The most successful politician is he who says what everybody is thinking most often and in the loudest voice. -- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)
With the November elections only a month away, REALTORS® need to make their voice heard in the loudest voice possible – by making certain to vote. In California we have the office of the Governor, a United States Senate seat, all Congressional seats, one half of the State Senate and every Assembly seat to be voted. Additionally there are ballot propositions as well as local offices and local initiatives. Your vote is your voice.
FEDERAL:
Voluntarily Freddie Mac Limits Portfolio Growth
On August 1, Freddie Mac announced that the government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) would voluntarily cap the size of its retained mortgage portfolio at $710 billion. Effectively, the voluntary cap will not exceed more than 2% of the level on June 30, 2006. Freddie Mac characterized its announcement as voluntary and temporary in response to a request of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the GSE's safety and soundness regulator. The limit, effective July 1, 2006, will remain in place until the company is current in its financial statements.
Raising an issue that underscores the business and regulatory bind that Freddie Mac is in, the corporation maintained, "Any portfolio growth under this voluntary limitation would consist of purchases" of multifamily, single family, and "other assets that are intended to help us meet our affordable housing goals or subgoals." Freddie Mac's letter to OFHEO also stated that depending on the growth rate and overall composition of the mortgage market, Freddie Mac may purchase mortgages or mortgage-related securities in excess of the voluntary growth limit to meet affordable housing goals or subgoals mandated by Congress. There is an exception for a mortgage liquidity crisis, where Freddie Mac would fulfill part of its mission responsibility to maintain liquidity and stability in the nation's mortgage markets.
Some observers view the Freddie Mac action as possibly another move that will further ease efforts to negotiate a compromise that will break the partisan statement in the Senate. Most odds-makers remain skeptical of congressional action, however.
Tax Gamble Fails
In a surprise move, the House packaged a three part package in an effort to move a significant legislative agenda. The package included an increase in the minimum wage, extensions of a host of expired provisions (including 15-year leasehold improvements and brownfields deductions) and a major revision of the estate tax. The bill passed the House easily on a bipartisan basis.
When the package arrived in the Senate, it was referred to as the "trifecta" because of its three major components. Senate Democrats (and a few Republicans) were outraged that the minimum tax increase would be linked to estate tax cuts that benefit a small number of upper-income individuals. In order to debate the bill, a so-called "motion to proceed" needed to be adopted. This motion requires a super-majority of 60 to pass. The final tally was 56 - 42.
Senate Majority Leader Frist has said that he will not bring any of the three parts of the package to the Senate floor for the remainder of the session. Some observers believe, however, that members of Congress will be under increasing pressure on extenders and the minimum wage, so the game likely is not over.
STATE:
C.A.R. and its members successfully defeated SB 521 on Thursday, August 10th with a vote of 28 to 40. Over 3,000 REALTORS® contacted their legislators over the course of just three days to persuade members of the Assembly to defeat the bill. While we were successful the bill may be voted on again any time between now and end of the session, so please stay tuned for further developments.
C.A.R. is OPPOSING SB 521 (Torlakson) which would authorize the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to impose a document recording fee to generate funds for affordable housing. C.A.R. is opposing SB 521 because it will add to the cost of owning a home and may start a tidal wave of counties hoping to look to real estate to fund any number of other programs. While C.A.R. continues to be a leader in the fight for housing creation, the association believes it sets a bad precedent to fund affordable housing by making housing less affordable.
Thank you to everyone who called their legislators to voice their opposition to SB 521.
AB 2100 (Laird) Homeowner Association Reserve Accounts, a CAR Sponsored bill which was signed into law on August 28. Existing law requires homeowner association (HOA) to provide members a pro forma budget but does not require associations to identify how and when they will repair or replace the major assets of the association. This year, C.A.R. is sponsoring AB 2100 to require HOAs to adopt an assessment schedule of the dates and assessment amounts that will be necessary to fund the association’s reserve account. AB 2100 is vital to homeowners because it will complete the budgeting process for homeowners by requiring HOAs to provide members with clear and concise information on how much they will have to pay for the association’s special and regular assessment needs, such as the replacement of roofs or repair of building exteriors.
