Election 2006, Let's all get involved!
Good morning, Everyone.
Hope you had a Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday season! Now it is time to get to work and prepare for the November 2006 City Council Election. This will be a crucial election as there will be three seats to be decided: Kelly Seyarto's, Dick Ostling's, and Rick Gibb's (he was elected to fill the incomplete term caused by the recall of Jack vanHaaster). We are definitely backing Rick Gibbs for re-election, but we must identify viable candidates to run for the other two seats to prevent developers again gaining control of our City through the 3-2 vote syndrome. We are hoping all of you will join in to help us during the candidate selection process and the vote-getting process.
There will be an organizational meeting at the Faunce's home on January 25th, at 7 pm. to begin the campaign. At that time we will discuss candidates, issues, the process necessary to collect the necessary votes for endorsed candidates, etc. Rescue Murrieta is asking all of you to come to the meeting, as a group we cannot do this alone, this needs to be a community effort. We have members throughout the City, but this time, we need a broader base. We appreciate all the support given during the Recall election, now let's join together to make sure another "rescue" will not be needed.
One problem with our local Council elections has been the number of candidates that run - so many that the vote is split and the candidates with developer backing end up winning. This time we need to identify three candidates as a slate and give them our full backing and support so that we can overcome this problem. The developer group has already identified their candidates and will work to dilute the voting pool. We cannot let this happen.
Mark your calenders for the 25th. If you are interested in becoming a candidate, let me know and be sure to attend the meeting - we want everyone to hear your views, etc. so that a choice of candidates can be made. Currently, we are concentrating on convincing Ed Faunce to be one of the candidates, why don't you help us do that? We need people who have been involved in the community and have name recognition, and who do not have money-backed developer ties to ensure they listen to the people and make informed and good decisions for our City.
This meeting will also be the time to focus on the issues and the "platform" for candidates. Growth and traffic are still primary concerns, but we also need to identify solutions for these and other issues.
What do you think are issues for the coming election? What are your concerns for our City? We need candidates and we need issues to support. Make your voice heard and come to the meeting on January 25th, Wednesday at 42077 Sante Fe Trail at 7 p.m.
It was at this location that citizens from all over Murrieta came together in the summer of 2004 to voice their concerns about our local government, and it was there that Rescue Murrieta was born and the recall started. This time around let us come together to make sure that a rescue will not be needed again, let's all look carefully at candidates and the issues and work together to keep Murrieta a great place to live.
Let's make 2006 another great year for Murrieta so that the headlines next year will reflect another year of citizen participation, efforts and successes. See you on the 25th!
Let me know if you can make the meeting, but come even if you are unable to RSVP.
Sincerely,
Barbara Nugent
677-2430
If you cannot attend, please e-mail me your thoughts and concerns - we want any directions taken to reflect as many voices in Murrieta as possible. Thank you.
Hope you had a Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday season! Now it is time to get to work and prepare for the November 2006 City Council Election. This will be a crucial election as there will be three seats to be decided: Kelly Seyarto's, Dick Ostling's, and Rick Gibb's (he was elected to fill the incomplete term caused by the recall of Jack vanHaaster). We are definitely backing Rick Gibbs for re-election, but we must identify viable candidates to run for the other two seats to prevent developers again gaining control of our City through the 3-2 vote syndrome. We are hoping all of you will join in to help us during the candidate selection process and the vote-getting process.
There will be an organizational meeting at the Faunce's home on January 25th, at 7 pm. to begin the campaign. At that time we will discuss candidates, issues, the process necessary to collect the necessary votes for endorsed candidates, etc. Rescue Murrieta is asking all of you to come to the meeting, as a group we cannot do this alone, this needs to be a community effort. We have members throughout the City, but this time, we need a broader base. We appreciate all the support given during the Recall election, now let's join together to make sure another "rescue" will not be needed.
One problem with our local Council elections has been the number of candidates that run - so many that the vote is split and the candidates with developer backing end up winning. This time we need to identify three candidates as a slate and give them our full backing and support so that we can overcome this problem. The developer group has already identified their candidates and will work to dilute the voting pool. We cannot let this happen.
Mark your calenders for the 25th. If you are interested in becoming a candidate, let me know and be sure to attend the meeting - we want everyone to hear your views, etc. so that a choice of candidates can be made. Currently, we are concentrating on convincing Ed Faunce to be one of the candidates, why don't you help us do that? We need people who have been involved in the community and have name recognition, and who do not have money-backed developer ties to ensure they listen to the people and make informed and good decisions for our City.
This meeting will also be the time to focus on the issues and the "platform" for candidates. Growth and traffic are still primary concerns, but we also need to identify solutions for these and other issues.
What do you think are issues for the coming election? What are your concerns for our City? We need candidates and we need issues to support. Make your voice heard and come to the meeting on January 25th, Wednesday at 42077 Sante Fe Trail at 7 p.m.
It was at this location that citizens from all over Murrieta came together in the summer of 2004 to voice their concerns about our local government, and it was there that Rescue Murrieta was born and the recall started. This time around let us come together to make sure that a rescue will not be needed again, let's all look carefully at candidates and the issues and work together to keep Murrieta a great place to live.
Let's make 2006 another great year for Murrieta so that the headlines next year will reflect another year of citizen participation, efforts and successes. See you on the 25th!
Let me know if you can make the meeting, but come even if you are unable to RSVP.
