|
|
|
|
BACK to letters index
Al, Realizing what RMPUD was planned for and completing the build out is what is needed for the health and viability of this community. Sticking one's head in the sand and not listening to voices of reason (there are many and getting louder) is not rational. We are all headed for increases across the board (no pun intended). I think CSD Director Jerry Pasek stated the situation correctly when he said, and I paraphrase, there are no more free lunches. The rest of the story, as Dave Huddleston referred to regarding the financial viability of the RMCC, is that we can’t wait another two years. If the proponents for the Master Plan want to fund it and do not cost RMPUD residents or Sacramento County taxpayers any additional cost, then go for it. I don’t support it. It will not provide any measurable or significant advantage, based on where this development stands right now. The South is practically built out. The North, with these latest plans moving forward towards approval, will be substantially built out. The remaining undeveloped land can be handled the same way thru the existing process. Be practical. If you really want to save land from development, then target property in the county that isn’t designated for development. There is plenty! -- Michael F. Burnett, July 31, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Burnett’s letter dated July 25 has some serious flaws in logic and fact. Of particular concern are his erroneous comments on the impact of development on the environment. In his haste to support uncontrolled growth in RM, he carelessly asserts that “wildlife is thriving due to development.” He cites as evidence his anecdotal experience of not seeing any wildlife outside the boundaries of RMPUD. Perhaps Mr. Burnett would be wise to pay closer attention on his nature walks or should check the literature on the nearby Deer Creek conservancy, where 170 bird species, 105 mammal species, 58 amphibian/reptile species and over 5,000 insect species are found supported by habitats that include oaks, grasslands and creeks. These are habitats that currently exist in Rancho Murieta, but of course, that could all end quickly. More ominously, Mr. Burnett ignores the impact of habitat destruction wrought on the environment by unbridled and unwise development. In our area, the oak woodland habitat, the Swainson’s hawk, the Cosumnes salmon run, and the many endemic plants and animals that rely on vernal pools, to name but a few, have all suffered mightily due to habitat loss. But as Mr. Burnett would have it, nature can never repay us for all we have done for it! Obviously, environmentally sensitive development is possible, but I have yet to see the current developers seriously commit to it. If these developers are so concerned about preserving our natural environment, then why don’t they shell out some money for a thoughtful and responsible updated master plan that preserves our unique sense of community and the environment we share it with?
-- Al Bauer, July 27, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Inspired by the board of supervisors hearing; Governor Schwarzenegger: The housing industry has been a house of cards for too long. The industry can only maintain through unbridled growth whether there is a need or not. The market reflects this now. Without the unconscionable loan gimmicks the industry not only stagnates, but foreclosures are at an all time high. Where are the influx of buyers that were there before the collapse? The housing industry has had rubber stamping approvals of their projects for too long. The environment has and will suffer as will all California when water issues plague us and land abuse is inherited by our children. In Sacramento County alone there are dozens of development projects that do not take into consideration other or future development. Water is guaranteed on paper with no real water to back it up. This is all a matter of record that no one has thought to tie together. The EIR's need to be cumulative and they are not. Each by itself is not devastating but the sum total is an unknown that needs to be known. If Oregon can return a river to its natural state, the state of California can protect its natural state. Development should be tied to need for development. Inner city redevelopment could keep the developers busy for years to come without usurping the open land. The Sacramento County Board of Directors is currently grappling with just such issues now in the Rancho Murieta area whereby 25 projects are in the pipeline without regard to the Cosumnes River, the only water source. -- Marklin Brown, July 27, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
As a RM resident I was elated to see the fantastic turnout for the latest Board of Supervisors meeting. I want to thank Candy Chand, Brad Sample and Janice Eckard just to name a very few. It is amazing what a well organized grassroots campaign can accomplish. Keep up the good work, folks, and thanks again for your support. -- Dennis Johnston, July 25, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Here is my response to the county Board of Supervisors relative to the hearing last Wednesday. To the Board of Supervisors, I want to congratulate the Board of Supervisors for the work you all do. It is similar to working in facilities management, in that you always hear when things aren't going so well, but you rarely hear when they do work well. You all facilitated the meeting last Wednesday very well. I listened to the complaints raised from the floor,
mostly from my fellow residents, and found the dialog to be very similar
to when I sat on the RMA board in 2003. I think there were some good
points made and some that I disagree with. I would expect as I believe
most would that issues such as what Ted Hart identified as streets
too narrow for emergency vehicles and driveways too short to park
a car in are items that the County Planning would identify and rigorously
enforce. I have faith in the county agencies and do not want to be
looking over every ones shoulder to see these minimum expectations
adhered to as I would expect the county agencies feel it is their
responsibility to the residents. The issue raised concerning the Consumes River is blown out of proportion, in my opinion. Water is drawn from the river during high flow periods and should not have an impact on the water supply. I believe there are numerous reports to support this conclusion. So the only other potential impact would be the construction. All three projects are far enough away from the river that using basic construction techniques would negate this concern. The wildlife issue to me is also blown out of proportion.
If anyone takes a walk through the property surrounding the RMPUD,
you will almost never see any wildlife. Most of it resides in RMPUD
and they become a nuisance. The wildlife is wild, however, they live
in our yards and under our porches and in the landscaping. They draw
in predator animals such as coyotes, bobcats and mountain lions. The
wildlife is thriving due to development. Development built the lakes,
golf courses and protected habitat for the wildlife. More development
will simply increase the amount of wildlife in RMPUD, not harm it.
