Eye On Modesto

Thoughts and observations about Modesto and Stanislaus County

Archive for the tag “Stanislaus County California”

Don’t Forget to Vote…!

Official seal of County of Stanislaus

Tomorrow, Tuesday,  is election day. Already 72,927 votes have been cast in Stanislaus County according to Head of Elections and Clerk Recorder Lee Lundrigan. This equates to 35% of the eligible voters having already cast their votes. 

It’s important for you to remember to vote and remind everyone you can to get out and VOTE.

Thank you Lee Lundrigan for keeping us informed as to the early balloting and for the job you and your people do.

Now stop reading this and GO VOTE.

Never Doubt that a Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens can Change the World, Indeed, it is the ONLY thing that Ever Has.

Margret Mead

Sign the Petition Against the Annexation of Salida by Modesto

Official seal of County of Stanislaus

Official seal of County of Stanislaus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Emerson Drake

As most now know, Stanislaus County and Modesto have paid $30,000 each towards a study of the costs surrounding the possible annexation of Salida by Modesto.  After going to several meetings in Salida, from the Hammett Road Interchange meeting to a Salida MAC meeting,  it’s obvious most civically active Salidans are overwhelmingly against the annexation.  Unfortunately governments are seldom driven by what their constituents desire, rather, they are motivated by either special interest groups or political self-interest.

In this case it’s obvious it’s both.

Stanislaus County would like to get Salida onto someone elses checkbook.  Salida has a simple problem, they don’t have the tax base necessary for easy independence at this time.  In years past Modesto held the metaphorical gun to their head when it stole Costco and the rest of the stores on the north side of Kiernan from Salida in a water/sewer deal for the sales tax generated by these businesses.   The County has been careful to keep the small strip business parks lining North 99 for themselves too.

Now developers like Modesto Councilman Joe Muratore, who was caught with his finger in the Federal HUD/NSP2 money pie, are at it again.  Councilman Muratore, thru his company Benchmark Realty, is representing land owners in Salida, one being a current business partner, Stephen Endsley. At the same time the Councilman voted to move Modesto a step closer to the annexation of Salida. See it’s easier to control development if you have friends on the Planning Board and are a Councilman.  Modesto already has 5,700 acres in their sphere of influence to develop but that isn’t enough according to Modesto politicians and their political donors.

At a recent City and County liaison meeting we once again heard the term developers love, when the phrase “low hanging fruit’ was used several times when referring to Salida. 

Most  Salidans say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

An online petition has been created for Salidans, Modestans, and indeed ALL citizens of the county to sign to register their concerns.  I invite everyone who wants to help David from being devoured by Goliath, to sign and let their thoughts be known. Say NO to greedy special interest groups who would plant driveways instead of crops and change the quaint, rural environment of Salida into the city controlled by developers that Modesto has become.

Please consider clicking on the link and filling the form out.  Thank you.

http://www.change.org/petitions/stanislaus-co-board-of-supervisors-modesto-city-council-mayor-garrad-marsh-stop-proceedings-for-the-annexation-of-salida-by-the-city-of-modesto

The Salida MAC Newsletter

 

Salida Municipal Advisory Council Newsletter

September 2012                                                                                                                                   Editor: Katherine Borges

 

Next Salida MAC Meeting:

Tuesday, Sept 25, 2012
at 7 p.m.

 

Speaker: Salida Union School Superintendent,
Twila Tosh

 

Salida Library Community Room
4835 Sisk Rd. Salida

 

Members of the public are welcome to attend and share their community concerns.

