Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Joe Mosca Doesn't Even Pretend To Be For Sierra Madre Preservation Anymore

"I saw Elvis at the park." - Josh Moran

Some of us can remember when Joe Mosca claimed to be committed at the very core of his being to preserving the small town character of this community. He ran his entire first campaign on just that issue. Seems so long ago now. Today things are very different, of course. So much so that last night he was all about getting the taxpayers to subsidize fees for such predatory development as One Carter. Joe doesn't even pretend to care about that "preserve Sierra Madre" thing anymore. Apparently being termed out has now freed his inner town wrecker.

But we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves here. There were some other things that happened before Joe gave his big pitch for using taxpayer dollars to give financial breaks to developers.

Nancy Walsh kicked things off by saying she went to the General Plan meeting. Which is good, but mere attendance is often not enough when delivering a report to the City on important matters. You should also share what it is you saw there as well. Then again, she also said that there has been no conflict of interest found in the Nick Conway affair at the SGVCOG. Apparently Nancy, while present at several COG meetings, has yet to pick up on the fact that an investigation hasn't actually gotten underway yet. Mostly because the District Attorney needs to finish up some prior obligations first. Like Court trials already in process. Nancy also said the Farmers Market was going very well, even though it is more like a flea market than anything to do with produce, and potential customers have been staying away in droves.

Joe Mosca claimed that he has been getting e-mail from "a lot of people" saying his Sunday afternoon meeting schedule is inconvenient for them. So much so that he is thinking of changing his hours. Good to see that he is showing some flexibility on this important matter. He also said that the way we are represented in the Pasadena Board of Education might change sometime soon. Currently each of our 7 elected representatives are responsible for the entire district. In the future each representative could be elected from a district of their very own, with the territory of each based considerations such as ethnicity. Which is very L.A. County these days. Something that I believe is also known as Balkanization. But don't quote me on that.

MaryAnn MacGillivray discussed her attendance at a meeting of the Council for Watershed Health. An organization rightfully believing "that biology gets worse as development increases." The good news is that the purity of our water is very good, mostly because our upper watershed is located in the Angeles National Forest. Which is about as undeveloped as things can get. But even in the lower watershed things are pretty good, mostly because Sierra Madre is a low density town. The notion here being that should Sierra Madre become overbuilt, the quality of our water would worsen. We are the guardians of our watershed, and as such have an important responsibility. Good stuff.

MaryAnn also questioned why The COG doesn't show up at SCAG and RHNA Subcommittee meetings. Since we're paying them $8,600 or so dollars a year in dues, you'd think they'd go to a meeting once in a while and represent us. Yet another indication the "The COG" is much more about rubber stamping Sacramento planning mandates than anything like regional advocacy.

Josh Moran saw Elvis at the park, free In & Out burgers somewhere else, a lean mean fighting machine in City Hall, and noted that lots of people showed up at the Hart Park House construction kickoff. Listening to Josh is like reading The Mountain Views News.

John Buchanan saw redistricting maps in our future, August 3rd to be exact. And they were a lot closer when he finally finished speaking about them. Pat Alcorn spoke at Public Comment about redistricting as well, and Joe Mosca, apparently misunderstanding what she was talking about, tartly informed her that the Angeles National Forest is not a desert. Random? Sure. But you can't say that we don't get our money's worth at these meetings.

The first of the main bouts was the discussion of Public Facilities Fees. Currently these fees are at levels established in 2009. Which, according to the appropriate consultant study on the matter, is the correct amount as it covers all City costs in bringing new development on-line with such things as water and sewers. Something that John Buchanan, Nancy Walsh and MaryAnn MacGillivray saw no need to change.

Josh Moran and Joe Mosca saw things differently. Both wanted to roll fees back to 2006 levels, with the taxpayers picking up the difference. Joe claimed that while the current fee study is very good, he also felt that some fee relief was needed because when they are too high it limits what we can do. Which raises the question, gives relief to who? And who exactly does Joe mean by "we?" As far as I have been able to tell, everything taxpayers in this town are obliged to pay for has gone up these last few years.

The following exchange then took place: MaryAnn replied, if the study is OK, and the policy is OK, then should it also follow that the fees are OK as well? Joe countered that the current fee rates may inhibit certain types of development, and how that development might happen. Promoting development being the main point for Joe now. MaryAnn then asked, "The fees are too high for what?" Joe dodged. "A lot of people" are looking to to throw out the study, quoth he. Just like a lot of people are calling him about his Kersting Court meeting times. MaryAnn replied that we should not be subsidizing large development. Joe replied that we would be doing ourselves a lot of good if we rolled it back.

