Next Up: Lowe's

I don't think anyone ever envisioned warehouse stores being built on Poway Rd when we incorporated back in 1980. In fact, when the General Plan was approved in 1983, it didn't say anything about giant big box stores or warehouse stores. The General Plan has been amended a couple of times per year since then, with most of the changes adversely affecting south Poway, but there are still no development standards for warehouse stores on Poway Rd. in our plan or our municipal code.

Nevertheless, the council just approved expanding Wal-Mart into a superstore and next Tuesday, the council will approve the Lowe's warehouse building on Poway Rd. There might be a few residents yammering away about nightmare traffic and noise, but it won't matter. It is a done deal. Was a done deal before anyone even heard about it.

Even after blowing off noise and traffic as nonexistent "monsters under the bed", there are still some glaring nonconformance issues that have to be addressed. Sort of. There will have to be some tweaking of the rules . The building height limit is 35 feet in Poway. Thirty-five feet or 2-stories, whichever is less. The General Plan was amended in the last few years to provide 2 exceptions. One was to allow a 3-story hotel in the business park. And another was to allow 3 stories for affordable housing projects. Commercial buildings don't have an exception. Except for something called an "architectural feature".

Look at the picture of Lowes in the drawing at the top of the blog. See that extra roof that looks like a doghouse or an outpost in a stockade? The staff suggests giving Lowes almost 10 extra feet for that. They are calling it an "architectural feature". Now look at the picture again. Visually remove the architectural feature. Guess what, the building is still over 35 feet high. Click on the enhanced picture from the staff report below. The blue line is at approximately 35 ft. Both of the roofs above the word "Lowes" exceed the city's 35 ft limit, as do the other 2 peaked roofs. I always thought of architectural features as something like a church steeples. I guess you can build over 35 ft. in Poway now if you have a peaked roof.

That's not the only cheating on our standards that the staff had to do for Lowe's. Lowe's proposed signs are too big for our codes. So, they came up with a newfangled way to measure the size of the sign. They are going to only measure the space in the letters in the word Lowe's and not count the white space around the letters. With this little adjustment, they will be just under the limit.

Oh, and Poway's sign ordinance limits the height of the signs to 8 ft, but the city is going to let Lowe's have theirs go to 15 ft because Walmart has one there will be so much traffic in the area, it might obscure a lower sign. This is a special exemption, just for Lowe's, because there is no traffic going into any other commercial businesses, right?

As you might expect, the Lowe's project is actually going to improve traffic in the area, according to the staff report. Yeah, I want some of what they're smoking, too. The report says that the traffic at Poway and Gate Dr is now LOS "F". After installing a new traffic light at Gate Dr and the extension of the left turn lane at Poway & Community Rd, the LOS at Poway &Gate Dr will improve to LOS "C" by 2030, even with all of the new Wal-Mart and Lowe's traffic. Don't forget, the city is now using new traffic LOS designations. What was once considered a failing grade, is now a passing grade.

The staff report also says that the Lowe's building "has been designed to comply with the Poway Road Specific Plan standards". Unlike our traffic standards, the Poway Road Specific Plan hasn't been dumbed down as far as I know. It didn't take me anymore than a minute or two of skimming through the Poway Road Specific Plan (PRSP) to question whether Lowe's plans are compliant.

Chapter 5 of the PRSP list some design guidelines. Some of them are kind of squishy. For example, under Architecture, the PRSP says:

Building mass, height and pad elevation should be comparable to and complement that of surrounding structures.

"Comparable" and "complement" allow a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. I don't think a humongous warehouse is comparable to or complements any of the other businesses on Poway Rd. But that's just me. Other guidelines are less subjective:

Rear and side facades should be designed to be consistent with the architectural style of the building and the design of the primary facade.

Lowe's rear and sides are not consistent with the front. It is a basic butt-ugly warehouse in the back and sides. Even before clicking on the picture below, you can see that Lowe's back isn't anything like their front which is pictured above.