AB 457 (Nunez) Residential Rent Control and Price Controls on Single-Family Homes, OPPOSE is pending on the Senate Floor. This measure would grant government the right to control the price at which a residential property is offered for rent, including all single-family homes and would further regulate the price at which residential rental properties and single family homes are sold. AB 457 grants the President of the United States, our Governor or any local government the right to issue a proclamation of an “abnormal market disruption” for an initial period of 60 days, which may be extended for unlimited 60 day periods based on a subjective determination that the price freeze is necessary to protect the life, property, or welfare of citizens. AB 457 was amended in the final days of session to reduce this time period to an initial 30 days, which may be extended for unlimited 30 day periods. C.A.R. opposes AB 457 because unlike other goods or services that are proposed to be price controlled, rental housing is already heavily regulated by local government. Further, this bill runs contrary to the Costa-Hawkins Act that statutorily exempts rented single-family homes from rent control. Restricting the income potential for all rentals and single family homes would cause an immediate adverse impact on all residential properties.
BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
C.A.R. has considered the following ballot initiatives, which have been qualified for the upcoming ballot. C.A.R. will continue to consider additional measures as they qualify.
PLEASE NOTE: Positions are defined as follows:
1. FOR: This ballot measure is consistent with C.A.R. policy and its passage would be beneficial to the real estate industry.
2. AGAINST: This ballot measure conflicts with C.A.R. policy and its passage could have a harmful effect on the real estate industry.
3. NEUTRAL: This ballot measure may be real estate related, but C.A.R. has chosen not to take a position.
4. NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED: This ballot measure may be significant, but is deemed to not be related to property or real estate transactions.
PROPOSITION 83: Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute.
Summary: This measure would increase penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. The initiative would require that child molesters — if the victim is under 14 — be imprisoned for at least 15 years and increases the penalties across the board for all other sex crimes, including luring minors through the Internet. If released from prison, sex offenders would be monitored with a GPS tracking device for life, and would not be allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school or park. Finally, the measure would expand the definition of a sexually violent predator, and change the current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health and petition by the sexually violent predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge.
Pro: Proponents argue that this measure is necessary to protect children from sex offenders and child molesters and appropriately increases the penalties for committing such crimes against children.
Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL _X__NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITON 88: Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Committee: Taxation Committee
Summary: Proposition 88 would create The Classroom Learning and Accountability Fund to supplement the funds that are allocated by federal, Sate, and local governments for kindergarten through twelfth grades. The funding for The Classroom Learning and Accountability Fund will be generated from the imposition of an annual assessment, or parcel tax, of $50 to be levied on each parcel of real property in California, which will be collected in conjunction with the properties ad valorem property tax. The measure would exempt those individuals that are 65 years of age or older, or severely and permanently disabled from this parcel tax, provided that they are the owner of the parcel and currently reside on the property. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate that the property tax will generate up to $500 million in annual revenue. Proposition 88 will allocate the revenue collected as follows: $175 million to reduce class sizes; $100 million for textbooks and other instructional materials; $85 million for Academic Success facility grants, provided to school not receiving funding the state general obligation bond for school construction or modernization; and $10 million for a data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness. Finally, Proposition 88 provides that these allocations be adjusted annually on a proportional basis to reflect the actual revenues received and interest earned.
(Historical Note: In 1992 C.A.R. developed guidelines for evaluating tax policy. It was determined, among other things that revenue generated by the basic property tax should be deposited in the general funds of appropriate local governments, and that any additional property tax assessment that is collected may only be used to fund benefits to the assessed property and that operating, as opposed to capital, budgets for schools should be funded from the state general fund, not from property taxes.
