|
|
|
| BACK to letters index
Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
The subject of annexation becomes a moot point once the agreement is made. Why would they want to join our association if they already get every benefit other than voting rights? Why would we want them in our association if their homes do not meet our architectural rules and conditions? What is the point in having rules if nobody has to follow them and are able to "avoid" them until they decide to "join" us? According to the MBA, they would already be paying our dues. I do not see any benefit to either of the entities. The only reason for the MBA is because the developer needs our amenities to draw home buyers way out here and does not wish to be hampered by our governing documents. The MBA appears
to be a surreptitious way for the developer to essentially "join"
our association without having to actually "belong" to the
association. It is my hope that the new board members can make the
veteran directors more aware of the community's concerns. God knows
I've tried. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
The alphabets (RMA/CSD) have got to push for a new environmental impact report or at least get the Department of Fish and Game involved. When Murieta officially became a game preserve, weren't some requirements placed on the development? I would also like to know who specifically "gave away" Lake Clementia! What person or persons on what board or boards? I have lived here for 19 years, and have talked to a number of people about this, and none remember this. Was this a back-room deal? Whatever deal
was cut 12 years ago to sell out the community on Lake Clementia has
got to be changed. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
When we talk about the issues facing our community we need to make sure that we realize we are building a community and respect everyone’s right to voice their opinion. However, we should all become students of the governing documents that establish the rules governing our association. As members of RMA we are all one association and should respect the fact that we all have one vote per lot and one class of membership. Membership in the association does not distinguish where you live. Please review Article III, section 2. ARTICLE
III There has been a considerable amount of discussion on custom versus tract or production housing. Please review Article 6, section 9, subsection i of our CC&Rs. This is the requirement that a builder within Rancho Murieta Association must adhere to for compliance with our CC&Rs. ARTICLE
VI Finally, residents should familiarize themselves with Article XV, Annexation of Subsequent Units or Parcels. Two important points are that an adjacent parcel can submit an application to annex to RMA (they are not required to) and the membership would ultimately vote on the subsequent approval for annexation. Only pertinent sections were copied for brevity. ARTICLE
XV Editor's note: Michael F. Burnett is a director of the Rancho Murieta Association. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
In a letter on Dec. 6, I submitted my position on how RMA should “deal” with the developers who want to have access to our community without adhering to standards that have already been set and dramatically changing our environment, both natural and structural. To that end, is a bridge crossing enough to “let the builder in"? How about a concession for all custom homes, or more money for a new gate? In my opinion, a resounding no on all accounts. None of those issues alone will help us avoid a significant decline in the standard of living that we expect. Any decision that RMA makes should help promote and secure the basic standards that Rancho Murieta has established to distinguish it from other areas (i.e., tight structural conformity/regulations, low density, and maximum open/park space). As I stated in my previous letter under “Development,” the developers need us so that their developments will be appealing to prospective buyers. Let them woo us with real issues, not just a little window dressing. And
for our part, I hope that we don’t get trapped into a false
sense of accomplishment if we get a bridge or more custom homes thrown
our way. The developers have indicated that their plans “aren’t
proposed for that kind of housing or density.” Then let them
change their plans, or proceed with development without being included
with our amenities or standards … North or South. They need
us, we don’t need them. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
True, the custom homes on the North and the few on the South are nice. My family lives in a production home that we love very much. However, we would like to have seen the developers of the South do a better job individualizing the lots and homes over here to the extent that it was possible. The new homes that are currently being built on the South are a great improvement. Nonetheless,
whether you live on North or South, please support the issue of responsible
land development. The days of custom homes on every lot may be gone,
but that doesn't mean we have to throw in the towel and allow our
community to turn into something it was not (and should not be) designed
to become. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
It is far too late to argue that a developer cannot build production homes on the South or to prohibit fencing surrounding the homes on the South. The decision to permit production homes in the South was made long before many of us moved here. There apparently was not much opposition back then and the developers pretty much ran the show. Many short-sighted mistakes were allowed to occur back then. I assure you those days are long over. Apathy is now only a chapter in Rancho Murieta's history book. If you love your
