|
|
|
|
BACK to letters index
Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
An integral element of a new master plan is the development of a cultural (historic and archeological) resource management plan. Such a plan would ensure a balance between all future development within Rancho Murieta and the preservation of the 90-plus historical and archeological sites as well as the riparian wetland resources and habitats. One major hurdle to overcome in the development of a resource management plan is the elimination of the current developer practice of mitigating potential significant adverse wetland resources and habitat impacts through off-site mitigation measures. The practice does not make sense for Rancho Murieta. I support and
look forward to participating in the development of a new master plan
for Rancho Murieta. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Although I'm not a religious person, since Christianity was mentioned by someone, I took the time to type "Sin of pride" into Google and went to a few of the 630,000 hits I got. Then I typed in "Sin of gluttony" and checked out a few of the 36,900 hits I got on that. then I typed in "sin of greed." Whew! That one got 152,000 hits, and not only is it a sin, but it's a cardinal and mortal sin to boot! I suppose if I took the time to look at other religious philosophies, such as Judaism, Islam, or even dogma from smaller groups such as the plane cult of the Amazon, I'd find virtually the same thing. What we're talking
about here is morality. Rationalize your feelings all you want, but
the fact is, low income or affordable housing will not ruin your lives,
except in your imagination. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
When she refers to Candy in this manner, she is telling all the other members of RMDCCC, including me, that we are the same. Does Ms. Belton know that the American way is earn your way? I know that I am a Christian and that is between God and me, not Ms Belton. Also, Ms Belton, just what "handouts" did the first immigrants to this country expect? I always thought they came here to better themselves, which is what the first immigrants did. That is the American way. Mr. Tavolario, my parents moved to California in 1932 because of the dust storms in Texas. My Dad never once accepted a government handout. He worked hard at whatever jobs he could find. He worked and learned. He made chances for advancement and learned a new trade. He and my Mom raised and helped educate five children. My brothers and I did not expect or accept handouts. We learned to work and to take care of ourselves. I have known families over the years whose main object in life was to get whatever they could at the expense of anyone else. I am happy that you have nothing to worry about. But, my late husband and I worked hard for what I now have and I would resent getting screwed out of my investment so that the government could build subsidized housing inside what I thought was a "gated community." Shame on you for saying that just because we worked hard to get what we have, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Shame on you! As for Mr. Haines...
Were you jumping to conclusions that the petition would include information
about low income housing? If so, why? However, do you not think that
the people of Rancho Murieta have the right to be informed? Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
This information has been out there and all Candy was trying to let us all know is that the county has added our acreage to their inventory for potential low-income housing Just once I would like to hear a revelation or some kind of discovery come from the potential developer or our current board of directors that protects our open space rights, instead of her having to find these kinds of facts out as a byproduct of her continued efforts in protecting our open space rights within Rancho Murieta. Then turning around and watch her having to defend herself against all kinds of unfounded comments about her character or her integrity because of the information that she found and openly shared. Now before you all start attacking me for my opinion on the issue of potential affordable or low-income housing, I would like to specify that I as a child was raised in some of the worst neighborhoods in Sacramento. I have lived in poverty and for a time my parents were on welfare and I as an adult found myself on welfare, food stamps the whole bit temporarily to help support my family while I continued to improve my life and my families. So before the attacks come understand I am very capable of debating this issue from experience. The bottom line with this issue of affordable or low-income housing affects property values. Plain and simple. My wife and I have worked very hard to meet the all the qualifications so as earn the right to buy a house and live here in Rancho Murieta with out affecting other property values. I am also honest enough to admit that I will do everything in my power to protect the value of my property that I cherish so much. I feel confident that most if not all of the residents of R.M feel the same if they were to be totally honest. (By the way, isn't it also the board of directors' duty to protect all of our property values?) This newly raised issue is simply an acknowledgement by Candy of R.M acreage being added to the county's inventory for potential affordable - low income housing if development is allowed to continue. And at that point nothing can be done. It has nothing to do with the RMDCCC's proposed new master plan for the community to protect our open space. By the way the developer has had this information but to this date has said nothing. Candy, I applaud