Further, during the last two legislative sessions C.A.R. has opposed two proposed constitutional amendments (ACA 4 and SCA 8) that sought to reduce the vote threshold for approving parcel taxes by allowing school districts to impose a parcel tax on real property by a vote of 55%, as is currently in place for school bonds, rather then the current 2/3 vote threshold. C.A.R. argued that unlike local school bonds, parcel taxes are not limited to facility construction, can be imposed indefinitely, and because they are a “flat fee” per parcel, place a larger burden of those homeowners least able to afford it. Additionally, C.A.R. argued that reducing the vote threshold for local parcel taxes is unnecessary as local governments have already been given a tool to raise revenues necessary for education via Proposition 39. [The C.A.R. Board of Directors, at its June 2000 meeting, adopted a “FOR” position on Proposition 39 which allows local school construction and facility bonds to be approved by a 55% majority vote.])
Pro: Proponents argue that California students are falling behind, ranking among the bottom 6 states in reading and math due to the states inability to provide sufficient resources for public education to reduce class size, supply instructional materials and provide adequate facilities. Proposition 88 will raise the funds necessary to improve California’s education system, while also protecting property owners against runaway taxes.
Con: Opponents argue that Proposition 88 would set a new precedent for raising taxes and is the first step in the dismantling of the one percent property tax limitation of Proposition 13 passed in 1978. They further argue that Proposition 88 was drafted to create a complex new tax category in order to pass the measure with a simple majority vote, avoiding the 2/3rd vote requirement to raise property taxes that was created by Proposition 13. Additionally, there is no relation to the value of the property or the property owner’s ability to pay. Finally, opponents point out that the amount of this tax would only increase school funding by less the 1 percent
Position: ___ FOR _X_AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITON 90: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Committee: Land Use and Environmental Committee
Summary: Proposition 90 would prohibit the use of eminent domain, unless the property is owned and occupied by a governmental agency, and bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects. In eminent domain actions, government would be required to pay fair market value for the property equaling the highest price that the property would bring on the open market. Proposition 90 redefines what constitutes “just compensation” for the taking of private property as the sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, as if the property had never been taken. The measure also redefines “damage” to include any government action that results in a substantial economic loss to the property (i.e. down zoning, height restrictions, environmental regulations, affordable housing covenants, etc.) and would require the implementing agency to make a compensatory payment for these damages. Proposition 90 requires that condemned private property that ceases to be used for its stated public use must be offered for resale to the prior owner or prior owner’s heir at current fair market value. Further, this measure would require determinations of blight to be made on a parcel-by-parcel basis, and would void any unpublished eminent domain court decisions. Finally, should this measure pass it would go into effect immediately.
(Note: C.A.R.’s Eminent Domain Task Force submitted its final report to the Board of Directors during the June 2006 meetings. As a consequence, C.A.R. would support changes in law that would: (a.) prohibit the taking of single family property by eminent domain for any use other than for a public use; (b.) substantially tighten the definition of “blight” used by redevelopment agencies proposing to create or expand redevelopment project areas; (c.) requires redevelopment agencies to adopt a more quantitative analysis when determining if a parcel is “blighted;” and, or (d.) requires redevelopment agencies to include in their appraisal of a parcel to be purchased, the cost of the replacement parcel.)
Pro: Proponents argue that neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. Proponents argue that Proposition 90 will limit government and protect our homes.
Con: Opponents to Proposition 90 argue that it would limit government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, and would eliminate ALL redevelopment in California. Additionally, with the new definition of “just compensation” it is unclear what would be included to make the property owner whole again after an eminent domain taking.
Position: ___ FOR _X_AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITON 1A: Transportation Funding Protection. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary: Proposition 42, of 2002, required that the funds generated from the sales tax on motor vehicle fuels be deposited into the General Fund and then transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF). This transfer may be suspended if (1) the Governor issues a proclamation stating that the allocation would have a “significant negative impact on the function of government,” and (2) the legislature enacts a statute, passed by a 2/3 vote in each house, suspending the transfer. Proposition 1A would change the provisions for suspending the transfer from the General Fund to the TIF by requiring (1) the Governor’s proclamation to declare that the suspension is necessary “due to a sever fiscal hardship,” (2) the legislature enacts a statute, passed by a 2/3 vote in each house, suspending the transfer, and (3) the legislature enacts a second statute to repay the TIF with interest by the end of the third fiscal year of the original suspension. Further, the measure would allow the transfer to the TIF to be suspended only twice within a 10 year period, and prohibit the withholding of the transfer to the TIF if the previous suspension has not been repaid. Finally, Proposition 1A requires that all funds that were not transferred to the TIF prior to July 1, 2007 be repaid by June 30, 2016, and makes the tax on motor vehicle fuels, and the TIF allocation formula for the distribution of the revenues, permanent.