Sincerely,
Barbara Nugent
677-2430
If you cannot attend, please e-mail me your thoughts and concerns - we want any directions taken to reflect as many voices in Murrieta as possible. Thank you.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Thursday, January 26, 2006
35 Comments:
Barbara, I saw you on the internet web cast and didn't realize you were the lady standing at Albertsons all those days. I signed my recall petition with you. Thank you for all the hard work and caring you have done for me and our City.
Jeff
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:33:00 PM
T….My first thought was that Seyarto was having a serious bladder episode. But when he returned, his tongue was noticeably sharper then normal.
Just Curious
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:10:00 PM
Thanks Murrieta T and for giving new life to this string. I also agree that Tom Suttle would be a great choice to host this site.
Mr. Suttle, will you do it ?????
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 19, 2006 8:57:00 PM
Rholmgren said “In 100 days or so those 900 houses will be in the hands of new owners and the bubble people will still be waiting...” (ref: Enochs string) 2 doors down from me the house was taken off the market, that’s after being on the market 6 months and dropping the price 50k. Yes, I thought the original asking price was high, but reasonably priced after the drop and still no takers. During those 6 months even the agent changed employers. Anonther home 1 block away has been on the market 3 times in the last year, each time with different agents and still no takers. Both homes were in the mid 600’s, which is about the norm for the area. One home is owned by a young family, the other a young single man. Being on the market 100 days is not the norm. I would guess that 900 homes on the market is also not the norm. Rholmgren, have you talked to the residential agents to find out what they think the outlook is, or is your opptimistic viewpoint just a guess? Oh, did I mention that the owner of the home 2 doors down has had to go back to work after being on long term disability just to keep the lights on?
Just Curious
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:35:00 AM
Just Curious and 8:57,
I read your entries that mentioned my name. First, I want to say “thanks” to you and to everyone else who is taking part in this forum. I think everyone who participates with sincerity in this new form of communication is doing a public service by stimulating public thought and dialogue.
Mr. Kunkle has, as someone pointed out, done a great service to the community by getting this ball rolling. He has set a standard of tolerance and restraint in his moderating style that will be hard for anyone to match in the future. But it will be important that someone do so.
My personal plan for public service is somewhat different. I personally have a nagging concern about community preparedness in our rapidly changing world. In coming months, unless someone beats me to it, I will be preparing a specialized web site and/or web forum that will help put a focus on this particular need. My own pet concern going into that public service venture will be to emphasize the need for long term and infrastructure planning. Maybe a boring sounding subject, but one I think is vital.
I agree that someone must maintain a reliable community political forum – this kind of forum is the new political reality - but my personal direction is a little less political, and my plate is very full.
Other names need to be considered. Or, as Mr. Kunkle did, someone could just get a new ball rolling. Even if the moderator is partisan, all that really matters is that everyone be allowed to have their say.
Tom Suttle
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 20, 2006 7:35:00 AM
Crashes are like accidents. Do they happen? Yes. Can we see them coming? No.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:14:00 AM
Not good to take an analogy too literally. One can drive a car. But one cannot drive the economy, which is driven by forces much larger than any of us. Now everybody, join hands and let's mix metaphores. History is our teacher in this case, and bears follow bulls in every market. There is no soft landing for anyone whos financial posterior is being dragged down in the jaws of a greedy lender. Sure, the sun will rise again on a new bull market. But it will set first. We've been in a real estate tidal wave. Fact of nature: it will recede in a way that will reveal a trail of massive financial damage. So, don't panic, but slowly move toward the exits. A thundering herd will soon follow, but the exits will be jammed by Desperate Houseowners (ok, maybe that should be "homeowners", but it's not as fun to say). Anyone who misses the boat will be stranded on a financially barren shore. Sounds like gloom and doom, but only for anyone who does not get while the gettin's good. So cheer up. Make hay while the sun shines. And, have a nice day.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:26:00 PM
Let's see ten years ago prices have tripled on homes and since three years ago prices have tripled on gas. That's a great comparison Roy. The difference is that the gas supply is controlled by the oil companies. When they want prices higher, they hold back. When they need to create more demand they drop them down. Just like your friends at Enron have done with energy. That's why the big stink. Gas prices in NYC today $4.59 a gallon. Thanks for your Capilalist optimism you Republican screwball.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:30:00 PM
Rholmgren, you forgot to mention that salaries and wages have actually declined in the same period of time. Many people have been using their homes as a source of money to buy consumables. The increase in credit, gas prices and everything related to transportation may well push many homeowners out the door.
In fact, foreclosures are rising rapidly all around the US. Our economy depends on two engines, housing and consumer buying. When they slow, stall or stop, look out.
Our government -- all of them republicans and democrats -- have totally failed to provide intelligent leadership. The US people are going to pay a high price.
I love the direct action being taken by citizens, e.g., the minutemen telling Bush, either build the fence or we will do it privately. Bush and his cronies are destroying America. The historians are no longer debating if Bush is one of the worst presidents ever, the debate is whether he is the very worst in our entire history.
I think that City, School District, Water District, etc. planning should include some worse case scenarios. For example, the cost of a third high school imposed on Murrietans at a time when they are stretched to the breaking point.
Previously we mentioned on this blog the perfect storm set to ensare the average citizen, rising costs, rising interest rates, minimum credit card payment requirments, and a new bankruptcy bill which precludes walking away from the debt encouraged by the banks and financial institutions.