 

You can watch Salida MAC meetings at home on government cable channel 19 in Salida and channel 7 in Modesto

 Saturday 11am-1pm

 

Report on August’s Salida MAC Meeting –

Salida Annexation Update
     The well-attended August 28th meeting opened with many public questions and concerns regarding the possible annexation of Salida by the City of Modesto. Salida MAC Councilmembers answered as many questions as possible then Stanislaus County Supervisor, Terry Withrow and Modesto City Councilman, John Gunderson spoke on the issue.  Supervisor Withrow (pictured left) stated that the annexation feasibility study would be returned in about 2 months, but until that time, many questions will remain unanswered including whether the annexation will proceed.
     (If you do not subscribe to the Modesto Bee and have not heard about the annexation issue, there were 3 articles and 1 OpEd published about it in August which you can read in the Bee’s online archives at modbee.com)  We thank all who attended the meeting and hope you will attend future meetings and continue to communicate your community concerns.
Help for Neighborhood Foreclosures, Renters, Emergency Shelter, etc. from Stanislaus County’s Community Development Department
     Aaron Farnon, Stanislaus County Community Development Manager reported that his department applies for special federal grant programs to help serve the middle class to low income community.  Programs like first-time home buyer  rehab programs to improve your home.  10% of their funds are set aside for public services which range in aid for domestic violence services to homeless shelters.  This department helps about 50,000 individuals each year.  In Salida, they received some neighborhood stabilization funds and there are still funds available for the Salida community.  This year, they’ve helped 8 first-time home buyers purchase homes and 4 of those helped were in Salida.  If you have any foreclosed homes in your neighborhood, that have been sitting vacant 9 months or more contact the county because they can rehabilitate them.  This department also provides funding for a fair housing provider which is a non-profit that acts as an intermediary if you have landlord/tenant concerns.  Additional programs provide funding for emergency shelters and to the Salvation Army, and a solar installation program for low-income homes to offset the high-cost of utilities.  Contact 525-6330.  For more info:  http://www.stancounty.com/planning/index-cdbg.shtm

Nick W. Blom Salida Regional Library
     Diane Bartlett, Library Branch Manager reported that Pre-school (Ages 3-5 Thurs @ 10 am) and Wiggle-worm (Ages under 3 on Wed @ 10-11) story times will be starting again in September.  For adults, dinner and a movie “Men in Black” on Sept 24 at 6 pm.  You can volunteer and sign-up for ‘LoveSalida’ which benefits the library and pick up ‘LoveSalida’ signs at Salida Kountry Kitchen.  Visit lovesalida.com to sign up.
  

About Salida MAC
The Salida Municipal Advisory Council aka Salida MAC was founded on July 31, 1984 with purpose of advising the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors on matters that relate to Salida including but not limited to advice on matters of public health, safety, welfare, public works, and planning.  Salida MAC is comprised of five councilmembers who must be registered voters within Salida.  Councilmembers are elected to a 4 year term but vacancies can be filled by the Board of Supervisors. Councilmembers are all volunteers and receive no monetary compensation.  Meetings are held on the 4th Tuesday of every month at 7 p.m. In the Salida Library’s Community Room located at 4835 Sisk Rd, Salida.   Each meeting has reports from our local Sheriff Deputy, Salida Librarian, and sometimes a CHP officer.  District 3 County Supervisor, Terry Withrow, also attends or can opt to send a representative. The public is welcome to address the council during the “Community Concerns” portion of the meeting but please limit your comment to five (5) minutes so everyone may be heard.

Your Salida MAC Councilmembers are: Chairman Thomas Reeves, Vice-Chairman Brad Johnson, Secretary Ana San Nicholas, Karen Gorne, and Katherine Borges.  Contact info: P.O. Box 490 Salida, CA 95368 Ph# (209) 612-2305

 
     

 

The Salida Now Ordinance S.C. 1005

To see the entire ordinance click on the link at the bottom.

