The Santa Ana City Council voted unanimously tonight to approve the Transit Zone project.
Council Members Michele Martinez, David Benavides, Carlos Bustamante and Sal Tinajero voted in the affirmative. Miguel Pulido, Claudia Alvarez and Vince Sarmiento did not vote, due to conflicts of interest. Sarmiento and Alvarez were there, but left the room for the vote. Pulido did not come to the meeting.
The SACReD folks and a few Usual Suspects showed up to oppose the project. They broke into sarcastic clapping as the meeting drew to a close.
Martinez was very passionate in her comments. She said if the vote cost her reelection, so be it. She also said, “Have faith that we will stay committed to what we are voting for tonight.”
Click here to read the rest of this post.
I would like to commend Jay Trevino, Karen Haluza and their staff for their excellent work and dedication to this project. Great job by the city council as well. I am proud to have them representing me.
“The SACReD folks and a few Usual Suspects showed up to oppose the project. They broke into sarcastic clapping as the meeting drew to a close.”
SACReD does not oppose the project. The original project was basically a housing project. The current project with pressure from SACRed now incorporates open space and a community center.
SACReD supports the project. SACReD’s argument is for there to be a community based agreement(CBA) for the development which would guarantee the project to actually benefit the surrounding community.
Without a CBA the project can change in scope and not benefit to the surrounding community.
The clapping was a show of solidarity not sarcasm.
Dr. Lomeli,
Who exactly is the city supposed to enter into a CBA with? SACReD and the other groups do not represent the community as a whole and thus cannot enter into an agreement on their behalf. SACReD and the others represent certain special interest groups but they do not represent all the taxpayers. With this being the case the city should not enter into into such an agreement with them.
The action taken last night and the development agreement that they will enter into will go much further to benefit the community. Had they followed the will of those seeking the CBA it is quite possible that the community would have ended up with nothing.
It was sad to see so many good folks being co-opted by those opposed to affordable housing and other elements that benefit our most vulnerable residents. The “historical preservation” crowd bamboozled folks into believing that they were fighting for their best interests when in reality they were simply trying to undermine the agressive affordable housing element of this project.
Kudos to our city leaders for their forward thinking vision demonstrated last night.
Sean,
SACReD is a collaborative of non profits, neighborhood associations, community leaders and others.
Last night’s council meeting was filled by CACReD members and friends. This is an indication that SACReD does represent the community in question.
The community based agreement could of been with one of the SACReD members such as Logan Neighborhood Association, Lacy Neighborhood Association.
Are these not taxpayers?
This was discussed by SACReD, Griffin Realty, Related Development and the City. There was a CBA on the table severely water downed. It was not accepted by SACReD. This CBA the city suggested could be with the Kennedy Foundation, a member of SACReD.
“It was sad to see so many good folks being co-opted by those opposed to affordable housing and other elements that benefit our most vulnerable residents. The “historical preservation” crowd bamboozled folks into believing that they were fighting for their best interests when in reality they were simply trying to undermine the agressive affordable housing element of this project.”
Please do not patronize SACReD with this propaganda. We are not ignorant and unsophisticated.
We were able to accomplish something which the community initially was not offered. I believe it was because we have a significant level of intelligence.
Dr. Lomeli,
I believe that SACReD does represent a segment of the community and special interest groups in that area but they do not represent the overwhelming majority of taxpayers. Turning out bodies to attend a city council meeting is not akin to representing the community.
This project is providing a lot to the community and is a tremendous step forward. I do give credit to those folks, including SACReD, that were involved in the process for a lot of the benefits being provided. I also give a tremendous amount of credit and praise to the planning staff and councilmembers that fought to move this project forward.
Dr. Lomeli surely you cannot believe that the same folks who supported traffic barriers, opposed translation services at council meetings and wanted to use redevelopment funds to buy a house in order to remove the Latino occupants are suddenly concerned about the well being of our low income and Latino residents.
Nobody is questioning your intelligence. These people have quite a history of infilltrating groups and poisoning the well in the effort to move their agenda forward. I hope you wake up and realize it before its too late.
Sean,
I do not understand your position. The city is OK with SACReD’s degree of community representation.
They were willing to sign a CBA with SACReD. It is good enogh for them why is it not good enogh for you?
What process in a democracy requires a “overwhelming majority ” for anything?
The President of the USA gets elected with 30% or less of the vote.
Dr. Lomeli,
You are starting to sound like Thomas Gordon or the Strouds. Just because folks attend meetings or make a lot of noise does not mean they represent the community. SACReD represents a portion of the community and some special interest groups, they do not represent the community at large.
You folks have no right to enter into an agreement on the community’s behalf just because you are the one’s that attend meetings. I guess you think that Comlink should decide the direction our community goes because those folks attend meetings too.
