The Saga Of Prop R Measure C

La Sierra HillsFor those who don’t remember or were unaware, the reason Riverside is so fabulously endowed with natural beauty is because the citizens of Riverside have traditionally understood the advantages and appreciated the enhanced quality of life.

Here’s a short history of how we got to where we are today. Today citizens find their awareness and appreciation for Riversides hills, arroyos and agricultural spaces being called into question once again.

We are being asked to give up hundreds of acres of prime agriculture land and trade for high density housing developments. We are told that by doing so we will ‘save’ our hills forever.

If we do this, we trade away a future of a local, sustainable food based economy. Imagine an economy that grows and produces value year after year. Those values include

  • the intrinsic value of fresh, healthy food for all.
  • There are improving health outcomes as more of us enjoy easier access and
  • lower prices for the food we consume. Then there’s the
  • jobs needed. There are farmers, marketers, product development experts. There’s the hospitality dividend. More venues, more cafes,  gastro pub specialities
  • owned and staffed by local residents, students.

The question to ask here is, do we want to trade unlimited future profit potential for all the residents of Riverside for high density housing?

This question has come up over the years as differing visions for these lands have been proposed.

Once again it’s time for you to weigh in on this. This is happening on your watch.  Here’s a short saga of Prop R and Measure C

For more info visit: www.protectriverside.com

The history of residents to protect La Sierra Hills is very TELLING!
For 36 years the residents of Riverside have fought to protect our open space against developers and the city…don’t let the developer win now! FIGHT BACK with your NO vote this November (2014).

Opponents charge that the campaign to “preserve the hills” has disingenuously downplayed how much development the measure allows – up to 1,950 homes versus the current 562 homes in the 1,300 acre area. They also worry about how the proposed development would affect animals at the Hidden Valley Wildlife Area and what it would do to traffic in Riverside and Norco.

http://blog.pe.com/politics/2014/05/28/riverside-la-sierra-ballot-measure-backers-turn-in-petitions/

May 28, 2014 by Alicia Robinson

Please follow the updates and information on https://www.facebook.com/rrrriverside

 

 

2 thoughts on “The Saga Of Prop R Measure C”

  1. As such some comments . . . . kinda let my imagination get carried away, but there are a few solid suggestions among them.
    Karen Doris Wright
    Riverside CA

    (1) In the past City Attorney Greg Priamos prepared BIASED language for other measures MEASURE A and the Rooster Crowing MEASURE (out name for it). The use of biased language and lies/misrepresentations made at Council and by employeees etc convinced uninformed Riverside residents to vote for BAD MEASURES

    I believe his so called OBJECTIVE BALLOT TITLE and BALLOT DESCRIPTION is NOT OBJECTIVE but represents a biased take that favors the developer by including untrue/deceptive statement(s) in the TITLE and gross omission of what is NOT INCLUDED in the BALLOT DESCRIPTION. The title says something like growth is restricted, which of course it is not if they can build 12 times as many houses as would be allowed under Prop R and Measure C. The description does NOT mention all the protections Prop R and Measure C offer citizens that would be LOST if Prop R and Measure C were wiped out.

    So perhaps having someone who is a lawyer look at the BALLOT TITLE and BALLOT DESCRIPTION to see if it meets the letter of the law, which I am thinking requires it to be objective or something along those lines. The BALLOT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION cites what he is supposed to be complying with.

    (2) Even more important is the REBUTTAL TO THE TITLE/DESCRIPTION etc that someone can make.

    For the Rooster Crowing measure, citizens, specifically Yolanda Garland, asked Riverside City Clerk what was the date certain that the REBUTTAL STATEMENT needed to be submitted by. As I recall we were told a date in Early January. As that date approached Yolanda asked Colleen to again confirm that previously given date, and was shocked to learn, that allegedly a notice had been posted in the press changing the date, moving back to months to around Oct or November, and that the date to submit a rebuttal had therefore passed and in fact the actual phamplet was printed in November, two months BEFORE the date Yolanda was given.

    Please note Yolanda and others, including myself were in the Council chamber weekly and the City Clerk and the Council NEVER mentioned the change of date to submit REBUTTAL COMMENTS.

    I believe it was a CONSPIRACY to DENY CITIZENS our right to post a REBUTTAL STATEMENT, consequently, there was nothing to rebut their lies, misstatements, misrepresentations and/or ommisions and the measure passed.