ORDINANCE C.S. 1005

Upon motion of Supervisor Grover, seconded by

Supervisor Monteith, Ordinance C.S. 1005 was

passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the

Board of Supervisors of the County of Stanislaus,

State of California, this 7th day of August 2007, by

the following called vote:

AYES: SUPERVISORS: Grover, Monteith,

and DeMartini

NOES: SUPERVISORS: Mayfield and Chairman

O’Brien

ABSENT: SUPERVISORS: None

ABSTAINING: SUPERVISORS: None

Ordinance C.S. 1005 adopted without alteration the

County of Stanislaus Salida Area Planning, Road

Improvement, Economic Development, and Farmland

Protection Initiative. The Board also accepted

as a critical and integral component to the Initiative

and Development Agreement signed copies of

the First Amendment to Development Agreement,

which clarifies the authority of the Board of Supervisors

to condition or deny a development plan that

includes residential development if such development

cannot fully fund the cost of infrastructure for

business Park and industrial development. This ordinance

amends the County General Plan and County

Code to expand the Salida Community Plan area

and create a comprehensivelY planned Salida Community

Plan and related zoning classifications.

This new Community Plan will Provide for transportation

improvements, industrial business, commercial

centers, parks, school sites, and residential.

This ordinance approves a development

agreement that establishes the general plan and

zoning designations for twenty-five years, irrespective

of any growth control measures later enacted

by the voters or the Board of Supervisors. This

ordinance is not the final approval to develop the

Salida Community Plan. This ordinance requires

that any development within the Salidc Community

Plan Amendment Area requires the prtparation of

a programmatic-level Environmental Impact Report

prior to development.

A full copy of Ordinance C.S. 1005 is available online

at and is available for review at the Clerk of

the Board’s Office, 1010 10th Street, Suite 6700, Modesto,

CA. For further information, call the Stanislaus

County Counsel’s Office at 525-6376.

BY ORDER OF THE BOARD

OF

SUPERVISORS

DATED: August 7,2007

 

ATTEST: CHRISTINE FERRARO TALLMAN,

 

Clerk of the Board of Supervisorsof the County of

 

Stanislaus,State of California

 

BY: Elizabeth A. King,

 

Assistont Clerk of the Board

 

AUGUST 20, 2007

 To see the entire Salida Now Package click on 810 ordinance.

B10Ordinance

Aditional file footnotes.

 http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/bos/agenda/2007/20070807/B10Ordinance.pdf

A Little Salida Now Background: California Planning and Development Report

Pro-Growth Salida Initiative Wins Without Going To Voters

 

By William Fulton on 29 August 2007 – 11:00am

 

Stanislaus County supervisors and developers have beaten farmland preservation advocates to the punch. Supervisors adopted a developer-written growth plan for the unincorporated community of Salida six months before voters are scheduled to decide on a slow growth/farmland protection initiative that actually was written first.

In response to the “Stamp Out Sprawl” (SOS) initiative, scheduled for the February 2008 ballot, developers drafted the “Salida Now” initiative and appeared to qualify it for the November 2007 ballot. However, the Board of Supervisors in August voted 3-2 simply to adopt the initiative. Supporters say the plan is very similar to a community plan update that has been in the works for years, provides infrastructure funding for industrial and commercial development, and moves Salida toward financial self-sufficiency.

Detractors say the quick drafting and adoption of the Salida Now initiative was a brazen political move that could backfire. “It’s such an obvious, in-your-face flaunting of power,” said Denny Jackman an (SOS) organizer and former Modesto councilman.

County Supervisor Jeff Grover conceded that the SOS initiative created a “feeling of real urgency.” By adopting the Salida initiative, supervisors simply speeded up what had already been a long process. The Salida Now plan “is exactly what we’ve been working on and exactly what we’ve been planning in Salida,” Grover said.

With a population of about 14,000, Salida is by far the largest town in unincorporated Stanislaus County. Salida’s location along Highway 99 at the far northern end of the county puts it within long-distance commuting range of the Bay Area. County officials, however, have long wanted to see Salida grow as an employment center (see CP&DR Local Watch, May 2000). That has not happened and county officials say Salida is an approximately $3 million-a-year drain on the county.

