Bidness As Usual

irrigation water in the gutter in Arbolitos

Last (Tuesday) night, I wasted a few hours attending the workshop on the proposed water and sewer rates. There were mostly large-lot folks from north Poway at the meeting and they got what they wanted. The city is going to bail on the 5-tier conservation water rate structure and go with a 2-tier system. Everybody will pay $4.02/unit for their first 199 units in a billing period. The 200th unit on up will cost $5.74/unit. 200 units in one billing cycle is an ENORMOUS amount of water. It is way more water than the Cruse household uses in an entire year. Hardly anyone in Poway uses that much water, so for all practical purposes, we are back to a flat rate for most everyone.

Those of us who use less than 125 units in a billing cycle will see the water consumption part of our bill jump about 20%. The large-lot people who consume between 125-200 units in a billing cycle will see their water consumption bills jump about 10%.

The city will have to spend thousands of dollars to send out mailers (required by Prop 218) and give everyone notice of the changes and an opportunity to fruitlessly protest. Then in October, the council will lock in the new rates with a vote and they will become effective in January, 2011.

Last night's meeting went pretty much as I expected. A consultant presented several water and sewer rate options. Well, really just one sewer rate option and four water rate options. The four water rate options offered a choice between a 5, 3, 2 or no tier(s) structure. The first public speaker was Bruce Tarzy from the GVCA. Tarzy had already had a meeting with staff where he presented his 2-tier plan.  For months now, I have been hearing about how unfair it is that some people pay a different water rate than others, that some pay less than the cost to provide the service and are subsidized by others. So, why a 2-tier plan instead of a uniform unit rate? I'm not totally sure I get this, but from what I was hearing, it goes something like this: Everybody should pay the same rate. Except the people who use more than 200 units. Because they really need to learn to conserve. So, they have to pay more. As a result, the large-lot people are gonna get subsidized by the handful of super-large-lot people. And they seem OK with that. Advantage is relative.

After the people had their say, the council weighed in. Newbie John Mullin seemed to still be fond of a uniform unit rate. Jim Cunningham went next. If Cunningham had to be succinct to save his life, he'd be a goner. You can watch the replay, or if you want, but my analysis is that Cunningham's verbage amounted to: "What Tarzy said." Same with Carl Kruse. Next up was Merrilee Boyack. She wanted Don Higginson to go first, but he insisted that she state her position next. Boyack asked a few questions, but went with the Tarzy plan. Ditto the mayor.

I requested to speak during the public comment period. I wanted to address the sewer rates, or fees, as they are more appropriately called. I pointed out that we were all paying different rates. I even gave some examples of anomalies caused by the crazy tiered sewer fee structure:

1.)   Even when someone uses no water at all, they have to pay a minimum of  $45.00 for not using the sewer.    

2.)   The jumps between tiers are irregular.  A single extra shower or load of wash taken during the winter months could jump a user’s bill from  $304 to $458 per year.  That’s a $154 shower or load of wash or drink of water.

3.)   The person who uses 6 units of water pays the same total amount as the person who uses 12 units of water. How can this be conservation pricing when someone gets twice as much for the same price?  The person who uses 6 units pays twice the rate of the person who uses 12 units.

4.)    In general, the per unit cost for the sewer decreases as sewer use increases.

Well, I found out that the large-lot people and the council's passion for equity applies to water rates, but not to sewer fees, especially sewer fees that are tilted to their advantage.  Mayor Higginson, who interrupted me twice to hurry up with my comments, did not address my concerns. Neither did Boyack or Kruse. I am not sure if I heard correctly, but I think Mullin may have said something about looking into the sewer rates. To his credit, Jim Cunningham asked the staff about the sewer rates; staff told him there wasn't time for it this year, not enough time to get something sent out to the voters and ready for the October vote, it would have to wait.

So, there you have it.  Yep, I took the time to attend the water and sewer rate workshop. I stood up and spoke in front of a roomful of people who were seething with the injustice of unfair rates. I addressed a council that I had pre-sensitized for months with a barrage of emails and copies of my blogs. I'd even met with the staff and was the one who pointed out to them that there was quite a surplus in that sewer fund. And the response? There isn't time to fix the sewer rate structure.

Like I said, I wasted a couple of hours last night.