    (3) During Council meetings one or more Council members and the City Attorney and/or the City Manager LIED about Rooster Crowing matters, presented a private biased survey of about 500 individuals as representing 68 percent of some such number of the ENTIRE RIVERSIDE POPULATION supported the Rooster Crowing measure which was a blantant lie, and made the public believe roosters would be crowing in EVERY backyard — scaring many. Measure A was extensively advertised by hardcopy and by word with heads of Park/Utilities etc lobbying for passage in numerous ways, at least that is the way I recall it.

    (4) If unions folks are brought aboard the Las Vegas Developers Measure bandwagon, as they may see it as a JOB GENERATOR, they will send bodies out door to door weekends to lobby for that measure. I have not heard that this is happening, I am just cautioning it very likely will happen.

    (5) City of Riverside plays tricks and does not hold Council meeting just prior to an election to DENY CITIZENS the Right to say in public comments to vote for or against this or that Measure or person running for office. So plan to have citizens, en mass attending ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS prior to the election, to more than a MONTH before the election and have they speak AGAINST the MEASURE and provide reasons why.

    If you type statements in 14 point type, double spaced with one in margins on two pages, that may work out to be a THREE MINUTE STATEMENT, that citizens can read off. Practice ahead and check time.

    (6) Ballots are sent out a MONTH before the election date and most/many folks vote the day they receive the ballot. Therefore for a NOV 3 election, I am guessing (you can ask the City Clerk to find out for sure the dates) ballots will be sent out in very early OCT say by OCT 7. Because of this FOLKS FIGHTING AGAINST the LA SIERRA MEASURE, need to have REACHED OUT and spoken with the VOTERS BEFORE OCTOBER.

    (7) There are lists of HIGH PROPENSITY VOTERS, which folks campaign wise try to make sure they visit prior to EACH ELECTION and personally get them on the band wagon for THEIR MEASURE. OUR HOUSE is a HIGH PROPENSITY VOTER house because we ALWAYS VOTE and we had quite a number of voters who lived here. Lists can be obtained with phone numbers, by address (in an order so you can walk the precincts etc. I don’t have advice for the best way.

    (8) You need to be concerned with those who have moved in in recent years, folks who live in Riverside but commute to Orange County (eg they are from OC but moved hear for affordable housing) because they know nothing about Riverside issues and will believe anything. These folks are difficult to reach.

    (9) Funding for mailers to homes, hit timely prior to ballots reaching homes? Humm, hard to know the right way. If it is too early then the Las Vegas folks may be able to get out another blast to nullify what you say and they have the money to do it. But the mailer should reach BEFORE the ballots are mailed out in early October.

    (10) Get endorsements of COMMUNITY LEADERS against the LA SIERRA Measure . This would include well all folks of note that are listed on most campaign flyers including Latino/ Black Jenifer Von Blakely/ Asian / etc folks and polticial folks if you can find any (Medina / Takano / etc). If we cannot get CURRENT MAYOR and Council then get former if you can ( Terry Frizzel past Mayor (Don’t know if she will endorse NO on LA SIERRA MEASURE but ask her; past Council.

    Not sure but I think ROSE MAYES signed on with the LA SIERRA MEASURE but perhaps they gave her false/misleading info and if someone spoke with her she would change.

    Nothing will change ex mayor loveridge but a speaker should address how Loveridge has GONE AGAINST citizens best interests regularly and has fought against citizens/Prop R/Measure C and for the benefit of INSIDERS. By the way get someone who is not afraid of retribution as they do get made. I was arrested at Riverside City Hall in the evening after I spoke out against Mayor Loveridges actions at the morning session that same day. Also folks have had the City call code enforcement on them for weird matters so many are afraid. Ensure whoever presents this information would not be upset to experience retribution by the City of Riverside in some form.

    Don’t know if anyone could reach Nancy Hart ex Councilwoman who is endorsing the LA SIERRA measure, but it would not hurt to try. She never cared about hurting Riverside citizens before, but who knows, perhaps if the right individual approached her or group of individuals?

    The BB&K guy who is backing the La Sierra deal, he was backing it previously. Was BB&K paid of by the City of Riverside by the money paid for so called work for which there was no contract, no scope of work, no paperwork, just payments in millions on a ongoing basis. That could be a wonderful story. Will BB&K even get more work if the La Sierra Measure passes, such as work on that project itself?

    Are some of the folks named Union folks who will benefit with jobs?

    (11) Rusty got elected in party by having students canvas neighborhoods with their parents etc. Boyscouts and others benefit from the Nature Center and walks out in that area. Would they help or is that even ok to consider?

