City Responds To Banning Ranch Payoff Criticism
Today the City of Costa Mesa posted a page on the City web site, HERE, in an attempt to respond to the firestorm of criticism leveled at the City Council for their action last Tuesday night in which they ignored the comments of 35 residents and other interested parties and proceeded to accept the $4.4 million dollar "mitigation" fee from the developers of Banning Ranch. You'll recall that a petulant and frustrated Mayor Eric Bever muttered his now-infamous bovine excrement comment half-way through the comment section of that issue Tuesday night. I've presented that little segment for you here again. Turn your volume all the way up and you'll hear him say, "I'm going home", then the other comment.
HOW DO YOU FEEL, MR. MAYOR?
No matter how crass, crude and disrespectful the mayor and other council members are to those folks who take the time to study the issues, interrupt their lives to attend the meetings and brave the chides from the dais to speak their mind, the council is obligated BY LAW to hear public comments on these issues. If they don't like it - and clearly they do not - in the words of our potty-mouthed Mayor Bever, "Tough Luck!"
Take a few minutes to read over their response and tell me if you're satisfied that Costa Mesa's interests were well-represented by them in this matter. I know how I feel...
Labels: Banning Ranch, civility, Eric Bever
posted by The Pot Stirrer at 7/19/2012 03:57:00 PM
32 Comments:
Costa Mesa city councils are the worst negotiators in the world. They continually get out-maneuvered and taken advantage of, by developers, unions, and litigants. Their response, in the case of the unions, is to try to change the rules via a charter. In the case of Banning Ranch, they took the first offer without even trying to get more. Contrary to the council's statements, Costa Mesa has huge leverage over Banning Ranch. If we don't play ball, we can make things very difficult for the developers and Newport Beach. But these guys are simply not smart enough to recognize leverage nor do they have any idea of how to apply it in a negotiation. If you're gonna sell out, sell big! They should have laughed at the $4 mil and demanded $40 mil as their opening response. These hapless goobers just got snookered again, to the great detriment of the city.
"hapless goobers"... I love it!
This reminds me of Gary Monahan's comment to the council sub-committee that was charged with negotiating the islands of county land that we and Newport Beach were arguing over. He told them, in open session, to play hardball with Newport Beach! Of course, we had no ball and no glove and I suppose some of them were watching. I'd love to play a little poker with him! "Hey, Gary, what are you holding? Five un-matched, un-suited small cards? Thanks, I'm all in!" Hapless goobers seems to fit.
"These hapless goobers just got snookered again"
I think we citizens are the snookered ones.
The Riggcouncil:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DEVELOPER BY THE DEVELOPER AND FOR THE DEVELOPER.
These numb-nuts running this City are so stupid, they don't even know how to take a payoff correct. You could of gotten alot more, but sold the City's soul for 4 million. Great job,and you're right Bever " this is bulls&#$"
Marquis or Pot Belly,
Can either of you provide examples where 1 city has played hardball against another City's development , and they did better than 3 x impact formula?
Rather than complain and make fun, perhaps constructive comments can help. Hater anger blinds.
I wish many residents would listen to us. Take out the wrecking ball.
Improve the tax base, add jobs, bring in a higher calibre resident that will improve schools.
I wish Chris McEvoy would rum again to dilute the vote. Bit then I would have to listen to silly comments like the westside is great. No cars on weekends. Genius. Love the thinking that land value & home prices increase as you move AWAY from the water.
The ink is not dry. Perhaps we can still improve the deal.
Or, we can make fun of each side. That is fun, but does not solve the issue.
Again, it never states that the original offer was in jeopardy if we didn't act immediately. Maybe we wouldn't get more, but we would get the $4.4mm and not have to sell our rights with it.
I am less concerned with the money than I am with the sale of our rights. That is conspicuously absent from the City's retort. We might not have veto power but we have (um, HAD) a voice at the Coastal Commission.
I recommend Council reduce the time of comments. 1 maybe 2 minutes max.
The same people say the same things. And in the election season, we will see the same people, same posturing, same nonsense.
Can't Sandy write her thoughts and send them in so they can be considered?
Who makes good decisions at midnight? Isn't it against everyone's best interest to drag out these meetings? Be 4 hours in still talking about consent items.
Couldn't Terry share a little tune in 2 minutes not 3? This would not eliminate free speech but would corral it for the better
Or, just stifle free speech altogether! That's your goal, right?
In months past some commenters here have attempted to compare this current regime to Nazi Germany and I've not encouraged that comparison. Now I'm not so sure...