I also noticed that cities around the country are starting to adopt resolutions calling on the Feds to pull out of Iraq. Maybe we should debate such a move for Murrieta. It would sure put us on the map!
Edward L. Faunce,
Continue Murrieta City Hall Reform
Vote Against Developer, Chamber and City Employee Union backed Candidates
The Ballot Box is Mightier than their Bank Accounts
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:19:00 PM
Oh Rholmgren. I don't know what you look like, but all I can picture is Pollyanna. Wishful thinking does not make a good substitute for being realistic. Are you trying to tell people that starter level home prices in Murrieta are secure? If so, you are being irresponsible. Lower end new homes, such as condos in an area like Murrieta, are going to get clobbered in the next downturn. Did you see what happened in the early 80's? Or the mid 90's? Good people who were just starting to make their way in the world got financially destroyed in towns where these kind of planning mistakes were made, and people (maybe like yourself) went around buying up their foreclosures for a whole lot less than the original selling prices. Do you have your wallet ready? Are you finding it hard to wait? What a vulture.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:31:00 PM
Rholmgren, there you go again, shooting off your mouth without the ability to read. So I sound like Pelosi? Read what I wrote -- carefully. Do you really think that Pelosi would say that the democrats have failed to provide any intelligent leadership?
And you sound like an apologist for the oil barrons. Of course the price of oil reflects the supply/demand cycle. But the point is that if our government really represented the people (as in of, by and for the people) instead of the corporations (as in of, by and for corporate interests) do ya think they just might have seen this problem coming and started to do something about it a long time ago?
It's people like you who are going to go down with the ship singing the praises of the captains who have failed to steer clear of the shoals.
You always miss the big picture.
Edward L. Faunce, for Murrieta City Council
Continue Murrieta City Hall Reform
Vote Against Developer, Chamber and City Employee Union backed Candidates
The Ballot Box is Mightier than their Bank Accounts
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 10:56:00 AM
To 10:31 and a couple other posters - I agree that Murrieta is in a possibly bad position because of the kind and amount of housing that has been built but there is more to the equation. I think you're wrong to assume the worst will occur. What happens to the value of homes in the town mostly depends on what happens to the remaining commercial corridor areas. If the city government maximizes the tax revenue potential in those areas, the revenues could be just barely enough to tip the scales and net the very costly level of public services it will take to service the mass housing already in place. That could put the city on a permanent solid financial base. But I have to add that considering the way development has been going in Murrieta any guess about whether the city will do what's best is a real crap shoot. They need to completely maximize commercial revenues in the corridors. That's the biggie in this story. The idea that was brought out about someone getting the county to sell their cornerstone location, hopefully to a real tax produding retailer, is one key element that the city could be working on. They should work on that one hard and fast. That place is an eyesore when you think about it. It will keep important retailers away from this vital intersection. And they should not give in to the temptation to use it for a non-tax producing public purpose. Parks and public buildings and other public facilities have their place, but it would be like robbery of Murrieta's future treasury if the county does not sell that commercial hub location to a big tax producer. The city of Murrieta can save itself from going down the tubes if it does the right thing right now with the remaining commerial corridors. The alternative could be a slow and painful downward spiral to a messed up future like that of some other Southern California towns that got into a similar fix and didn't get out of that fix before the window of opportunity had slammed shut. I'm no "pollyanna" 10:31, but I think a chance still remains. It's a good time for the citizens to protect their property values by getting Murrieta to step up to the plate and take some real tax producing action.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 1:11:00 PM
Forgot to sign, 1:11 was me.
Been There
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 1:13:00 PM
Having uncontrollable knee-jerk reactions to anyone who uses the word "liberal" or "conservative" should not be necessary. We have both liberal and conservative Murrietans who care about their town. No matter which side of national politics you're on, if someone draws anyone in this blog into a mud-slinging word fight they have succeeded in shooting down the blog. 99% of the writers in this website have a common cause. Let's not fall into the trap of people who want to wreck it.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 3:30:00 PM
You silly boys and your huffy puffy hot air battles over matters over which you have no control. Yawn.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 6:26:00 PM
So Mr. Yawn, what's your two cents?
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 7:33:00 PM
That is what rholmgren wants us to believe that we have no control. Come November we do have control and that is when we vote these Capitalists out. He doesnt want us normal people to remember that.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 10:09:00 PM
in regards to a post on the previous string about housing/apt/condos....this might explain it more clearly to those who are uneducated about it..read up ..CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65915-65918
65915. (a) When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing
development within, or for the donation of land for housing within,
the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that local
government shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for
the production of housing units and child care facilities as
prescribed in this section. All cities, counties, or cities and
counties shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with
this section will be implemented.
(b) (1) A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density
bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (g),
and incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), when
an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct
a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density
bonus awarded pursuant to this section, that will contain at least
any one of the following:
(A) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for
lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(B) Five percent of the total units of a housing development for
very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(C) A senior citizen housing development as defined in Sections
51.3 and 51.12 of the Civil Code, or mobilehome park that limits
residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons
pursuant to Section 798.76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code.
(D) Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest
development as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code for persons
and families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code, provided that all units in the development
are offered to the public for purchase.
(2) For purposes of calculating the amount of the density bonus
pursuant to subdivision (f), the applicant who requests a density
bonus pursuant to this subdivision shall elect whether the bonus
shall be awarded on the basis of subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D)
of paragraph (1).
