MEASURE C SIGNS DISAPPEARING
—Richard Danielson, San Clemente
A letter to the editor last week complained that their signs against Measure C had disappeared and they assumed, perhaps correctly, that it was the opposition who did the deed. Maybe so, but maybe not. Signs have also been stolen for Yes on Measure C.
San Clemente has strict rules on posting signs in public places. The sign police are active in town, removing signs that are posted in places deemed inappropriate by the city.
As for signs disappearing from private property, let the thief beware, it is against state law to remove political signs. I have no idea what the penalty is but the embarrassment of getting caught should be ample encouragement to leave signs alone.
I urge citizens both for and against Measure C to play fairly with signs. I also urge you to give thoughtful consideration to the benefits of Measure C and cast your vote in favor on February 5.
MY MEASURE C PERSPECTIVE
—Mitch Ritschel, San Clemente
This is my first time as a San Clemente resident that I have written a letter to the local papers. Given all that I have read, seen and head about Measure C, I am compelled to write.
I’ve been a 20-year resident of San Clemente and have known this city for twice as long, dating back to my days as a beach-going youngster. As such, I’ve seen this city progress to what it is today through its growth—represented by many new homes, new families and new residents over the past 40 years—along with a definite demographic shift to younger people and families to balance out the community. We have a real downtown, among the best beaches on the West Coast and a sense of community pride. This is what makes our community special and what keeps us all here. However, the city’s public infrastructure (roads, schools, parks, ball fields, etc.) has not kept up with its growth—since I first moved to town in 1988, it quite literately hits home!
It is my belief that the $20 million offered by Measure C is a singular opportunity since no other opportunities exist in our city to develop land that would generate such revenues to the city. To me, it’s unrealistic to think that voters would agree to tax themselves in lieu of accepting the $20 million.
I believe the opponents of Measure C have ignored the history and practice of how the inland lands of our city were developed: by employing exactions, fees or cash payments by developers. This is how our well-established communities such as Broadmore, Forster Ranch, Marblehead (Inland), Rancho San Clemente and Talega got built—each community developer paid the city in the form of fees or infrastructure in lieu of fees, and/or funded offsite public improvements. The older communities and their developers probably did not pay enough while the Talega development (our last major community) has paid more than its fair share of community and public infrastructure improvements.
Could any of us imagine living in the mentioned communities without vital community facilities such as wide roads, fire stations, schools, parks, ball fields and the like? Could you imagine getting around town without the I-5 freeway interchange at Avenida Vista Hermosa and/or having half as many lanes at the freeway interchanges at Avenida Pico or Camino de Estrella? It was all those developer fees that paid for the vast portion of these improvements!
If we are not already in economic recession, it sure feels like we are headed into one. For those living in San Clemente in the early-’90s, one should recall how tough things got in this town. The city had to restructure; we had to give up our fire and police departments to save municipal costs. The housing market was in the tank, and the Forster Ranch community park didn’t get built until the recession was behind us—I believe it was delayed some 10 years.
We still have shortages in school facilities and sports fields that date back to the 1990s. I strongly believe that now is the time to correct this problem for future generations of San Clemente children, so they have better educational and recreational opportunities than those that came before them.
Here we are starting 2008 at the crossroads with an economic recession on the horizon, and struggling to figure out how to address an estimated $17 million funding gap for a badly needed community park at Avenida Vista Hermosa and La Pata and how to improve our schools. Fortunately, this time, there’s a solution—Measure C.
As you can see, I have no problem with a couple hundred new homes at the Pacific Golf Course. After all, we are not talking about converting nine-holes of a public golf course owned by all of us (such as San Clemente Municipal)—Pacific is a private course owned by a private owner with rights to do what it pleases with its property. The impact by these couple hundred new homes are taking the place of the under-building of the Talega community per the city’s general plan—we elected a city council to oversee these land use matters, and I have every confidence in the council making the right decisions for us.
I am voting YES on Measure C!
JOURNALISTIC PRIDE
—Mark McGuire, San Clemente
I challenge the SC Times to practice the top-notch journalism it is capable of in connection with Measure C. By this I mean that the press should not simply provide a forum for the “talking heads” on either side to say what they think about the measure, but to actually analyze what the measure involves, the accuracy of the things being said about it and related peripheral issues. Let the chips fall where they may.
For example, Yes on C says a court determined that ballot arguments drafted by No on C were found false and misleading, while the No on C says the court rejected the lawsuit and only made “minor edits” to make arguments stronger? What is the truth? Something in between? Closer to one side than the other’s “spin”? I submit to you that nobody knows because neither paper has truly reported on the matter.