your openness, integrity and honesty and I feel that the potential
new developers and our own board of directors could learn something
by your examples. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I know you believe everything you've posted on this subject. Perhaps there are some others out there who would agree wholeheartedly with you. It would be interesting to hear from them. There are only a few "gated communities" in our area. I wonder if Los Lagos has been blessed with affordable - low-cost housing? I don't think so! The fact is clear that if the PTF had continued developing and selling lots for custom-built homes, I don't think we would be facing this problem now. If this housing gets built, do you think the owners will pay RMA dues or will they be given a free ride to use all the roads and recreation facilities we provided? Do you really believe the developers for PTF, who have a long history of residential development in this county, were not aware of the state requirements for affordable low cost housing? If they did, was the MBA negotiated in good faith? Should the MBA be voided? I would hope so! My people were immigrants to California in 1925. Back then they were known as Okies and they were not welcome anywhere. My family didn't have a pot to use or a window to throw it out. We worked the fields in the Valley until 1942, when, because of the war, my dad got his first permanent job. When we were young my mother made dresses for my sisters out of old flour sacks. Times were hard and there was no such thing as welfare, so you could either sink or swim. Despite this background my sisters, brother and myself were able to pull ourselves up through hard work, and some good luck to improve our place in life. Do I feel for those who don't have what I do? Yes. I don't care what color a person's skin is, their religion, sexual preference, politics, or where they came from. If they can earn their way into Rancho Murieta, welcome! Bobbi, I think you have a golden opportunity to practice what you are preaching. Why don't you become the first person to offer "Affordable Low Cost Housing" in Rancho Murieta by offering your home for sale, for, say, $140,000. Surely there is someone out there who would qualify. If you are willing to take a leadership position on this surely there will be hundreds of our fellow community members who will follow. While waiting to post this, I see Wilbur H. and Jack T. have posted and may be willing to offer their homes as affordable housing. Now you have three people. Perhaps you can start your own Affordable Real Estate Sales Office. A very wise man once said, "Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day." Bobbi, show us the Christian and American way. Bobbi, I'm only
writing this in jest to get your attention and get you to think. You
know I love ya! Editor's note: Dick Cox is a director of the Rancho Murieta Association, though this letter was signed as a private citizen. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Call it a NIMBY attitude if you want. I don't want a pink house next door, I don't want a sex offender up the street, and I don't want low-income housing in my neighborhood. There are things I don't want in my backyard. Just about everyone has a NIMBY attitude, it's all about what is important to you. Do you want a nuclear power plant built here? No, none of us do! Jack, please do not pass judgment on me. I have lived in low-income areas that most people would not want to venture with their windows rolled up. Today I work hard for my family and my home. My wife stays at home to be with our three kids. I go to work everyday and work hard to "make ends meet." I am sure there are those here who have never had to worry about money, but I am not one of them. Your shameful comment was disrespectful and unnecessary. I read the petition and nowhere does it mention low-incoming housing, that's just a bonus of the developer's greed. My
support for the RMDCCC and the open space issue is not based on the
low-income housing component. I have looked over the documents and
I feel the 1,806 acres are protected. The issues that are important
to me are the soil conditions, the preservation of our wildlife habitat,
keeping Lake Clementia as a swim lake, and limiting traffic on Highway
16. Oh yeah, and I don't want low-income housing here. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
She never said the low-income housing units were definite but recent decisions downtown have made probable. She's not putting on a front -- it's real, people. She knows what she's talking about. It isn't a bluff. On another note, Candy is one of the most spiritual persons I know. She is a true Christian through and through. She shows this in her actions and in her words. Some say un-American. Un-American? I don't think so. She's as Red, White and Blue as the flag. Those who attack her character need to take the time to get to know their neighbor and friend Candy before they fire off. People,