Here's another design guideline from the PRSP:

The parking lot should not be the dominant feature of the site. Large expansive paved areas located between the street and buildings are to be avoided.

Hmmm...did our planners read the PRSP before submitting this? But to be fair, Lowe's is going to sell stuff from the parking lot. Kind of break up the expanse with lumber and plants and seasonal stuff and whatnot. I am sure it will have the look and feel of an open market.

And another:

The first parking stall which is perpendicular to a driveway or first aisle juncture should be at least 40 feet back from the public street curb. With larger centers, significantly more setback areas may be required for vehicle stacking and the ability to create secondary accessways with adjoining properties.

The Lowe's project will have a 20 foot-wide landscaped setback along Poway Rd. The rest of it will be packed with cars, both parallel and perpendicular to entrance driveways, aisle junctures and each other.

The PRSP was written in 1996. There are 91 pages in the plan and the word "warehouse" appears "0" times. The PRSP mentions a lot of nice things for Poway Rd, like bicycle and pedestrian friendly access and covered walkways and open space and "gathering places" and a "town center". So, how did we end up with a Super Wal-Mart and a Lowe's?

Last week, Bob Emery, who sat on the council for over a quarter of a century, voiced his opinions about the Wal-Mart expansion approval process and the opponent's concerns.

Most of the hullabaloo from the opposition concerned traffic and impacts on businesses. "It will hurt other local markets in the area." Excuse me? If detractors are worried about "little Vons," which is part of the safeway empire of nearly 2,000 stores, let's be realistic. We live under a free enterprise system based on competition and some make it and some don't. As for traffic, I would rather see our streets jammed with shoppers spending money in Poway so we can pave streets, maintain our parks, fight fires and crime and provide other essential community services. .....

Finally, just across town, the Target store is adding several thousand square feet to its store so it can also go into the grocery business but there hasn't been a peep out of anyone. Target practices the same dubious hirting practices and right-wing bullying as Walmart but no one seems to care. What about the impact on that "ma and pa" store next door called Albertsons? Go figure.

I want to remind people that Prop FF was Bob Emery's baby. Prop FF was the 1988 ballot initiative that makes it mandatory to get voter approval to increase the density or to build a single store on any land zoned rural residential in Poway. After Emery got the quality of life in his neighborhood protected, he pretty much didn't give a damn what happened to folks in south Poway.

I am going to spell it out for him and others who don't understand. Not that they will "get it". But it is important to set the record straight. I've lived in Poway for over 35 years. People have been complaining about traffic on Poway Rd. for most of that time. For years and years, councilmembers and the city manager complained about all the folks from Ramona driving up and down Poway Rd. The city's redevelopment agency spent lots of money (that I do not believe is paid off yet) to build Scripps Poway Parkway in the undeveloped hills of south Poway, so we could have some employment opportunities and to get the damn Ramonans off of Poway Rd.

And now the city is getting a super big-box store and a warehouse store, two ventures that will bring a great deal of regional traffic to Poway Road. Poway Rd is a miles-long commercial corridor that is also the access point for many residential neighborhoods. It ends in what is essentially a cul-de-sac, with an offshoot to the nearby community of Ramona. It doesn't take a PhD in planning to know that the best place to site regional shopping ventures is on the periphery of the community, as close to freeway offramps as possible. So the reason people are not complaining about Target expanding and selling food is because the Target center was better located and designed to handle the traffic and noise and truck deliveries.

Poway Rd commercial properties don't have the depth that the Target center has. Many butt right up next to residential areas. There are no apartment houses that face Target. It is amazing that the same people who found it incompatible to have even a neighborhood shopping center anywhere near their homes would be so supportive of a 24-hr regional shopping center and warehouse store adjacent to or across the street from someone else's. Yes, we need sales tax to support needed services. But the people who approved the Wal-Mart expansion and will approve Lowe's are not sacrificing their quality of life; they are taking someone else's.