Since 2000, advocates of farmland protection in Stanislaus County have been trying to get something on the ballot that resembles Ventura County’s SOAR initiatives (see CP&DR Insight, May 2002; CP&DR, December 1998). Previous efforts failed, but in June 2006, farmland advocates presented the county with signed petitions on the SOS initiative. If approved, it would require voters to decide on the rezoning of unincorporated agricultural land. Supporters wanted to place the initiative on the November 2006 ballot. However, county supervisors ordered an analysis as allowed under the Election Code. By the time the analysis was completed two months later, the deadline for getting an initiative on the ballot had passed. Therefore, supervisors scheduled the SOS initiative for the next general election — February 2008.

The move bought Salida growth proponents time. Within months, the Salida Now initiative was on the streets, and in June supporters submitted an extraordinary number of signed petitions — enough to force a special election. The $400,000 signature-gathering campaign was financed almost entirely by developers, primarily Pacific Union Homes, Bates Properties and The Stringer Co., all of which have substantial interests in Salida. (An interesting twist in the initiative calls for development fees to reimburse the cost of preparing the initiative.)

Again, supervisors ordered an analysis. But when that analysis was presented to the board in August, supervisors somewhat unexpectedly adopted the initiative, a decision permitted by state law.

The decision studded some people. In an editorial under the headline “Maybe The Developers Really Do Run The County,” the Modesto Bee opined: “In a single vote, three supervisors amended the county general plan, adopted the Salida Community Plan as firm for the next 25 years, and OK’d a development agreement with developers. And the three supervisors did all of this without giving the public any time to comprehend it all and to comment.”

From a political standpoint, Jackman said, the supervisors’ actions have been great for SOS supporters. First, supervisors delayed an election on the grass-roots SOS initiative, then they adopted the developer-funded Salida initiative with virtually no warning. SOS supporters could not have asked for better campaign material, Jackman said.

But Supervisor Grover, who represents Salida, makes no apologies. State demographers predict Stanislaus County will add 350,000 people and need at least 100,000 new jobs by 2030, Grover pointed out.

“We need areas to provide jobs all over the county,” Grover said. The SOS initiative would “block everything in the unincorporated areas.”

The lack of infrastructure in Salida is often cited as one reason for the lack of economic development. According to an analysis by county staff members of the initiative, “The proponents envision … the residential component subsidizing the initial infrastructure of the industrial and commercial areas and in later years the industrial/commercial area generating adequate revenue to maintain the infrastructure of both the residential and industrial/commercial area.”

Grover said the initiative is very similar to a community plan update — in process for years — that was presented to supervisors in April. Adopting the plan simply keeps the decision-making in the hands of elected officials, he said.

In the Turlock-based Farmland Working Group’s most recent newsletter, President Jeani Ferrari expressed doubt. “The supervisors’ action gives the project to the developers, with no right to say ‘no’ to the project as a whole, no matter what the environmental impact report and financial feasibility studies show,” Ferrari wrote.

The initiative covers 3,383 acres, of which about 60% is designated for industrial, business park or commercial uses. Proponents say as many as 27,000 jobs could be created there. In addition, the plan permits up to 5,000 housing units in varying densities and sets aside 100 acres for a riverfront park.

The initiative contains no entitlements, said Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Director Ron Freitas. The next step is for developers to prepare “development plans” that would be similar to specific plans. While the initiative did not undergo California Environmental Quality Act review, all development plans are subject to CEQA, Freitas said.

“We’re stepping back and saying, ‘It’s your development plan, you prepare it.’ We will still retain the EIR consultant,” Freitas said.

Loss of farmland is a significant issue. About 3,000 acres in the plan area are in agricultural production, and most of the territory is prime farmland. The initiative calls for housing developers to offset loss of farmland by buying acre-for-acre preservation easements on similar farmland elsewhere in the county. However, the mitigation requirement does not apply to non-residential development.

The initiative also calls for developers to contribute $150,000 to a Salida incorporation feasibility study.

