 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  
  |
What's New
BRIEF TAKES ON CHULA VISTA ISSUES - May 2008
Dear Crossroaders and Friends,
As you know, CII supports Prop E. We recently learned that in February, 2008 Councilmember Jerry Rindone and Mayor Cheryl Cox ordered a study of the fiscal impacts of Prop E. This study, which is available on the city website, is now complete. The cost of this study to us, the taxpayers, was $30,000.00. We have reviewed it carefully and find that this study lacks fairness and impartiality. Our reasons for rejecting this study as invalid is explained in detail in the Position Paper below (or click here to download pdf), which has been approved by the CII Executive Committee. Again, we urge you to vote YES ON PROP E, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thanks for caring about our community,
Patricia Aguilar, President
Crossroads II*****************************
Crossroads II Position Paper
on
“Economic and Fiscal Implications of Proposition E”
prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
May 2008The Crossroads II Board of Directors has reviewed the Study on Proposition E (“Economic and Fiscal Implications of Proposition E) written by Economic Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) dated May 2008. (The paper is available on the city’s website.) Although the referral to do this study from two councilmembers requested “an independently conducted, impartial fiscal analysis,” we find that the study is biased, partial, and invalid. Our specific reasons for rejecting the validity of the Study are listed below.
Given the overall picture – that facts that the study was ordered by two members of the Council acting outside of a unanimous public Council vote, the extremely biased assumptions in EPS’s work program, the failure to budget for this study, the wrong-headed legal interpretation of Prop E, and its flawed economic analysis, we believe the real reason Cox and Rindone ordered this study done was simply to give ammunition to the opponents of Prop E. We reject it’s validity.
- We find that the fact that the study was done at all is legally questionable. The Registrar of Voters certified that an adequate number of signatures had been collected to require the Council to take action with regard to Prop E. At the Council meeting on January 22, 2008 the city attorney gave the council three options: 1- Adopt Prop E as written as an ordinance. 2 – Put Prop E to a vote of the people of Chula Vista. 3 – Study Prop E for 30 days, then make a choice between options 1 and 2. The city attorney clearly stated that the Council could approve ONLY ONE of the three options presented. Councilmember McCann stated that he saw no reason the study Prop E further, given that city staff had already conducted its own analysis in May of 2007. On a motion by Councilmember Ramirez, the Council voted unanimously to approve option 2 – to put Prop E to a vote of the people.
Then at the February 5 meeting of the Council, Mayor Cox announced that she had been thinking about this issue and that she and Councilmember Rindone, acting alone, had simply decided to commission a study of Prop E. Never mind the advice of the city attorney to select only one of the three options presented. And never mind the unanimous vote by all members of the Council to select the option to put it on the ballot as the only option. We believe the Mayor and Councilmember Rindone may have acted illegally in their referral to the city manager to conduct the Study without regard to the January 22nd unanimous action by the Council.
- We find the economic analysis conducted by EPS Inc. to be flawed. In stating that the 45-foot limit imposed on Third Avenue dooms it to continue its failing course, the report completely ignores the very extensive 7-story condo areas right behind Third Avenue to the west that are designed specifically to produce customers for the success of Third Ave.
- Even if one accepts EPS’s economic analysis, they are not lawyers, and we believe their legal interpretation of Prop E is simply wrong. For example, EPS makes the assumption that the proposed University would be subject to Prop E. We disagree. Except for seven parcels on Third Ave., Prop E only applies when/if the Council wants to approve an amendment to the General Plan. The General Plan does not set any height limits for the University property; therefore high rise buildings can be constructed there without having to amend the General Plan. Therefore, Prop E would not kick in, because it only applies if the Council needs to amend the General Plan to allow high rise buildings. We find it unsettling that EPS, which makes its living doing economic analyses, would make legal interpretations about the land use impacts of Prop E without advice of a land use attorney or the City Attorney. Yet apparently that is exactly what has happened.
- The Study does not make it clear that EPS’s work program called for preparing a “’worst case analysis’ assuming that all development projects likely to be subject to [Prop E] are simply not developed. In reality, the reasons for the failure to develop the projects could range from the City rejecting the projects to the projects never being proposed because of market conditions or other factors.” (Emphasis added.) Obviously, the extreme assumptions made regarding development projects are unlikely and unreasonable, to put it mildly.
- During the series of budget workshops that occurred over the past few months, no funds in the budget were identified for this Study, which cost us, the taxpayers, $30,000.00. We believe this is an unconscionable amount of money to be spent on a study that the Council unanimously agreed would NOT be done. Because of budget cuts, Chula Vista’s Taste of the Arts program has been cancelled. The cost of Taste of the Arts was $27,000.00. When how and why was it decided that this study is a higher priority than Taste of the Arts?? Certainly a majority of the Council never made such a funding priority decision, it was never discussed during the budget hearings, and we don’t believe the people of Chula Vista would have supported such a decision if they had been asked.
*****************************
PLEASE CALL THIS NUMBER TO REPORT POTHOLES: 397-6000