MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.: Appeals of Planning Commission decisions.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Appeals of Planning Commission decisions.

An article by L. Mitchell on the front page of the Californian today, "Murrieta Appeals Process Challenged" (12 Nov), has got me a little concerned. Apparently, Seyarto and McAllister are trying to make it so that council members are required to pay a fee when appealing a Planning Commission decision. They (or their real employers) are upset that some council members are willing to do this on behalf of Murrieta citizens in order to spare them from paying the $885 fee required for a private party to file an appeal.

Seyarto and McAllister's power base has always depended on hard cash to forward their objectives, and this is clearly a case where the council is attempting to insulate themselves from public oversight through economic segregation.

And with regards to the Planning Commission, if they are looking at all facets of the impact of their decisions, they would likely not experience the high amount of appeals they have had to address, and because they can't seem to do their job right is no reason to try and pin responsibility for it on the council.

This right for the city council to appeal possibly flawed Planning Commission actions without being charged should not be changed. I think that our duly elected councilmembers, including Mayor Enochs, are competent to decide whether to investigate the choices made by the (unelected) Planning Commission, and that this attempt to remove a check on the already underregulated development process in Murrieta is the latest volley in an ongoing war between the City of Murrieta, and the citizens of Murrieta.

So the question I ask is, who's working for who here?

31 Comments:

JL Kunkle,
I have stated my opinion in a post below, but your last question is what I really want answered.

A few months ago I told Councilman Seyarto that he does work for me/us, the residents, and his comment was, no he doesn't. This is definitely the question that he and McAlister should be asked at every appearance they make without exception.

Putting a price on realistic appeals, will limit them to people who have the finances to do so and as you said will segregate those who are less fortunate. It takes the residents voice out of the equation.

This should be a blinking light to what these two are about and we need to pull the plug.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 12, 2005 6:30:00 PM
No Jeff what the fee will do is separate real valid appeals from the politically motivated ones. If a project is not supported by say 100 residents then they can chip in 8 or 9 dollars and appeal it. You are making something out of nothing. One more thing Bennedict: Why is a supposed CEO of a Corporation so against Big Corporations. Well I guess it makes sense in your traitor world but it seems like a conflict of interest in mine.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:16:00 PM
Mr. Rholmgren,
Why do you consistently act like a ten year old in every message you have put on this site for a year. You haven't been right one time. Rescue Murrieta proved you wrong, Ed and Jeff have made you look like a rambling crackpot. Why don't you crawl back over the border where you belong. You don't represent anyone in Murrieta.

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 12, 2005 9:51:00 PM
9:51 Is your border comment a derogatory reference to my race? If it is then maybe you should go put your white sheet on and go burn some crosses somewhere. If you do not agree with what I say then debate it and show your intellectual prowess. YOur short rant is wimpy. I state what I think even if I may be percieved as wrong by others. RM has not proven me wrong and I still believe that the mindset they represent is destructive to compkleting this city. If so do not like my "ramblings" then do yourself a favor and skip over them.The right wing has had enough of the Lies and Propaganda and half truths and we are getting pissed. Watch out

By Anonymous, at Saturday, November 12, 2005 10:47:00 PM
9:51,
This guy has the right to his opinion, and we have the right to debate it on here without attacking anyones heritage. Sometimes people that show no respect, earn no respect back. Then when they get back what they sow they don't understand. He is blinded by his "ideology" and it makes him act like someone much younger. Sometimes he does say things that make a little sense. He doesn't realize that when you talk to people like he does the meaning loses its meaning when you are rude. But you were also rude and it shouldnt be done on this public forum. Arguing points is what should occur, making people hate or take things personally is not winning an argument. Its what little children do and they go home crying and saying "watch out".
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:09:00 AM
That settled, one voice should be heard louder then the multitudes. Every resident deserves a voice and we pay these Councilmen to decide whats relevant. If they can't do that small judgment call, we need to get rid of them. I don't see too many appeals. Just 2 Councilmen trying to add this device to eliminating the voices of ALL residents along with the threat of lawsuits by their friends the developers.

Again, this is Van Haaster, Seyarto, McAlister leading this offense that impacts every resident negatively.

Why would any resident care how many appeals our Council hears? It would be like caring how many arrests are made. They don't all stick, but the ones that do are the ones that will make this city better because we had a democratic voice and not the voice of two men and developers.