1. It makes sense to reformat the PD ordinance and
consolidate them into one document. Thank you for allowing me to express my views since I could not be at the Wednesday hearing. -- Michael F. Burnett, July 25, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Although I was unable to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 18 due to a prior commitment, I was truly elated to see how well Candy Chand and her group were represented and supported at this meeting. It is so refreshing to see my neighbors and friends join together for such an important issue. Keep up the good work and please continue to fight the good fight. Thank you all. -- Linda Hill, July 25, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I wish to lend my support in writing to the Rancho Murieta community group and residents providing oversight to our community's development. I am a local physician . Although I was unable to attend the recent meeting with the County Board of Supervisors due to my work commitment at our local hospital, I wanted to make certain to make my voice heard as well. The residents of our community have been great as a group. My wife and I are proud to be a part of this community. It is by making our voice heard and actions known that we can help control our destiny. This pristine community of Rancho Murieta, with wonderful landscapes and lakes, contributes to the most amazing place my wife and I have ever lived . I am not suggesting zero growth. We must make certain that developers recognize and abide by rules that will allow our precious resources to be preserved with both function and beauty. Updating the environmental impact study and report is required before additional development can move forward. That seems to be a concept worth supporting by all those interested in our community. -- Jeffrey and Ivy Applebaum, July 24, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I knew it was only a matter of time before the libs would show up! Mr. Moore, this has nothing to do with the Bush administration. Is that the best you can do? -- John Hein, July 24, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Miller, If you hadn't told us that you worked for a developer, I would have guessed that you were part of the Bush administration. The fear mongering that you displayed in your letter is better left to those experts. The golf courses will close; CSD is going to present us with an $8 million bill; the school will never be built and kids will be Of course the solution to all the problems is development controlled by developers. I think that orderly controlled growth that is supported by competently run infrastructure is a much better way to grow Rancho Murieta. -- James K. Moore, July 23, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I think a person's motive is exactly what needs to be considered when hearing these opinions. -- Marklin Brown, July 23, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Miller In your latest post you suggested that the residents of Rancho Murieta submit to some kind of water rationing,while, in the same argument, you promote unrestrained development for the community.Can you explain how would that b fair? Oh, I forgot. Just let 'em build, and everything will be just fine. -- Bunky Svendsen, July 23, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I was able to attend the hearing last Wednesday as well, it was amazing. I fall into the category of "young Moms" that want to preserve the future of Rancho Murieta for our children. There are a lot of us out here that can't make the meetings simply for the fact that we are Moms. Thank you to Candy Chand, Janice Eckart, Brad Sample and so many more for all the hard work and tireless reading of documents to make the facts come to surface. I would love to read the EIR, but last night it was "The Belly Button Book" and "Counting Kisses" for me. Rancho Murieta would not be were it was if it weren't for you. Many thanks to everyone who was able to show their support! -- Jeanie LeBlanc, July 23, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
The hearing last Wednesday was wonderful! My husband and I attended and were, once again, so proud of the citizens who spoke out to preserve Murieta. Their presentations were well researched and well stated. The audience's almost complete 200-person show of unity when they stood up to show support for controlling these development projects was very impressive. Thank you! -- Mary Lynn Walthers, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Miller, I disagree with you on this Country Club matter. As I said to Mr. Burnett on June 19th, don't count your golfers before they are hatched! -- Beth Buderus, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Both sides of this debate tend to overstate their case and indulge in a bit of "Chicken Little" hyperbole. But that's neither unique nor evil. Take what either is saying with a grain of salt, and you find both have valid points which need to be balanced in the outcome. Indefinite forestalling of all development does indeed cause economic and infrastructure problems for our undersized ratepayer base, yet rigorous enforcement of the planning laws is needed to avoid other serious problems and diminution of quality of life, and the county simply wasn't doing its job in that regard until held to account by RMDCCC. Reality, and the ultimate solution, lie somewhere between the two extreme points of view. It is good that we have RMDCCC's resistance to counterbalance the political heft of developers, but we must be prepared to accept compromise in the end-game, which isn't quite here yet. Meanwhile, we need to remain a community and be a bit more respectful of one another. It's one thing to dispute an opponent's views, but quite another to suggest they harbor ulterior motives in hopes of undermining their credibility. -- Wilbur Haines, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
To Mr Lewis: Your comments are right on. Since last week's meeting, I have had almost 20 people stop me and say thanks. I am beginning to understand the latent power of the silent majority. Maybe more of us will speak up now. Thanks again. -- Dave Huddleston, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Miller, your employment was already public. This following quote is from the article on RanchoMurieta.com when you applied for the open CSD seat:
Then, later, you mentioned AKT (Angelo's company) in a posting on RanchoMurieta.com The following are your own words:
I don't know how else, Mr. Miller, to encourage you to share your thoughts. -- Candy Chand, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Doug, You are correct. There’s been a very strong push from members and supporters of RMDCCC to stop opposing viewpoints with intimidation and the use of intentional torts, i.e. Candy’s posting on May 2, “Mr. Miller, I didn't suggest you were a developer, only that you worked for one, Angelo K. Tsakopoulos.” Stating publicly my boss is an invasion of my privacy. When it occurred, it stung, and it set off a string of negative postings to refute my opinions and reputation. What’s important to the well-being of this public forum is to be able for an individual to state his or her opinion without being attacked. RMDCCC membership, which likely was fairly well-represented at the county meeting, is made up of primarily older people. You have all been here awhile, your kids for the most part are well past elementary school and most of you likely have your mortgages paid off or at least down enough so that housing prices and school issues may not be a high priority. To claim that the school and development are not linked is ridiculous. Their link is infrastructure, it always has been. If the school had an answer for water and sewer the political crap related to the facility would have been figured out long ago. Since they have not figured out water or wastewater on any site, they have been forced to wait for help. RM is a master planned community. From an infrastructure point of view, it works at build-out. While the build-out is occurring you have to deal with interim conditions. If the development had kept going at a steady pace the irrigation areas (disposal areas) for recycled water would have been expanded as it was planned to do in the first place. The growth stopped, the existing disposal area was not big enough and we got a discharge violation. By stopping the development we have turned an interim infrastructure condition into the final one, and there are going to be problems with that. The problems cost money and are now the community’s burden. The CSD, the Country Club and the school problems are all linked to growth whether you want to admit it or not. If the development is stopped, the CSD burden will be picked up by us because of the necessary response to the cease and desist order. That bill ($8 million range) will hit in the next couple of months. The golf course is in trouble. The land is leased. If the club closes (estimated survival time period currently at two years), and if I owned that land and the rent I received from it stopped, I would sell it. The course likely turns to some type of weed patch while the new owner tries to get approvals to do something with it. This would make the current discussions about how the proposed homes look from the first fairway pretty much moot. On the school issue, development does clearly present an answer. However, assuming it does not come, how can we as a community figure out a way to create the capacity to help the school? I personally am throwing any idea I can come up with to the CSD to solve the school problem. Two ideas I tossed out the other day are:
Unless we, the residents, solve the school’s water/wastewater issue, development still provides the only answer. But, if we solve this issue, there is still the issue of where the school will go. So, you stop development to preserve Murieta. But there are real consequences of stopping a planned development less than halfway through its build-out; to me it looks like we inherit a mess. And we will have to deal with this mess if you go through with your threat to sue should the county vote to move the development forward. You guys (RMDCCC) need to review your stance on this development issue. The developers have made many concessions over the last seven years (reduced densities, saving more oak trees, paying for the wastewater solution, for example), however, you have never budged on any issue. If you are dead set in digging your feet in, then you had better turn your focus on dealing with the consequences, that we, the community, will bear from your success. -- Jim Miller, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Lewis, since you're concerned about affordable housing and apartments, once again, I'll try to answer your questions. Yes, parcel 1 at the North front gate has been zoned for apartments for years. As the development progresses, that site will be slated for affordable housing. The percentage/number will be based on total build-out figures. Also, across the street, the proposed developer's Murieta Gardens project contains affordable housing. Ditto for the developer's project, called Riverview, in South Murieta. Of course, the developers don't like this, I didn't say they were happy. But just for the record, because the legal standards for a rezone from Ag-2 to Residential, in such a delicate environment, are so serious, their first EIR came out after the housing ordinance. That was not the projects being held in "limbo," as you suggest, that was the most basic standard required under the law. Please remember, the Cosumnes is a federal resource. It does not belong to Murieta, nor to the developers. Proper cumulative review of the Cosumnes (which has never been done) is only one issue that's been brought forth repeatedly by citizens as well as state and federal regulators. Such study simply cannot be ignored, just so developers can build more quickly. The bottom line is, engaging proper review is not a "stall" tactic. The developers are simply not exempt from CEQA and NEPA, even if a few people wish they were. As for your pie analogy, as I've already said in more ways than I care to repeat, please feel free to read the recipes and bake all the pies you want. In the end, people will buy and eat the pies they prefer. That, sir, is democracy in action. But just remember, if the studies aren't done, and the river suffers, that might be one very expensive pie. -- Candy Chand, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Yes, I was aware that low-income housing has been in the plan already proposed. Even front gate land set aside. The affordable housing ordinance passed in late '04 by Sac County (while development was in limbo) forced developers to include low-income housing. Are you saying the developers were pushing for low-income units? The developers at that time proposed halfplexes (even suggesting they be sold to RMA employees), reducing roof tops to skirt the ordinance or buying credits (not available) to build elsewhere. They did not want low-income housing either, as they have to subsidize it. It didn't appear they wanted to dump a bunch of low-income apartments or homes on us. Small senior cottages are a far cry from Natomas-style subsidized housing. My point is that anything can happen for the worse while this process is in limbo. That ordinance impacted what must be built. While we remain in limbo, more new ordinances might come about that affect how gated communities can be developed. With the housing market in a slump and many losing homes I can't see the county passing ordinances to build fewer low-income units. And so far they have pretty much stated that what's good for Natomas is good for RM, gated or not. Saying that we are just trying to make sure development is done right is a very nice way to stall the process. Recent postings seem to indicate people want a conclusion to all this. That the delays prevent other decisions about schools and infrastructure improvements. -- Doug Lewis, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Although I wasn't able to attend the county meeting last Wednesday night, I did watch it on my computer, the whole almost-three-hour meeting! Thank you, Wilbur, for the information so that I could see it. I was very proud of all of the people who were able to attend, and show their support for responsible growth in Rancho Murieta. I, as always, want to honor the RMDCCC, which has worked bazillions of hours to make sure all of us continue to live in the beautiful community that we have enjoyed for many years. This year will be my 21st year, and like others who have lived here as long, couldn't imagine the thought of changing what we have had all of these years. It certainly appeared that the supervisors finally want to consider updating the master plan, that in its self is a huge victory for the RMDCCC who have been pressing for this from the moment they joined forces to fight for our community. Thank you to all of them. -- Myrna Solomon, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Ms. Chand, Let me put it like this. Your group bakes a pie. Actually you bake a lot of pies. You believe your pie is the best and the only one that should be sold, bought and eaten. You say you want everyone else to feel free to bake a pie, even if there are only "two" of them, and as you pointed out, and did so against all the odds. When they do bake a pie you then say, "Thanks for the pie, I think it's nice you baked it, but ours is still the only one that's edible and here's why yours isn't." Seems to me that after while people are just going to get sick of having their pies cut down and you can control the pie business. -- Doug Lewis, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
My attendance at the county meeting Wednesday night continues to convince me we are all on the same track and unified against improper and uncontrolled growth in our community. Rancho Murieta has really pulled together as a cohesive and informed community who really care about where they live and thrive on the quality we have come to love. I am proud to be associated with these determined neighbors! -- Cynthia Norman, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Thanks for the explanation. And congratulations on your numbers, I had no idea! Very impressive. -- Beth Buderus, July 22, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Hi, Nellie, I think the web site totals may be misleading as I think there are only about 5,000 people living in RM and many do not have computers. -- Beth Buderus, July 21, 2007 Editor's note: Addressing a complicated subject in 100 words -- Nellie is correct. She's citing unique visitors tracked for RM.com, which totaled 6,573 last month. (There's a five-year history of site traffic here.) Beyond Murietans, a deeper look at the traffic says RM.com has a lot of readers in Sacramento County government, at the Elk Grove Unified School District and, by far most of all, with outsiders steered here by search engines, which rank RM.com first in most Murieta-related searches. Beth, your measure -- users coming to the site again and again -- is termed "visits," which isn't disclosed in the RM.com site traffic, but that number was 82,417 last month. Finally, a caution: Many Internet measures must be considered approximate. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Lewis, regarding the few dissenting opinions you seem to feel are not tolerated: Here is a portion of an e-mail I submitted just a couple months ago (in May) the last time Ms. Miller said she was going to stop posting on this blog, and, by the way, I still stand by those words. "As for your choice not to submit any more e-mails, that, again, is your choice. But I hope you change your mind. I actually enjoy hearing from those with different opinions. I think it's healthy." As for the two other dissenting opinions, here is something I posted just a couple days ago: "Thank you to everyone who spoke, even for the two individuals who spoke in support of the developers. It's always good to hear folks willing to stand up for what they believe." And in another posting the very same day I wrote: "However, as I've said many times before, I do support everyone's right to speak, and I have to say, I was impressed Mr. Miller and his father in-law, Mr. Huddleston, actually showed up and spoke their minds, despite the odds. I know from experience, that's not easy to do." Mr. Lewis, how does that suggest there isn't a welcome opportunity for balance of opinion? -- Candy Chand, July 21, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Lewis, I found part of your letter quite interesting, especially your concern activists might cause the future to bring such things as "low-income housing and apartments." Didn't