Contacts:
Stanislaus County Supervisor Jeff Grover, (209) 525-6560.
Ron Freitas, Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development Department, (209) 525-6330.
Farmland Working Group, (209) 247-2503.

http://www.cp-dr.com/node/1770 

 

And a Comment  by the Farmland Working Group

Correspondence A

Hammett Road Interchange and the North County Corridor – Could there be a Connection?

By Emerson Drake

Decisions Facing Salida and  Modesto Citizens

We’re facing another one of those self full-filling prophesies.  We have the 2007 Salida Now proposition where the Board of Supervisors rushed,  in order to thwart the will of the people and voted for Salida Now.  By doing this, they were “casting in stone for 25 years”  for developers to build 4,000 homes and designating large amounts of land for mixed residential (homes and businesses and other land use designations)  before the public could vote to could stop the project.

Now they’re saying because of the Salida Now, we need to push forward and embrace the Hammett Road interchange.  But the result of building the exchange, in the eyes of many, will be to set aside the idea of using Kiernan as the Highway 99 connecting leg and allow the developers, who are always looking 20 years ahead, to pave over even more prime farm land between Kiernan and Stanislaus River and McHenry Avenue, thereby creating even more opportunity for them to plant driveways, not crops and to build homes and rake in high short-term profits, while abandoning Stanislaus County residents  to yet more massive subdivisions as soon as the economy turns around.

Do We Have Options?

At last Tuesday night’s town meeting the public had the opportunity to hear the County/Cal Trans proposals regarding the interchange.  Questions arose from the public that it would take an attorney well versed in County law to answer.  Unfortunately none were present. Here are some of the questions the public asked that night.

1. Is it possible for Salida to have a referendum and vote to refute the County Boards’ Salida Now land use vote from 2007?

2. Are Salida citizens guaranteed by law a vote in any annexation attempt by Modesto?

3. How much is left in the account the County says developers contributed to in order to push the Hammett Road Interchange?

4. Exactly how many years are remaining from the Salida Now vote regarding land use designations?

5. Exactly how many years will remain on Salida Now land use rules if Modesto annexes them?

6. Will Modesto citizens get to vote on annexing Salida?

7. For the sake of openness, exactly which companies and their owners,  were the land use guarantees made to?

These questions will be asked of the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors at the August 7th 2012 meeting.

A Salida Resident Read the Following Suggestions at the Meeting Tuesday Night

7-31-2012:  Notes on the road service for Salida area projects:

No more prime corners used for storm drain ponds with fences for spray paint taggers!  Salida already has one at Sisk and Highway 219.

Feeder roads and traffic light intersections must be set back 3000 feet from the freeway, the current mess of Sisk Road next to the freeway slowing traffic on the freeway down to a stop is very poor planning.  What we have now is Service Level F for traffic flow.

Freeway exits and entrances should be full clover leaf designs, you should not have to slow down or stop to cross over the oncoming lanes of traffic to get on or off the freeway.

Any uses of electricity should be offset by solar panels that feed the grid during the day, banking the power that will be needed at night, for traffic control lights, street lights, storm water pumps and landscaping needs.  The real costs of the projects should not be ‘externalized’ or passed on to the public tax rolls at large, but paid for by the project developers and home construction companies, etc….in the Salida road projects many of the costs should be passed onto the developers of the Riverbank Crossroads project, it seems all of Riverbank uses Salida as it’s on/off ramp to Highway 99, in fact due to the Stanislaus River, Salida acts as the bridge off what is basically an island in northwest Stanislaus County.

Currently we have an unsafe pedestrian environment for children to walk or bike to the new Salida High School.  Sidewalks, bike lanes and CROSS WALKS or pedestrian bridges must be built to keep our children safe and plan for a walkable community.

Developments such as Costco’s store, a half mile off the street with no safe walkway to the building and a car entrance too darn close to the freeway that impacts freeway traffic, are not to be repeated!

