|
 |
||
|
[Editor’s note: Following is a resident’s response to the council’s two hearings, beginning with a 3-2 vote on April 16, when Councilmembers Gail Reavis, John Paul Ledesma and Trish Kelley supported neighbors who didn’t want a single-family home on Calle Hogar turned into a boardinghouse. When the time came to ratify the decision on May 7, Reavis flipped and voted with Councilmen Frank Ury and Lance MacLean, allowing plans to proceed on the remodel.] Lobbyists Run City Hall They almost got it right: A previous city council meeting [April 16] saw the council get it right by a vote of 3 to 2. Between the first meeting and the second meeting [May 7], the lobbyist (as indicated by Councilman MacLean) for the property got next to a couple of the city councilmen and the council reversed its decision. The influence of this paid lobbyist was very obvious because Councilman MacLean gave a dissertation right from the mouth of the "gentleman" who represents the temporary owner of the property in question. I say temporary owner because it's obvious this property is being remodeled to be an eldercare facility. This temporary owner has done this several times in the past, and each time she goes through the same routine and winds up spending a few bucks on a hired gun, getting a permit to remodel the property, and then selling it off at a big profit. I'm all in favor of making a profit from business transactions, but I'm not in favor of making a big profit at the expense of our neighbors. I appreciate that the state of California makes eldercare facilities legal and forbids townships from passing any laws that would deprive someone from modifying a property for that purpose. However, there are still factors associated with the impact to surrounding properties. These factors were considered when the petition was granted [on April 16] by a vote of 3 to 2, but during the May 7 council meeting, those factors were pretty much ignored. It might be noted that the hired gun for the temporary owner was not present at the May 7 meeting. There was no need: he had done his job – quite well – behind the scenes and had been assured what the outcome would be. We have a city government run by small-time lobbyists, and it's just not healthy. James L. Garner |
||