Topic: Liberty Quarry, Temecula City Council Applies for Annexation of Southwest Hills
I received an email from Nancy Knight who lives in Murrieta and has published The Bugle for more that 10 years. She wanted to have me re-print this editorial that she wrote. It is an interesting read and she brings up some great points. Read it and feel free to comment below. Here it is in its entirety:
By Nancy Knight, Publisher of The Bugle
Gary Johnson, Granite Construction’s project manager on the proposed and highly contested Liberty Quarry, stated in a press release on December 8, 2008 that “Ignoring private-property rights seemed like a key theme during the Planning Commission hearing Nov. 19 in Temecula… “What was most shocking that night”, he added, “was the blatant willingness to ignore the fact that six property owners… within the annexation area oppose the city’s effort to annex their land. In that same press release Johnson cited that staff had not consulted with property owners prior to the hearing. Furthermore his remarks regarding the definition of a “taking” of property rights is misleading.
Firstly, back room deals in staff offices “aka consultation” is frowned upon by the public so I applaud Temecula staff for not meeting independently with any of the property owners. Additionally, in a 1988 “Message to the People of California”, Attorney General Van de Kamp cited a 100 year old case as follows: “Since at least Roman times, governments have had some role in regulating land use… In the most important early California environmental case a federal court prohibited the continuation of the placer mining industry because of the damage the mining caused. (Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co. (1884) 18 F. 753.)”
Environmental Law and the courts have clearly defined “What is a Taking”. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Many legal challenges have made their way to the Supreme Court where in 1980 in Agins v. Tiburon the court said “The application of a general zoning law to a particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.”
Economically viable use. What does that mean? A case in New York in 1978 made it quite clear that “a mere diminution in value does not prove a taking, there must be an actual deprivation of all economically viable uses”. Then in 1987 it was further clarified in a case involving coal mining… the government may sometimes prohibit all economic use of property without being liable for damages if that is necessary to protect the public health and safety.”
In the southwest hills situation, and contrary to what many Friends of Liberty Quarry may think, property owner rights clearly favors the hundreds of thousands of valley residents who have a much larger investment in property than a few hundred undeveloped acres. In fact, the Sierra Club recently gave Senator Hollingsworth a perfect score of zero percent on their scorecard for voting against their legislative agenda 100 % of the time. Hollingsworth, an outspoken “property rights” advocate, supports Granite’s Liberty Quarry. The Sierra Club opposes the project. Hollingsworth said he is “proud to have been recognized for opposing the Sierra Club’s agenda”. Maybe it is time for our elected officials to understand the law before the people elect them to become lawmakers.
Honorable Mayor Maryann Edwards commented on her views, rationale and support for annexation. “If handled improperly, annexations can result in a negative impact to the applicant municipalities - as far as costs for services - hence the reason for [Local Agency Formation Commission] LAFCO. But because of the way this annexation would be structured, the cost to provide services, even with the maximum number of residences allowed, would still result in a net gain in revenue for the city. Revenue would be realized from the city’s share of property tax and funds from the CSD (Community Services District).”
For example, Temecula projected that under existing conditions (6 units with a population of 19) General Fund revenue would be $24,000 plus CSD funds of $2,000. The costs of $8,000 would result in a net gain to the city. By comparison, 68 units with a population of 220 would provide $272,000 in General Fund revenue plus $20,000 from the CSD with expenses projected to be only $86,000.
Mayor Edwards said, “Two things were key in my decision making process. 1) public safety must remain the top priority, and 2) personal property rights must be protected for property owners who wish to build or expand. If we could not have provided for those two items, I would have had grave concerns about the feasibility of a possible annexation of that area.” She added, “If you are considering costs associated with a wildfire, there are no added costs to the city. The city, county, and state participate in reciprocal services at no increased cost to the municipalities. So Cal Fire would simply continue to provide the same wildfire support services at no cost to the city. Our ratio of one police officer for every +/- 920 residents would not be negatively affected by adding 6 - 81 homes, and our park rangers and Citizens Action Patrol members would simply take in the annexation area.”
Edwards explained, “Once I was convinced that we could preserve that open space per our 1993 General Plan while protecting public safety and private property rights for the residents, it came down to the matter of the will of the people and local control. Government that is closest to the people is better suited to determine the will of those people. Over the course of the past two years, Temecula’s people have spoken by the thousands, demonstrating their desire to preserve that area as pristine hills - just as we have preserved the recently purchased 69 acres to the west and the 200+ acres bordering Roripaugh Ranch and the Johnson Preserve. All things considered, it was a clear decision for me.”
The public debate will continue as Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) conducts its own public hearings and case review - which is projected to be sometime in April. Will local control prevail in how these 4,997 southwest acres are managed or will the Riverside Board of Supervisors, comprised of elected officials from as far away as Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Banning, decide the issue of the Liberty Quarry project? If Temecula’s financial projections are correct, LAFCO should vote to approve annexation with no reservations. That would be a welcome relief to the thousands of residents that have mounted a highly successful grassroots campaign to protect their lifestyle, property values and health. Temecula’s annexation application specifically prohibits mining operations in that area so a timely end to the battle is finally within the resident’s reach.
Senator Dennis Hollingsworth wants votes on this issue. Go to his website at: http://cssrc.us/web/36/contact_us.aspx Fill in your name and address (only his constituents can vote) then at “select an issue” click Liberty Quarry. The question is what will Hollingsworth do with the results? Comment at info@thebugle.com