An irresistable force and an immoveable object.
According to the Californian, at the same time that another 213 unit condominium is being considered at McElwain and Sierra, residents of Country Gate tract off of Washington are complaining to MCWD about low water pressure. Post-recall, the problems of insufficient infrastructure are still very alive and well, and this example shows that infrastructure is a much more intricate problem than just the heavy traffic.
The overburdened traffic, fire/police protection, and schools immediately spring to mind, but did it ever occur to anyone that eventually development will run into a barrier that cannot be surmounted by money? I refer, of course, to water. Much of Southern California is an arid desert. Local ground water supplies are finite. Where is the water to keep this suburban paradise from getting thirsty?
The Line E drain is an admirable project to keep the streets from flooding, but the down side is that rainwater that would otherwise refresh the aquifer is now being sent down Murrieta Creek to the Santa Margarita and eventually to the ocean.
Do you think that Orange County developers are concerned about this issue? My guess is no. They say that is is the type of problem that the city is responsible for. But wait a minute, How can city be responsible for infrastructure that is out of their control? The lines of communication betwen the water district and the city are almost non-existent. Communications between the school district and the city is equally bad.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't water supplies and adequate schooling an integral part of a city? Why doesn't the water board and the city council communicate on an official level? It would be well for the new city council to take note of this problem and become proactive on finding permanent solutions.
Can a built-out Murrieta supply all its citizens with adequate water, sewage, protection, and schools? I frankly doubt it.
The overburdened traffic, fire/police protection, and schools immediately spring to mind, but did it ever occur to anyone that eventually development will run into a barrier that cannot be surmounted by money? I refer, of course, to water. Much of Southern California is an arid desert. Local ground water supplies are finite. Where is the water to keep this suburban paradise from getting thirsty?
The Line E drain is an admirable project to keep the streets from flooding, but the down side is that rainwater that would otherwise refresh the aquifer is now being sent down Murrieta Creek to the Santa Margarita and eventually to the ocean.
Do you think that Orange County developers are concerned about this issue? My guess is no. They say that is is the type of problem that the city is responsible for. But wait a minute, How can city be responsible for infrastructure that is out of their control? The lines of communication betwen the water district and the city are almost non-existent. Communications between the school district and the city is equally bad.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't water supplies and adequate schooling an integral part of a city? Why doesn't the water board and the city council communicate on an official level? It would be well for the new city council to take note of this problem and become proactive on finding permanent solutions.
Can a built-out Murrieta supply all its citizens with adequate water, sewage, protection, and schools? I frankly doubt it.
22 Comments:
I agree with the concerns mentioned by J.L. Kunkle, and particularly when it comes to water, because that is an issue that is starkly unavoidable. There are no alternative "fixes" to an inadequate water supply.
The old question, "What's ya gonna do when the well runs dry?" is rarely used in a serious manner these days. It was once a very serious question. There are facts out there that make it clear the serious nature of that old question is on its way back, but this time around it will be with regard to not just one or two farmers, but to millions of us.
By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:01:00 AM
Anyone notice Kassen Klein's name in the paper this morning? Talking about the article which mentions "developer's representative" Kassen Klein. I bet KK would be interested in helping developers get contracts for the infrastructure we're talking about. It may be legal, and it may be indirect, but he's got his hand in Murrieta's cookie jar.
By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:55:00 AM
No wonder Klein was anxious to keep vanhaster in office. I'd try to protect my bread and butter too.
JLM
By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 26, 2005 3:58:00 PM
Murrieta is directly affected by three water agencies, and indirectly affected by others. Like the various other utility companies, they all affect our lives, and over time their decisions have major impacts on cities and individual pocketbooks. The utility bills we see each month only tell part of the story. Those of us who care about the political impact of local governments need to include the utility companies, which are a form of government in and of themselves. Too often they completely escape careful scrutiny.
By Anonymous, at Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:05:00 PM
Sorry to change the subject, but something has to be said. Jack vanHaaster's appearance at the Council of Shopping Centers Convention in Las Vegas, coming right on the heels of his defeat in the election, was clearly a spit-in-the-eye kind of defiance of the voters by himself and by the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce. It was graceless, tactless, and thoughtless.
The Chamber embarrassed itself so often by its own conduct during the election that apparently it got used to the feeling. They just can't stop doing it.
I was among the many who were near-neutral on vanHaaster up to this point.