you know that's been presented by the developing land owners all along? -- Candy Chand, July 21, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Becky, until the sign at the gate reads RMDCCCville, you have the right to have a dissenting opinion. We live in a time when some believe that the answer to everything is to sue somebody. It stifles expression, creativity and opinion. It's why toasters have 20-page manuals. The RMDCCC activists within the community believe and work hard for their cause. They are not the voice of the entire community. They have not been voted as our community planning committee. Anyone voicing a contrary opinion, that some development can occur or will benefit RM in any way, chips at their base and is not popular. Past debate seems to include whether their goal is stall all development or actually just make sure it's done right. While eager to point out what's the wrong way, no one wants to identify what would be the right way. This issue has been stalled on the table for too long. Sometimes things left on the table too long spoil. Development laws are changing. By the time things are settled, who knows what the county will allow? Low-income housing? Apartments? Higher densities due to the market? The RMDCCC have made themselves the development police. Having someone to police the matter isn't a bad thing. But I recall some old Latin saying that asks "But who will police the police?" Becky, by giving your opinion, by asking questions or by having a varying or dissenting opinion, you are doing just that. The community, and both sides of the debate, should welcome that balance. -- Doug Lewis, July 21, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I'm very sorry if my posting sounded threatening. It was just meant to be cautionary. Let me state for the record that I am not affiliated with any organization in RM. And, of course, that I certainly am not threatening to file a lawsuit. My intention in posting is to point out that this is a very public forum with over 6,000 users. Statements we post here can have far greater reverberations than the same statement said over the fence. Also, as my prior post clearly demonstrates, there are limitations to this medium. There was no tone or body language to clarify my intentions. I think the few people I do know in RM are having a good laugh at the idea that I could be intimidating to anyone but a 5-year-old misbehaving at the park. I do believe if everyone (including myself) posting considers the 6,000 plus readers and the permanent archive before posting we will all have a better online community. -- Nellie Bloom, July 21, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Becky, I appreciate the polite, private e-mail you sent me last night. -- Candy Chand, July 21, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Readers, After this posting, I am signing off on the development issue. When it is suggested that one needs an attorney present to post an opinion in this group, online discussions are no longer engaging. I've done my very best to share my opinions in a way that could help Rancho Murieta and my intentions were only to help make Rancho Murieta be a great place to live. Thanks to everyone who has called who shares my opinions. -- Becky Miller, July 20, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Thank God for freedom of speech, democracy and discovering the truth. Nellie, an opinion or comment on a matter of public interest does not support a cause for legal action. I am shocked that you would turn a debate over matters of community interest into a threat of a lawsuit. Are you aware that your comment may have intimidated others from future postings in regard to public opinion? Perhaps those were your intentions. It's because of freedom of speech that we have an intelligent society able to have these types of discussions. Nellie, it is time for you to "take the high road." -- Michelle Garren, July 20, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Wilbur, Thanks for posting the link to view the past supervisors meeting. For those of us working grunts who couldn't attend, it was good to listen to the meeting. I think the board of supervisors did an excellent job in facilitating the meeting. It was unfortunate that Don and Jimmy had to ask the audience and one speaker to be respectful of everyone at the meeting. All I can say it was an interesting meeting. -- Michael F. Burnett, July 20, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Like Paul Frank I, too, have stayed out of the discussions regarding the new school site. However, I think it is blatantly unfair for anyone to quote some unnamed school district source to make allegations about the reasons for the delay in the school site acquisition. I can state without reservation that Candy Chand and the members of RMDCCC have not been a cause of any of the delays. They have not been negative about the acquisition of the site on the Frank property and have not communicated to me or any other board member anything that could be attributed to causing a delay. I do not know how more clearly I can state this. Whether you agree or disagree with Ms. Chand and the positions of RMDCCC the fight should be over the issues, not the people involved on either side. Do not lay blame where blame doesn't exist. -- Brian Myers, July 20, 2007 Editor's note: Brian Myers is a member of the Elk Grove Unified School District board. Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
What an excellent letter, Paul. Thank you for taking the high road at every opportunity. It is inspiring and heartening. -- Nellie Bloom, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Video of the supervisors' meeting is viewable at http://saccounty.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3 -- Wilbur Haines, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Thank you for your kind remarks. I felt the odds were fairly equal. RMDCCC had a dozen speakers, all with the same opinion, and two dissidents with similar views. However, I was impressed by the comments of Mr. Hanson. There seemed to be a passion there for getting these issues behind us -- and providing direction to get RM on the move again. His experience and tenure in RM makes him credible. If I were RMDCCC I would give him the reins. As I said at the meeting, 40 years is long enough. Let's work to get RM completed, and quickly, to preserve the community and its gem, the Country Club. -- Dave Huddleston, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I feel compelled to add that accusations levied in a public forum are far more damaging than gossiping around the water cooler. I imagine slander suits have been launched with less than what I've read here in the past few days. -- Nellie Bloom, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I have made it a point to remove myself from the debate regarding the school. I have not read an article or even gone on RM.com since my wife and I retracted our offer to donate the school site. It has been liberating and in all candor I no longer feel any need to defend my family or myself on this matter. I have had to endure the personal attacks and allegations based on inaccurate and false information for over four years. I will not sit back and let anyone else be subjected to that without at least attempting to set the record straight with the truth. Months ago I spoke at one of the EGUSD special meetings on the CRES site. At that time one of the statements that I made was to correct the perception and false allegations that Candy Chand was trying to stop the district from building a school for our community. I further stated that the genesis of the idea to offer to donate the land to the school district came from Candy herself. I had never met her and to this date have only met her briefly on two occasions. However, Candy was one of the people that took me up on my offer to open my files and answer any and all questions that anyone might have. She took the time to educate herself on the issue with the facts. As a result we exchanged e-mails on the issue. She understood through those e-mails the personal toll that this ordeal was taking on my family and me. During one e-mail exchange she offered, "If you are really sincere about the pain this is causing you and your family, if you are sincere in your desire to get a school built for this community and you truly want everyone to know where your heart is, then donate the land! Just donate it and it will immediately stop the political spin and lies. Most importantly the kids of this community will get a school." I was shocked, had never thought of it, but realized she was right. Cindy and I talked about it briefly and Cindy said, "If that is what it will take to make it all stop and will get a school built, then do it!" Having lived this nightmare for nearly five years now, I can tell you without any question whatsoever that any statement that remotely approaches the theme that Candy is not supportive of a school being built for this community is absolutely false. Now, to the following quote, "I believe you are incorrect in saying the development stoppage is not the reason why the district hasn't built a new school. I believe the source from the district who says 'Candy's group is making it so the school doesn't go in.'" I can tell you point blank, with no hesitation, that this statement is absolutely false. If anyone