Community Topics

Limit Campaign Contributions

 

Why hasn’t Rancho Cucamonga placed a limit on local campaign contributions?

Why are there limits on campaign contributions to our county, state, and federal candidates?
The Supreme Court has held that campaign contribution limits are a legitimate means to “deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions.”

Rancho Cucamonga permits unlimited financial contributions to candidates for Mayor and City Council. More than 100 cities in California have placed limits on campaign contributions to local candidates. Why haven’t the Mayor and City Council of Rancho Cucamonga?

Campaign contribution limits help to ensure that candidates are not overly reliant on a few wealthy donors to finance their campaigns. With a cap on individual contributions, candidates must also build a broader base of smaller contributions to be viable. Mark Gibboney, candidate for Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga voluntarily set a limit on campaign contributions to his campaign. He is not financially supported by special interest groups that regularly have issues come before the City Council.

Mark invited every candidate for Mayor and City Council to support an ordinance to limit local campaign contributions if elected. Only two agreed to any reasonable limit: Kevin Kenley in District 2 and Ben Cutler in District 3. One other Council candidate thought it a good idea, but with a limit so high it would not even restrict the single highest contribution so far in this election, a $25,000 contribution.

If you agree it’s time to clean up local politics with campaign finance reform, return to careful planning and controlled growth, and address our crime issues, vote Mark Gibboney for Mayor, Kevin Kenley for City Council District 2, and Ben Cutler for City Council in District 3.

Rancho Cucamonga Campaigning to Keep SB1

  

Yesterday afternoon, on its Community Information Project Facebook page, the City posted a recap of local road improvement projects "made possible by SB 1", also known as the "Gas Tax", while professing the importance of these tax funds. It's accompanied by a short video showing road repair work being done, with a caption, "Here's how SB1 funds are being put to work in Rancho Cucamonga" and closing with a gushing "Thank you SB 1".

After a series of comments criticizing the SB 1 gas tax and some calling for it's repeal by voting yes on Prop 6, the City posted that "Comments taking a specific political position will be hidden per the City’s Facebook Page Code".

How does the City know the money being received from the state is from the new gas tax, SB1, and not the previously existing highest in the nation gas taxes we've always been paying? The obvious answer would be the previous gas tax is never used for the intended purpose of road repairs.

The City's post is no different than the Caltrans employee who was stopping traffic to hand out "No on 6" literature, just a little more thinly veiled.

The City took a specific political position to support the passage of the new gas tax, SB1, under the Mayor's signature, but it doesn't want residents to voice their specific political position. Perfectly understandable when they're using City resources to influence an election. They want to control the narrative.

Only one candidate for Mayor supports the repeal of the gas tax. Vote Yes on 6 and Mark Gibboney for Mayor!

North Eastern Sphere Annexation Plan (NESAP)

  

The more the City does on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Plan (NESAP), now called the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan the more I feel like they are trying to sell us on their original plan, the one developed without any input from the public.

Has the City listened to the input and decided to do what the residents want? In an article in the Daily Bulletin, the City is touting their "revised" plan would make 83% of the annexation area open space. A major complaint had been the City did little to preserve the area as open space other than to give residents the option they could buy the land with a tax on every parcel. Did they fully explore the possibility of public and private conservation agencies that have funding to buy the land? So now to read the revised plan would make 83% open space sounds like a major revision. Unless you know that 75% was always planned for a conservation priority area and never considered for development.

There are two distinct areas in this plan. The largest and farthest north is approximately 3,076 acres called the conservation priority area. It is mostly grasslands and woodlands, much of it already protected from development in the North Etiwanda Preserve. It was never planned for development.

The other area more suited for development is approximately 1,212 acres first called the development priority area by the City, now called the softer sounding neighborhood priority area. This is the area residents complained about the City's original plan for development, which included high density, mixed use, and commercial retail, and many questioned why it couldn't be conserved as open space.

So now the City lumps the two areas together for a total of 4,288 acres to say its "revised" plan calls for a whopping 83% of open space. This is outright deception, part of a sales job that comes from working with a public relations firm to try and sell their original plan, which the article explains still calls for "small housing types" and commercial retail.

This is far from transparency in government. It's one of the reasons I'm running for Mayor of Rancho Cucamonga.

https://www.dailybulletin.com/…/rancho-cucamongas-revised…/…

Foothill and Hermosa Project

 This project at Foothill and Hermosa is "Mixed Use". The same promoters are pushing for changes to the General Plan and Development Codes to do a similar project, only taller, at Haven and 26th St. ( & Jersey).The Planning Commission addresses the issue this Wednesday, Sept 26th at 7pm. This is your opportunity to voice your opinion. Attend the planning commission meeting on Wednesday night to express your concerns about the project that wants to bring 221 multi-family units and 14,300 square feet of commercial/office area in 5 story buildings onto a 5.21 acre site. This is too many residential units for a space that is currently zoned for industrial park. The meeting is open to the public.I have a previously scheduled speaking engagement, but I urge everyone to attend if you are able.  9/26/2018 at 7pm, in the Council Chambers  10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, Rancho CucamongaAgenda Items E6-E11  https://www.cityofrc.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx…E6 - proposal to amend the General Plan land use designation from Industrial Park to Mixed Use in conjunction with a proposed mixed-use developmentE7 - A proposal to amend the Development Code to allow for residential uses within the Haven Avenue Overlay DistrictE8 - Proposal to amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation from Industrial Park (IP) District to Mixed Use