Go home, Jack, and if you care about those of us who were on or near the fence with regard to you, please resist the urge to crawl back onto the public stage, at least for a while.
Knecht
By Anonymous, at Friday, May 27, 2005 8:06:00 AM
Franchise is right. No matter what Warnie meant by his words as reported in the paper, it took a malfunctioning mouth to put it the way he did.
But where Franchise and I may disagree, is that I say vanHaaster's actions were as ill-advised as Enochs' words. No matter what flowery spin is put on some of the former mayor's present - and past - actions; they don't carry a flowery smell.
It is an unfortunate fact that Warnie Enochs is mayor. It is also an unfortunate fact that vanHaaster cannot surrender his power gracefully.
Shakespeare said, "The evil that men do lives after them." He probably was not thinking ahead to the days of Murrieta when he wrote those words, but who knows?
Knecht
By Anonymous, at Friday, May 27, 2005 2:04:00 PM
I know what's coming next. More of the same. A political soap opera, with reruns all year around. Who's got the controller? Can somebody please change channels?
By Anonymous, at Friday, May 27, 2005 3:59:00 PM
Shouldn't you as Mr. Gibbs if vanHaaster served a purpose at the Council Of Shopping Center's Convention? Read Laura Mitchell's article in today's Californian.
Even Ms. Mitchell whose daily attacks on vanHaaster secured the recall for him, had to report that his role this past week was fundamental to preserving a smooth continuance of a positive attitude toward Murrrieta by interested business entities. vanHaaster has spent the past 10 years building confidence toward our community at this prestigious event and it was important that Mr. Gibbs be received well by this group for the sake of the city.
Ask Mr. Gibbs who, contrary to what was reported, did know in advance that Mr. vanHaaster would be attending. Ask Mr. Gibbs about how a negative attitude toward the city, because of the recall, prevailed and how Mr. vanHaaster took every opportunity to introduce Mr. Gibbs and deferred to Mr. Gibbs and helped smooth his introduction to this important event.
Talk about a class act. Some of you still don't really get it.
By Anonymous, at Friday, May 27, 2005 5:59:00 PM
Oh we get it..... I wouldn't call that a class act. The people spoke but Jack still isn't listening.....
By Anonymous, at Friday, May 27, 2005 6:55:00 PM
Poor Mr Enochs. Mr Vanhaster still has more pull in this community without being on the city council than Mr Enochs does as the sitting Mayor. Vanhaster has every right to represent Murrieta as a business leader and the Chamber was wise to send him to the convention. Mr. Enoch's comments prove once again that he is a divider and not a uniter. It was in the best interest of Murrieta to present a positive front to the businnesses that were attending the convention. Mr Gibbs should be congratulated for putting the good of the city in front of his ego. His stock has risen while Mr Enoch's self centered stock is free falling. Mr Enochs sure has grown conditioned voting no on so many issues lately.(Besides the recall) What is he going to vote for? He had better straighten himself up quick because opposers make poor leaders.
By Anonymous, at Friday, May 27, 2005 7:23:00 PM
...Jack VanHaaster a "class act"? Try "prima donna". There's no "class" in trying to stay on stage when it's time to bow out. In fact, it's sad and shameful.
Jack spent years sitting on council bedazzled by the colorful displays and Power Point presentations of developers. Anyone who spent much time watching the routine goings-on of the council could see it. OF COURSE the developers would feel disappointed to see him go. He was their boy, listening like a true follower to their presentations, sometimes for hours, and then with words of welcome, he often gushed over their performances.
Since he spent so much time on the developers, it's no wonder he didn't have much left for the people of the town. Even if those people were about to lose their homes in eminent domain proceedings, he made sure they kept to their three minute limit. After all, who needs to listen to those small fry when there are really, really important people to listen to. Who do those little people think they are anyway?
Gosh, we're so lucky Jack's still around.
By Anonymous, at Friday, May 27, 2005 11:34:00 PM
There is nothing sad or shameful about Mr Vanhaster staying involved in our community. Some people should stop letting their hatred of Jack blind them. Jack can be involved in any non council function he wants. Any other citizen in this community can do the same. Jack was voted out of office but not out of this community. It is his nature to be involved in Murrieta. Mr. Enochs
would have been smarter, and more mayor-like, if he would have thanked Jack for his transitional effort. Mayor Enochs said he wants to start healin' the communty. He had better wise up and behave in a fashion that does exactly that. His first term as Mayor may be a short one.