would like to debate that statement I have a file cabinet full of documentation that supports any and every statement that I have every made or will make. I would love to know who the "source from the district" is. I have been waiting nearly three months for a response to the simple question, "Can the district take title to the ground without an Army Corps of Engineers permit in hand?" That permit has never been issued and there is no definitive time line for when the processing of that permit might be completed. Dr. Ladd, who I enjoy working with, a month ago told me he was still not able to answer that question. The inability to answer that question begged my next question to Dr. Ladd, "If you don't know the answer, how in the world was your board able to vote on taking my land by eminent domain and how in the world could the district provide the inflammatory public statements that it did, including recently stating that the district would break ground on the new school last spring." I have no answer to those questions either. As I stated, I would love to know "the source" as I have not had anyone to talk to at the district for weeks. Dr. Ladd has been out of the country and Frank Harding has not returned any of my calls or e-mails. At this point I don't even know if Mr. Harding still works for the district. If someone at the district truly stated that Candy Chand has anything to do with the district's delays, that person needs to be held accountable for those statements immediately and Dr. Ladd and the district need to set the record straight. At this point, my only contact with regard to the school issue is the district's attorney, Jerry Behrens with Lazano and Smith. To close, if you would like an update on the facts of this issue, feel free to call me. Cast stones where you wish. Toss them at me if that makes any of you feel better, but don't throw them at people that have been nothing but supportive of the effort to provide a school for this community. -- Paul Frank, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I was seated two rows behind Mr. Miller and his father-in-law at the meeting last night. There certainly was no applause after their presentations, but neither was there boos and hissing by 200 people! I will admit to quietly whispering "bunch of c---" to the person that I was sitting beside, after Mr. Miller spoke. I fail to see how they think that RMDCCC is preventing the school to be built or for the Country Club to be having membership problems. The audience reaction wasn't about the school. It was about the leap of logic you tried to make between the school and development. As for the club
having difficulties, around the time I moved here, it became "exclusive"
and
membership was required to have dinner or a drink there. I had eaten
at the club previously with friends from Amador County who frequently
stopped for dinner on their way home from shopping or whatever. They
have also talked about a nice Sunday brunch that they used I do not think it worth $$ per month just for the privilege of eating there. Perhaps if they had one or maybe even two times a week when non-members could enjoy a meal, their business would improve. -- Polly Clift, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Make you a deal. If 50 or 60 of the RMDCCC members will join the RMCC, I will back off. The club is the gem of Rancho Murieta. It is challenged financially. The board has done a great job the past two years, but they can only do so much. If you love Rancho Murieta start supporting the greatest asset out here.We can't wait four or five years to bring in members. -- Dave Huddleston, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Miller, While I may not have boo'd as you suggested, I did gasp a "yeah right" when you said the kids would have a 45-minute ride to the new school at Anatolia. My reaction at the time was, how slow do you drive, it's like a 20- to 25-minute drive? So with statements like that and others that you, your wife and father-in-law have made, you wonder why we/I don't take stock in what the three of you say. But now that this is a different day and after I thought about it, I assumed you meant with bus stops and pick-ups it would be a 45-minute ride Let me ask you and your family, are you okay with the developers doing the 20' and 30' cut and fill? Are you okay with the Retreats "as they are proposed," driveways too short to leave your car out, no visitor parking, streets to narrow to allow for fire vehicles to drive through and the cutting down of close to 400 oaks for just one project? Also, were you not listening last night at the meeting when the water issue was brought up? Were you not listening when they spoke about drawing down the Cosumnes River threatening the community with the possibility of drought and no available water? That shocked the heck out of me. This is a serious matter and it needs a real review! As for the school, the RMDCCC, as I stated in an earlier e-mail, did not oppose the school. This group began for development issues only. Many people opposed the earlier Escuela site only because of the North Gate issue, because we wanted public access off Stonehouse Road. So why you keep mentioning the group is a problem for the school is beyond me. A school should have been built years ago when the student quota was met but the school district kept dragging their feet. I do know one thing that didn't set well with me is when they proposed trailers for the school rooms on the Escuela site. That was not my vision of a school located "inside" Murieta's gates. There is an absolutely beautiful school up on Mt. Aukum Road in the town of Fair Play just before Perry Creek Road, that is my vision for a school, but at this point I'd be happy with anything as long as it's not drab trailers. Lastly, people have chosen to live in Rancho Murieta for a reason and will continue to do so and I don't believe housing prices have anything to do with it. Let me ask, if you chose to live in the town of, say, Plymouth, would you and others be demanding shopping, hospitals and the like? Would you even have a forum to express your opinions on? -- Beth Buderus, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I just read Mr. Miller's posting. I may have missed it, but I, personally, did not hear "booing" after his testimony. What I did hear, however, were loud audible moans (which I didn't think was right. But people tend to react from their heart, and don't always think their initial response through). There was, however, no applause after his testimony. The mood in the room was clear -- it wasn't his desire for a school they were objecting to. It was the argument that the developers were somehow a "solution." That thought process just wasn't being bought by the crowd. However, as I've said many times before, I do support everyone's right to speak, and I have to say, I was impressed Mr. Miller and his father in-law, Mr. Huddleston, actually showed up and spoke their minds, despite the odds. I know from experience, that's not easy to do. -- Candy Chand, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
The Country Club needing more members as a reason for development is a strange way of avoiding looking at the management of the club or public relations. For young families growing, the membership costs may be too high. In years past, tournaments may have brought in funds to replenish reserves. To demolish the attractive aspects of RM so the golf club can remain solvent is really over the top. The club might need some outside consultation. As for the school, no one wants one more than I and if you knew me you'd know why. However, the school did not exist when I came here with family in tow. I cannot reasonably demand a school, nor would I jump to the unusual notion that if the demand was made large enough, (i.e. development) then there would be sound reason for a new school. On the same hand, I knew there was an airport and would not demand its closure regardless of issues it presents. The pressure should be on the school district regardless of development due to the overcrowding and unsafe placement of Cosumnes school, period. There is no need to cross the two issues of development and need for a school. Moreover, CSD will not be capable of providing water, sewer or solutions regardless of the number of houses. Who is paying the fines will be the decision makers in the future. As for development itself, who was informed when they moved in that there are 25 projects in the works? Not me. Therefore I protest on the grounds that if I had known I might not have bought my home here. I can see the airport, the deer and turkeys, even a glimpse of mountain lion and lack of a school, but not 25 projects in the pipeline. -- Marklin Brown, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Thank you to everyone who showed up at last night's board of supervisors development hearing. Thank you to everyone who spoke, even for the two individuals who spoke in support of the developers. It's always good to hear folks willing to stand up for what they believe. To watch such unity of spirit was amazing. I was especially impressed when the representative of SARA (Save the American River Association) when she asked everyone in the room who wanted to preserve Murieta with an updated master plan, to stand up. To watch such an enormous sea of people rise from their chairs, in almost complete unity, was