Traffic on Pico from the project? Yes on C says No on C has been lying (or inadvertently asserting false, overstated numbers) about the number of new car trips project would create. Yes on C says impacts are negligible and that it contributes more to solutions than the problem. No on C says project generates thousands of new trips on Pico and, in combination with the Marblehead project, will increase traffic “on Pico and its neighboring streets by 45,084 more trips daily—in Summer!” Wow! Is that true? Are the No on C numbers correct? Based on reasonable analysis? Yes on C says project only leads to one additional car every 90 seconds on average at Pico and I-5 during the busiest morning traffic period, and one car every two minutes during the busiest evening traffic period. That sound’s like nothing; can’t be true, can it? Yes on C says homes would add less than 1 percent additional traffic on Pico between Presidio and the freeway. Is that all?
Traffic is a hard to grasp issue that all residents rightly care about. It’d be great if the papers provided some objective analysis for interested readers. Do the papers really think they’ve satisfied their “balanced and objective” reporting obligation if they make sure they let both sides say something about traffic? May be balanced but it is not very informative for readers trying to cut through it all.
No on C says this is the first time in San Clemente’s 79-year history that a development has been proposed on what was private open space? No on C says that is totally false, although there have been hundreds more acres re-designated from development designations to open space than open space to development. Which is it?
No on C says Master Plan always had the entire site as open space, while Yes on C says that the plan originally designated 30-acres of the site, right on La Pata, as a giant parking lot for the business park; they also claim that the 26-acre residential parcel Measure C would set aside as permanent open space was zoned for 120 homes. Yes on C says that the natural habitat on that parcel is critical habitat for an endangered species and more valuable open space than nine of the 27 private golf holes on Pacific. Yes on Measure C says the total number of acres of designated open space in the City has increased dramatically from what the city’s General Plan envisioned, and that the number of homes being built in the Ranchlands are a thousand or more below the maximum permitted, but completed parks in town are way below what was envisioned. But that’s just a Yes on C lie—or is it? Inquiring readers want to know.
No on C says the Sports Park is fully funded and construction is started. Yes on C says there is still a multimillion dollar funding gap for construction of Phase IB (i.e., the pools and sports fields), let alone operational funding or funding for the volleyball/basketball gym and everything else in Phase II. What’s the truth? Ah, kudos to the papers on this one, as any reader of either paper should understand that the park still has huge funding gaps that need to be filled. Now if only the papers do some more investigative reporting on the other issues Measure C presents. . .
RITSCHEL GOT IT RIGHT
—Laura Little, San Clemente
Susan Ritschel, former mayor and councilmember of San Clemente, certainly has hit the nail on the head when she said: “Nothing bothers me more than the intentional broadcasting of false and misleading statements to further one’s cause. Regardless of your opinion of the proposed redevelopment of the Pacific Golf Club property, all residents and voters of San Clemente deserve the truth in order to make an informed decision concerning Measure C on February 5.”
I think the voters of San Clemente are smart enough and interested enough in Measure C to research the measure and how it affects the City of San Clemente as a whole. The opposition wants us to react emotionally by scaring the citizens with threats of massive traffic and environmental impact of Measure C, rather than providing the facts. The fact is that Measure C is a win-only project!
Please vote yes for Measure C.
STOP THE DEVELOPMENT
—Jimmy Copeland, San Clemente
There are enough homes and not enough open space in San Clemente, let’s stop all this development. How do you trust some one who is telling one thing through advertising and yet it’s about something entirely different?
No on C.
DECEIVED BY THE DECEIVERS
—Tom Lindell, San Clemente
The mailer I received Saturday was the most blatant falsification of the facts I have read a so far by this group that opposes Measure C. This group was started by disgruntled club members of Pacific Golf and Country Club who don’t want the golf course reduced from 27 holes to 18 holes. That’s it, everything else is a ruse.
They claim the big bad wolf lives in Los Angeles in the form of the owner of Pacific Golf and Country Club. It makes little difference where he is from, the first developer San Clemente had was Ole Hanson and he wasn’t even from California! What does make a difference is the quality of the project Mr. Rosenfeld proposes. The project proposes 224 home on 52 acres. That is extremely low density when you compare to the city’s alternative plan of paying for the sports park. The city plans on selling nine acres of city owned land located at Vista Hermosa and La Pata, which could be zoned for anything the city wanted including tennis courts or open space to develop into 225 dwellings. The Pacific Development project provides 4.3 residences per acre; the city’s selling of 9 acres to build 225 dwellings provides 25 residences per acre. Try to even draw 25 residences per acre! This all across the street from a family sports park and aquatic center.
