On Sept. 7, 2011 the City Council voted 4 to 1 to spend approximately $350,000.00 on the Crescent Avenue improvement project. This project will include roundabouts, bike and center striping, crosswalks, attached bulb outs and ADA compliance curbs. I voted against this project and made a motion for a smaller project as follows:
1. Permit parking-this was not addressed in the approved project;
2. Center striping and bicycyle striping the length of the street-this was in the approved project;
3. Ten (10) detached bulb outs that were strategically placed on the street-this was not in the approved project; and
4. One roundabout.
The total cost of my proposal would be approximately $100,000.00.
I voted against the original project, and made the motion to reduce the project for the following reasons:
1. Too many other city streets need resurfacing. For example, the road directly in front of the city's fire station;
2. Too many potholes exist in city streets;
3. Too many streets do not have sidewalks and people (especially during the rainy season) must walk in the street. Examples: Reindollar, Carmel Ave, California, Marina Drive, Reservation Road.
4. There are road conditions that are dangerous in our city. The Windy Hill Park is located at the intersection of Beach and DeForest. There are NO traffic calming devices at that intersection. In fact, there is not even a sidewalk on one side nor a crosswalk from Beach to the park.
5. The improvements to Crescent were, at best, attempts to remove a problem that will most likely continue to exist.
a. Please note that the approved project does not include stop signs. This is in spite of the fact that the main purpose of the design is to reduce traffic speed.
b. The roundabouts do not assure that the "donuts" will not continue to be made in the street. I anticipate that a person who is speeding will simply speed around the roundabout and continue on his merry way. Especially in the late evening or early morning when there are no cars parked on the street.
Too much money is being applied to one project. This city must make decisions that are in the best interests of all of its residents. The need to correct the problems on Crescent Ave. are evident. The need to make improvements throughout the city to the streets and roads is even more evident.
POLITICS: A REASONABLE APPROACH
We are fast approaching a general election in Nov. 2012. Not only will federal and state issues be decided, but the City of Marina Mayor and two council member positions also will be on the November 2012 ballot.
The positions presently held by Mayor Bruce Delgado, Councilman Ford and myself will be voted on by the residents of the city. What are they to base their decisions on when they cast their vote? Will the vote be based on negative comments made by opponents to the candidates? Will the vote be made on an informed decision that is the result of truth and positive comments?
If we look at the behavior of some residents of the city we can expect a negative campaign that will not benefit the residents and businesses of this fine city. There are those who fabricate, falsify and distort the facts to support their opinion and position. Fortunately, those individuals, though very vocal, are in the minority. They do not represent the vast majority of the residents of Marina.
Whether we have only incumbents or a group of candidates made up of incumbents and people who have never held elected office, we must approach the election in a positive manner. There should be no more negative surveys, or misleading literature. Each candidate should be expected to take a positive approach that benefits the city.
There will probably be a forum for people to submit questions to the candidates. The procedure that has been followed in the past does not really address the true concerns of the residents. The questions are submitted by people who support one or more candidate and they are screened by representatives for each candidate prior to being submitted for a response. Each candidate is given an opportunity to answer the same question. By the time the last candidate answers he/she has heard the other responses.
The best approach is an open question period. The public asks the individual candidate a question that has not been screened. The candidate gives his answer and then a new question is asked to another candidate. The same question does not go to each candidate. Toward the end of the session each candidate would be allowed to ask another candidate a question. Finally, at the end the candidate can summarize his/her position on the issues facing the city and give his/her response to a previous question that was asked to another candidate.
The goal of the election process is to elect the most competent and informed candidate. It should not be a popularity contest that results in a poorly informed and less competent person being elected. Please try to be informed by asking questions and demanding answers. Do not allow the negative verbal and written remarks to go unchallenged. You deserve better.
Cypress Knolls Decision
On August 24, 2011 the City Council voted 3-2 to accept CRP as the future developer for the Cypress Knolls Senior Project. The project would consist of 772 units, a community center, beautiful landscape and grounds, etc.
After additional consideration, Councilman Brown sought to have the decision reconsidered. This decision to reconsider was not only an informed one, but one that took a lot of courage. Some people in the city verbally, and in writing abused their right to oppose Councilman Brown's decision.
The council subsequently reconsidered their vote for CRP and voted to have a smaller project of 90 acres with 400 or less units. A Request for Qualifications will be sent out and developers will present their project proposals.
This is not a case of doing a "half project or a reduced project". This is an intelligent decision to provide the senior community with a development that will be exactly what they want and need.
The two previous proposers, PHP and CRP, gave the public and the city council a tour of their senior projects in Gilroy and Roseville. It was realized at that time that the Gilroy development consisted of approximately 23 acres and the Roseville development consisted of approximately 55 acres. You could fit both of those projects in the Cypress Knolls acreage of 188 acres and still have 100 acres to develop for other purposes.