Loved to see Leslie Daigle gloating on Faceboook,"That's right, Newport Beach negotiated to get $42 million from the developer and Costa Mesa negotiated to get $4.4M from the developer. The City of Newport Beach will also be getting all the sales tax, property tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated from the property."
Costa Mesa had tremendous leverage over this development, especially since it appears highly unlikely that Newport Beach will be able to build a road to PCH or dump traffic into Huntington Beach on a 19th St/Banning bridge.
Costa Mesa will get almost 100% of the traffic from this development, noise and pollution as the old oil fields are cleaned up. But they have agreed hastily and prematurely and failed in their responsibility to protect their residents.
Gee, I wonder why she didn't make it past the primary election? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, right?
One can only wonder what "corral it for the better" really means.
Mary Ann has got it right: "I am less concerned with the money than I am with the sale of our rights." That is the precise reason why I am opposed to the charter. No council is going to take away my right to power through the judicial branch of government, not for 4.4 million, billion, or trillion.
Bulldozer, yes, I can. The City of Laguna Beach played hardball, AND WON! They managed to stop a development the size of a small city in Laguna Canyon. It can be done. It isn't easy, but it can be done.
My only regret is that if they had to develop that area, why homes? Why not something that could bring revenue for many years to come? They just don't know how to think big? They should have put the marina in years ago.
Bulldozer's comments (as well as his nom de plume) aptly describe the environment of our fair city. People of Costa Mesa living anywhere near the Banning Ranch don't want the development in the first place. It's logistics make it undesirable for Costa Mesans. Turning us into a dumping ground for developers and politicians bent on using Costa Mesa as a little experiment in outsourcing has been the hanging heavy around here now for over two years. Maybe some people like giving up their neighborhoods to benefit others, but not many that I know.
We all know Geoff is no Mensa. But every one is laughing at him because he supported a con artist for Assembly.
Since Banning Ranch is in the sphere of influence of NB that is why NB gets the most $$. We have very little leverage, it is not in our city. It is not "close to" 100% of the traffic coming to CM, it is close to 65%. Still a lot but let's keep the number real. Why don't we build our own huge profect right next to it in our own city. Then we could get all the $$.I guess it comes down to believing council wannabee candidates and their supporters who spent a week on this or theCM employees who spent many hours and months on this. Mr. Nagavi said he had been doing this type of work 32 years. Krupp, Stephens, and Weitzberg (not sure exact names but you know, the candidates for council) perhaps not so much. But they are the experts? Or Mr. Sunshine himself, Greg Ridge. They now denigrate staff. That whole meeting was great theatre for the beginning of "silly season". We already had Krupp say he did a "ride along" with the cops and now he acts like an expert on all issues with the pd. Every year we have a "ride along" candidate. The best in the past was Bunyan who played it up big at a forum while he sitting next to an opponent who was a deputy sheriff. Yet Bunyan thought he was the expert on policing because he did a ride along. Now Weitzberg talks against the pd reserves as not fit for duty, again denigrating staff. Then Bever melts down. Best show in town. Now the haters are crying about bribes and payoffs but can't come up with one piece of evidence. Reminds me of the blurry UFO photos, never can seem to get a sharp picture of one. Love it.
Selling out for 4 million when Newport collected over 40? Makes me wonder how much the developers are plugging into these guys' campaigns.
The city gets $4 million, but how much are Riggy and his chest bumping pal Mensinger getting? They are developers, first Banning ranch, next the Fairgrounds.
Some advice for the 'opposition' candidates running against these clowns Mensinger, Monahan, and McCarthy:
Don't take a penny from the employee associations. That will only tarnish you, and you shouldn't need it with all the ammunition you already have to hoist these guys on their own petards. In the last week alone, they have shown conflicts of interest (Monahan and the business tax), complete lack of class (Bever; I know he isn't running, but he's part of the group), incredibly short sighted business decisions (Banning Ranch) that look incredibly shady considering all the developers on the dais. I haven't even touched the layoff scheme, TeWinkle Park, bullying - the list goes on and on.
Mesa Verde madman is correct. You have a lot of campaign points already. No vision of course but opposing everything staff recommends or council does sounds like a winner! Union money will only tarnish you. Just run a very negative campaign and don't propose anything, just whine. Voters will get it and jump on your bandwagon. You win on looks alone.
Yeah, vision... that's what the the 3 M's have... envisioning their own expanding pocketbooks and those of their developer friends. More traffic, more congestion. So it's OK to put off an increase in the business tax and cry budget crisis without doing anything to bring in dollars. I'm sure all of those nice people in Banning Ranch will be shopping at El Metate and raving at Detroit Bar on a regular basis, thus bringing more dollars in. Yeah, right.