a visual I'll never forget. The supervisors took serious note. In addition, hearing Supervisor Don Nottoli, who's been awesome for years, as he took the bull by the horns, boldly challenging Supervisor Dickinson for his harsh statements about Murieta, was incredible. The thunderous applause which followed Don's passionate speech was almost deafening. Although the developers sat in the corner looking glum for most of the evening, in the end, they seemed, at least in part, to accept the writing on the wall, even approaching an RMDCCC member afterwards with words of encouragement. (More about that later, as things progress.) Thanks, again, for your support. And thank you to all the volunteers, both North and South, from young moms with toddlers to seniors from the Villages. I continue to be thrilled to live in a community with people who genuinely care and are willing to stand strong for what's right. Thank you! -- Candy Chand, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I just got back from the county hearing. At the meeting, I stated I wanted the proposed developments to go forward because it offers a solution to getting the school built and may save the Country Club (we might be too late). Matthew, I was booed and hissed by your group. Your e-mail directed at Becky indicated that she was the one who acts inappropriately. I think she does a great job of completing the picture, in spite of the amount of bullying she receives. When 200 people boo you, I think we have made our point about how sharing our opinions goes. It's fine to have an opinion as long as you guys agree with it. Master planning the rest of the community makes sense -- should be done and I don't oppose this idea. I have continually stated that I don't think the projects that are proposed now should have to go back through that process. They have been going through planning efforts for seven years. Issues associated with the school, CSD and the Country Club warrant a less combative stance from your group and more cooperation with these developers for the sake of these community facilities, which are in need of attention. The school needs CSD capacity, the Country Club needs new members, and the CSD needs money. The community needs the school and the Country Club. The development provides all of these. Becky never stated the school district needs more money to build our school. They have money and never said they didn't. The key issue is water and wastewater, which they don't have. CSD does. The school district is limited to paying for their share of the water and wastewater treatment. The catch is that the expansion for those treatment plants occurs in bigger increments than what the school needs. The development would trigger the expansions. The school district can piggy-back on the development's treatment plant expansions. Now the water and wastewater issues are solved and a big hurdle for the school district has been cleared. The development increases the number of students the district needs to provide school space for, which will put more pressure on them to build. Lastly, our real estate values are being affected by the school situation. Fewer people will look to live here because they would have to bus their kids, and fewer still if the Country Club folds. Less demand results in a lower price. That is economics. It will take our community longer to recover from the housing slump because of this. Personally, I think the school is a big deal. Explain why I'm getting booed for wanting a school. -- Jim Miller, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Ms. Miller, I realize I'm being goaded here, but I'm not going to let this one drop without a firm response. For the last few months, I've tried very hard to respond to your e-mails with the utmost respect, and I will continue to do so. However, I have to tell you, my patience is wearing thin. I have a pretty good idea what's motivating your continuous angry words spelled out over and over on this web site, but here's where I draw the line. You might want to identify that so-called "school district" source, or stop spreading false rumors about me. Because, as of this morning, I will be calling the EGUSD to discover which employee is instigating such a vicious lie, if it, in fact, was ever said. I also will place a call to Paul Frank, who has been wonderful and who knows the truth. -- Candy Chand, July 19, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. McGuire, I don't know any of the developers and never talked with them, nor could I pick them out in a crowd. My information has come from reading the documents and news briefings from CSD and RMA meetings, discussions with Jim -- who is extremely knowledgeable on development impacts and issues, and conversations with people who've been intimidated by RMDCCC. I'm not afraid to share my opinion and I understand completely why so many others here don't. The obsessive crank caller doesn't scare me. Having a safe, adequate school built for families living here is important as well as all of the other amenities that build out will provide. I believe that passion and "heroism" has obstructed the facts in this debate. I believe you are incorrect in saying the development stoppage is not the reason why the district hasn't built a new school. I believe the source from the district who says "Candy's group is making it so the school doesn't go in." Any school district is going to wait until development moves forward, because that justifies the need to build a $30 million school. Our district has had the difficulty in planning for a school out here when they have no idea how many more children, and when, if ever, they will need to accommodate. Would you build a $30 million anything without first knowing what you're accommodating? And yes, I asked the district years ago if they were going to build the school, when we had reached the quota of students needed to build a new school, and they said they were working on it…. I'm glad I made you laugh. It's healing. Go back and read my postings with an objective, open mind, without sitting so far on one side of the issue. -- Becky Miller, July 18, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
The overriding issue after all the dust settles is, and will be, the cumulative impact of all Sacramento and adjoining county's development. This will remain a truth whether we argue or shake hands, developer or peon. -- Marklin Brown, July 18, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Candy, It is pretty obvious that there are some in this community that really cannot debate you or the RMDCCC on the facts so they would like to take the focus off of those facts and attack you personally. You and I know these personal attacks come with the job, but it's still not a pleasant experience. All they want is for you to get into a personal battle and I admire you for not sinking to that level. I do wonder how Becky knew you attended that meeting? I would put a dollar down that she is friends with one of these developers. It is interesting what you find when you connect the dot. Becky, nice try again with the attempt to link the school with development. Trying to pull on the heart strings of local parents is a good way to market your message even if it is not accurate. The school has long been paid for with tax and development dollars gathered throughout the district and the district has just been waiting for the school to reach a certain level of enrollment. The district may have challenges in getting a new school built, but they do not need any additional development dollars from Rancho Murieta to build the new school. Have you talked to the district? They will tell you the same thing. I do need to thank you though, Becky, when I read your post I literally laughed out loud. Trying to link the RMDCCC to lack of security is pretty funny. Gates inside of our existing gates will increase security for who? Are you saying those new neighbors behind a second set of gates will be secure from our current neighbors? Where else do you feel we should install additional gates to increase security? -- Matthew McGuire, July 18, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