Our city and the county have been subjected to many developments that have stalled or failed (i.e. original Cypress Knolls, Marina Heights, Marina Station, East Garrison). We now have an opportunity to open this process to developers who have a desire and ability to submit and complete a full, smaller development that meets our desires and needs.
Those people who see the need to oppose the current decision do so partly out of frustration, anger and disappointment. Those who support it are pleased, encouraged and optimistic. All of us have to put aside our emotions and work together to make this a successful decision.
After additional consideration, Councilman Brown sought to have the decision reconsidered. This decision to reconsider was not only an informed one, but one that took a lot of courage. Some people in the city verbally, and in writing abused their right to oppose Councilman Brown's decision.
The council subsequently reconsidered their vote for CRP and voted to have a smaller project of 90 acres with 400 or less units. A Request for Qualifications will be sent out and developers will present their project proposals.
This is not a case of doing a "half project or a reduced project". This is an intelligent decision to provide the senior community with a development that will be exactly what they want and need.
The two previous proposers, PHP and CRP, gave the public and the city council a tour of their senior projects in Gilroy and Roseville. It was realized at that time that the Gilroy development consisted of approximately 23 acres and the Roseville development consisted of approximately 55 acres. You could fit both of those projects in the Cypress Knolls acreage of 188 acres and still have 100 acres to develop for other purposes.
Our city and the county have been subjected to many developments that have stalled or failed (i.e. original Cypress Knolls, Marina Heights, Marina Station, East Garrison). We now have an opportunity to open this process to developers who have a desire and ability to submit and complete a full, smaller development that meets our desires and needs.
Those people who see the need to oppose the current decision do so partly out of frustration, anger and disappointment. Those who support it are pleased, encouraged and optimistic. All of us have to put aside our emotions and work together to make this a successful decision.
Preston Park
The City of Marina is presently in mediation with the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) as to the future of the Preston Park development.
The legal title to the property is in the name of FORA. FORA and the City of Marina presently split the Net Operating Income (NOI) 50-50 with the understanding that the respective rights of FORA and the City of Marina are to be determined pursuant to several legal documents and the California Government Code.
One approach that is being promoted is to sell the property to a third person/party and split the proceeds of the sale 50-50.
Another approach is to transfer the legal title to the City of Marina and continue to split the proceeds 50-50 with FORA.
Still another approach is to leave the legal title in the name of FORA and continue to split the revenue (NOI) 50-50.
Each approach has its good points and its drawbacks. I am in the process of making a thorough review of all documents and law in order to make a decision that is in the best interests of the City of Marina.
Council member Jim Ford has placed the issue of the sale of Preston Park on the council agenda. He has done this in spite of the fact that the City of Marina is in mediation with the FORA representatives. People have questioned this strategy since it may be compromising the City of Marina's negotiation efforts. Will FORA consider this approach as a sign that at least one, and possibly more council members support the desire to sell the development to a third party? Will FORA be less apt to consider the various approaches set forth above (and others) if one or more members of the council vote to place the development for sale?
In the near future I will have to vote on what to do with the Preston Park Development. I can only hope that the public and the members of the Marina City Council will form their opinions based on the existing facts, documents, and law. Now is not the time to base an opinion/conclusion on fabricated "facts".
The legal title to the property is in the name of FORA. FORA and the City of Marina presently split the Net Operating Income (NOI) 50-50 with the understanding that the respective rights of FORA and the City of Marina are to be determined pursuant to several legal documents and the California Government Code.
One approach that is being promoted is to sell the property to a third person/party and split the proceeds of the sale 50-50.
Another approach is to transfer the legal title to the City of Marina and continue to split the proceeds 50-50 with FORA.
Still another approach is to leave the legal title in the name of FORA and continue to split the revenue (NOI) 50-50.
Each approach has its good points and its drawbacks. I am in the process of making a thorough review of all documents and law in order to make a decision that is in the best interests of the City of Marina.
Council member Jim Ford has placed the issue of the sale of Preston Park on the council agenda. He has done this in spite of the fact that the City of Marina is in mediation with the FORA representatives. People have questioned this strategy since it may be compromising the City of Marina's negotiation efforts. Will FORA consider this approach as a sign that at least one, and possibly more council members support the desire to sell the development to a third party? Will FORA be less apt to consider the various approaches set forth above (and others) if one or more members of the council vote to place the development for sale?
In the near future I will have to vote on what to do with the Preston Park Development. I can only hope that the public and the members of the Marina City Council will form their opinions based on the existing facts, documents, and law. Now is not the time to base an opinion/conclusion on fabricated "facts".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)