(c) (1) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city
and county shall ensure, continued affordability of all low-and very
low income units that qualified the applicant for the award of the
density bonus for 30 years or a longer period of time if required by
the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage
insurance program, or rental subsidy program. Rents for the lower
income density bonus units shall be set at an affordable rent as
defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
Owner-occupied units shall be available at an affordable housing cost
as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and
county shall ensure that, the initial occupant of the
moderate-income units that are directly related to the receipt of the
density bonus in the common interest development, as defined in
Section 1351 of the Civil Code, are persons and families of moderate
income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code,
and that the units are offered at an affordable housing cost, as that
cost is defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
The local government shall enforce an equity-sharing agreement,
unless it is in conflict with the requirements of another public
funding source or law. The following apply to the equity-sharing
agreement:
(A) Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of
any improvements, the downpayment, and the seller's proportionate
share of appreciation. The local government shall recapture any
initial subsidy and its proportionate share of appreciation, which
shall then be used within three years for any of the purposes
described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and
Safety Code that promote homeownership.
(B) For purposes of this subdivision, the local government's
initial subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home
at the time of initial sale minus the initial sale price to the
moderate-income household, plus the amount of any downpayment
assistance or mortgage assistance. If upon resale the market value is
lower than the initial market value, then the value at the time of
the resale shall be used as the initial market value.
(C) For purposes of this subdivision, the local government's
proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of
the initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time
of initial sale.
(d) (1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision
(b) may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for
the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests
pursuant to this section, and may request a meeting with the city,
county, or city and county. The city, county, or city and county
shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant
unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding,
based upon substantial evidence, of either of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive is not required in order to
provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5
of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to
be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(B) The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse
impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or
on any real property that is listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without
rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income
households.
(2) The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives
or concessions:
(A) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least
10 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least
5 percent for very low income households, or at least 10 percent for
persons and families of moderate income in a common interest
development.
(B) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at
least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households, at
least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 20
percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common
interest development.
(C) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at
least 30 percent of the total units for lower income households, at
least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30
percent for persons and families of moderate income in a common
interest development.
(3) The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city,
county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested density
bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court finds that the refusal to
grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in
violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. Nothing in this
subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to
grant an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact,
as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5,
upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be
interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or
concession that would have an adverse impact on any real property
that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for
carrying out this section, that shall include legislative body
approval of the means of compliance with this section. The city,
county, or city and county shall also establish procedures for
waiving or modifying development and zoning standards that would
otherwise inhibit the utilization of the density bonus on specific
sites. These procedures shall include, but not be limited to, such
items as minimum lot size, side yard setbacks, and placement of
public works improvements.
(e) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any
development standard that will have the effect of precluding the
construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b)
at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by
this section. An applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and
county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development
standards and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city
and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or
reduction of development standards is in violation of this section,
the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and
costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to
require a local government to waive or reduce development standards
if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as
defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon
health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is
no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to
require a local government to waive or reduce development standards
that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed
in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(f) The applicant shall show that the waiver or modification is
necessary to make the housing units economically feasible.
(g) For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a
density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential
density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of
the general plan as of the date of application by the applicant to
the city, county, or city and county. The applicant may elect to
accept a lesser percentage of density bonus. The amount of density
bonus to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the
amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds
the percentage established in subdivision (b).
(1) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph
(A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be
calculated as follows:
Percentage Low-Income Percentage Density Bonus
Units
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
(2) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be
calculated as follows:
Percentage Very Low Percentage Density Bonus
Income Units
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
(3) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph
(C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be
20 percent.
(4) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph
(D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be
calculated as follows:
Percentage Moderate- Percentage Density Bonus
Income Units
10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
(5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall
be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density
bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a
general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change,
or other discretionary approval. As used in subdivision (b), "total
units" or "total dwelling units" does not include units permitted by
a density bonus awarded pursuant to this section or any local law
granting a greater density bonus. The density bonus provided by this
section shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or
more dwelling units.
(h) (1) When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel
map, or other residential development approval donates land to a
city, county, or city and county as provided for in this subdivision,
the applicant shall be entitled to a 15-percent increase above the
otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable
zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan for the
entire development, as follows:
Percentage Very Low Percentage Density Bonus
Income
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35
(2) This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density
mandated by subdivision (b), up to a maximum combined mandated
density increase of 35 percent if an applicant seeks both the
increase required pursuant to this subdivision and subdivision (b).
All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be
rounded up to the next whole number. Nothing in this subdivision
shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of a city,
county, or city and county to require a developer to donate land as a
condition of development. An applicant shall be eligible for the
increased density bonus described in this subdivision if all of the
following conditions are met:
(A) The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the
date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or
residential development application.
(B) The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land
being transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units
affordable to very low income households in an amount not less than
10 percent of the number of residential units of the proposed
development.
(C) The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of
sufficient size to permit development of at least 40 units, has the
appropriate general plan designation, is appropriately zoned for
development as affordable housing, and is or will be served by
adequate public facilities and infrastructure. The land shall have
appropriate zoning and development standards to make the development
of the affordable units feasible. No later than the date of approval
of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or of the residential
development, the transferred land shall have all of the permits and
approvals, other than building permits, necessary for the development
of the very low income housing units on the transferred land, except
that the local government may subject the proposed development to
subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i)
of Section 65583.2 if the design is not reviewed by the local
government prior to the time of transfer.