Can we make that a TV series...two men and developers. Tom Delay can play Kelly Seyarto and Scooter Libby can play Doug McAlister. Karl Rove can be the silent but crooked Jack Van Haaster. And George and Dick can play the money hungry developers.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:20:00 AM
Jeff,
Can we get Rholmgren to play Tom Delay's (Kelly Seyarto)faithful dog? That's all he's done since before the recall.

By Anonymous, at Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:35:00 AM
To Jeff and others who may be interested -

You are correct in many of your assumptions about the motives of a certain council member. After his last set of demeaning posts, which were essentially an egotistical slap in the face to people who strongly support the Republican Party, he was instructed to back off. That accounts for his abrupt departure from this blog, which he still continues to read. As egotistical and emotionally reactive as the man is, there's a 50/50 chance that he will jump back in with a post of outrage and denial, but he privately took so much heat for his selfish anti-Republican stabs that it is unlikely his ego will ever again be so honest in this blog. His latest attempt to stop planning commission appeals is designed more than anything else to reduce his exposure to political controversy. Although he loves to see his name in the papers, for the sake of his political future he wants to silence as much of controversy as possible over the tidal wave of high density residential development that is about to hit this city. Here is a point to remember from someone who knows: The political and professional futures of more than just three people in this town are riding on this high density issue. It extends into not only the council and planning commission, but also deeply into the rank and file at City Hall. There is a very real dollars and cents reason that people were crying at City Hall on the night the former mayor was defeated. They know the high density issue is a time bomb which has been ticking since well before the recall election. They did not expect the recall to succeed, and now there is an ongoing sense of fear and anxiety in the city offices. They dread the future of this issue.

I think I've said enough. The rest is up to you.
A Fly on the Wall

By Anonymous, at Sunday, November 13, 2005 9:16:00 AM
To the fly, What you're saying is already obvious for the most part to everyone who has been reading this website over the months. Seyarto's footinmouth disease had to eventually cause him some trouble. You said ''There is a very real dollars and cents reason that people were crying at City Hall on the night the former mayor was defeated.'' Are they just worried about their paychecks or is there something else we need to know?

By Anonymous, at Monday, November 14, 2005 6:42:00 AM
Fly on the wall,
It's very nice to get another viewpoint in this blog.

We have been able to stand up and eliminate an unethical Mayor with the power of communication that Rescue Murrieta's effort produced. It was a surprise to all of us. This power of the residents should be a wakeup call to all members of city government. If they are pushing an agenda in this city for the profit of the development community in direct conflict to the good of the current residents, more voices will be heard and more questions asked. I think we should call today for the plans that are set forth to identify how many apartments and condos, hotels and other road clogging developments are in the plan and the projected effect on the roads and infrastructure that exists. It is very unlikely that this city's government will improve the infrastructure or make developers complete it before shoving all of this down our throats.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Monday, November 14, 2005 1:12:00 PM
Jeff that racial comment by that belligerant poster was just an idiot taking a cheap pot shot. I am white but I think the point was made that there are some types of insults that should be out of bounds on this forum. VIVA LOS GENTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS!