please sign the petition for a new master plan. The developers have
divided this community enough. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Recently, I spoke in great detail with the specific county planner who was responsible for placing the Murieta acreage into the potential low-income unit inventory. And, by the way, she seems to be a kind, informative, hardworking individual. I bear her no grudges, and I made that perfectly clear. She is simply doing her job. I understand quite well the county is under tremendous pressure to make these numbers work. While on the phone, we went over several possible low-income scenarios. Some, quite frankly, were not so bad. And some, in my opinion, were really, really icky. The range of possibilities went from simply paying a fee, to constructing high-end condos (which unfortunately bring the risk of lawsuits by the affordable housing advocates) to the other extreme -- the construction of government-subsidized apartments within Murieta's gates. Although everything is still in the proposal stages, and no one knows for sure what will happen, my gut feeling is -- once you've been "inventoried," good luck getting "uninventoried." I also spoke for about 45 minutes with the director of a local housing advocacy group. He, too, was quite gracious and informative. He shared with me a wide variety of goals and potential outcomes. I respected his opinions, and gleaned a great deal from our conversation. I assured him, my beef was not with his group, nor with the county. For me, the issue has always been about what I believe are the developers' overall poorly conceived buildout plans. Wilbur, I can assure you, our petition remains absolutely free of any low-income verbiage whatsoever. There would be no point. The county has legal guidelines to follow. We get that. There's absolutely no use going there. However, low-income housing is a clear potential side effect of Murieta's buildout proposal, and, I believe, people have the right to know. I'm not a bit sorry I brought it out in the open, and don't intend to hide from such disclosures in the future. Heck, if I waited around for the developers to let residents in on the news (about the recent inventoried property) well, I'm afraid, I would have waited around forever. So, before anyone continues to engage in tactics to shoot the messenger, or wants to imply I'm uninformed, why don't you try asking first? You can always shoot me later. :) To contact RMDCCC, or to sign our development petition, please call 0832, or email me at PatCan85@aol.com Together,
we can preserve Murieta. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Recently, I spoke in great detail with the specific county planner who was responsible for placing the Murieta acreage into the potential low-income unit inventory. And, by the way, she seems to be a kind, informative, hardworking individual. I bear her no grudges, and I made that perfectly clear. She is simply doing her job. I understand quite well the county is under tremendous pressure to make these numbers work. While on the phone, we went over several possible low-income scenarios. Some, quite frankly, were not so bad. And some, in my opinion, were really, really icky. The range of possibilities went from simply paying a fee, to constructing high-end condos (which unfortunately bring the risk of lawsuits by the affordable housing advocates) to the other extreme -- the construction of government-subsidized apartments within Murieta's gates. Although everything is still in the proposal stages, and no one knows for sure what will happen, my gut feeling is -- once you've been "inventoried," good luck getting "uninventoried." I also spoke for about 45 minutes with the director of a local housing advocacy group. He, too, was quite gracious and informative. He shared with me a wide variety of goals and potential outcomes. I respected his opinions, and gleaned a great deal from our conversation. I assured him, my beef was not with his group, nor with the county. For me, the issue has always been about what I believe are the developers' overall poorly conceived buildout plans. Wilbur, I can assure you, our petition remains absolutely free of any low-income verbiage whatsoever. There would be no point. The county has legal guidelines to follow. We get that. There's absolutely no use going there. However, low-income housing is a clear potential side effect of Murieta's buildout proposal, and, I believe, people have the right to know. I'm not a bit sorry I brought it out in the open, and don't intend to hide from such disclosures in the future. Heck, if I waited around for the developers to let residents in on the news (about the recent inventoried property) well, I'm afraid, I would have waited around forever. So, before anyone continues to engage in tactics to shoot the messenger, or wants to imply I'm uninformed, why don't you try asking first? You can always shoot me later. :) To contact RMDCCC, or to sign our development petition, please call 0832, or email me at PatCan85@aol.com Together,
we can preserve Murieta. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
We probably do
face the inclusion of some "affordable housing," but probably
not "low income" or "subsidized" housing. So we
may have gone off on an unnecessary and divisive class warfare tangent.
