over his asking price. On the street that I live on 2 of the 5 unoccupied houses have sold in the last 2 months for $60,000 more than I bought my house for in Jan. One last thing: If you watch the news and read the paper alot you notice the overwhelming majority of articles and reports are negative. We all know from our real lives that there is alot of good things happening as well, but good news doesn't sell advertising does it? I also read Mr. Butler's editorial over the weekend. I think there are too many Oliver Stone conspiracy theories coming from the RM side. ( Just a little bluster)
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 02, 2005 3:43:00 PM
ME When are the absentee results going to be posted? I heard that it will be 8:15 in the morning but that doesn't sound right. If the recall loses I will be sitting at Starbucks in Cal Oaks with a box of Kleenex. If RM wins I will donate the $100 bet the no one accepted to the American Cancer Society. (I figure that I will have to balance a positive with a negative if RM wins)
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 02, 2005 9:02:00 PM
If even one is recalled then it is still a victory for RM. Maybe I know who you are already. Any way it's time to vote.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:10:00 AM
Did you VOTE?
www.voteinfo.net
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:51:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home