  • E11 - A proposal to reduce the amount of required off-street parking by approximately twenty-one (21%) percent

Stomping Out Suburbia

"California must stop stomping out our suburbia" article in today's Daily Bulletin. Notable quotes include:  ...a new housing crisis could be right around the corner.  ...the Inland Empire, where ...the economy was largely built around new housing construction. The urbanist punditry ...declare such areas as 'the next slums".

The short-fall in single-family home production, greatly discouraged by state policies, lagged even further.  New state legislation, including new mandates for solar roofs for new houses, promise to raise prices by at least $20,000...  We could be setting the stage for a new kind of housing debacle.

A recent National Homebuilders Association report shows more than two in three Millennial's, ...would prefer a house in suburbs, findings confirmed as well by the Conference Board and Nielsen.   By trying to stamp out suburbia, California is playing fire with its own future.  We may be overbuilding small expensive apartments.

https://www.dailybulletin.com/…/california-must-stop-tryin…/


 OCREGISTER.COM

California must stop trying to stomp out suburbia
The unsurprising slowdown in housing after the Great Recession was further hampered, once the economy began to recover, in large part due to tough regulations.

Central Park is not a park

Thirty years and Central Park is not a park, just 70 acres of sage brush, recently discovered to have a homeless encampment. No reasonable person is surprised it caught on fire.  This is what happens to abandoned property.


Where is the Central Park???


https://www.dailybulletin.com/…/brush-fire-burns-a-handful…/

Annexation Plan

The City has changed the name North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP) to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. Giving up established name recognition is usually only done when the product has suffered near complete customer rejection, as has happened here.

In January 2015, the City Council executed a Professional Services Agreement with Sargent Town Planning, Inc. (STP) to assist the City in planning, zoning, and annexing the NESAP area and subsequently budgeted over $2 million for their agreement. The City envisioned the approximate 1,200 acres owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control as a “development priority area” with specific directions to include a “vibrant residential village, a commercial core”, including a “mixed use” town center. (“Mixed use” is the zoning code Foothill and Hermosa was changed to in order to allow the building of what has been termed “the monstrosity”).


After receiving extremely negative responses from regulatory agencies, who suggested a conservation only option that did not require any development, and negative responses from residents, the City conducted workshops and heard more feedback that didn’t match their early plans. They continued with surveys and “pop-up” workshop events to have people complete surveys, residency not required.


The City is now engaging “the community” in small group meetings which are not announced to the general public. It is easier to control the input by not allowing people to hear others concerns or opinions. At a recent meeting, the Deputy City Manager announced children were being surveyed for their input because as an example, a 16 year old today, may be a buyer in 10 years and their input should be considered. The mother of a 13 year old recently commented on social media that her son is part of a City volunteer program and was asked for his input as to whether commercial development should be included in the annexation area. He couldn’t believe he was being asked. He’s not the only one!

  

The meeting leaders were asked who the “community” is that they are trying to reach, specifically what their definition of “community” is. The answer was “Community” is in the eye of the beholder”. It seems obvious that the City Council decided years ago what they wanted to do with this land, without asking the residents, and they are just extending the “public engagement” to try and find people who will agree with their decision and their residency or age doesn’t matter. An incredible amount of surveys, workshops, pop-up events, and on-line surveys have been conducted already and the City still doesn’t know how to proceed? The City Council has isolated themselves on the issue and will not put it on a City Council agenda to listen to residents’ concerns. The public engagement is conducted solely by the City Manager’s office and the Planning Department doesn’t even participate any longer. At the last meeting, one of the persons conducting the meeting misrepresented that she worked for the City and didn’t want to say who she worked for. This planning process is moving from being an embarrassment to just a shame.

Bring a return to professionalism in the way the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducts its operations. Elect Mark Gibboney Mayor and Kevin Kenley to City Council in District 2 and Ben Cutler to City Council in District 3.

The City is conducting another on line survey and a link is provided here. It’s not known if the deadline will be extended from the original 1 week deadline that ends September 7th.
http://etiwanda-heights-regis.hub.arcgis.com/

Annexation on Nextdoor

  

The City's Marketing Officer recently posted an update about the annexation project on Nextdoor. It contains a link to sign up for updates, which I urge everyone to do and it announces a name change for the project. When you have a losing proposition with lots of negative public impressions and you bring in a public relations firm, a common tactic is to change names.

After several comments, the Marketing Officer commented and then promptly closed the discussion. My comment is just before the last, when it was closed. Please sign up for updates and read my comment.


https://nextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=88419730


NEXTDOOR.COM

Nextdoor is the free private social network for your neighborhood community.

Over 179,000 communities across the U.S. are using Nextdoor to strengthen their neighborhoods.