By Anonymous, at Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:44:00 AM
Didn't I read in the paper that our new Mayor announced that the "healing" needed to start at the last council meeting? Then I pick up the paper and he is making stupid, divisive comments because the Chamber of Commerce sent Jack vanHaaster to represent their interests at the shopping center convention.
So where was our new "leader". Why wasn't he there representing our interests? Once again, this abomonation of a community leader sits around and does nothing but criticize the efforts of other people. What has he done to better our community?
I can understand why Seyarto stuck to his guns and voted no to having Warnie represent our city as Mayor. However, the others may have a better strategy. Put him in the position and watch him make an ass out of himself. It hasn't even taken a week for him to start showing what a poor leader he is, but for some of us who have been around for awhile, it's no surprise.
Also, for the eminent domain "victims", please stop crying and whining. You people made out with a windfall which us taxpayers are paying for. Take a break from the "I'm a victim" routine, count your money, and enjoy the tax payer sponsored improvements that the city is putting in for you, making your property even more valuable.
By Anonymous, at Saturday, May 28, 2005 11:37:00 AM
Anon of 11:37: Enochs and yourself share a couple traits in common. Neither one of you knows much of what you are talking about. There were over 30 property owners who signed deeds under direct threat of legal action. The only kind of taxpayer who would be happy about that kind of action would be one who favors extortion on the part of their elected representatives. They are holding legal guns to the heads of people on your behalf. There are taxpayers who are neither among that group, nor among those who the city finally agreed had received fair payment. If you are a person who likes what happened to the 30 who could not take the legal heat, then you are no better than the likes of either Enochs or vanHaaster. Choose your hero. They are both losers.
By Anonymous, at Saturday, May 28, 2005 7:24:00 PM
I'm one of those "taxpayers" (and a Murrieta resident) who did not like what the council did with their legal threats, even though I'm not an imminent domain "victim". Most people I know did not want the council using force right from the start on people's homes. These people are our neighbors, even if we don't know them. I want to mention that I voted for vanHaaster anyway, because I think
he's had enough punishment from the newspaper. And I've never voted for Enochs.
JLM
By Anonymous, at Saturday, May 28, 2005 8:22:00 PM
If thirty property owners in Murrieta were threatened to sign over their property by my elected officials, I'd like to see that matter revisited. No one represents me if they are forcing people to sign documents, even if that force is a legal threat instead of a gun. I'm not that kind of person, and my friends are not such people.
By Anonymous, at Sunday, May 29, 2005 7:32:00 AM
In the Californian story Mr Enochs said "The community has made a choice not to have Mr. van Haaster as their representative and he better understand that." Or what Warnie? I mean who do you think you are? And I like the part where Mr Gibbs said it was a good idea to stand with Van Haaster to reassure the developers. Sorry RMers.
By Anonymous, at Sunday, May 29, 2005 8:37:00 PM
If thirty other property owners were supposedly threatened into signing agreements, don't you think at least one of those people would have said something? Maybe the other people saw the value in trading $5,000 to $10,000 of land for $50,000 to $100,000 worth of improvements.
By Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 8:38:00 AM
To Anonyous at 8:38:
That sounds like spin. It would be interesting if someone might independently poll all those people to see if what you say is true. I certainly have no problem accepting whatever the truth may be. Your opinion, however, does not have an impartial sounding ring to it. You sound as though you have inside knowledge. So, is what they say true? I mean, that the original "proposal" for deeding over the property came with a legal threat? If not, then I wonder why so many people are now saying it's true, both on this blog and off. I don't know who's telling the truth, and would be very interested to know.
By Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 12:40:00 PM
Woah! Trade? What trade? If the city is making improvements anyway, then why does the property owner have to trade anything???????? Come on, who wrote that? Kelly? Jack? Kevin?
By Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 2:24:00 PM
I appreciate your comment, Kelly, and I agree, except for one point, the politicization of this eminent domain occurrence was inherent. Some of the property owners, strapped for cash to defend themselves legally, turned to the public to try and raise a cry about what was going on.
These improvements promised by the city were for curbs and pavement. They did not make any allowances for things like septic tanks and leach fields.
By J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:31:00 PM
Anyone care to guess what kind of stand Gibbs is going to take on the Chamber issue? I don't know that one, and am not 100% sure about Ostling. The other three are already so entrenched in their positions that I doubt their egos would allow them to even think.
By Anonymous, at Sunday, June 05, 2005 7:02:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home