Mr. Rosenfeld’s proposed development which was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council will be a real benefit to all the citizens of San Clemente. The plan will take a 20-year flawed business plan and turn it into sustainable profitable taxpaying business.
The land on which Pacific Golf and Country Club resides is private property and it is zoned private open space golf course. The community of Rancho San Clemente has a 35 to 50-foot berm that separates it from the business park. The citizens of Rancho San Clemente cannot see or hear the proposed development site. Yet they feel their open space is being impeded. It is not their open space. It is PRIVATE PROPERTY.
The deceivers claim there will be 3,200-plus trips on Pico adding to traffic congestion. If this strikes you as ridiculous it should. With 224 homes that would mean 15 trips down Pico per household per day. If every home had three driving adults (many of the homes won’t have that many drivers because they will be for seniors that have an average of less than two drivers per household), that would mean that on average each person would be making more than five trips every day. Incredible. Scare tactics.
What are the benefits for the citizens of San Clemente with Yes vote on Measure C? The Vista Hermosa Park is funded to support the ball fields and the aquatic center in the amount of over 12 million without having to sell 9 acres across the street for a 225 unit apartment complex: the new senior center and fire house is to receive $500,000, Casa Romantic will receive $150,000 dollars; the permanent preservation of 224 acres of golf course including 26 acres of natural habitat next to Rancho San Clemente and Broadmoor; the city gets a critical recycled-water reservoir site at no cost, plus three-quarters of a million dollars for water conservation and increased water supply; new bike and hiking trails across this private property: It funds major traffic improvements at San Clemente High School on Avenida Pico and reduces business traffic on Calle del Cerro; over $3 million will go to our local schools for improved classrooms for our children and lastly keep our taxes lower through additional funding for firefighters, police, beaches and parks and water treatment.
As our respected Mayor Joe Anderson said at the time of the City Council vote, “this is a balanced proposal, the pluses far surpass the negatives.” He voted for the project. Please join me in Voting YES on Measure C.
BEWARE THE FALSEHOODS
—Sheila Warday, San Clemente
There are a number of falsehoods being spread by the opponents of Measure C. Many of these are just manipulations or distortions of facts such as overstating the number of car trips that will be made if new homes are added or how many trees will be destroyed. This is a common approach when facts are not on one’s side. There is however one fact that cannot be ignored. That is the $12.5 million that will be provided to the City of San Clemente to finish the desperately needed sports complex on Vista Hermosa.
Opponents say the money is not needed, that the City already has sufficient funds to complete the project. If so, where is the money and the activity? I have been driving by it for several years and am tired of reading the sign announcing the future home of a sports complex that never materializes. Are the City Council and the City Manager so insensitive to the needs of the youth of San Clemente that they are using the funds for some other purpose? I don’t think so. They know the needs of the community and that is why the Planning Commission and City Council approved the project.
The reason is simple. There are no funds currently available and I invite anyone to dispute this with hard numbers instead of misleading claims. The most solid response I have heard was a comment from the City Manager at one of the hearings on Measure C that the funds are there if and when they sell the City Hall property.
I urge you to vote for Measure C so the City gets the funding to complete this critically needed project. The children of San Clemente deserve no less.
WHAT’S BEST FOR THE CITY
—Leslie Hart, San Clemente
I urge all San Clemente residents to support the City Council they elected and vote YES on Measure C on February 5!
Why would any of us put our trust in a group of opponents who hide the facts, and instead continue to spread misleading (and in many cases, totally false) information. When they needed a petition signed last summer, they secured signatures on the pretext of saving open space and traffic—but now that the truth about how Measure C does preserve public open space, they’ve changed the focus of their objection to traffic on Pico using utterly ridiculous projections.
As residents of San Clemente, we should all vote for what is best for the city overall—not what is best for each of us, individually. We should trust the City Council we elected to make judgments on these issues on the basis of their extensive due diligence and negotiations and not allow them to be rendered completely ineffective by small groups who are only considering their own selfish interests and prejudices in their attempt to overturn these judgments.
No one travels on Pico more than I do and I have done so throughout the last six years of Talega growth and development. Today, the traffic on Pico (and Del Cerro) continues to be only a problem when school is getting in or getting out. Another 225 homes will not generate anything close to the additional traffic that the opponents claim and will also not come close to what Talega would have generated had it been developed to the full extent of the original plans.
Please consider only the facts when you vote on February 5. Trust that our City Council has spent many months listening to all arguments from both sides, researching and negotiating in the best interests of all residents of the city of San Clemente. Support the City Council. Support all the benefits to the City that Measure C will provide to our city and vote Yes on Measure C.
Post a Comment