Which again begs the question, do who good? Fee and license charges, along with water rates and UUT rates have all gone up in the last few years. Unless you are a wealthy Sierra Madre developer or liquor store owner, you won't stand to see a dime from Honest Joe's Fee Discount Service.

Here is how John Capoccia answered that rhetorical question: "Below cost recovery needs to be a benefit for us, so why would we give this away? Future costs could very well be much higher. You folks can agree to reduce these fees on a case by case basis. Don't burden the taxpayer to help pay for development."

Which is basically what Joe (and Josh) were pushing for here, taxpayer funded welfare for developers. Joe (and Josh) then went on a long happy walk down Deception Lane by claiming that their concern is really about small homeowners, green houses, and the little guy who wants to put a porch on his humble abode. Which is crap. What this is really all about is (as a best example) the passing of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Public Facilities Fee costs for hooking up still unbuilt McMansions at One Carter to sewers and water mains onto the backs of the taxpayers.

Which, for a guy who back in 2006 ran as someone who would never allow such bad things to happen, is really quite a change. Joe doesn't even pretend that he isn't in the pockets of the developers any more. He is as owned as they come.

The discussion about opting ourselves into the CRA at the cost of $676,000 then followed. MaryAnn MacGillivray, supplying the actual math involved (something City Staff had failed to include to the incurious G4 in the Staff Report for this item), held up a chart that broke it all down. In their barest essence the options are these. If we pay the $676,000 to the state, and $160,000 per year for the remaining 4 year period of our CRA's existence, we would be able to hold onto $4 million dollars in restricted funds. If we opt out, we would receive about half of that, or $1.8 million, but in unrestricted General Fund monies.

The dollar figures alone would indicate that opting in would be the superior option. But that $4 million would be restricted CRA funds. Which means they could only be used in the downtown area, and then only for certain kinds of things. The argument was made that if this money was sent to Sacramento the state would only fritter it away. But when you consider the recent rash of CRA spending here in Sierra Madre, can it be said that the City Council has spent its own money any more wisely? Did we really need $50,000 consultant studies on things like resident consumption habits and parking?

There was an undercurrent of social conservatism versus gay advocacy at this point of the conversation. Much of the CRA claw back would be used by Sacramento to fund education, and with the passing of SB 48 gay history will now be included in the public school curriculum. MaryAnn's belief is that this is a decision that needs to be made by parents, and not government. Joe and Josh both stiffened visibly at this suggestion, with Josh muttering something under his breathe about Glenn Beck.

For the record, I don't do social conservatism. It's just not there for me. Fiscal conservatism? Sure. City Hall would be run out of a back room at Arnold's Hardware if I had my way. Right behind the chicken wire and rakes. With City Council meetings being conducted at a picnic table. Call it my inner Libertarian, but I honestly don't care what people do with their private lives. Live and let live. People should be allowed to succeed or fail in life without people on either side of the social agenda getting involved. But unfortunately this issue is going to be what a lot of people take away from this meeting. The demagogue at The Sierra Madre Weekly will be foaming at the mouth I'm sure.

Three people stood up from the audience and questioned the wisdom of our keeping the CRA. Barbara Leigh stated she was not at all sure that the way the City has spent its CRA money is much to brag about. MaryAnn's math was interesting, but honestly, "have we spent this money any more wisely than Sacramento?" Barbara then asked the City to prove its case by supplying a list of all the CRA spends it has made over the last few years. Which won't happen, of course.

John Capoccia said we should commit the City to paying less money, and getting less property tax money. But what we would receive would be far more useful as it would be unrestricted General Fund monies. We could use this General Fund money anywhere and for anything, rather than just putting it into the CRA. John asked that the City Council to delay the decision for two weeks so that the public could better decide what is really best for Sierra Madre.

The most powerful attack on the CRA buy-in came from Chris Koerber. His point was that how could we trust Sacramento to keep its word on the costs associated with keeping a CRA here in Sierra Madre. By spending that $676,000, and then committing the City to spending $160,000 a year for the time remaining for our doomed CRA, the big assumption being made is that the state won't raise that yearly cost to something much higher later on. You trust Sacramento at your own peril. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this cost will not go way up, and that what looks like a gain for our CRA fund now could easily become an ugly deficit later.