(D) The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject
to a deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units
consistent with paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (c), which
shall be recorded on the property at the time of dedication.
(E) The land is transferred to the local agency or to a housing
developer approved by the local agency. The local agency may require
the applicant to identify and transfer the land to the developer.
(F) The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the
proposed development or, if the local agency agrees, within
one-quarter mile of the boundary of the proposed development.
(i) (1) When an applicant proposes to construct a housing
development that conforms to the requirements of subdivision (b) and
includes a child care facility that will be located on the premises
of, as part of, or adjacent to, the project, the city, county, or
city and county shall grant either of the following:
(A) An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet
of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of
square feet in the child care facility.
(B) An additional concession or incentive that contributes
significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the
child care facility.
(2) The city, county, or city and county shall require, as a
condition of approving the housing development, that the following
occur:
(A) The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period
of time that is as long as or longer than the period of time during
which the density bonus units are required to remain affordable
pursuant to subdivision (c).
(B) Of the children who attend the child care facility, the
children of very low income households, lower income households, or
families of moderate income shall equal a percentage that is equal to
or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required
for very low income households, lower income households, or families
of moderate income pursuant to subdivision (b).
(3) Notwithstanding any requirement of this subdivision, a city,
county, or a city and county shall not be required to provide a
density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds,
based upon substantial evidence, that the community has adequate
child care facilities.
(4) "Child care facility," as used in this section, means a child
day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but
not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care
facilities, and schoolage child care centers.
(j) "Housing development," as used in this section, means one or
more groups of projects for residential units constructed in the
planned development of a city, county, or city and county. For the
purposes of this section, "housing development" also includes a
subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section
1351 of the Civil Code, approved by a city, county, or city and
county and consists of residential units or unimproved residential
lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert
an existing commercial building to residential use or the substantial
rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in
subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4, where the result of the
rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential
units. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the
residential units do not have to be based upon individual subdivision
maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic
areas of the housing development other than the areas where the units
for the lower income households are located.
(k) The granting of a concession or incentive shall not be
interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment,
local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary
approval. This provision is declaratory of existing law.
(l) For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive
means any of the following:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of
zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that
exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California
Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing
with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code,
including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square
footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces
that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable,
financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions.
(2) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing
project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will
reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial,
office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the
housing project and the existing or planned development in the area
where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the
developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in
identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions.
This subdivision does not limit or require the provision of direct
financial incentives for the housing development, including the
provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and
county, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements.
(m) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in
any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California
Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the
Public Resources Code.
(n) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city,
county, or city and county from granting a density bonus greater
than what is described in this section for a development that meets
the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately
lower density bonus than what is required by this section for
developments that do not meet the requirements of this section.
(o) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) "Development standard" includes site or construction
conditions that apply to a residential development pursuant to any
ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter amendment, or
other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
(2) "Maximum allowable residential density" means the density
allowed under the zoning ordinance, or if a range of density is
permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the specific
zoning range applicable to the project.
(p) (1) Upon the request of the developer, no city, county, or
city and county shall require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of
handicapped and guest parking, of a development meeting the criteria
of subdivision (b), that exceeds the following ratios:
(A) Zero to one bedrooms: one onsite parking space.
(B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces.
(C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.
(2) If the total number of parking spaces required for a
development is other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded
up to the next whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a
development may provide "onsite parking" through tandem parking or
uncovered parking, but not through onstreet parking.
(3) This subdivision shall apply to a development that meets the
requirements of subdivision (b) but only at the request of the
applicant. An applicant may request additional parking incentives or
concessions beyond those provided in this section, subject to
subdivision (d).
65915.5. (a) When an applicant for approval to convert apartments
to a condominium project agrees to provide at least 33 percent of the
total units of the proposed condominium project to persons and
families of low or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code, or 15 percent of the total units of the
proposed condominium project to lower income households as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and agrees to pay for
the reasonably necessary administrative costs incurred by a city,
county, or city and county pursuant to this section, the city,
county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus or
(2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. A city,
county, or city and county may place such reasonable conditions on
the granting of a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent
financial value as it finds appropriate, including, but not limited
to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to
subsequent purchasers who are persons and families of low and
moderate income or lower income households.
(b) For purposes of this section, "density bonus" means an
increase in units of 25 percent over the number of apartments, to be
provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for
conversion.
(c) For purposes of this section, "other incentives of equivalent
financial value" shall not be construed to require a city, county, or
city and county to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary
compensation but may include the reduction or waiver of requirements
which the city, county, or city and county might otherwise apply as
conditions of conversion approval.
(d) An applicant for approval to convert apartments to a
condominium project may submit to a city, county, or city and county
a preliminary proposal pursuant to this section prior to the
submittal of any formal requests for subdivision map approvals. The
city, county, or city and county shall, within 90 days of receipt of
a written proposal, notify the applicant in writing of the manner in
which it will comply with this section. The city, county, or city
and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section,
which shall include legislative body approval of the means of
compliance with this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a city,
county, or city and county to approve a proposal to convert
apartments to condominiums.
(f) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other
incentives under this section if the apartments proposed for
conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus
or other incentives were provided under Section 65915.