The income cutoff For years state
law has mandated that counties make developers include "affordable"
housing, but counties used to get away with letting developers buy
their way out with "mitigation fees" (aka payoffs). Housing
advocates Here are some useful resources for those who would base their decisions on accurate and complete information: http://www.saccounty.net/planning/housing_element/housing.html Before we go running to the county with what sounds so far like a NIMBYish petition which would run afoul of state law, thereby harming our credibility on the open space and environmental issues on which the residents do have strong, sympathetic arguments for rooftop reductions, let's find out exactly what form of "affordable" housing has been proposed, and by whom. Candy, will you please share the document stating this proposal with the rest of us? And just what
is the wording of the proposed new petition, and is that
verbiage open to discussion with the whole community before you rush
into it based on the opinions of five or 10 "insiders"? Editor's note: This letter and the following one arrived at about the same time, before the publication of the story that presents the development opponents' petition. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Since the numbers have been questioned, here are the recommended ratios from the low-income housing advocates. So far, we're looking at a proposal for up to 15 percent of build-out, which makes up 5 percent low income, 5 percent very low income, and 5 percent extremely low income. What do the advocates consider should be those low-income payments? Let's see, try $1,283 per month for a family of four in the low-income group, which equates to a mortgage of about $175,000. Now, with little, or no, down payment, you do the math. Then, the next level is $801 per month for a family of four in the mid-low-income group, which comprises a mortgage of $140,000. And, finally, as low as $481 per month for a family of four in the extremely low-income group. In the final case, can you say government subsidized apartments? Of course, due to litigation, the low-income housing issue is the way the county has to go. We understand that. But, in case anyone missed my point, I'll try again. This is still about the developers' right to build on what we believe is legally protected open space. Please remember what I stated in the last e-mail. It's a percentage game. The government doesn't just barge into a community and require low-income housing for the heck of it. No. That mechanism is triggered only by some new development, likely at the 10 percent to 15 percent level. However, due to the RMDCCC's work downtown, the open space acreage within Murieta must be accounted for, and therefore, we believe, the face of development will be forever altered. So, again, please remember, no development (due to open space numbers) will equal no low-income housing, and less development will equal less low-income housing. That's how it works. In all fairness, it's true that developers are sometimes allowed to pay a fee, rather than build low-income units within the community in question. However, due to intense recent litigation, it's become quite difficult to pull that off anymore. And, as for the suggestion that developers might construct the units outside our gates, but still within our PUD, here's a little info: The 200-plus homes proposed across the street, neatly tucked between a commercial parking lot and a runway, may actually become our bonus prize. You see, typically, each developer is responsible for his own units, within his own acreage. So, the North developer may be responsible for North low-income housing. And the South developer may be responsible for the South. However, we've been told, it's quite possible, the 200-plus homes proposed near the commercial location might just comprise units above and beyond Murieta's 10 percent to 15 percent requirement. Lucky us. So, will the developers pull a rabbit out of the hat and pay a fee rather than build low-income units within Murieta? Perhaps. Will the county allow developers to build all the low-income units across the street, but still within our PUD? Perhaps. Will I hit the lotto tomorrow? Hey, it could happen. :) In the end, who knows how things will turn out? But considering multiple telecasts where developers pitched the promise of increased property values to residents, I thought folks might want to be notified that acreage within our gates was recently pulled into the low-income inventory. What can I say? I'd rather not wait around for developers to let residents in on the secret. The bottom line is, despite some commentary about other affected towns, not every new development in Sacramento County will be required to receive low income housing units. Basically, due to recent land-use inventory changes, the possibility of low-income housing within our gates has become a real potential side effect of large-scale development. To offer your
assistance to the RMDCCC, or if you have any questions, feel free
to e-mail anytime: PatCan85@aol.com Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Personally, I was grateful and couldn't understand why everyone around was PO'd at me! I did what I could to make the best home for my family, and rather than assume everyone living like that is a ne'er-do-well whose sole purpose in life is to screw me out of a couple extra thousand bucks when I sell my house, I just don't worry about it. How unfortunate for those of you who are so frightened, that you've never had to experience what it's like to actually struggle to make ends meet! Shame on you! Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
So far, Parcel
1 and land near the Retreats (near the Fairways) was recently inventoried.
By the way, from what I'm told downtown, Gerry Kamilos was notified
by the county weeks ago. Wouldn't low-income housing have made an
interesting topic for one of their "town hall" meetings?