Chris then asked what successes can we credit to our CRA. "How many jobs have been accomplished with our CRA?" he asked. The answer to that question is exactly the same as how much blight it has cured. None. "Time to pull the plug," he concluded.

Our unimpressive new City Attorney then launched into a strictly by-the-book regurgitation of League of California Cities talking points on why the CRA is good. Her talk was far more political advocacy than any kind of legal exposition, and didn't change anyone's opinion either way. More proof of who the law firm of Colantuono and Levin really works for. It certainly isn't us.

In the end an "Urgency Measure" was passed, which put the City on the road to keeping the CRA. The presumably less urgent part will likely be passed at the next meeting. If there is any good news here it is that our CRA only has 5 years left to go. Chances are pretty certain that once its term of existence lapses, we will not qualify for any kind of renewal. But that still means 5 more years of downtown crony payoffs, special people fee discounts, gifts for developers, ill conceived consultant studies, and whatever else the vanity of the G4 Council behooves them to spend our money on. Which is what will inevitably happen when there are millions of dollars in funds designated to fight blight in a City having none. It is a situation ripe for abuse.

The City decided to spend $45,000 (plus $6,000 in licensing fees for years after) for a scanning service that will make thousands of City documents and reports available on the City of Sierra Madre website. There wasn't much argument against this happening, and anything that makes city information more readily available is a good thing. But again, that is a lot of money for something that isn't all that much more complicated than Xeroxing. Two PCC students majoring in computer science could do the same job part time, and at a fraction of the cost.

The bicycle situation was discussed. All agreed that people on bikes running stop signs is a bad thing. The all purpose Sierra Madre solution, giving out tickets, was lauded once again. We do need a bike lane on Sierra Madre Boulevard, there is one in both Arcadia and Pasadena. And the same bikers pass through those towns without incident. But somehow our City Council doesn't get that.

The City Council then went back into private session. Judging by the Mayor's look of exasperation at the beginning of the meeting, it appears that the Sierra Madre Police Officers Association negotiations have entered a new and delicate phase.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

59 comments:

  1. Voted for Mosca onceJuly 27, 2011 at 8:12 AM

    Mr. Mosca was indeed passionate last night in his efforts to roll back the fees, to give relief, to remove inhibitions to development. He has fought for it twice now, at the last council meeting and again last night, in his distinct way of repetitive remarks for his proposal punctuated by glib sayings like do whatever you want it's fine with me. He fought harder for that boon for developers than I've seen him fight for anything.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is this new battle cry that Moran and Mosca have about mansionization?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe he's working so much harder for the developers now because he is looking for campaign donations from them for his Assembly run.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Josh and Joe say that they are against mansionization, then they are for mansionization.

    ReplyDelete
  5. High density condominium developments are not mansions. That is what Sacramento wants.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where is the person with the bike grant information? Was there a plan for where the bike lanes would go when the grant was applied for? Was Clem Bartoli on the council then? He is an avid cyclist?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The most significant item passed by the City Council was to start scanning city documents to be accessible digitally by the residents.
    This has been a along time coming.
    In the past records were destroyed, stolen, etc., to hide any paper trail made by dumb city policy that could be used for legal policy/reasons.
    What needs to be done, is once digitized, this data is safeguarded from "disappearing", as has been the modus operandi of our town history.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Buried deep in you know whos attic, you can bet. It will surface one of these days soon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think it would be naive to think that everything will be put on the city site. There will always be cardboard cartons filled with paper hidden under desks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The City is prostituting itself for about $2 Million. I say cuts staff and programs so we can walk tall and proud. Keep developer fee at 100% recovery.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you concerned residents:
    Chris, John, Barbara, Pat and our only decent council member, MaryAnn.

    Thank you for sticking up for the people of this town.

    Thank you John Crawford for telling folks the truth! What a concept in Sierra Madre! THE TRUTH!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've read numerous comments asserting as fact that Joe Mosca is running for Assembly. How do we know this is true, or is this still speculation?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Poway developer assisted living project was misunderstood by a number of people on the blog yesterday just because there was no easily accessible staff report to look at!
    The way that agenda item was written obviously meant we were picking up the tab for that EIR. That it turned out to not be so is great, but see how productive and constructive that transparency will be!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joe has been reported by reliable sources to be shopping his Assembly run to various influential Democratic Party organization people. Word is the resonse has been lukewarm at best.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MacGillivray for PresidentJuly 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM

    Joe Mosca should NEVER be elected to a public office, again.
    Unless there is something in it for Joe, he's going to double cross you.
    God grief, don't we have enough of these narcissistic politicians without adding Mosca to the list.