65916. Where there is a direct financial contribution to a housing
development pursuant to Section 65915 through participation in cost
of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the cost
of construction, the city, county, or city and county shall assure
continued availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30
years. When appropriate, the agreement provided for in Section 65915
shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out
this section.
65917. In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature
that the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city,
county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute
significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in
proposed housing developments. In the absence of an agreement by a
developer in accordance with Section 65915, a locality shall not
offer a density bonus or any other incentive that would undermine the
intent of this chapter.
65917.5. (a) As used in this section, the following terms shall
have the following meanings:
(1) "Child care facility" means a facility installed, operated,
and maintained under this section for the nonresidential care of
children as defined under applicable state licensing requirements for
the facility.
(2) "Density bonus" means a floor area ratio bonus over the
otherwise maximum allowable density permitted under the applicable
zoning ordinance and land use elements of the general plan of a city,
including a charter city, city and county, or county of:
(A) A maximum of five square feet of floor area for each one
square foot of floor area contained in the child care facility for
existing structures.
(B) A maximum of 10 square feet of floor area for each one square
foot of floor area contained in the child care facility for new
structures.
For purposes of calculating the density bonus under this section,
both indoor and outdoor square footage requirements for the child
care facility as set forth in applicable state child care licensing
requirements shall be included in the floor area of the child care
facility.
(3) "Developer" means the owner or other person, including a
lessee, having the right under the applicable zoning ordinance of a
city council, including a charter city council, city and county board
of supervisors, or county board of supervisors to make application
for development approvals for the development or redevelopment of a
commercial or industrial project.
(4) "Floor area" means as to a commercial or industrial project,
the floor area as calculated under the applicable zoning ordinance of
a city council, including a charter city council, city and county
board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors and as to a
child care facility, the total area contained within the exterior
walls of the facility and all outdoor areas devoted to the use of the
facility in accordance with applicable state child care licensing
requirements.
(b) A city council, including a charter city council, city and
county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors may
establish a procedure by ordinance to grant a developer of a
commercial or industrial project, containing at least 50,000 square
feet of floor area, a density bonus when that developer has set aside
at least 2,000 square feet of floor area and 3,000 outdoor square
feet to be used for a child care facility. The granting of a bonus
shall not preclude a city council, including a charter city council,
city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors
from imposing necessary conditions on the project or on the
additional square footage. Projects constructed under this section
shall conform to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review,
site plan review, fees, charges, and other health, safety, and
zoning requirements generally applicable to construction in the zone
in which the property is located. A consortium with more than one
developer may be permitted to achieve the threshold amount for the
available density bonus with each developer's density bonus equal to
the percentage participation of the developer. This facility may be
located on the project site or may be located offsite as agreed upon
by the developer and local agency. If the child care facility is not
located on the site of the project, the local agency shall determine
whether the location of the child care facility is appropriate and
whether it conforms with the intent of this section. The child care
facility shall be of a size to comply with all state licensing
requirements in order to accommodate at least 40 children.
(c) The developer may operate the child care facility itself or
may contract with a licensed child care provider to operate the
facility. In all cases, the developer shall show ongoing
coordination with a local child care resource and referral network or
local governmental child care coordinator in order to qualify for
the density bonus.
(d) If the developer uses space allocated for child care facility
purposes, in accordance with subdivision (b), for any purposes other
than for a child care facility, an assessment based on the square
footage of the project may be levied and collected by the city
council, including a charter city council, city and county board of
supervisors, or county board of supervisors. The assessment shall be
consistent with the market value of the space. If the developer
fails to have the space allocated for the child care facility within
three years, from the date upon which the first temporary certificate
of occupancy is granted, an assessment based on the square footage
of the project may be levied and collected by the city council,
including a charter city council, city and county board of
supervisors, or county board of supervisors in accordance with
procedures to be developed by the legislative body of the city
council, including a charter city council, city and county board of
supervisors, or county board of supervisors. The assessment shall be
consistent with the market value of the space. Any penalty levied
against a consortium of developers shall be charged to each developer
in an amount equal to the developer's percentage square feet
participation. Funds collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be
deposited by the city council, including a charter city council,
city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors
into a special account to be used for childcare services or child
care facilities.
(e) Once the child care facility has been established, prior to
the closure, change in use, or reduction in the physical size of, the
facility, the city, city council, including a charter city council,
city and county board of supervisors, or county board of supervisors
shall be required to make a finding that the need for child care is
no longer present, or is not present to the same degree as it was at
the time the facility was established.
(f) The requirements of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000)
and of the amendments made to Sections 53077, 54997, and 54998, by
Chapter 1002 of the Statutes of 1987 shall not apply to actions taken
in accordance with this section.
(g) This section shall not apply to a voter-approved ordinance
adopted by referendum or initiative.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 11:15:00 PM
Action speaks louder than words!
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 21, 2006 11:16:00 PM
Rholmgren, well at least one Oil company makes enough profit to give its CEO, only one person, a $400,000,000 retirement and that's after he's been making $52,000,000 per year. The explanation was that compared to the total profits, that salary and retirement was a mere pittance.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:34:00 AM
It seems to me that you are all just gossip hungry, yarn spinners that can't discuss the reality of what you are even gossiping about. Not one of you can change things so get a real job or try another sport.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:26:00 PM
anon 6:14p,
that was a mean comment, gossip hungry yarn spinners? What are you doing on the blog if you don't like goosip?