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.

Endorsements and the Rexford Recall

The Rexford recall gang has a full page ad in this week's  Poway News Chieftain.  The ad says, "Add your name to the list of thousands of Poway residents and business owners including Sharon Cafagna, Mayor Don Higginson, Councilmember Merrilee Boyack, Sue Herndon, Chic Hume, Nazem Agha, Steve Vaus, Howard Lomas, Bill Racicot and others who support the Recall of Rexford and the election of a replacement."

My first thought when I saw this ad was,  "Who is paying for this?" My second thought was who in the samhill is .....well, let's just say I wasn't familiar with at least one of those names. But google is my friend and now I know who they are.

The recall group has  opened an office on Poway Rd and is sending out paid signature-gatherers.

It's crunch time. They have about 3 weeks to go and I don't think they have enough signatures yet.

The signatures are due Feb 10th, but in order for them to be counted and certified for the June election, they need to get them in around the end of January. A financial report is also due at the end of January, but it will only include expenditures through Dec 31st, so we may not know who is paying for the ad, the little office the group has opened on Poway Rd or the paid signature-gatherers until the next reporting period.

In the last few weeks, councilmember Merrilee Boyack has come out of the closet and exposed her rather significant role in the recall. Around Christmas, she sent out an email telling folks that she had set up a Kool-Aid booth a recall table in front of her house. And, if people couldn't make it to her house to sign, she'd send her son over to their house to get their signature. Could he be one of the paid signature-gatherers? Not that that would be illegal, or anything. But it would be interesting to know.

During the public comment portion of last Tuesday's city council meeting, Vaus and Boyack performed a little one-two punch on Rexford although Rexford had already wisely left the room before Vaus spoke.

During the public comment period, Steve Vaus, the leader of a movement seeking to have the 69-year-old councilwoman recalled from office, said the evidence is overwhelming that she demanded a firetruck be stationed near her home during the fire even as other Poway homes burned.Rexford has adamantly denied the claims in the past.“I recently got a call from someone you spoke to shortly after that 2003 fire,” Vaus said. “And way back then, you told the truth. You told that person you asked for a firetruck and got it — in fact, they said you took great pride in having a truck at your house. Do you remember that conversation?”

Like well choreographed kabuki theatre, Boyack then spoke her lines.

“I was the person that spoke to Mr. Vaus about that. Within a week of the Cedar fire, I was having a conversation with Betty and she personally told me that she had gotten a firetruck to protect her home and her neighborhood. I’ve been surprised that she has denied it. That makes no sense to me because she told me she had done that. … I know that to be fact.”

Rexford's husband then went berserk and called everyone a liar. Mayor Higginson (who recently revealed that he enjoys the the recallers livening up boring city council meetings) was obliged to tell Paul Rexford to sit down and STFU or he would have him kicked out.

I suspect the recallers are trying to poke a stick in Betty's eye and provoke a response so they can get a little attention in the press.  Maybe smoke out a few recalcitrant folks to sign their recall petition.

So, exactly where do I stand on the recall?

I did not support Rexford for re-election in 2006. I would love to see someone else on the council. Not just anyone, mind you, but someone who reaches out to the whole community, not just to one or two people or special interest groups.  The recall is also the best opportunity to get a fresh new face on the council. That is something I think Poway desperately needs. Despite my hope to see Rexford (and pretty much everyone else on the council) replaced, I will not join in the recall.

It's not because I'm opposed to recalls. I'm not. In fact, my husband and some of my friends were involved in a recall of Cafagna and Higginson some years back. The primary issues of that recall were a proposed amphitheatre in the industrial park and higher flood insurance premiums for the Pomerado Rd residents.  When those two issues were hot, the signatures poured in. When the council axed the amphitheatre and solved the insurance problem, tempers cooled and the recall drive fizzled.

The Rexford recall is a whole different animal from that recall. In my opinion, the Rexford recall seems particularly vicious and personal. I was appalled when the recallers served Rexford with the recall papers in the home of her dying son, who was in hospice care.  That just crossed the line of human decency.  Steve Vaus also asked folks who supported the recall to send email messages to Betty while she was at her son's side. Really, couldn't it have waited a week or two?  Or was the intent to try to upset her at a very vulnerable time in the hope that she would hysterically resign and pave the way for the council to appoint a replacement?