community as it is, and only wish to improve it, join the efforts
being made to preserve it. E-mail Candy Chand or call Janice Eckard
immediately, or contact the RMA board and voice your opinion. It is
not too late, we can make a difference! Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Traffic is already a problem on Highway 16 for those of us who commute every day (especially between the hours of 6:30-7:30 a.m.). When I first moved here over four years ago my commute was only 45 minutes, now it is close to an hour each way. It's not just RM that's the problem -- it's the city-wide growth frenzy that is turning this city into a infrastructural nightmare. So much building has been going on and yet absolutely nothing has been done to alleviate traffic congestion. One of the reasons we moved to RM was to not live in a sea of houses. I love the open space we have now and the wildlife that currently resides there. Once
we lose our open space, I see no reason to continue living here. There
has already been enough done since I've lived here to drive my property
value down considerably. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
However, we're also concerned about density. The South will be getting an additional 600 units, the North 1,100, and across the street 200. We are about to lose our swim lake, as well as wildlife, oaks and open space. And what will we gain in exchange? We'll be inheriting huge traffic jams along the Jackson Highway. Respectfully,
let the North deal with our custom home issue, but don't let the density
issue slip past you. Even if all 1,900 homes, North and South, were
custom, it would still be far too many rooftops for RM. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
If everyone is so against development and traffic and the destroying of oaks and wildlife areas to roam, why was there not a big issue of putting all of the homes on the South? All of the open area where deer used to run are now gone with tractors moving dirt and developing lots. There is one big patch of land left by the park and that is slated to be large homes. It should not
be against tract homes on the North but development in general. All
I heard at the meeting was how custom homes should be on the North
and not tract homes. If the developer decided to build all custom
homes on the North, wonder how big of a deal others would make on
the other issues like traffic, wildlife, etc.? Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Multiply the proposed 1,900 homes by two to three cars apiece. (Remember, many families have teen drivers) and you're looking at a potential increase of over 2,200 cars per day on the Jackson Highway. Caltrans has made it pretty clear, since they recently spent millions improving the Jackson Highway, they have no plans to return for decades. (Hey, they don't even want to spend a couple million to improve the tiny strip of road on Stonehouse from the Jackson Highway to Escuela. Why should we believe they'd even consider spending billions to widen a recently refurbished roadway?) Clearly, the developers are relying on old build-out approval numbers. But remember, environmental regulations are much stricter now. Murieta Holdings must be held accountable to the highest standards available. Even with their dramatic drop in originally approved density, it's still far too high to be feasible for a community like ours. Remember, Rancho Murieta is a federal wildlife preserve. Yet, what wildlife will be left when the open space, trees and lake water are gone? So now the kicker is, besides 1,000 tract homes in the North, and the enormous traffic increase, poor air quality, loss of oaks, open space, and wildlife created by a total of 1,900 new houses, now we are about to lose Lake Clementia. How peachy is that? An important note: Expect Lake Calero to become a mud hole half the year to supply water to these new rooftops, until refill time in January, Lake Chesbro to drop a third during the same time frame, and although Clementia won't fall off substantially, we won't be able to touch it for our life. How's that for property values and improving our quality of life? Oh yes, it's been suggested, perhaps we can drain off a bit of water for a tiny swimming hole. Gee, thanks! When this developer is done, will there be any reason left for any of us to stay? Although custom homes is clearly a North issue, every one of us, North and South, needs to understand the impact of close to 2,000 additional homes on the Jackson Highway, wildlife, oak tree preservation, open space, and now our recreational lakes. As far as I'm concerned, this developer is out of control, and I, for one, don't plan to stand by and allow him to destroy this wonderful community. Yikes, to think there were folks that wanted our board to sign the MBA last month. I say, no to the MBA, no to Cassano's disastrous plan, and yes to preserving Rancho Murieta. If you're interested
in signing a petition to reduce density, as well as retain the custom
quality of the North, please contact me via e-mail at PatCan85@aol.com
or call Janis Eckard. I can assure you, no matter what you may have
been told, nothing, including this development, is inevitable. A strong
and rapidly growing grassroots effort is underway. Anyone care to
join the parade? Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
1. There is no
rush. Take all the time in the world to carefully evaluate, consult
with independent counsel, seek public input and then re-evaluate
before you make a decision. (I talked with a member of the
City of Pacific Grove Planning Department recently and they told me
that the city Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top BACK to letters index |
|
In
response to:
Can Clementia water be treated to allow swimming AND drinking?