Long term Salida goals require a retail sales tax base.  Careful zoning and roadway planning are required to realize this outcome.  The first step would be to bring a local bank back to the Salida area!

The environmental impact from heavy traffic due to cars and trucks will be a major problem for the Salida area.  PM1 and PM10, soot, ozone, smog, road noise, car stereo abuse, oversized exhaust systems and polluted storm drain run off, litter and 1000 wads of discarded chewing gum on the street all degrade our lives in so many ways and impact children even more so.

Sound walls, raised earth berms, quiet road surfaces and properly sized (narrowly painted) lanes can help to regulate speed and in a small way offset the projects very negative impact on Salida.

All of this area is prime farm land served by an excellent 100 year old canal water system.  All efforts should be made to complete the Kiernan Avenue/Claribel Highway system to the City of Oakdale before any new farm land is consumed for developer profit!

Brad Johnson

10 years as a Salida Town Council Member and Local Public Radio Station Operator, 104.9FM.

http://www.KGIG.org

Everyone should attend these meeting because you have a chance to have your voice heard.  Will it make a difference?  Only time will tell.  Hopefully the County Board will allow the County Attorney to answer these and other questions which  might arise.

The Following is the Handout from  the Salida/Hammett Road Interchange Meeting from July 31,2012

HammettPubMeetingJUL312012PRESENTATIONHANDOUTREV5

Dirty Politics by Bill Lyons, Mike Lynch and the Alliance Cost Stanislaus Residents Jobs

By Emerson Drake

Why is it every time people start looking into backroom deals to line a few private pockets at the expense of the majority of us, the names  Bill Lyons and Mike Lynch are usually at the top of the slime ball list?  Tuesday night at the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors meeting was no exception.  One of the first announcements was that Supervisor Terry Withrow was required to recuse himself from voting on Gerry Kamilos’ WestPark project.   

Bill Lyons, who was the political opponent Terry Withrow soundly defeated, allegedly sent an email complaining about a potential conflict of interest since Withrow’s wife holds a one twelfth interest in some land across the street from the project.  This wasn’t considered a problem during earlier discussions but when Lyons and Lynch became concerned about the possibility of Kamilos being told to hit the road, Lyons and Lynch pulled out all of the stops.

Gerry Kamilos gave a presentation to the Board that quite honestly defied belief for anyone who has followed this debacle from the beginning. He did acknowledge the WestPark footprint had changed yet again.  Remember the original size was supposed to be approximately 1,400 acres but Kamilos insisted on 4,800 acres.  The bloated size of the project caused him problems from the beginning.  His most recent fantasy involves 2,900 acres which includes a scaled down solar farm (he can’t find a buyer for his electricity if built) and intermodal operation (truck and rail)  and a business park.

Kamilos paraded a mixed group of consultants who allegedly supported his concept but each and every one of them can to the party empty-handed and represented only themselves and not their organizations.  While Port Commissioner Victor Uno said “we think this project has great value to your community” he wasn’t bearing any “official”  Memorandum of Understanding  (MOU) to do business with Kamilos.  None of his business supporters were carrying MOU’s.  We were treated to kind words regarding the Union Pacific Railroad but again no MOU, in other words nothing concrete.

When Kamilos came to a page in his presentation containing about twelve as he termed it “good questions” he provided a little smoke and a few mirrors but didn’t completely answer any of them.  His consultant for water and sewer who has been with the project from its inception could provide no insight to how the sewer and water could be handled.

Kamilos’ Problem is he doesn’t have ANY Answers.

Kamilos doesn’t know or isn’t willing to admit he doesn’t have a clue where the money to upgrade the railroad tracks will come from.  He overlooks the fact that an Intermodal operation in Modesto had to be down sized because of the lack of business.  But Kamilos keeps using numbers that suggest he will get the lions share of the business in the valley when at least one of his competitors in Lathrop is better located and has had a successful operation for years. 

