I am in shock, disbelief, and have a very ugly feeling inside after attending last night’s Modesto City Council Meeting.
English: Author: Carl Skaggs This image was taken by me on January 14, 2010 in Modesto, California I hereby relinquish all rights to this photo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The subject of concern was that of the Woodglen 533 residential project – the largest residential build in quite some time. The Council voted to approve the project.
What I and other public members witnessed was the Council disregarding the majority of public comment against the Woodglen project. Council members appeared to ignore the public’s concern about how the large 533 home subdivision of Woodglen would ADD to Modesto’s already large inventory of unsold foreclosure homes and ample supply of private rentals. Allowing more residential building at this time would cause further residential real estate value loss to existing Modesto homeowners.
The Council seemed to ignore residents’ concern about safety issues posed by a new development of 533 homes from an already underserved city with fire and police protection. The 682 EIR report had volumes of other concerns if this project were built.
The formal presentation was from City Planners (not the developer himself) and the planner who gave the presentation to the Council said NOT one word about the 176 high density multi-units being for low-income persons. After attending several meetings on this project, there has never been any description of the 176 units meeting the RHNA housing mandate which accommodates low-income persons.
When a public member asked why isn’t a true description of the project being provided to the public which includes this project as a low-income project, evasive answers were given. The Mayor even lied to the public when he said “the project is not low-income” (despite a public member’s quotation of the EIR which clearly says “”In accordance with Program 4.1 of the 2003 Housing Element (Chapter 6), ……the residential portion of this Specific Plan would yield 8 acres of land designated for multi-family development. A minimum density of 22 units per acre would result in 176 housing units that can meet the needs of very low-and low-income households.”
This City Council pushes through their own agenda – with not listening to public sentiment or protecting public interests. This council appeared to only serve the developer’s interests and the City plan. Clear concerns of the public do not seem to make any impact. Be careful who you vote for.