And about that free enterprise stuff. I'm not buying it. The city gave Wal-Mart almost a million dollars to locate in Poway. And they just robbed our sewer fund of $3 million to move Toyota across the street so that Lowe's could fit into Toyota's old spot. It wasn't done out in the open or by selling the property to the highest bidder. It was all planned and executed behind closed doors with an exclusive negotiated agreement. That is not how a free enterprise system based on competition works.

The expanded Wal-Mart has been approved. Lowe's will be approved. I'm sure they will bring in some sales tax dollars. Not that Poway isn't already capturing more than their share of per capita sales taxes revenue compared to other California cities. But it is never enough, is it?

Strange Bedfellows

Bruce Tarzy is supporting John Mullin, Don Higginson, and Carl Kruse for Poway City Council.

Who'd of thunk it?

Tarzy, Mullin, Higginson and Kruse go way back in Poway politics. Tarzy was elected to the first council 30 yrs ago. Kruse was appointed 2 yrs later to fill the term of Clyde Rexrode, who died the day before he was re-elected. Mullin served on a committtee to advise the council whether Poway should form a redevelopment agency in 1983, and was chairman of the first official Redevelopment Advisory Committee in 1985. Higginson's was first elected nearly a quarter of a century ago. Their voices are not new voices in Poway politics. What is new is seeing old political foes regroup.

It is no surprise that Tarzy is supporting his longtime friend, Carl Kruse. They both served as officers of the Green Valley Civic Association (GVCA) and they even vacation together. Some people have said that Carl Kruse is Bruce Tarzy's personal council member.

It is surprising that Tarzy is supporting Higginson and Mullin. Back in the mid-1980s, one of the chief political issues was how Poway should grow. Tarzy (and Kruse) were on the side of slow, controlled growth. Mullin and Higginson were pushing for more development. In 1988, the 2 sides lined up behind competing ballot propositions, Prop FF (slow growth) and Prop GG (the developer's alternative). Prop FF was sponsored by a group called "Poway Citizens for Limited Growth". Bruce Tarzy, Jerry Hargarten and Bob Emery were key architects of Prop FF. The competing proposition, Prop GG, the "quality of life initiative" was written by council member Linda Brannon. Higginson and Mullin favored Prop GG.

Before I get into the Prop FF-GG contest, I want to paint a little picture of what Poway was like in those days. There was no industrial park in the hills of south Poway. There was no Old Coach development or Maderas gold course. Scripps Poway Parkway, known as "alternate this" or "alternate that", was only a pencil mark on a map. The houses in the Arbolitos development were just starting to show up on the horizon. A brand spanking new shopping center, anchored by a Target store just opened. There was no Wal-Mart. Our original "town center", Creekside, was a grazing area for cows. There was nothing between the Poway city limits and the freeway except open space.

When Poway incorporated in 1980, one of the first things the council did was to impose a building moratorium until a new development plan was approved. The first council was dedicated to keeping Poway rural and controlling growth.

In the 1986 election, Don Higginson and Linda Brannon defeated Linda Oravec and Mary Shepardson, two of the original Poway councilmembers. This was the only election that any incumbent Poway council member ever lost. The moment marked a major shift in Poway politics. Higginson and Brannon were both considered "pro-growth" in a community that had incorporated, largely to control their own growth.

In the 1988 election, Bruce Tarzy (who had decided not to run for re-election) and Bob Emery (who was running for re-election) teamed up to write and support a proposition that was later named Prop FF on the ballot. Tarzy and Emery hoped to prevent future councils, ones with the likes of, ummm, say a Brannon or Higginson, from being able to ruin their vision of what Poway should look like.

As a competing measure, Brannon wrote Prop GG, the "quality of life" initiative, the kind of thing developers love. Higginson and Mullin supported Prop GG.

Prop GG qualified for the ballot after paid signature gatherers obtained the necessary number of signatures. The council passed resolution 88-085 on August 2, 1988, thereby putting Prop FF on the ballot.