When Kamilos was questioned by Supervisor DeMartini his responses fell flat.  Kamilos used phrases like “value engineering” and “when the contingencies are factored” which have absolutely no meaning and DeMartini called him on it. When Kamilos claimed to have made “credible progress” the audience laughed and wondered aloud if Kamilos understood what that meant.  I’ve heard a few complaints regarding Supervisor DeMartini’s questioning of Kamilos but I thought DeMartini’s response was on target. DeMartini said he didn’t find Kamilos’ answers credible and he didn’t have the track record of someone the Board should be doing business with.

DeMartini asked Kamilos for a list of successful business parks he developed.  Kamilos named a few but DeMartini pointed out the parks he mentioned had never been completed or were mainly housing developments. DeMartini has been suggesting all along that Kamilos had originally used a map with five thousand home on it.  Kamilos has been denying this but last night Supervisor Monteith slipped and said the original map contained the  homes but the board had asked Kamilos to change it and he did.

Kamilos sued for Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars by his vendors

Kamilos has a track record which suggests his vendors have been required to take him into court to get paid. These weren’t challenges of withholding payment for shoddy work. Kamilos just doesn’t have the money to pay his creditors. One of his consultants last night appears to be continuing to support him in order to eventually get paid for past services rendered.  DeMartini raised the concern a creditor would come after the $2 Million deposit the County is going to hold.  That issue was never cleared up completely.

Supervisor Monteith says Kamilos is AMAZING

Actually Monteith said Kamilos was amazing three separate times.  It sounded almost like Monteith had a bro-mance going on with Kamilos.  Monteith didn’t mention if he purchased his rose-colored glasses or if they were loaned to him by Lyons and the Alliance but they definitely effected his view of reality in the opinion of many. Monteith has been a Kamilos supporter and sees nothing wrong with the five, going on six-year delay.  But since Monteith stopped placing candles on his birthday cakes he might not be aware of just how many years have passed. It begs the question if six years in “Supervisory Years” are the same as they are for you and me.

Supervisor Chiesa a disappointment

Although Supervisor Chiesa sent plenty of warning signs out about his vote prior to the proceedings, a glimmer of hope had prevailed with the crowd, since Supervisor Chiesa had said fifteen months ago it was the last extension he would vote for. But alas, in our opinion it appears he had been persuaded to change his mind prior to last nights meeting.  Chiesa is a smart businessman and I firmly believe nothing he heard last night could have possibly influenced him to vote for Kamilos and his project.

Kamilos held the Reports Hostage and dangled the $2.75 Million as a Saving Grace for the Supervisors

Yes the combination of the money and the lost reports were used as an excuse for the three Supervisors to vote for this option.  Bill Bassitt of the Alliance basically said there was no downside to the deal.  He told the Board early on If they got to keep the money it would be a fair deal.  But Mr. Bassitt and his Alliance get paid more from the state if the economic conditions remain as they are.  Yes, they want things to get better for the valley but would prefer it to be coordinated  to ensure the best of possible deals for their boards members.

The Modesto Chamber of Commerce Trots out Paid help to Promote Kamilos’s Deal

Yes, as usual the Chamber was knee-deep in trying to divide the “spoils” they hope to receive. They supplied paid employees to speak in support of Kamilos. Someone compared them to a “Union” for businesses. Others prefer to think of them simply as paid lobbyists.

JOBS are the Most Important result for WestPark

Yes, jobs are the top concern but the question that was supposed to be asked and answered last night was ‘is Kamilos the right developer to answer Stanislaus County’s prayers? ‘

Most of the public seems to feel Kamilos brought the early difficulties with WestPark on himself with his arrogance.  He believed he could run rough shod over everyone and everything, but he failed to size up the opportunities correctly.  Now all he can do is try to buy time to find  a deep pocketed suitor who won’t look too close at the details to provide the working capital he so desperately needs to continue his bumbling, stumbling, lurching attempt to cross the goal line.

Post Navigation