By Anonymous, at Monday, November 14, 2005 10:12:00 PM
MurrietanEyes,
Some people are schooled in principles and some in knowledge and some in rhetoric. This person in abusive rhetoric.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:16:00 AM
Interesting that R Holmgren and K Seyarto are so mutually linked on this blog. They share the same developer friendly ideas, and the same inclination to use words in offensive ways. Between R Holmgren's trashy sounding name calling and K Seyarto's words which are so saturated with bitterness that they seem to drip, there's quite a picture that developes. It is an ugly picture.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 7:29:00 AM
M.E being accused of being a traitor or a coward and glossing Jeff as Bennedict may detract from the arguement in your eyes but I never thought you saw straight to begin with. There are plenty of insults and lies coming from the other side and if it is necessary to jump into the muddy political battle trenchs and return some insulting volleys then thats the way it goes. The political world is a dirty place so strap on some debate boxing gloves and let it fly! Any way doesn't the TRUTH hurt more than a lie? It could be that Jeff takes being called a Bennedict and traitor so seriously because there is truth to what I say? Jeff is to me just a representation of what the left has become. To a lesser extent you are also grouped with them although you will probably bitterly deny it to the end. The Right up until recently tried to maintain the high ground but it is obvious that the time has come to get dirty.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:52:00 AM
At 8:52 we were treated to just another dose of the decay that seeps from Rholmgren's mental cavity. Take a close look, everyone. Read the entry carefully, and see if you can find anything but justification for the man's endless rantings. The internet is a great new medium for communication, but unfortunately along with the good must come a variety of injections of bad taste and gross exploitation of the medium, like the most disgusting kind of porn, hate sites, and people like Rholmgren, etc. The best we can do, to the degree possible, is to ignore the likes of all of them.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:39:00 AM
8:52 and M.E must be tied at the hip. I am sorry that the reality of life has shattered your idealistic fantasy worlds.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:00:00 AM
When a person attacks someone’s character rather then the person’s statements it shows the type of man that uses name-calling as his calling card. It shows a person who is fearful that his message is either not being heard or his message isn’t worth hearing and he needs to be louder and more flamboyant then the rest. We are writing on this blog as residents, not politicians. These comments are not national policies but personal thoughts and questions. When a person attacks personal thoughts and questions with verbal abuse, it is only a lack of this character, a weakness of their personality and a need in their personality to be heard above the rest. I agree that this person is far too personal in his attacks and I will ignore him from this point on. But what I don’t want to happen is if he learns to be a man, that he also has the right to be heard.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:10:00 AM
To change the subject to a much more important City issue, I read again where Councilmen Seyarto and McAlister are using the "recall" defense, comparable to the same defense that Alexander Communities used recently in a lawsuit. This "recall" defense is being used against the other three councilmen as they recommended that the part time City Attorney can lead to a prejudice when a bond issue comes before the attorney, because it increases his work load in which he is paid by the hour. Seyarto is saying that examining this change is politically motivated. He means that this is just another elimination from the Van Haaster regime.

My feelings are that this defense needs to end today. The more it's being allowed to exist, the more that KS and DM will use it in defense of all of the lopsided Developer initiatives. If three members of our Council question any service to the Council I believe that it should be brought up and discussed. If sufficent proof or reasoning to prove a cost savings to this community without hurting the quality of work then just as always, the majority should succeed. Seyarto must not remember how that works and wants everything that doesn't work out the way he and Dougie want to be a conflict of interest and retribution for the recall or the past deity. Both of them had better start thinking about their futures in politics and be heard more for what they can do for the residents of this community and less how they can protect the power of the Development community and the Chamber of Commerce. As for me, any members of the Chamber that back Seyarto for Council or the group that backed the VanHaaster group in the recall will not get my dollar support in the future. Any business that doesn't put its hat in with the people that spend the dollars and support us, better think who their real customers are.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:44:00 PM
The very fact that a recall election happened means there was discontent in the public with the status quo. The former mayor as a person was not the issue. It was everything he did in the way of development approvals, attorney hirings, and much more. It is only natural that changes occur as a result of the mayor's defeat. If Seyarto says this has something to do with the recall, well "No Duh" Mr. Councilperson. What the hell did you expect after the mayor was shown the door? A cup of pudding? The mayor was thrown out, and that means his people and his policies were REJECTED. It's time for you, Councilperson Seyarto, to stop living in your bitchy version of fantasyland.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 1:29:00 PM
I would not be too arrogant 1:29. The recall was far from a landslide. It was won by a slim margin on one of three points. There was definitely no voter mandate. Any actions taken one way or the other by the new council majority could tip the fragile voter balance in a direction out of their favor. If Alexander Communities is treated unfairly and with bias then those who do it will pay the price. This group has the lawful right to develop their property as zoned within the General Plan. If they are treated any differently than past developers then another lawsuit to protect their interests is warranted. I would do the same if I were in their place.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:06:00 PM
Actually, Rholmgren, you are not quite correct in claiming that a property owner has the right to develop their property as zoned, if you meant to include the right to develop on their time table.

The most important thing to know about property is, as we have all been told, location, locat.... So, property that is located inside the City general plan is subject to being developed when the City can absorb the development.

And, by the way, the recall vote was not nearly as close as you claim. But for the enormous expenditure of out-of-the-County developers, it is probable that at least two council members would have lost their seats.

The analysis of the financial contributions is coming soon to this blog. One thing is for certain, neither you, or any other ordinary Murrieta resident, put your money on the line to oppose the recall. We have the contribution lists and the opposition money was raised from businesses with an interest in keeping Murrieta wide open for unfettered development.