Jeff needs to leave personal, snyde comments about Roy out of his letters. It can all be said without these personal stabs at each other. Roy is guilty of the same thing.
On annother note, if the Democrats continue to blow money on social programs that are unproductive and wasteful for the purpose of securing votes, then the Republicans would not have to spend money to build up our military defense and national security, especially during times of war. It isn't as though Bush inherited a glowing economy, we were on a real downward trend when Clinton left.
The Exxon executive golden parachute is an example of Corporate greed. But this is a free market, and whatever the market bears, will prevail.
But believe me, this kind of greed is not only visible in the corporate world, it is very much in the unions, amongst trial lawyers. etc. Have you ever seen an " poor" democrat om the political scene in Washington? They like money like everybody else but pretend they are for the poor in this country. Man, look at some of the big name liberals and check their stocks that made them rich. They are the bigger hypocrats. I don't like the Republicans but I sure as heck like the Democrats even less.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, April 23, 2006 7:38:00 PM
To Anon 6:26, who said that the topic under discussion is nothing more than gossip and yarns, you've not been paying attention to the demise of the great American democracy experiment.
At every level of government, the people have been replace by the corporation right down to the little City in which we live. The reason why I've tried so hard to connect the dots between the big money which develops and disappears, the mis-named Murrieta Chamber of Commerce and the elected City Council and even the City Manager, Lori Moss, is so that the average Murrietan will understand why decisions seem never to favor the general public.
I wish I could reproduce the entire article, but here's a brief excerpt from a Bill Moyers’ speech, he is President of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. The complete text of his remarks, delivered on March 14 upon the establishment by Marilyn and James Dunn, of the Wake Forest Divinity School, of a scholarship in religious freedom in the name of Judith and Bill Moyers, can be seen at http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/22/a_time_for_heresy.php.
While he describes the unbelievable mess of our National Polictical life, we experienced the very same thing here in Murrieta when the developers, combined with the Chamber and the County Republican Party to spend in excess of $600,000 to hang onto their political ponies. Why would they do that. Well read what Mr. Bill Moyers said.
Edward L. Faunce,
Continue Murrieta City Hall Reform
Vote Against Developer, Chamber and City Employee Union backed Candidates
The Ballot Box is Mightier than their Bank Accounts
___________________________________
Here is the excerpt:
"We are witnessing a marked turn of events for a nation whose DNA contains the inherent promise of an equal opportunity at “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” We were not supposed to be a country where the winners take all. The great progressive struggles in our history were waged to make sure ordinary citizens, and not just the rich, share in the benefits of a free society. Today, however, the majority of Americans may support such broad social goals as affordable medical coverage for all, decent wages for working people, safe working conditions, a good education for every child, and clean air and water, but there’s no government “of, by, and for the people” to deliver on those aspirations. America is no longer working for all Americans.
How did this happen? By design. For a quarter of a century now a ferocious campaign has been conducted to dismantle the political institutions, the legal and statutory canons, and the intellectual, cultural, and religious frameworks that sustained America’s social contract. The corporate, political, and religious right converged in a movement that for a long time only they understood because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries.
Their economic strategy was to cut workforces and wages, scour the globe for even cheaper labor, and relieve investors of any responsibility for the cost of society. On the weekend before President Bush’s second inauguration, The New York Times described how his first round of tax cuts had already brought our tax code closer to a system under which income on wealth would not be taxed at all and public expenditures would be raised exclusively from salaries and wages.
Their political strategy was to neutralize the independent media, create their own propaganda machine with a partisan press, and flood their coffers with rivers of money from those who stand to benefit from the transfer of public resources to elite control. Along the way they would burden the nation with structural deficits that will last until our children’s children are ready to retire, systematically stripping government of its capacity, over time, to do little more than wage war and reward privilege.
Their religious strategy was to fuse ideology and theology into a worldview freed of the impurities of compromise, claim for America the status of God’s favored among nations (and therefore beyond political critique or challenge), and demonize their opponents as ungodly and immoral.
At the intersection of these three strategies was money: Big Money.
They found a deep flaw in our political system and zeroed in on it.
Our elected officials need huge sums of money to finance their campaigns, especially to buy television. The average cost of running and winning a seat in the House of Representatives – the so-called “People’s House” – now tops one million dollars. The chairman of the Federal Election Commission said just this weekend that anyone who expects to run for the nomination for president – the nomination – in 2008 will need to have raised one hundred million dollars by the end of 2007. That money isn’t going to come from regular folks – less than one half of one percent of all Americans made a contribution of $200 or more to a federal candidate in 2004. No, the men and women who have mastered the money game have taken advantage of this fundamental weakness in our system – the high cost of campaigns – to sell democracy to the highest bidder."
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, April 23, 2006 8:33:00 PM
Long time reader who is checking out of here permanently. If you guys had enough self control to keep your talk about Murrieta, it would mean something. All you're doing is entertaining yourselves at the expense of other readers time. I'll be trolling the news and other local websites to see if a new Murrieta blog comes up. I hope everyone else does the same. You jokers who argue about national politics can just stay in this blog and play. Please don't go to other blogs. Bye, children. Have fun playing.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 8:18:00 AM
Anonymous said...
