SAN RAMON CITY COUNCIL'S USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN WILL WIPE OUT THRIVING BUSINESSES
Recap - Proposed 4th Amendment to Redevelopment Plan/Eminent Domain Hearing March 14, 2006
San Ramon, CA - The City Council Chambers was standing room only with people flowing out the doorway into the hall. All of the speakers represented citizens, business owners and the property owner of Beta Court who stated, "I do not want to sell my property." He continued, "I was approached by a developer who offered me only one-half of the value of my property." "I do not want to be forced to sell my property."
The City Council (who is the Redevelopment Agency) has proposed to expand the uses of Eminent Domain from public uses to private uses as well. Specifically, for implementing Redevelopment Plan Areas and Affordable Housing projects citywide over the next twelve years. That means a private citizen may loose their property to a developer who will make a big profit on a Redevelopment Plan. Not a single speaker was in support of the City's proposal to expand its uses of Eminent Domain for Private Gain, and questioned the City's definition of a "blighted" area.
The City Council defended their intent to use Eminent Domain in Redevelopment areas in very rare situations and, sited the Ralphs Grocery store going out of business as, an example to ensure another grocery store goes into that space.
In addition, the Beta Court Business Owners (41 in total) prepared a survey and presented it to the City Council showing their businesses are thriving and growing larger each year in total sales volume. Many citizens urged the Council not to use Eminent Domain to take these businesses away that are providing necessary services to thousands of San Ramon residents each year. And, it was mentioned many times, that there is nowhere for these businesses to move to without going outside of their customer base. The closest location for the San Ramon Valley Tow Truck Company would be Livermore, which would not allow for adequate response time.
It was suggested to the City Council (they refer to other cities with redevelopment agencies) and, their loss of public funds to support their police, fire, and schools as documented online at: www.redevelopment.com.
The San Ramon Valley Fire District's attorney sent in a twelve page letter to the City Council requesting that there be no loss of continued funding in order for the Fire Department to continue to implement their Emergency Response Time for 911 calls.
Other letters and emails were sent in and read. Some with strong opposition to the increase in tax increment from 94 million to 623 million; bonded indebtedness from 35 million to 100 million; and their concern that the taxpayer will be the victim of these huge and burdensome increases.
The Mayor closed the meeting without taking a final vote by Council. He continued the meeting, and reassured the public that the Council will do the right thing for the citizens of San Ramon. Quote, "We are your elected officials and we will be accountable."
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Eminent Domain Will Wipe Out San Ramon Businesses
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This does not make sense. Why would we want to loose all these small businesses that provide a number of services for the citizens of San Ramon. This is completely un-American. Some of these businesses have been built up over a 25 or 30 year period. The city would literally kick them out. The use of Eminent Domain would not provide the land owners with fair market value for their properties.
The City officials say, “you got to trust us, we will be held accountable.” What kind of statement is that when everyone that was present at the Eminent Domain Hearing spoke out against it. Tell that to the businesses and the property owners that are kicked out. This City Council gets to use this any way they want. Once they do it and are out of office, what kind of accountability are they asking for? Are they going to provide new business services like the ones that are kicked out? No they are not.
They intend to use Eminent Domain for other areas also. Don’t forget, that we are not just talking about having to trust this current city council but the next 12 years city councils hat come into office. Are we being asked to trust future politicians, politicians that we don’t even know? Council members, wake up! Think about what you are about to do. Other cities have gone down this path only to find out after it is too late that they made a big mistake.
This is a Big Mistake.
Say NO To EMINENT DOMAIN
Why aren't you writing more about the golf course rezoning?
Last night I saw the Mayor of San Ramon on Channel 30. He said the zoning change was just a name change from "Park" to "Recreation". He forgot to say the "Commercial" word, as in "Commercial Recreation" - (you know - with all the multiple land uses and the increase of 250% building intensity from when it was zoned as "Park").
Mr. Wilson, if this is just a name change, why is the building intensity increasing from .10 FAR ot .35 FAR? That's an increse of a minimum of 35 buildable acres on one golf course alone.