    MaryAnn should be running the Congress, the Senate and the White House right now, and we would finally get a square deal!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I wonder if Buchanan is proud that he will be leaving the town in the hands of Caligula, Nero and Commodus? That will be the final nail in his awful legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Didn't get a chance to respond re the way the EIR is paid for, etc. but agree that if the staff reports were on line it would solve several problems for the city--namely that partial information causes people to go bonkers when if they had the full background they could come to meetings better informed and not go off half cocked.

    As for EIR processes: when a full EIR is required after a city does an initial enviromental assessment (one which the people need to see as well to determine if the check list hit all the yes, no, or maybe columns as the citizens might see it) then the city, as the lead agency, sets into motion the selection of the company that will do the focused EIR and the project developer PAYS for the cost of the EIR.

    If I am wrong on this some one please clear it up for the Tattler readership.

    ReplyDelete
  18. City Council agendas are deliberately vague and uninformative. Residents need to be kept in the dark as much as possible. Why do you think everyone wants to see all the staff reports that CC members get?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Good point, 10:18

    For years the residents and voters of Sierra Madre have been kept in the dark and feed bs.
    Is the city offering to sell us "mushrooms" at the new Farmer's Market. Oh wait, they wouldn't be organic, when raised in the basement of city hall, now would they?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I didn't follow the ins & outs of the skilled nursing facility developer EIR stuff, but the city manager was loud and clear about it not costing the city anything.What a disconnect from the wording on the agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  21. channel 3 watcherJuly 27, 2011 at 10:47 AM

    Municipal jargon is jealousy guarded to protect the status of those who work with it, and shore up the consultant industry.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think those mushrooms are raised under the Kodiak.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nope, this is definately the "Chicago way".

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think peoples expectations are being raised a little too high about documents being put online. Do you really think computer limitations were the reasons information has been so difficult to obtain in the past? Nobody has said that every document is going to be put on the site. Total access might not be a part of anyone's deal.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 9:26, who or what are the "reliable sources" about Mosca's possible foray into state government? When doing a google search, the only sources mentioning Mosca and the Assembly is the Tattler.

    ReplyDelete
  26. How can anyone tell what Joe is doing? He is a shapeshifter.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It appears the City homeowners have two choices.Either "go with the flow"in accepting the Corporate Dream for the City or stand up against Corporate greed and remove their Toadies from power.The game is in play and no further discussion will make any difference as to how the City Counsel will vote.It is time to take the gloves off or forget it!

    ReplyDelete
  28. The City treats us like mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us shi%.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, 11:44
    And most of the mushrooms vote like naive idiots.
    How in the hell did Mosca, Walsh and Moron get elected?

    ReplyDelete
  30. dark at the end of the Arcadia tunnelJuly 27, 2011 at 12:27 PM

    Take a tour of Arcadia....Former reasonable homes and lots now turned into cul de sacs with "gilded castles" fronted by entry edifaces usually reserved for DT Office Complexes...or look NE and see the formerly native treed hills now topped with tasteless monstrosities dedicated to conspicuous consumption burnished with Merceedes, Lexuses, & Rangle Rovers. And the "strip zoned" comercial districts don't attract anyone which is why so many are "for lease". Arcadia could not even save or was not interested in saving 110 acres of native trees from destruction to make room for a pile of muck from the Santa Anit Debris Dam. Other than to service "Nouveau Riche" with whatever their tasteless wants desired Arcadia is a monument to everything that is bad in City Development.

    Take a look at Mosca, Moran, and Walsh and peek inside their little heads and you will see Arcadia sprouting up on our hillsides, and village streets. There is trouble right here in Sierra Madre City.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Some people see a beautiful little town 12:27, and some people see money to be made and influence to be gained. What we saw last night was the latter with the tarp completely off. Sierra Madre is a targeted community.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Tattler, I also appreciated council member MacGilvray's report on the health of the watershed. This is one of those nature issues where we can figure out how to keep ourselves well, or not.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Isn't it sad, 1:48?
    Isn't it sad that Crawford has to report this information to us?
    Isn't it a sad commentary, such as your post?
    What happened to this town?
    How did we let it happen?