A few days before the election, a group of five Poway residents delivered a letter to City of Poway special counsel complaining about some campaign hanky panky between Bob Emery's election committee and Poway Citizens for Limited Growth, the committee that was formed to get Prop FF passed by the voters. Specifically, the group claimed that Bob Emery's campaign committee was controlling the Prop FF committee (Poway Citizens for Limited Growth) and that they were sharing campaign expenses.

(The Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Nov 3, 1988. pg. B.8)

The seven-page letter contends that Emery's committee controls the FF committee and has violated Poway's campaign-finance laws by collecting contributions above the $100 amount allowed for controlled committees.

...snip....

The complaint given to Knoepp contends that Poway Citizens for Limited Growth became a "controlled committee" Sept. 24, when two airplane banners touting Emery and Proposition FF flew over Poway during the city's Poway Days celebration.

...snip...

The difference in the shared cost indicates that the Emery committee controls the Proposition FF committee's financing, the five said.

When a committee is considered "controlled," under Poway's campaign ordinance, a contributor can give no more than $100 to each campaign.

According to campaign disclosure statements filed with the Poway city clerk, nine contributors have given $100 or more to the Emery re-election committee and $100 or more to the committee for Proposition FF, which would require voter approval to increase density in rural residential areas. Three people, including Councilman Bruce Tarzy, have given the $100 maximum to Emery and $500 or more to Poway Citizens for Limited Growth.

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? It is a classic campaign maneuver. Just before the election, one or several of a candidate's supporters file a letter of complaint against their candidate's opponent. The complaints get some press, and it goes to a special counsel who holds off on looking at the complaint until after the election and then he/she dismisses it.

One of the 5 people who signed the letter of complaint against Emery and the Prop FF committee was John Mullin. Mullin's complaints against Emery and the Prop FF committee were found to be without merit. But for the record, special counsels appointed to oversee election complaints generally dismiss all of the complaints. Serious complainers must file a signed grievance with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). During that same 1988 election, somebody did send a couple of complaints to the FPPC that resulted in stipulations and fines. One was against Emery's opponent, Larry Valente and the other was against developer Kuebler. Valente was fined $1500 for sending a late campaign mailer titled "The Republican Update"which did not identify Valente's committee as the true source of the piece. Richard Kuebler, a Poway developer, was fined for $17,500 for not disclosing campaign donations in Escondido and for failing to identify himself as the source of two "hit piece" mailers against Bob Emery.

Prop FF beat Prop GG 2-1 in the election. The rest is history.

Fast forward to 2010. Why is a slow growth guy like Tarzy supporting his old pro-development enemy, John Mullin? Mullin has made no secret that he wants to make development easier in Poway. He has proposed a "streamlining process" as a first step. The streamlining will allow staff to approve projects that now require public notice and council approval.

John Mullin is also a member of CALPASC, (California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors). In fact, Mullin is on Government Affairs Committee of CALPASC. When Poway Patch's Margie Palmer queried Mullin about his involvement in this group, Mullin didn't see the inherent conflict of interest.

"My being a member of Cal-PAC is no different than me being a member of the Chamber of Commerce," Mullin said. "It's a trade association. And people who continue to propose that having some sort of significance with regard to my role on the council are incorrect."

Uhmmm, no. CALPASC is not simply a trade association like the local Chamber of Commerce. Now if Mullin was referring to the US Chamber which spend buckets of money, some of it from foreign entities, to influence legislation in the US that is advantageous for businessfolk and disadvantageous for workers, well he may have a point. While the local Poway Chamber does advocate for their members, they don't bring it to the level that CALPASC does. Check out their CALPASC's webpage. They have paid lobbyists who help write and push for certain legislation, de-regulation and judicial remedies. Our local chamber is doing street fairs, not filing "amicus briefs" in court on behalf of contractors.