But then again, the developers put those meetings on long-term hiatus. Editor's note: The county has been identifying high-density land that's zoned for multi-family housing, here and throughout the county. (See the editor's note with previous letter.) Parcel 1, at the North Gate, has been zoned for apartments for decades. Two of the three Retreat parcels also are high-density, which the Murieta North developers drastically reduced in density in their development plan. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
The
person I spoke to was quite definite that there is no low-income requirement
in the County of Sacramento. Perhaps the possibility of low-income
housing coming to Rancho Murieta should be verified with the county
before everyone gets up in arms. Editor's note: The county has been working on an affordable-housing plan for more than a year, conducting public hearings and submitting drafts of the plan to the state. The plan will outline land designated for affordable housing. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I thought the American way was partly about capitalism and the free market system, not about handouts without responsibility. I started out living in a studio apartment in West Sacramento while I went to school and worked full time. After Candy and I married, we shared an apartment in Orangevale. Once we'd saved enough money, we bought our first home in Antelope where we lived for 11 years. We paid our dues before coming to Murieta Regarding your comments about my wife, I want to say that more than once I've seen her give the last dollar from her checkbook to strangers with a sob story. If anybody else out there has a sob story, save it. We're already broke. It's not fair to imply she's not compassionate, Christian, or patriotic. I think she's just smart enough to recognize a developer train wreck when she sees it. I've watched her, and other members of the RMDCCC, take lots of heat trying to keep people informed. I'm proud of her. While reading your e-mail, Bobbi, I wondered why so many people feel they're doing the "underprivileged" a favor by treating us like we're incapable of making it on our own. If everything was handed to us before we earned it, how would we ever gain our self respect? Thanks anyway,
but I think we'll do just fine without the pity party, the violins
and social programs. Just so you know, I'm a proud American. Would
you like to check my citizenship papers? Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I too was in management in a major retail firm, and like your son I could not afford to buy a home. I worked hard and was able to increase my salary at a faster pace than inflation. Now my wife and I can afford a home, three kids and a dog. I like beachfront homes, should they be forced to build low-income homes so I can afford to live on the beach? Sometimes in life there are things you cannot afford. If it is important to your son (or anyone else), then he will work hard to earn it. To suggest that
saving our open space, preserving our wildlife, saving many oak trees,
and attempting to stop low-income housing is "un-Christian"
or "un-American" is extremely offensive. I don't know about
everyone else out here, but for me Murieta is a way of life, and I
for one will fight to preserve it. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Yesterday's Sacramento Bee, on page 1 of the Business section, indicated the median new home price in the metropolitan Sacramento area topped $386,000 in the first quarter of 2004. My son, with a management position in a major retail firm, certainly could not begin to think about a home at such a price. Without the appreciation in all home values, not many who bought into RM when prices were reasonable could think about attacking those prices, either. Candy, you and I have discussed the issue of low-income housing, so you know how I feel. The cities of Folsom and Elk Grove have been facing the same issue for some time. We need to provide housing for anyone willing to partake in the pride of home ownership. To oppose that is somehow un-Christian, and perhaps even un-American, as one considers the first immigrants to this great country and the strides they and the generations that followed them have made. I concur that apartments immediately inside the North Gate, below the RMA building, should not be anyone's top priority. Unfortunately, that land has been zoned for apartments since Day 1. I wish only that the "land swap" would have already occurred and that site be the location of a much-needed community center. Hopefully,
more negotiations/research will be done about allowing those units