    ReplyDelete
  34. petition carrierJuly 27, 2011 at 2:39 PM

    Mosca always starts his council reports by advertising his office hours, phone number and website.
    My guess would be that so very many, lots, of people finding his Sunday hours inconvenient is just a cover for the fact that nobody goes to see him.

    The people who want to talk with Joe need to keep low profiles.
    Just a guess.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If Sierra Madre gets overbuilt the quality of our water won't just worsen,there won't be enough!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Kurt Zimmerman once said that politics goes in cycles, and it won't be too long before things will change once again. Chris Koerber and John Capoccia dominated their portions of that meeting last night. Things are changing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ah damn it all. the next election for council will really be an election on SB48, and the Downtown and Uphill Investment Club Members will take a lesson from the last council election, using again the propaganda of moral indignation about homophobic zero growth mean people. Damn it!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I am not sure that people aren't sick and tired of Mosca, Moran and Walsh. They are neither attractive or amusing. They're just arrogant.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Mosca is like Susan Henderson.

    He makes up sources and people calling him and overexagerates

    He can't or won't back up his claims, which leads me to believe that once again his is lying to us

    ReplyDelete
  40. what, 2 people are inconvienced by Joe's meeting hours?

    ReplyDelete
  41. when Moran saw Elvis, was he drunk as usual?

    not Elvis, I mean Moran.

    In our little Mayberry, Moran is our Otis Campbell.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Did anyone else hear yet another one of Joe's malaprops, towards the end of the meeting?
    Discussing access to electronic documents, he said that he wants "... to look at the information more remotely."

    ReplyDelete
  43. It would be nice if by remotely he meant from Rhode Island.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Councilmember Walsh's remarks about keeping the fees decision based on data were very good, but her remarks about the Cogian 'appearance of conflict of interest', 'appearance of being more objective', were really off base.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Right you are that Josh and Joe on development is a stroll down Deception Lane.
    Turn right on Dense Condos are the Only Way, make a left on Look it Avoids Massing, and find yourself in every city you see in the San Gabriel Valley.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ever been to Rancho Cucamonga? Where John Gillison is the City Manager? That is what these people have in mind for Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
  47. But it will give the "appearance" of being a small town.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Good point. No matter how many buildings you put into Sierra Madre, it will still be 3 square miles. That isn't very big!

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm worried about the water. I want there to be enough so that my kids and their kids can live here if they want to.

    ReplyDelete
  50. God help us and the watershed if it had not been protected by a conservation easement over the Historical Wilderness (1200 acres up the Mt Wilson Trail) and the Bailey Canyon Wilderness, that the Sierra Madre Mountain Conservancy obtained several years ago from a former City Council (who on many other grounds were not the best City Council either by far).

    ReplyDelete
  51. One Carter is right over a Sierra Madre water supply. Wait'll the new residents move in and start fertilizing their lawns.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Everybody should have stopped fertilizing their lawns long ago, too, don't cha think.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 4:05, they'll also start poisoning any of the survivors of the destruction of the eco system - ground squirrels, snakes, rats....should lend the Sierra Madre water a certain piquancy.

    ReplyDelete
  54. My neighbors are still washing their four cars and their friends cars every week in their driveway which they then wash down, and watering their yard twice a day. Some folks think they're entitled.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I wonder if ANY of you has read and inwardly digested SB48. Tolerance is something you might not understand, but it is a wonderful concept.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I think you will find that this is a fairly confident board that attracts a thoughtful and considerate crowd, 5:55. Guilt trips and nagging are considered impolite here.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Chris Koerber and John Capoccia dominated their portions of that meeting last night".

    I'll work for these people anytime, if they wish to run for CC.
    We have some very fine citizens who are not crooked pols.
    We can do much better than the current gang of 4, Buchanan Mosca, Moran and Walsh. Much better, actually, we would be hard pressed to do much worse, now wouldn't we?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Argh! See ! There it is!
    Somebody's trying to use SB48 for their own devious purposes already!

    ReplyDelete
  59. 5:55 must be a skip reader who conveniently overlooked Crawford's excellent inner libertarian comments, and the lack of any opposition to them on the blog posts.
    Perhaps that is the source of the lack of "reading and inner digesting" he or she incorrectly perceives in others.

    ReplyDelete