I have a vision of what these guys bring - sit in Skosh Monahan's and watch all the people clog Newport Blvd. and the 55 and the streets on the Eastside, cutting through our city. That's gonna be just swell!
By the way, the GOP all but invented negative campaigning, and Karl Rove perfected it. So get off your high horse...
Is it true "Charlie" McCarthy is dropping out of the race and Carlos Bustamante is taking his place?
Lots of people are distracted by Bever's lowlife routine on the very same night he and his gang sold out Costa Mesa to the Banning Ranch developer for a lousy 4 million bucks.
if you have proof of payoffs and kickbacks please provide. Even if no actual proof just provide the names of who you think is giving the money and who is receiving it. I will lead the charge to prosecute. Most likely you have no proof, just another negative spin emitting from your fantasy world. You should add that to your platform. Forget vision, just make false accusations. Winner! Just run pictures of Sandy standing with Beradino and Ridge. The people are behind the unions and this will play very well with the electorate. Perhaps a parcel tax to pay down pensions would be great also. Double winner!
The whole point about the project being in Newport Beach is moot. John Wayne airport is in Santa Ana. When they want to expand, the last thing you want is Mensinger and Monahan on council because they will happily accept hush money just the same. That's what happened here. Usually hush money is paid behind the scenes. This time it was done right in front of our faces. Now when we have gridlock, noise, and pollution from this project, we have no rights thanks to these sellout politicians.
I know a (not so) secret. Have any funds been funneled to Fitzy's legal defense fund from Athens Trash or other trash haulers angling for the Sanitiation Department contract? Will they be? Maybe anonymously thru the so-called CMtaxpayers Association?
Talking loudly on your cell phone in a public place is a really dumb move. just because you think you are a big operator doesn't mean you are in a cone of silence. I hate to drive you underground, but you were heard, dummy. If it happens, we got the goods.
I don't know. Have any funds been "funneled"? You state is as a question as if you don't know either. But if it is a legal donation "funneling" as you call it, and it is legally reported, your "goods" are worthless. All candidates need to report who gave them donations over 99 dollars. What you have to PROVE is that someone donated over 99 dollars and it was not reported. Or a PAC could be formed as was done for Daigle for over a half million dollars. She finished last. She is a friend of Foley, Ridge, et all. Finished last. Capice? Daigle finished last.
Can anyone tell me what Sandra accomplished when she was on Council and Mayor. All my observations conclude Sandra is no growth at all expense.
Sandra introduced anti growth measures in the General Plan to thwart any meaningful development on the Westside. Meanwhile Newport Beach builds a massive hospital expansion plugging up our streets.
What did Sandra do while she was on Council regarding Banning Ranch? While Newport Beach put a strip of land around the future opportunity, Sandra did nothing
I hope the legacy of Sandra is not further influenced by another term. That would be hard to fathom.
It’s so funny to me that you have use the name 5150 so often on this blog. You must have had previous experience with that code when the cops were called out to have a little conversation with you. For those of you who aren’t familiar,
Section 5150 is a section of the California Welfare and Institutions Code which allows a qualified officer to involuntarily confine a person deemed to have a mental disorder that makes them a danger to themselves and others.
Very fitting name for you 5150, aka Jim Fitzpatrick, as well all the other boys on the current City Council. As far as I’m concerned, you’re all nuts!
Get ready for more of the Banning Ranch payoff type projects. When I read the quote and paragraph below I think of how well Mensinger and Righeimer did for Sun Cal. When they say run the city like a business I hope not the way they ran their divisions of Sun Cal.
Charter supporters say charters can give cities greater flexibility in cutting costs. This month, the California Supreme Court ruled that charter cities are exempt from paying prevailing union rates to contractors for municipal projects that are funded with local tax dollars. "When you give a city more control, it can go one of two ways," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School and a local-government expert. "One way is the leaders are very successful in running that city; the other way is, you get Bell, you get San Bernardino, you get Stockton."
Isn't Costa Mesa pretty much built out at this point? Where is the growth supposed to come from - more fast food joints? Great...
Nice post which residents and other interested parties and proceeded to accept the $4.4 million dollar "mitigation" fee from the developers of Banning Ranch. You'll recall that a petulant and frustrated Mayor Eric Bever muttered his now-infamous bovine excrement. Thanks a lot for posting.
Post a Comment
<< Home