|
|
|
| BACK to letters index
RM.com reports in two July 10 articles:
This impacts July 18 county supervisors Murieta development meeting. So odors are "slight and consistent with normal operations." Then guess we must stomach this forever? What else is "normal" here? Or should we accept that apathetic thought? Why was a violation issued if normal operations? Why the rush to expanded "odor control measures" if normal operations? And this happens in a sewage plant which developers and Sacramento County declare part of our endowed open space? Could it have something to do with an enlightened and empowered community activism which says "I'm tired of this and am not taking it anymore"? Or are activists the troublemakers? Or is there local mismanagement and lack of oversight at local and Sacramento County level which has too long gone unchallenged? What's with the CSD/developer agreement now being formulated behind scenes? This is much bigger than just our sewage plant and CSD, and is just the tip of the iceberg. Certainly developers, good and bad, have been instrumental in aggregating these problems we now face. And they attempt to continue. Folks, this is PTF, the originators of Murieta, with their battery of lawyers and P.T.(F). Barnum hucksters/"local hires" who attempt to continue control of this established community and our livelihood, by now being carpetbagger profiteers. "Local hires" include pro-developers who have signed on and are paralyzed by a combination of denial and fatalism; "developers are our salvation, and maybe it's not going to happen...if it's going to happen, there's nothing we can do to stop it." Both propositions are wrong. We must press our elected officials and decision makers to adopt a clear agenda and hold them accountable to follow through. The next showdown is July 18 at the county supervisors' hearing where they hear on the next three projects slated for Murieta. That underpinning EIR is blatantly wrong and is more illegal piecemealing. The Sacramento County is well aware of CA Supreme Court decision vis-a-vis illegal piecemealing, where all development projects submitted or planned/proposed, must be considered in the aggregate, prior to development proceeding. The operative word here being "planned/proposed." Yet the Sac County legal counsel and Planning/DERA departments continues to flaunt that directive as a way to side with the proponent developers. Preponderant evidence of all 25+ projects planned for Murieta, internal and external, has been presented to Sac County. Yet they continue in denial of consideration of the cumulative impacts of these projects on the decision-making of the three before them. We will not let that go unanswered. Its clear this is a test of PTF developers versus community will, being deliberated by the supes, and what they, the supes can gain or lose in decision. There's incredible value and futurity at stake here. Lets remain in our strength and resolve to Preserve Murieta through Controlled Development. -- T. Hanson, July 11, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top BACK to letters index |
|
Questions about development, in front of and behind the scenes