Betty Rexford is serving her 16th year as a councilmember. When she ran for re-election in 2006 she was endorsed by a whole bunch of people and newspapers. The Poway News Chieftain endorsed her in 1998, 2002, 2006. Now they have asked her to resign.  Likewise the SDUT and North County Times endorsed her in 2006 (and other years) but have now asked her to resign. Did those newspaper endorsers not know Rexford very well when they endorsed her? How fickle to ask someone who really hasn't changed at all to step aside so an appointment can replace them after they told the voters to vote for this person 3 yrs ago. I think they need to check the quality control criteria in their endorsement departments.

Merrilee Boyack also endorsed Betty Rexford in 2006. Now Boyack says she had a conversation with Betty Rexford after the 2003 Cedar Fire and Betty bragged to her that she got a personal firetruck. She claims that Betty abused her position as a councilmember. And yet, Boyack asked the voters to re-elect Rexford in 2006, 3 yrs after the purported phone conversation. If Boyack thought Rexford had abused her position on the council, why did she ask the voters to re-elect her? That's not ethical.

Why has Boyack waited 6 yrs to make the conversation about the firetruck public? Was it something she never would have revealed, if, say, Betty had voted to make Boyack mayor instead of voting for Higginson to replace Cafagna? One wonders.

My personal opinion is that all those people (and newspaper editors) who successfully convinced the Poway voters to re-elect Rexford in 2006 should just learn to live with the consequences and be a little more careful with your endorsements in the future.

And speaking of endorsements, what's up with endorsing someone before everyone has had a chance to throw their hat in the ring? I mean, if you haven't seen all the candidates, and you are endorsing, then it pretty much looks like you are really shilling for that candidate because you have them on a leash and they are YOUR candidate, YOUR proxy, YOUR lapdog, YOUR protege. Whatever you want to call it, it is a signal to everybody that you expect to have power and sway over that candidate's decisions.

Last month, Carl Kruse, flanked by Bruce Tarzy and Merrilee Boyack,  announced he was going to run for re-election in 2010.

Kruse was appointed to the City Council in May to fill the remaining 18 months of Councilman Don Higginson’s term. Higginson had been appointed mayor that month to fill the vacancy created by the death of Mayor Mickey Cafagna in April.

At the time, Kruse said he intended only to serve for 18 months, but just weeks later, he said he wasn’t sure what he would do. Yesterday, during a news conference in front of city hall, Kruse said things have changed in the city and he viewed next year’s election as being pivotal to Poway’s long-term future.

My guess is that "what's changed" is that Bruce Tarzy is a little unsure that some known or unknown candidate, that he doesn't own, might get elected in 2010. So, just to be safe, he convinced Kruse to run despite the fact that Kruse's "not running" was a big factor in his appointment. 

Boyack also endorsed Kruse and Sabrina Butler (who was expected to announce her candidacy). But, lo and behold, things changed and Butler has stated that she isn't running and will not accept an appointment to the council.  In a very strange twist of logic, Merrilee also announced that she will not endorse Higginson if he runs. 

Boyack said she would not support Higginson's bid for re-election because he had said he would not run again after being appointed to mayor, and she wants to hold him to his word.

OK, let me get this straight. Carl Kruse is appointed to the council, based partly on his assertion that he will not run for re-election. Kruse changes his mind and runs for re-election.  Boyack endorses him. She doesn't "hold him to his word" because "things changed." But before Higginson can pull the same trick, Boyack announces that she will not endorse him if he does, because she wants to "hold him to his word." But Carl doesn't have to be held to his word because....because...because...why?  This is one I really, really don't get. If you do, please post a comment and help me out here.

I'm not endorsing anyone for 2010...yet. I'm not "not endorsing" yet either. I'm going to wait until all of the candidates have announced and revealed at least a little bit about themselves and their philosophies. I'm really ready for some new faces on the council and I hope all the people who take the time and effort to run, get a fair chance to introduce themselves to the voters before the power elite throw their weight around by endorsing. I would also advise the voters to ignore the endorsements of those who change their minds a few years later and want us to throw out the person they told us to elect. Enough! Bring on the candidates and let us make up our own minds.