According to Cal-Access, the California Secretary of State's database, CALPASC has hired 2 firms to lobby for them: Government Strategies, Inc, (2003-2009) and California Strategies & Advocacy, LLC (2009-2010). CALPASC spent just under $300,000 lobbying in 2007-2008 and have reported over $73,000 spent so far in 2009-2010.

It is pretty unethical to be on a legislative body, even a local legislative body and to belong to a group that is lobbying for legislative remedies at the same time.

So why is Bruce Tarzy supporting John Mullin for council? I've got a theory, but I'll save that for a future blog. What's your theory?

The Tale of Two Cities

Well, not really TWO cities. Just one city. The one they call "the city in the country". But it is really more like "the city AND the country". Yeah, I'm talking about North Poway and South Poway.

North and South Poway are geographically divided by Twin Peaks. Green Valley runs through North Poway; Poway Valley through South Poway. But the division is more than geographic. North and South Poway are zoned quite differently. North Poway is almost entirely rural residential, save for the Pomerado Rd area by the hospital. South Poway is a mix of everything else. This did not happen by natural design. Before incorporation, both north and south Poway were residential, save for the commercial strip down Poway Rd. After incorporation, North Poway leaders were successful in keeping their end of town a rural residential enclave while foisting unwanted development on South Poway.

The Green Valley Civic Association is the political arm of North Poway. It is really run by only a few people, but at election time, GVCA sends out the word on which candidates  will protect the North Poway lifestyle and folks vote accordingly. Why discard advantage?

I don't expect a group like the GVCA not to look out for themselves. Everyone has the right to look out for themselves. But because of their disproportionate clout, the GVCA has successfully gotten almost every councilmember to ascribe to the GVCA mantra- land in North Poway is for quality of life; land in South Poway is for revenue generation or stuff they have to do because of some mandate or other. For example, whenever LAFCO or Sandag or some other government agency pressures Poway because we don't have enough land zoned for affordable housing, first, the council bitches about "state mandates", then, they make changes to the general plan that increase density in South Poway only. I remember one change was to redefine the RS-7 zone (7 house per acre) to mean "8 houses per acre.

Another change was the Poway Road Specific Plan. This plan is another general plan amendment that decreased setbacks and allowed multiple uses in various zones on Poway Rd., so they could pack in more affordable housing and more commercial entities.  GVCA's Jerry Hargarten was one of several North Powegians  that helped to write the plan, which adversely affects property only in South Poway.

Last year, the council approved a general plan amendment to allow 3-story buildings in Poway, if they were deed restricted for affordable housing. While this change will impact a single affordable housing project  being built  near Pomerado Hospital, on the fringe of North Poway, it does not in any way impact any residential area of North Poway. Likely South Poway will get a bunch of these.

As I said, to the GVCA and the councilmembers they elect, land in North Poway is for quality of life, land in South Poway is for revenue generation and mandate fulfillment. 

There are probably no better tales that exemplify that land use prejudice than the story of a proposed Ralph's shopping center (1985) and the story of Wal-Mart's approval and proposed expansion. 

In 1985,  a shopping center, including a Ralph's grocery store, was proposed for the northeast corner of Stone Canyon and Pomerado Rd. in Poway.  The parcel was zoned residential and would require a general plan amendment (GPA) to rezone it to commercial.  If the council did not approve the GPA, the developer said he would (and eventually he did)  build the shopping center on the west side of the intersection, which was in the city of San Diego. The shopping center was going in on that intersection no matter what decision the council made. However, if the Poway council approved the GPA,  they would be the beneficiary of sales tax revenue from the project. The GVCA was adamantly opposed to the GPA.  Many GVCA members attended the council meeting and spoke against the project. The council denied the GPA.  From the Sept 12, 1985 Union-Tribune (sorry, I can't link to it directly):

The council Tuesday night refused to allow 9.4 acres at the intersection of Pomerado and Stone Canyon roads to be changed from a residential zone for single families (three to four homes per acre) to a commercial zone, even though several neighbors in the vicinity thought this would improve the "blight" of the parcel.