As for Alexander Communities, they are a bunch of whiners. Murrieta needs to show them the door. They business tactics are unsavory because they first tried to buy influence on our City Council and, when they lost, are using personal liability threats against our elected council members. That is NOT all right with me and many others with whom I've spoken.

Why am I not surprised that you approve of Alexander C's tactics?

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:32:00 PM
Ed,
Glad you chimed in on this issue. Do you see the same tactics being used by Seyarto concerning the City Attorney? If the other three Councilmen are against an issue, it will be common practice for Seyarto to defend his side of the issue saying its political retribution. I have continuously called for this council to leave the recall election behind and work together. Seyarto and McAlister show me they are only interested in protecting one interest and that is the interest of the businesses that backed their side of the recall election. What good are these guys doing? We need this disruputive force out of the Council. We need some very positive Councilmen in there with new agendas, new ideas and fresh personalities. Desires to push this Council to a new level of productive work. Seyarto and McAlister need to go. They are worthless if we ever want to move forward. They are roadblocks to our City and they will force through everything ,including high density projects, they can as they get closer to removal or at least Seyarto's.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 5:21:00 PM
Mr. Faunce your points are valid, but my take on the timing issue is that most of the single family element in the "core" area is finished. From my perpective there is resistance to long planned higher density housing now that its turn has come. The people who who own single family dwellings should have investigated ahead of time to find out what the future plans were for the vacant lots near their developments. In many cases they were zoned and were intended to be apartments and condos even before the foundations were poured on the single family houses that exist today. Now that people have their homes they want to prevent the completion of other elements of the General Plan. Maybe they want those lots to stay vacant in order to maintain the rural feel of their neighborhoods. I see it as a denial of one party's property rights by citizens who have already exercised their the development of their property first.They have theirs and now they want to prevent others froms enjoying the same same rights to develop their properties. It is hypocritical. And if it takes hardball tactic for Alexander to have the same rights that were given to other developers previously then all the power to them . They will prevail in court.

I understand your position on the impacts of these developments but I question why there seems to be a single pronged approach (Objecting to multi family housing in general) versus a multi pronged approach that also targets county and state officials who have long short changed and under funded road improvements city and county wide for a number of years. The developments area wide are not soley to blame for the areas traffic woes.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 5:50:00 PM
Rholmgren - Please put a little bit of variation in the way you sign your name. All caps, or maybe a hyphen or something. Why? Well, that (the signature) is the only part of your posts I read anymore, so a little variation in the signature would make the posts more interesting.

By Anonymous, at Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:30:00 PM
Can anyone give us all an update from yesterdays City Council meeting on the City Attorney meeting or the charging of a City Councilmen for an appeal?
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:05:00 PM
Why is it that the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce accepts board members that have been recalled in a City election for ethics and performance problems? JVH?

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:52:00 PM
Because JvH now meets the minimum requirements for appointment!

By Anonymous, at Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:48:00 PM
Jeff - You need to go to council meetings. A lot more goes on than hits the headlines or that people talk about in this site. Everyone is busy. Everyone works. But only a few people in this community make room on our schedules for more than the newspapers, tv, and the blogs.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:21:00 AM
8:21,
I know. Does the live broadcast work. Tuesday afternoon and early evening is when my board at work meets or I would be in the first row.
Jeff

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:32:00 PM
Anon 10:52

JVH was recalled but he didn’t violate any state or city ethics laws. As for performance I’m sure they think he did an excellent job.

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 17, 2005 7:46:00 PM
To Anon 7:46, you are right insofar that JvH has not been convicted of violating applicable laws. But is that because he is innocent or because there was no prosecutorial pressure? We'll probably never know.

But, because of our Consitutional presumption of innocence, you are right.

But he did, however, violate the publics' trust and that's why he was recalled despite the enormous effort put forth by Dan Stephenson and his army of clones. They couldn't save JvH because his conviction by the residents took place at the ballot box.

Having lost the support and trust of the community, it was only fitting that the Chamber of Commerce, also an enemy of Murrieta residents, would see fit to put JvH on its Board.

A common saying would express that idea as - Birds of a feather, flock together . . .

Edward Faunce

By Anonymous, at Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:02:00 PM

MURRIETA OPEN FORUM - Get it said, get it read, communications for the community.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Appeals of Planning Commission decisions.

31 Comments:

About

About Me

Links

About Me

Previous