(Author's note:
Sometimes it's a challenge, or a game, depending upon the mood, to see
what the editor will do with the title's I submit. In this case, I would
have favored mine: "We're Dodge-- Get Out" got to the core of the article.
"Town hall meeting raised lots of questions" just doesn't have the same
impact!
Fortunately, the column
content was left intact. GP)
Town hall meeting raised lots of questions
By Gail Paparian
For the Record Gazette
“We're Dodge - Get Out.” No, these were not
words uttered at a Wyatt Earp reenactment. They were some of the rude people
yelling at a recent town hall meeting held at the Edward-Dean Museum in
Cherry Valley.
Residents of rural Cherry Valley were notified that their questions could be
asked and answered at a forum presented by the Riverside Economic
Development, Redevelopment Division. The county was represented by staff and
Ernest Glover, president of GRC Redevelopment Consultants.
I'm not sure Glover ever really had control of the meeting as he didn't get
to make his intended presentation until an hour or so into the meeting. To
say that people were being rude is a massive understatement.
I haven't met all five thousand residents of Cherry Valley any more than I
have met the approximately 6,000 inhabitants of Sun Lakes in Banning. A
small group of outspoken people intimate they represent the entire
community. This is not always true.
Through the Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Commission,
temporary boundaries for redevelopment were recently approved. This town
hall gathering was the first in a series of meetings, environment reviews
and public hearings to see if redevelopment could, should, would be
established in Cherry Valley.
To show that democracy was being stretched, one audience member stood up
querying who opposed redevelopment and about half of those gathered stood
up. At this juncture I must point out that only the first slide of the
presentation had been made, so the audience was condemning the presentation
before hearing any of it.
I believe there are two
main outspoken groups in the area: Cherry Valley Acres and Neighbors and
Beaumont Citizens for Responsible Growth. I hear them say pretty much the
same thing whether they are testifying in Banning, Beaumont, Cherry Valley
or Riverside. Many conversations end with the threat or initiation of a law
suit. As most of us know, one doesn't have to have a valid reason to sue.
The county folks were still trying to get to the
slide presentation without much success and decided to see if a little
audience participation would work. A list would be compiled about what
people “liked” and “didn't like” about the Cherry Valley community.
The likes included: rural feeling, large lots,
1 acre control growth (except when Supervisor
Marion Ashley came in and sanctioned 2 acre lots). The dislikes are almost
too long to list. Here's a few: “someone downtown is picking on us,” the
sewers, everything is 2 miles down the road, we moved from Beaumont because
it's getting to ‘citified,' “taking Cherry Valley from us,” flood control
has never been properly addressed by the county and finally, “Beaumont put
you up to this.”
E.D. was brought up - that's eminent domain - and
Glover tried to point out that the Board of Supervisors had decided NOT to
use eminent domain. I'm not sure I really believe this, since peoples'
property has been “taken” for public use. I'm reserving my opinion on this
one.
People asked how the redevelopment subject could
be taken up for a vote. Since it is a state constitutional issue, it must be
voted on and could be placed on the ballot by referendum or initiative. No,
Cherry Valley would not be voting on this separately. The whole country
would.
A bit frustrated, Glover asked why Cherry Valley
hadn't incorporated. The responses were a bit more subdued. It seems that
under LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission), the folks who can allow
incorporation to happen, Cherry Valley didn't have enough of a fiscal base
to sustain itself as a city!
Redevelopment money could bring in the ability to
enhance blighted commercial buildings (although many in the audience deny
there is any blight in Cherry Valley); help with facades, provide marketing
money and provide write downs on buildings to make things economically
feasible.
People didn't seem to consider this information
for long until many indicated that their properties would then be
reassessed. “No,” Glover pointed out. Under Prop.
13, there are only 3 ways to re-assess: Sell property, add on to property,
have an annual inflation increase of 2%.
Staff tried to tell the audience that
MACs (Municipal Advisory Committees) had a
strong say in what an area wanted. People didn't seem to want to hear about
this and were certainly not interested in the county providing parks for the
area. One resident said, “Our yards here are our parks.” Subject closed.
Measure B was mentioned several times. This was
the recent contentious failing ballot measure that would have required the
installation of sewers in the Cherry Valley area rather than the current
septic system (currently under moratorium). Many in the audience opined that
they thought this was an end run by the County to get them to install
sewers.
Some disavowed the existence of “blue baby”
syndrome, due to the amounts of nitrates leaking into the Beaumont water
table.
HEY, I LIVE IN BANNING AND IF BEAUMONT'S WATER
SUPPLY IS TAINTED; AND BANNING BUYS WATER FROM BEAUMONT AND THE SAN GORGONIO
PASS WATER AGENCY Š HOW LONG WILL IT BE BEFORE THE CONTAMINATION MIGRATES?
I don't blame people for not wanting to bear the
cost of installing sewers but the reality is that everyone pays unless they
live on a lunar crater! I've already made my contribution to paying for my
portion of building and maintaining the sewer system (not voluntarily, I
might add). Then, as a Sun Lakes resident, I received a $24 a month increase
on my association dues to help pay for the millions of dollars of road
repairs needed within the community.
I cannot go to other members of the community to
ask them to defray the costs of these roads, yet I pay to help defray
city/county costs. There's no free ride, no free lunch and no free sewers.
What should be the bigger question - whether you
covet or decry development is - Is our water supply being contaminated by
nitrates and other foreign sources? If any part of the
answer is “yes,” it must be addressed and
remediated immediately.
We do not have the luxury of wasting an already
seriously endangered resource. Before folks throw stones at those who
represent the County of Riverside, why not use their considerable money and
clout to determine if there is a serious problem contaminating our water
supply. We need to dig deep and find a solution!
Gail and her husband Bill Paparian created a
service called Writing Solutions in 1996. Gail has also written for a number
of local and national magazines and newspapers over the years.
Currently, she provides public relations
consulting services for the Banning Unified School District. She can be
reached at
info@WritingSolutions.com.