The proposal by landowner John Visconsi was one of three separate applications for increasing density reviewed by the council. In each case, however, the council agreed to adhere to what it called the "integrity" of the General Plan, and the need to keep densities down in established residential areas.

A stream of speakers came to the microphone to plead with city officials not to allow commercial development of any kind at Stone Canyon-Pomerado intersection. Residents said they feared that development would bring traffic problems to the area.

William Jensen, a resident of Stone Canyon Road, declared, "We aren't really blighted, you know. We're just country!" which brought chuckles from council members, several of whom live in rural areas around the city.

.

.

.

snip

.

.

.

The council supported the planning staff's finding that such commercial zoning could create "strip commercial" areas along Pomerado Road, and would not be in harmony with nearby rural residential neighborhoods. Planning Director Barry Hogan stated in his report that "the applicants have not demonstrated that a sufficient local demand exists for additional commercial territory, through either a prepared market study or other substantiating evidence."

This was one of several General Plan amendments that the council considered Tuesday, and in each case council members said they opposed "up-zoning" -- or allowing increased development -- in areas that have already been set aside as neighborhoods for single-family dwellings.

ln 1985, the current councilmembers  were Bruce Tarzy, Bob Emery, Linda Oravec, Mary Shepardson and Carl Kruse. Tarzy, Emery and Kruse lived on rural residential land in 1985.  In Nov, 1986, Oravec and Shepardson lost their re-election bids  to Don Higginson and Linda Brannon. (This is the only time an incumbent lost an election in Poway.)

Higginson and Brannon also lived on rural residential estates, although Brannon did not live in Green Valley. Thus, the entire council lived on rural residential estates. Not one councilmember was from South Poway; not one councilmember lived in a higher density area of Poway. Higginson and Brannon were much more "pro-growth" than the original council.  The GVCA feared that might have consequences for them. The GVCA and Emery got a proposition passed in 1988, Prop FF ,which protected rural residential property from being up-zoned. But it did diddly squat for residential property in South Poway. My husband once asked Emery why Prop FF was not written so that it applied to all residential property in Poway. Emery told him that the more developed parts of Poway "could look after themselves."

Right, that's worked out so well.

Bruce Tarzy did not run for re-election in Nov., 1988. Jan Goldsmith (then a Powegian, now a Sandy Eggan) joined the council. Although Goldsmith lived in South Poway, he also lived on acreage zoned rural residential. So this council was also 100%, unanimous, rural-residential dwellers. It was this council (Emery, Goldsmith, Higginson, Brannon, Kruse) that  approved the original Wal-Mart project for South Poway in Nov, 1990.  One of the things that struck me about that approval is that no EIR was done for the original Wal-Mart.  Instead, staff (Penny Riley was the chief planner) prepared a "negative declaration" which is a checklist of possible negative effects (noise, traffic, pollution, drainage problems, etc) and ways to mitigate those effects. For example, traffic problems could be mitigated by street improvements and adding some left turn lanes and traffic lights.  So, the council signed off on the traffic finding

That the generation of traffic will not adversely impact surrounding streets and/or the City's Circulation Element, in that main access will be combined with that of the adjacent center and all parking will be contained within the site.

Yeah, that's worked out so well, too, there's just no adverse traffic impact from Wal-Mart.

To help defray the cost of road improvements, the council agreed to give Wal-Mart almost $1 million. And to make Wal-Mart feel even more loved, the council approved their request  for a 15 ft. monument sign, even though the code only allows an 8 ft. tall sign. Of course, the 8 ft. rule still applied to everyone else, like, ahem...Golden State Gasoline.

Fast forward to 2010. The proposed Wal-Mart expansion may be due for a vote sometime this summer.  The general plan has been amended so many times, we are past the point of pretending we are preserving any sort of rural ambiance down here. None of that "country looking blight" for us. The real question is whether anyone on the the current council even entertains the idea that South Powegians are due any quality of life considerations. Will they buy the spin of Wal-Mart public affairs manager John Mendez who says that traffic is a blessing?