German news commentary
March, 2006
It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a
blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
This is a must-read by all Americans. History will certify its correctness.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East
Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically
correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated
and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from
halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide
bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the
American reaction in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt
U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in
Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually
believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership
get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians,
directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy
that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred
on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will
always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement:
Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold
War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against
Democracy.
His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and
being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers,
America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.
Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so
materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy -
because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem
too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems.
Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour
workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
---God Bless America---
GOTTORUN
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 11:46:00 AM
8:33
The first paragraph of your "exerpt" was great. The rest was absolute garbage. Whoever wrote that must resider permanently in fantasy land. OR - he could be writing baseless crap for..... personal financial gain. What a scummy capitalist pig! The plot thickens.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 12:14:00 PM
The reason I'm at this blog isn't focused around the hunger for "mad lib" type gossip. I was hoping to get some REAL opinions on RELEVANT subjects pertaining to the future and 'quality of life' here in Murrieta. I was also hoping that you all were actually educated on the topics about Murrieta you discuss and I can learn something from your side, BUT I have seen nothing but yarn spinners and wasted my time by watching you all make true fools of yourselves and a joke of this towns intgerity. Its sad to see that you all live by what we call "Murrieta morals". Go to the library, pick up a book, talk to people WHO KNOW what they are doing, get a clue people. This isn't a game. What your mesing with is our childrens future. I hope to see some real posts here about your ideas on how your going to actually do something important or worth a damn and not just talk nonsense about the problems Murrieta faces. Some of us really do care about Murrieta. If the group I've seen at this blog is going to be the voice of the citizens , we are all going to live in hell on earth.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 12:47:00 PM
After this Wednesday night’s Planning Commission, we’ll see if it’s even worth it to attend the Town Hall meeting. If ya’ll don’t all know, the City has posted 3 new notice of public hearing signs in the very rears of the Orchard Development (which would be where only the construction dump trucks can see them). One is for a C.U.P. application, the other for change in the Orchard’s developement. The first for a Dixieland lumber warehouse and lumber yard; the second for a 200,000 square foot building with multiple fueling stations. It wasn’t too long ago the City said no more approvals in area until the Clinton Keith interchange and Antelope Road re-alignment was done (or something to that effect), let alone the developer claiming his project would be like none other in the City. Sounds like he that part right. And a word to those that think they can find out more about the hearing by browsing to the Planning Commission agenda on the web…..won’t happen. An outdated meeting is posted in lieu of the PC agenda. More public notice woes for the City. After the Nutmeg-Washington lawsuit you would think they would be more conscientious about the matter. If this represents the City putting their best foot forward tying to keep the residents informed, Heaven help us.
And 8:18, I’m with you. Reading repeats and excepts of Rush Limbaugh and the likes has become quite boring and isn’t why I tune into this blog. See ya boys and girls.
Just Curious
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 1:12:00 PM
Been there,
Regarding your post about the 'eye sore' county facility at Jefferson/MHSR. There's already at least one broker who is interested in what you suggested -getting the county to sell for a taxable commercial use. But your biggest worry should be that the developer who ends up buying is not a tax producer. Apartments are an option that may win. You have some cut and run political types in charge in Murrieta who don't care if your town has big sales tax income in the future. Everyone knows it. Goodluck!
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 1:13:00 PM
12:47p, it is easy to sit behind a computer and mouth off and criticize, isn't it? What have you contributed to the blog? I would like to read it, if you direct me to it.
One word of advise: Before you launch into an attack about the stupidity of blog participants,who also care deeply about Murrieta, you should correct your spelling mistakes. It does not make you look too smart.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 1:19:00 PM
Let's support Murrieta T and move over to the new blog site. I am sure this new site will be well taken care of. See you on aboutmurrieta.blogspot.com
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 7:06:00 PM
Ok, so I have my faults too,but this is a casual thing and I was just trying to post before it times out....I wouldn't worry about correcting ones spelling when your political opinions are so kindergarden themselves. STILL, I've yet to read anything that REALLY addresses the troo problems.
haha
By
Anonymous, at Monday, April 24, 2006 8:07:00 PM
8:07
and you never will on this blog. You get the Jeff and Ed show vs rholmgren and they've been diddling each other for months now. They're in love with the one element of their lives that they feel they have some control of. They DO NOT contribute to this city, they DO NOT attend or support charity events. You'll NEVER see them at the Old Towne Theater (Stephenson's place), or helping the YMCA, Boys & Girls Club, Habitat for Humanity - they're too busy stroking each other here. I support this blog site because it gives these blowhards an outlet and keeps them from venting their disinformation to the general public (most of the time). Small people with small ideas convincing each other they have something anybody else wants to hear. rholmgren is the only contrarian voice on here because anybody else who dares question them is brutalized, marginalized and attacked by these barnacles on our community. It's an entertaining read every few weeks...as long as you don't take them seriously.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, April 26, 2006 5:49:00 PM
Ahhh, I see. Thank you for that info. Where can a person get real ideas around here anymore?
It has been REAL quiet around this blog lately? Did I scare them off with my questions, I wonder? God forbid someone talk about anything that holds weight. Youre right, they are stroking eachother with bull$#@! and coward down to real questions. Chickens!
By
Anonymous, at Friday, April 28, 2006 9:39:00 PM
http://aboutmurrieta.blogspot.com
Site has moved
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, April 29, 2006 4:21:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home