NWCA did vote on Prop. A
Re: Retraction, NWCA has not taken a position on Prop A, published April 3, 2009
Re: “Chula Vista’s Prop. A means fewer jobs and more local businesses closing,” by Ed Herrera, published March 27.
Ken Wright, the vice-president of the Northwest Civic Association, states in his letter of April 3 that “we as a board have not voted nor taken a formal position (Yes or No) on this ballot measure.”
Further, he adds, “in January we the NWCA Board voted against having a a General Election for a sales tax increase, but have not voted for or against this Ballot Measure.” Mr. Wright also states, in the next paragraph, that “we have not made a decision on this issues,” and in the following paragraph Mr. Wright request a “retraction of your inclusion of NWCA as being against Proposition A.”
As a member of the board of directors of NWCA, I participated in the January board meeting. The minutes of that meting state, unequivocally, “NWCA opposes a sales tax increase.” The minutes also state that it was a “split cote.” The minutes do not mention “a General Election” or “this Ballot Measure” or “Proposition A.”
The minutes of the NWCA board meeting of February 22 state that the January 4 minutes were unanimously approved as written. The February minutes reiterate that the NWCA board “voted in January to oppose the sales tax increase” and state that the board “has not had another vote on this issues,” Mr. Wright wrote the February minutes.
Thus, the minutes of the January 4 meeting of the board of NWCA support Mr. Herrera’s assertion that NWCA opposes a sales tax increase.
Rule of Law
The rule of law is what generally governs cities and states in the USA. It is what is supposed to set us apart from many third world countries. Unfortunately it does not seem to be consistent policy in Chula Vista where ordinances and policies are interpreted depending upon who you or your business are rather than consistently with regard to a common sense reading.
The March 16 letter written by the Assistant Manager to the CEC is an excellent example of an arbitrary, unreasonable and ad hoc interpretation since he copied a perverted interpretation of policy almost verbatim from a letter written by the developer’s attorney. His comments to please a developer who has promised a weather station and $210,000 to the city would if carried to their logical conclusion mean that people, were intended by the drafters of the city’s General Plan to be kept 1,000 feet away from each other.
He entirely ignored the fact that the ordinance relating to unclassified uses actually names those uses and puts conditions on them in order to state that a heavy industrial use clearly placed in a General Industrial Zone by the city’s zoning codes could be justified in a light industrial zone 350 feet from residents to please said developer, who contributed heavily to the campaign of one of the three council members supporting his project.
Just a week before the council refused a Conditional Use Permit to a recycling center that was replacing the same sort of business that had been operating with a permit without complaints since the 1980’s because the residents particularly one who took care of the mayor’s father, objected to the homeless hanging around since 1996. This suddenly became a problem to the health and safety of the residents and inhibited the redevelopment potential of the area, but our assistant city manager insisted that two 70 foot tall smoke stacks, 12,000 gallons of ammonia, and a clearly very heavy industrial use less than 40 feet from new high class industrial condos and 350 feet from residents would not have a negative affect at all!
Clearly it is whom you know and whom you are willing to pay off in Chula Vista that determines how the ordinances and policies are interpreted. This is very, very sad for our city and the Rule of Law. And something council members Castaneda, Cox and McCann should be ashamed of condoning.
Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association