If you don't read anything else, you should at least read this regarding Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is for three projects titled "The Residences of Murieta Hills West", "The Residences of Murieta Hills East" and "The Retreat at Rancho Murieta." http://www.dera.saccounty.net/portals/0/docs/EnvDocs_Notices/2001006920070201141755.pdf http://www.dera.saccounty.net/portals/0/docs/EnvDocs_Notices/20010069620070529082946.pdf -- Marklin Brown, July 18, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I am a proud member of "Candy's Gang"! -- Polly Clift, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Candy, I'm so conflicted! I'm disappointed that you have to respond to the opinions of a few who are so desperately trying to tear you down and yet, I derive so much pleasure from your marvelous ability to handle them with such conviction and smarts. I'm amazed that you've never lost your cool. I wonder what would happen if you stopped responding to such obviously goading comments and just ignored them completely? What platform would they have to drop their bull droppings from? I'm irritated that this attempt to stir it up comes hours before a crucial meeting … the wolf is at the door, let's find out if he's indeed a courageous wolf or merely a sheep in disguise with a promise of a free meal. Thank you to you and the RMDCCC for all your tireless efforts, time and courage, it means so much. -- Natachia Taylor, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I'm also a big fan of Candy's and we've never met. Beyond the politics, I appreciate the way Candy discusses issues with an enormous amount of patience, diplomacy and clarity. Thank you, Candy, for setting the tone. I think many more people appreciate you than you know. -- Nellie Bloom, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Brown, A watchdog will just as soon attack the mailman as he would a robber. -- Becky Miller, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Yes, Becky, "change" is something we can count on. And hopefully, thanks to the efforts of Candy Chand and others of the RMDCCC, those changes will be carefully considered, taking into account the wishes of the 2,000-plus Rancho Murieta residents who signed the petition for responsible growth. I gladly signed that petition, and was not, as Becky Miller would say, "dragged" into anything of the sort. Rather, I added my name with the hope that it might somehow affect some positive, long term changes, made with input from the community. Not unilateral decisions, made with the short-term, bottom-line interests of only the developers. -- Bunky Svendsen, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
I have read for months and years the comments about the RMDCCC and Candy Chand. I have never heard or read where they have said "no growth" but instead have said "responsible growth." I agree with that concept. I have been a resident for more than 25 years and I always knew that we would have many more homes built than what was here when I arrived. I never imagined that what happened in the South, with the homes cracking and being poorly built, would ever happen. Not Candy's fault! Nor is it her fault that the trees RMA planted in my backyard are dying for lack of water ... or that the ponds at CSD smell. Why some people are trying to paint a target on her shirt, I can only imagine. As for us, we support RMDCCC, and commend Candy and the group for caring about this community and its residents. -- Jacque Villa, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Wow, Mr. Burnett. I'm blown away. Since when did I become anyone's personal secretary? First of all, if you were in any way being literal, let me say, as an author, I only write non-fiction. If what you said was intended as humor, let me assure you, it wasn't funny. It's not just the RMDCCC who disagreed with the water logic, it was our attorney. In addition, the attorney general also had issues with the lack of cumulative Murieta studies on the Cosumnes River. And the deputy commissioner of state Department of Real Estate also questioned Murieta's lake level analysis. So, I think our opinions are, at the very least, in good company. When did I ever say anyone had to come to me to get information? Are you kidding me? What I offered was an invitation for anyone to come to my home, because the crap on my desk has always been an open book, and because I thought it would make things a bit easier for the reader. Are you suggesting you want me to deliver information to folks on a silver platter? What more do you want me to offer? I've always welcomed people into my home to review material at anytime. (How do you consider such an open-door policy to my personal home hiding information)? However, with the recent tense tone of a few people, perhaps, I need to wise up and end that open door policy of my personal space. What I have offered many times are several documents, some over 1,000 pages each. They are all, by the way, public record. What I also said was, anyone can go to the county and read these documents any time they want. They can call DERA and get recent docs sent to their home for free. Or, they can take the time, pay the county for copies that are considered out of play and go for it. It's their choice. But to make things easier and less costly, I've always said folks could come over and read documents for free (the county would charge for older work) and for far less trouble (digging through the nifty county filing system -- which, seriously, is nothing more than several giant cardboard boxes--isn't fun). The bottom line is, there are always a few people who don't want to read information, but still like to complain about those who do. I can't make anyone read anything. It's their choice. But I've always offered to make information available, if anyone were truly interested. As the old saying goes, Mr. Burnett, you can lead a horse to water... -- Candy Chand, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Beth, You can speak for yourself, but don't assume too much. There are many people in this community past and present that have read through many documents and benefited by listening to experts explain such things as water rights. Remember the attorney that the RMDCCC didn't agree with concerning the water use and levels in the lakes? Candy's gang has done a considerable amount of research as is evident by their postings and discussions at the county public hearings, CSD and RMA meetings. However, anyone experienced in conducting research and reporting on the findings knows that the results can easily be construed to support a desired outcome. When Candy says she has information that no one else has and that you need to talk with her, doesn't anyone feel a bit controlled? Candy writes fiction. ... The land use documents that I posted provide an accounting of the development over time and the open space past and proposed. This is all public record and was prepared by the developer, as Candy referenced, to be submitted to the county as part of the EIR. This is the meat of the issue that residents should be focused on. The land use if approved is what we will be living with in this community. Should the developer incorrectly state how much density versus open space was achieved during any past phase of development, the county would verify this and send it back to the developer for correction. It is to the benefit of the community when everyone understands what is happening that affects us all. Follow the path of the densities for the phased build out, as approved by the county over the years. Look at what the CSD has approved for total connections for water and sewer. Read the MBA to see the reductions proposed at that time and finally, look at where the developer is with their current proposal. You can't say with a straight face that they haven't made concessions. I know Candy's gang doesn't agree with the developer or the county and would like to go back to the beginning and start all over again. That is water under the bridge. We aren't going to be successful in trying to have the current developer bear the burden of the past. They will put their proposal forward and work with the county to meet the planned densities as best they can within the confines of the specific development phase they are submitting. RMPUD is part of Sacramento County's Urban Development Zone. The county plan uses the approved densities when planning for expansion to meet the growing needs across the county. If the build out numbers goes down here then they go up elsewhere or the county expands the UDZ to add more land for development. One possibility would be they allow the developer to reduce the densities within the current RMPUD and then approve expansion of the UDZ to incorporate the lands John Sullivan represents and adds them to the CSD. I suggest you read Newton's Third Law of Motion. It applies here as well. -- Michael F. Burnett, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mrs. Miller, I am Candy's best friend. Last month, she invited me to come along to the community you mentioned after she was invited to be the guest speaker at city hall. She was invited by citizens and government officials after they read her article. Candy agreed to go at her expense, paying for her own gas, hotel and food. I came along to keep her company and offer moral support. While we were there, I watched a roomful of unified government officials and citizens who loudly applauded her speech with gratitude because they could relate Murieta's experiences with the same developer to their own. It was interesting to see that even though it was a different town, with different dynamics, the citizens felt the developers' proposed project would bring them similar devastation. I was proud of her for answering the out of town call and for caring enough to go outside Murieta (as if she doesn't have enough to do here) without personal motivations, but with pure concern for others. I have watched Candy for years miss time with her family, her friends (including me) and take great financial loss while she gives of herself to this community. I know her heart is not just to help Murieta, but even to help others outside our gates, if they ask. This is not an isolated
problem. Many others are asking Candy to speak to their groups because
of growing issues erupting from out of control development. -- Cheryn Salazar, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