“Traffic does not mean traffic,” he said. “Traffic means commerce. When you ask small-business owners in Poway, all of them are saying that the more traffic the better, because that brings in more people, and that means more commerce, and that means additional sales.”

Of course Mendez also said that shoppers "have overwhelmingly told us they want one-stop shopping". Yeah, well, if they want one-stop shopping, they are really not going to be spreading their shopping dollars all around different spots in town, are they?

In 1985, the entire council capitualated to the GVCA and voted to keep their neighborhoods shopping-center free, even though it meant foregoing needed sales tax revenue. Where does the GVCA stand on expanding Wal-Mart and allowing it to operate 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week in an area that is surrounded on 3 sides by residential apartments? What does the GVCA have to say about that? I looked on GVCA's webpage and did not even see Wal-Mart mentioned.

And what about the councilmembers that live in GVCAville?  Higginson, Kruse and councilmember Jim Cunningham all live in the no-shopping-center area of  North Poway.  I suspect that  Kruse and Higginson, who both approved the original Wal-Mart will support the expansion. In fact, Kruse has indicated he favors it. Cunningham, I'm not sure about.  Will he have quality of life empathy for people beyond his own kind? I don't know.

And what about Rexford and Boyack? Both live in South Poway. Someone asked Boyack whether she supported the Wal-Mart expansion at a candidates forum in 2008. Her response indicated that she supported the Wal-Mart expansion and thought traffic could be mitigated by changing the left turn lane on Poway Rd. I know Boyack is very sensitive about the impact of lights and noise and traffic from the proposed lighting of the sport's field near her home, but she hasn't indicated any concern about lights, noise or traffic affecting those who live near Wal-Mart.

As for Rexford, I haven't got a clue. Rexford usually shows some empathy for other people, but votes with the majority in approving big projects like the waterpark and girl's softball park.  The fact that somebody really wants her off that council before the Wal-Mart vote is kind of interesting though. And the fact that Kevin McNamara, the guy who owns part of the Wal-Mart shopping center, has been giving money and office space to the recallers, is a pretty good indication that he is one of the people who wants Betty out before the vote. It isn't as if McNamara would be in a tizzy about Rexford's supposed ethics violations. Isn't he the guy who chopped down all the trees on his Midland Rd property early one morning on a weekend, when the city workers wouldn't be around to stop him from violating Poway's ordinances?

An anonymous commenter on my last blog wrote:

I hate to burst everyone's bubble but most of us who live here know that this city is run by the Green Valley Civic Association and they run people and have the power to win. Until one can get enough voters to vote else wise, they will always control our city. It is a sad day in Poway.

I have to agree with Anonymous. The GVCA has pretty much ruled this city and they have the power (and the money) to run their candidates. Although their candidates don't always win, the GVCA manages to exert enough clout over a majority of the council to preserve their quality of life. A big share of the burden to fulfill mandates and produce revenue falls on South Poway, at the expense of quality of life in our neighborhoods. I am not willing to cede that that is the way it will always be. What I am looking for in a council candidate is someone who is truly sensitive to quality of life issues in South Poway as well as North Poway. There have been a few such candidates in the past, but they generally get rather low marks from the GVCA and have had little chance of winning. 


With all the noise out there from the recall about Betty getting her "own firetruck", you'd think the main issue facing voters was whether a single person got more than her share of advantage in this city. The issue of a whole end of town getting almost no advantage at all gets lost in the screaming.


And, uh, a note to candidates: Don't run around claiming to be a "uniter, not a divider". We all know how well that turned out, too!


UPDATE: I just checked  here  and found out that Carl Kruse lives on a RS-4 (4 houses to the acre) lot near Stoneridge Golf Course. So, he doesn't live on rural residential land, although he is pretty well surrounded by it, and I think there is zero chance anyone would get to build a corner grocery store near  his lot, much less an affordable housing project or a super Wal-Mart.