outside the gates, yet still within the CID/PUD. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Due to development ratios, specifications propose that 10 to 15 percent of the North buildout should include low-income units. And, so far, here are the projected locations: Low-income apartments are being considered for Parcel 1, right next to the North front gate, and here's the kicker -- more low-income housing is being considered near North Murieta Parkway and the golf course, mixed in with Gerry and Bob's planned Retreat project. I'm sure that adjacent neighbors at the Country Club and homeowners on the Fairways will particularly appreciate that news. And, just so South residents don't feel left out, look out now, because the additional proposed buildout on your side of the river will likely generate 10 to 15 percent low-income units within your gates as well. There ya go, lots of low-income units likely to be constructed within both gates. So much for the developers' promises to "improve" our community with increased property values. Okey, dokey. Have the smelling salts kicked in yet? Then, please, read on 'cause here comes the good news. The county is listening intently to the RMDCCC's concerns about Murieta's "lost" 1,806 acres of open space. But we need your help. We're asking you to sign a new petition beseeching the supervisors to create a new master plan, one that requires annexation for additional dwellings in the North and South, and that limits rooftops within the entire PUD, as well as mandates that our 1,806 acres of open space/wildlife preserve is left as intended -- open and undisturbed. Does anyone really need another reason to stand up for our community? By protecting our open space, we'll dramatically limit, or even halt, buildout, depending on the final open space count. In turn, we'll save thousands of oaks from destruction, preserve our wildlife, prevent mass traffic jams, save Clementia as a swim lake, and rein in the North developers who refuse to annex into our master association simply so they can build production homes in the North. But while we're at it, we'll drastically limit new rooftops, which will, in turn, drastically limit likely low-income housing units within our gates, both North and South. Remember, it's a percentage game. Less buildout equals less low-income housing, and no buildout equals no low-income housing. However, standing by and doing nothing will guarantee an abundance of rooftops, including a likely supply of low-income units. Please don't delay. Time is running out to save our community. If you've been holding back 'til now, but this was the wake-up call you needed, please sign the RMDCCC's new petition. Contact us at 354-0832 or e-mail PatCan85@aol.com Together, we can
preserve Murieta. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
See what grassroots public activism (both the RMDCCC open space concerns, as well as soil/foundation issues brought forth by Matt McGuire and company) can do? Now, if the North
developers would only follow the South's example, we'd be on our way.
Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I want to express
my gratitude and appreciation for all the work and time given by the
RMDCCC with their efforts to preserve our open space here in RM. My
own feelings about our lifestyle quality living here runs deep. I
feel very strongly about our beautiful and open air and how precious
this communtiy is and has been for my family. Keep up your good work
RMDCCC, and please know that even though many of us don't express
our appreciation or write/call we "Thank you, big time!" Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
That being said, I must admit, I'm a bit perplexed by two curious open space e-mails, from an RMA director, which recently arrived in my personal inbox. So, Elliot, I need to know, what exactly would you like me to do with your "charming" twin messages? Would you suggest I make them public, so residents might know where your loyalties really lie? Or, was your correspondence only intended for my eyes -- as a rather private form of intimidation? Please let me
know at your earliest possible convenience. You have my address. Editor's note: Rancho Murieta Association Director Elliot Sevier did not respond to several attempts to verify that he sent the e-mails referred to in this letter. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Although it may take a few more months to reach our goal, I'm confident, hardworking folks at the county, who, I believe, are genuinely trying to do the right thing for our community, will address our earnest request with absolute fairness. Hang on a little
longer. We're almost home. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Now
that we have an official county document that proclaims the developer
only possesses an approved "conceptual" map, does this mean
the MBA is only conceptual as well? Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I'm sure there are many silent community residents that feel the same way and are tired of boards doing business in the back rooms and never telling us the whole truth about issues. It looks like whoever signed the MBA should have done some research before signing on the dotted line. Thanks,
RMDCCC, and keep up the good work. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Despite their presentation of a strong poker face, and claiming they were dealt an incredible hand giving them "rights" to build out all of Murieta, it turns out the developers were never holding any aces at all. In fact, the only card they had up their sleeves was what we expected all along -- a photocopy of the 1984 Murieta map, one the same county amendment, on page 1, clearly refers to as nothing more than a "conceptual map." How impressive. And for this, our community's 1,806 acres of glorious open space/wildlife preserve, worth more than $250 million to residents, was almost gambled away by high rollers. If you're tired
of playing games with a perceived loaded deck, feel free to e-mail
the RMDCCC at PatCan85@aol.com
or call 0832. Together, we can preserve Murieta. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top BACK to letters index |
|
It's not un-Christian or greedy to value the place where you live