Debbie McEwen attends a lot of meetings so I guess she should be allowed to close down streets in an unconstitutional manner as she did before. Right?
Sean, the CITY held the election for the street closing and the CITY put up the blockades, and they did it in the exact same manor they did for the other NA’s who have blocked streets and traffic diverters.
I think Debbie was in favor (I don’t know her vote) I know my parents voted for the program. I would have voted for the program if I lived in the area too.
If there is any “unconstitutional manner” going on in the way items are done in this city, you best look towards the ones responsible. And that is the CITY.
Sean,
Take your argument to council. They have been in negotiations with SACReD for some time.
Don’t get so ruffled with me and SACReD.
You are rambling with illogical comparisons and frankly making no sense.
Dr. Lomeli,
I don’t need to take my argument to the council. The did exactly what I had hoped they would do and what I had lobbied a few of them to do.
There is no CBA between the City of Santa Ana and SACReD and the taxpayers and residents are better for it.
Sean,
You seem to not understand. Again for your benefit. The City presented a CBA to SACReD which SACReD did not agree to. If SACReD had accepted it there would be a CBA signed now.
Your argument is mute and divisive.
“I don’t need to take my argument to the council. The did exactly what I had hoped they would do and what I had lobbied a few of them to do.”
How hypocritical of you. You argue for group not to have a voice because they do not represent the overwhelming majority but you can lobby council and direct council business as one person?????
I agree that this code is a MAJOR step forward for Santa Ana. The city has been hostage with the status quo too long, and it hasn’t done anything for the positive. Groups like SACReD do have their own agenda, and there is nothing is wrong with that – that is what democracy is all about. In the end however, since the code is approved, the city as a whole must come together to support this so that it can be the success we all know it can be. Of course, the city wants more open space and affordable housing. Of course, the city wants new retail and jobs to come from this. Why would any city set up a plan to fail on purpose? Even if one does not support the overall plan at its outset, if one is a good and decent person, we hope that it succeeds, right? The focus should be on that instead of the negative.
As for the historic groups, A sympathize with them, but do not agree that the homes in that area were historic. There is a major difference between being old and being historic in much the same way and being old doesn’t necessarily make one wise. Once a property has lost its original character, it is lost to time. And none of these homes were worthy of historic listing. Any property can be restored, but in this case, none were of landmark quality, and is it worth it to lose a few altered houses to get a park? Absolutely! Life is a trade off, and good living recognizes that and moves on.
That’s the point that the two of you seem to miss – the argument is over. We all want the best for this city, let’s work on that!
oc girrl,
” The city has been hostage with the status quo too long, and it hasn’t done anything for the positive.”
Who is the status quo?
“. Groups like SACReD do have their own agenda, and there is nothing is wrong with that – that is what democracy is all about”
What in your opinion is their agenda?
“Of course, the city wants more open space and affordable housing. Of course, the city wants new retail and jobs to come from this. Why would any city set up a plan to fail on purpose? Even if one does not support the overall plan at its outset, if one is a good and decent person, we hope that it succeeds, right? The focus should be on that instead of the negative. ”
If you believe this is true or have information of this to be true then why did it take heated and long negotiations with SACReD for this to be implemented in the current development agreement(has no guarantees). Why were these negotiated points not included in the original development plan by the city and the developer?
“As for the historic groups, A sympathize with them, but do not agree that the homes in that area were historic. ”
Point of interest here is that the historical preservation group sued the city to stop demolition. The city settle the law suit . Demolition was stopped and the city paid their attorney fees.
There then was merit to the historic nature of those homes
“That’s the point that the two of you seem to miss – the argument is over. We all want the best for this city, let’s work on that!”
The point is that SACReD was looking for a guarantee that development stays as proposed and benefits the economic,educational and cultural future of the surrounding community.
There are examples where development agreements fall short of the original intentions. Residents want development in their neighborhoods to defend and support their bests interests with guarantees. .
The city and this area does need quality housing for its current and future residents.
It is too bad that the city gives away the land and then will use redevelopment dollars to pay for the construction and after paying 100 percent of the cost, the city will NOT be the owners.
cook,
True, I believe the city has spent over 18 million dollars in acquiring properties which the developers will buy from Santa Ana’s taxpayers for $1.
Let me say this again. Santa Ana’s taxpayers paid 18 million dollars for the properties. Santa Ana’s public servants will sell 18 millions dollars worth of properties to the developer for $1.
The developer along with the purchase of $1 will own the apartments, keep the rent and manage them.
The developer will also keep the sales profit of the live work condos and lease profits from the street level lease units.
Santa Ana’s taxpayers provided 18 millon dollars to have their public servants hand it out to the developer for their profit. There is qestionable profit and benefit to Santa Ana’s taxpayers.