The mayor said they weren't building homes on the golf course -but what concerns me even more is all the other commercial land uses that can be built on the golf course under this Commercial Recreation zoning code.
I've done a lot of research on golf course land use and zoning and found that golf courses are zoned in a .10 FAR zone to protect the open space.
On the other hand, I've read stories where City Councils have changed their golf course zoning code similar to our situation here, only to have it result in REDEVELOPMENT of the golf course property!
I don't like our Planning Commission's "overlay-bandaid" solution. Why put the golf course in a .35 FAR Commercial zoning code only to put a patch on it and say its a .10 FAR golf course.
What is our City up to and why are they making this zoning change seem like nothing. Zoning codes are serious business!!! They obviously want to make our golf course land available for other "commercial" uses if need be, or else they would not be so adamant about changing our Park .10 designation to a .35 FAR Commercial Recreation designation.
Remember - for 40 years our golf course has been zoned "Park" with a .10 FAR - like the majority of all other golf courses in the United States. This is proper Zoning for a Golf Course in order to protect the open space.
They can call it Open Recreation or Park or Specialized Recreation or Golf Course or Open Space - just leave the .10 overall designation(NOT a .10FAR bandaid)-within a .35FAR Commercial zone!!!! That is not a solution.
If 1/3 of Canyon Lake's golf course is being changed from Park to Open Space, than why not zone 9/10 of the San Ramon golf course Open Space and the other 1/10 Commercial Recreation?
Who in this City ever came up with this Commercial Recreation .35 FAR zoning - that only applies to three city locations: Club Sport and San Ramon's two golf courses? WHY did they come up with it?????? AND show us documentation of HOW, WHEN, WHERE, WHO and WHY this came to be.
To date, the City has not provided the people with this information. We've heard all their words - but no written documentation that proves that the golf course zoning was ever authorized to be changed to Commercial Recreation.
If anyone out there has this information - can you please post it to this website. Thank you.
There are 4 initiatives to try to correct eminent domain abuses registered with the Attorney General of California. The Tom McClintock and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. are NOT circulating petitions as they do not have the funds to do so.
Anita Anderson has the money to pay people to circulate her petition, this money is $1,500,000.00 from a developer from New York. Another ½ million is dedicated, probably for advertising, once the 600,000 signatures are obtained to place the measure on the ballot in November, 2006. This petition has been criticized by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association because of the BLIGHT “exception”, saying that with that provision, NOTHING ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSES CHANGES. So this would not remedy our eminent domain abuses! The additional problem with that Initiative is that it includes regulatory taking which keeps most environmentalists from being willing to support it.
If you want an initiative to limit eminent domain ABUSE, it is “The People’s Initiative” which is currently being circulated by VOLUNTEERS—non-paid persons—who simply believe that it is the BEST initiative for the PEOPLE of California. This initiative, sponsored by the Coalition for Redevelopment Reform from San Jose, simply says, “NO EMINENT GAIN FOR PRIVATE GAIN”, which would take away the developer’s use of eminent domain as a weapon to for gaining land from the people of California for shopping centers, redevelopment. When city councils, governmental bodies vote for redevelopment it sounds great. What the general public does not know is that with this vote goes the right of eminent domain! Why does a developer need a weapon against us anyway? If he wants our homes, why can’t he come and bargain with us? If he has the right of eminent domain he is our ONLY buyer, certainly no one else would be interested buying a home which might go under the wrecking ball!
Be careful in signing a petition! The best one, “The People’s Initiative” has room for only 5 signatures and is printed on 8 ½ by 11 inch paper. The WRONG initiative is printed on 8 ½ by 14 (legal size) paper and has room for 10 signatures. Look at the end of that initiative, section (e) which refers to BLIGHT. If you have already signed the wrong initiative, you can still sign “ThePeople’s Initiative”. IF YOU WANT TO CIRCULATE “THE PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE, you can do so by contacting Mary Phelps at spchteach1@yahoo.com or LimitEminentDomain.org. We have until April 30,2006, to get enough signatures to make the ballot!
Thank you for allowing space to clarify this for your readers.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary A. Phelps
Walnut Creek, CA. 94597
925-929-3221
Post a Comment