In many comments about RM and the surrounding issues, change is seen as inevitable and oddly enough, good. Upon examination, it would appear in reality, change is good for some, usually those with a vested interest. So folks with young children want a new school. The old and infirm want large close-by shopping malls. Investors want buildings and land sales. Fishermen want pristine waters, etc. While the changes themselves are short term (the time to plan and build), the effects are long term. The RMDCCC has spent considerable time balancing the potential long term effects with proposed plans. As time has moved on since these plans were adopted, change has occurred. Naturally the plans need to be critically examined to determine whether they are appropriate with the times. When one considers the issues with CSD alone, a serious examination has to occur. This community has the RMDCCC as its volunteer watchdog. Whether RMDCCC is actually anti-development or not is immaterial. The facts are there for the public to review. If it weren't RMDCCC it might not be anyone. Some people can think about the good of all regardless of the harm others may do to them. We are fortunate some are in our midst. Even with RMDCCC, the one common sense issue that has eluded the powers to be is the cumulative impact EIR. The Board of Supervisors would set a new standard if they would force this issue and require a overview of all projects in Sacramento and adjoining counties impacting Sacramento County. -- Marklin Brown, July 17, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Candy, I personally want to thank you for all your hard work. I am not a reader, and there's no way in "h-e-double-toothpicks" you'd ever catch me even trying to read anything as complicated as what you and the RMDCCC has had to do. And I'd bet there is no one else in this community who has read "everything" to try to understand this whole mess. Also, no one has been dragged into a fight to take the developers down. We want responsible growth but the developers don't seem to want to spend the extra money to make those concessions. -- Beth Buderus, July 16, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Ms. Miller, thank you for your e-mail -- although I'm a bit perplexed by the intent of your questions. Folks in the central valley contacted me after they Googled my SN&R article. Why? They are battling one of our local developers in their home town. I came, gladly, at their request, and spoke about the article as well as our local battles. The town folk were most gracious as well as attentive. And just for the record, I'm glad I went. In case you want to know more about what I do during my private time, after the article was released, I was asked to speak at other events, by other groups. And, by the way, I'm more than willing to do so. -- Candy Chand, July 16, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Change is one thing we can always count on, Mr. Hanson, and you seem very adamant in resisting change for this community that was planned decades ago. For those counting numbers, your organization, along with the developers, can take credit for the reduction in rooftops and oak tree removal. In '02, the main focus of the community during the CSD board election was the development's impact on our security. Jim, as a candidate during the public's question and answer session, came prepared to discuss development impacts on infrastructure. The concerned residents, however, were overwhelmingly interested in security and discussion on water and wastewater fell to the wayside. For residents interested in security, explain why the RMDCCC included in their list of demands at the county hearing in April '07 the removal of the interior gates at the Retreats. Wouldn't internal gates provide a greater measure of security? Families living here have patiently waited as long as 20 years for a larger facility and safer location to educate their children. The kids are jam-packed like sardines in trailers on the side of a highway without a crosswalk. Other residents are interested in benefits that will come with this proposed development, such as increased home values, more business for our local commerce and a community pool. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true what I've been hearing, that member(s) of RMDCCC recently attended a public meeting to gather protesters against another Kamilos development near Modesto? How does that effort help to preserve Rancho Murieta? What has Mr. Kamilos done to instill such resentment and forceful opposition? I believe we, the residents, have been dragged into a fight waged by RMDCCC to take the developers down without justifiable cause. -- Becky Miller, July 16, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Burnett, I agree, people should have the opportunity to be informed. And you did post some limited information regarding the Murieta's environmental process, which can be helpful. However, as Terry stated, there are countless other Murieta environmental documents -- drafts, finals, more drafts, historic, recent, more recent, etc. To make that point, I have 15 of the most recent Murieta environmental reports sitting in my bookcase right now. Some of these documents (including the newest one coming before the hearing) are over 1,000 pages long. And that's just for one report. The entire stack of Murieta EIRs (there are several) are sitting in my office at home. As I've said many times before, if anyone wants to review them in full context, feel free to call me at 0832, and, as always, I'd be happy to give you that opportunity. Or you can contact DERA and get hard copies of the entire informational Murieta packet. (The most recent are posted online at the Sac County web site -- but the problem with only reading these is you lose the full context of historical background). However, be prepared to pay for back copies no longer considered in play, although still highly relevant to the full Murieta picture. Regarding the land use info you posted, this is, in part, the open space acreage logic of developers and Sac County which, as you probably know, has been questioned repeatedly by citizens. In addition, the open space acreage numbers have been called up by the federal government. And finally, in a more recent move, the county/developers open space acreage has been challenged by a lengthy legal opinion. And the beat goes on... -- Candy Chand, July 16, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Terry, These aren't revelations, but simply how the developer is making some concessions to their plans in response to the hearings and input they receive. If you have more pertinent information, then share it with everyone by posting it. I think you need to check your horizon and make an adjustment to your attitude. :-) -- Michael F. Burnett, July 15, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Mr. Burnett writes in Hearing thread "take a look at my post under Airport thread," which has links to Sac County DERA documents. "It has the land use section of the report filed with DERA" (for Residences, Retreats and Murieta Gardens projects). -- T. Hanson, July 14, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Take a look at the post under the Airport thread. It has the land use section of the report filed with DERA for Residences East and West and the Retreats. It provides the history dating back to the beginning of the RMPUD, accounts for the open space and the various stages the development went through over the years, and outlines the developers' proposals for the current development plan. It is not the complete report, but provides the meat of the issues that everyone should be familiar with whether you support their proposed plan or not. The Land Use section for the Murieta Gardens I and II are also posted. -- Michael F. Burnett, July 13, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top
Important Murieta development hearing: The Recirculated Draft EIR for the first North development projects, The Residences and Retreats (which will set the pace for all build-out in our community) will be coming before the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, July 18, at 6 p.m. It's vital we, once again, show up en masse and share our concerns with passion. If you're uncomfortable speaking, don't worry -- there are plenty of folks who've read the EIR who will be doing just that. But your attendance still counts. Bodies filling chairs make an enormous statement to decision makers. Remember, developers are accustomed to apathy, but Murietans have always been an exception -- showing great concern for the community they know and love. Thank you! For those who find the CEQA process confusing, the supervisors will not be voting the projects up or down at this point. Why? Because we are back to a Recirculated Draft EIR. (no longer a final document) However, they can direct staff in ways that will have great impact on the future of Murieta. Remember, the Residences and Retreats are the first of the presently non-residentially zoned projects which will set the pace for full build-out -- potentially more than 2,000 additional homes in our community, ultimately creating an enormous loss of oaks and intended natural open space. Development proposals will also bring about strong traffic issues, substantial draw-down of our lakes, disperse our wildlife, and cause the terracing (mass grading) of our hills. -- Candy Chand, July 12, 2007 Add YOUR opinion | Back to the top BACK to letters index |
|
You could be realistic and target land that's not already planned for development?