    (12) Put together EMAIL TREES of everyone you can think of in the City of Riverside ( excluding of course those on the other side, though they will likely get your emails anyway) to send out blasts regarding issues, to refute what is said in La Sierra Mailers

    (13) Put together a list of News Media and individuals who cover the LA SIERRA type measures, to whom you can send PRESS RELEASES regarding matters that would support the VOTE NO ON LA SIERRA measure

    (14) CAREFULLY BRAINSTORM what you will put in the REBUTTAL online. Talk to someone who has done it before. I think you get to put your position and refute theirs or something like that.

    BE VERY CAREFUL of the WORDING that will convince voters that PROP R and MEASURE C are GREAT and NEEDED and PROTECT CITIZENS/……

    and citizens4balancegrowth is a SMOKE AND MIRRORS front for DEVELPORS who want to OVERDEVELOP and RUIN Riverside’s LAST and ONLY real OPEN SPACE parcel along the Santa Ana Riverbottom. Mention the PROTECTIONS R and C provide and how they will result in a CITIZENS FRIENDLY environment with walking/biking/horse paths and open areas between the Santa Ana River and the sparse sprinkly of homes on five acre parcels with few roads which retain a feeling of open space perhaps with public trails through those areas or ??

    (15) Wild Ass Idea — Collections to pay for one or two parcels if and when the 164 or however many houses are eventually built, which will be awarded by random selections of those endorsing NO ON LA SIERRA MEASURE. Likely this idea is illegal (not sure why but it sounds to good to be true), but wouldn’t that be fun, for a random person to win a wonderful 5 acre lot with modest home? Also don’ know where that money would come from, they likely would cost a lot.

    (16) Contact the City of Norco and see how they can help us fight the development of La Sierra. Perhaps their lawyer(s) could look over Prop R and Measure C, and also look over Priamos’s Ballot Title/Description to see if it does NOT MEET the Requirements such as because it does not mention the many protections the Citizens will lose. If their attorneys say Priamo’s Ballot Title/Description do not meet the letter of the law, I am guessing a Riverside citizen(s) would need to press the issue ….. through the City of Riverside?? Through a lawsuit?? Norco does not have money so funds would need to be found to pay for any lawsuit, but perhaps their attorney could help direct us (if legal to do so).

    (17) Get lists of all groups environmental, horse, riding, walking, bicycling (Riverside Bicycle Club), boy scouts (may not be able to get involved with politics), agricultural, horse groups, Norco riding groups, animal groups, park groups, dog people, birders, nature folks etc and get them to ENDORSE NO ON LA SIERRA MEASURE as bad for their groups

    (18) Contact ALL riverside neighborhood groups, other groups of whatever type.

    (19) Contact folks at the Church in the same block as the Library (Unitarian??) as they get involved in many grassroots causes and perhaps they would help back NO ON LA SIERRA and they may have some nice email lists

    (20) Contact the groups that fought to save the top of Mt. Rubidoux, lots are outdoors folks as well as folks who like crosses, and perhaps they would jump on the NO on LA SIERRA MEASURE bandwagon. They also have good email lists (but includes Mayor Loveridge I would think and . .. .)) Dont know if they can endorse, but perhaps they could send out an email to members

    (21) Contact folks around Fairmount Park (though they wanted that park for themselves) because they are organized

    (22) Contact the MANA, LANA, DANA groups, LatinoNetwork, RRR, Casa Blanca, Northside, etc groups

    (23) Pay CCAEJ to comment on the environmental impacts of up to 4,000 or so cars from this development on air quality, congestion, etc?

    Make SURE you put in your WEB ADDRESS http://protectriverside.com (and perhaps a phone number and email. not sure about that)

    (24) Have someone quantify the POSITIVE impacts on economy, health, traffic mitigation, pollution reduction, aid to Riverside students . . . that would result from STOPPING the LA SIERRA MEASURE and leaving the land as is and/or building the 164 or whatever the number of 5 acre home parcels would mean.

    Cindy Roth of the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce wields lots of power and shows up at Council to speak or lobby FOR the INSIDERS and Mayor Bailey calls her at the point at which they believe she will have the most punch, usually last. But perhaps a prior speaker could burst her bubble prior to her speaking (don’t know how but I am not a wordsmith).

  2. The lands are already protected by Proposition R (1979) and Measure C (1987, which strengthened R from abuse). This is just weakening the protections already in place. More homes (up to 1,950) is not preserving the open land, it’s developing an already crowded part of town.

    Read Measure C for yourself: http://www.riversideca.gov/planning/pdf/Measure_C.pdf

    VOTE NO ON THIS IN NOvember!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.