Pro: Proponents argue that measure will protect transportation funding for traffic congestion relief projects and safety improvements, and prohibit the state sales tax on motor vehicle fuels from being used for any purpose other than transportation improvements.
Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Position: _X__ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITON 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006.
Summary: This measure would enact the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 to authorize a $19.975 billion general obligation bond. The bond authorizes specified amounts for various transportation related projects including: $5.5 billion for transportation corridor improvements; $3.1 billion for California ports infrastructure, security, and air quality improvements; $200 million for school bus retrofit; $2 billion for transportation improvements; $4 billion for transit and rail improvements, $1 billion for state-local transportation projects; $1 billion for transit security and disaster response; $125 million for local bridge retrofit; $250 million for highway-railroad grade and crossing projects; $750 million for highway rehabilitation; $1 billion for local streets and road improvements; and finally $1 billion which will be set aside for county improvements. The measure is estimated to require an annual repayment amount of $1.2 billion over a 30-year period.
Pro: Arguments in support of this measure have not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office.
Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Position: _X__ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITON 1C: Emergency Housing, Community Planning and Farmland Preservation Bond Act of 2006.
Summary: This proposition would enact the Emergency Housing, Community Planning and Farmland Preservation Bond Act of 2006 to authorize the issuance of $2.85 billion in general obligation bonds for state housing programs including: $1.5 billion deposited into the Affordable Housing Account to finance existing housing programs; $850 million deposited into the Regional Planning, Housing, and Infill Incentive Account to finance regional planning for infill development and brownfield clean-up; $300 million to fund and create the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program to provide grants to local governments for infrastructure necessary for the development of higher density uses within ¼ mile of a transit station, and loans for the development and construction of affordable to very low or low-income households; and, finally, $200 million to fund and create the Housing Urban-Suburban-and-Rural Parks Account. [Note: Approximately $ 950 million of this bond would be allocated for homeownership opportunities.] This measure is estimated to require an annual repayment amount of $182 million over a 30 year period. Additionally, this measure makes specific findings and declarations that the approval of the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002 has helped nearly 18,000 families to become homeowners, and assisted in the construction and rehabilitation over 17,000 affordable apartments and over 9,000 shelter spaces. Finally, Proposition 1C declares that California is home to 21 of the 25 least affordable metropolitan areas is the U.S. for homeownership, and home to 9 out of the 10 least affordable counties in the U.S. for rent, thereby increasingly forcing California families to endure longer commutes from affordable housing.
Pro: Proponents to this measure argue that the funds provided under Proposition 46 will be exhausted by the end of 2006 and, if these funds are exhausted, the state will lose a critical weapon in the fight to maintain some level of affordable housing. This measure seeks to maintain the funding for the essential programs that provide resources to assist in the development and protection of affordable housing. Neither non-profit or private housing developers build enough units to satisfy the need for affordable housing. Proposition 1C seeks to offer new incentives to build affordable housing on infill parcels as well as near public transit stations.
Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Position: _X__ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSIITON 1D: Kindergarten – University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006.
Summary: This measure would establish the Kindergarten – University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 to authorize $10.416 billion in state general obligation bonds to provide aid to school districts, county superintendents of schools, county boards of education, the California Community Colleges, the University of California, the Hastings College of Law, and the California State University to construct and modernize education facilities. This measure is estimated to require an annual repayment amount of $592 million over a 30 year period. Additionally, this measure would delay the provision in current law that would allow local governments to condition the approval of new residential developments on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities until 2012.
Pro: Proponents to this measure project an unmet need of $10.6 billion in new construction eligibility and $3.3 billion in modernization eligibility. According to The Office of Public School Construction, only $3.656 billion remain for new construction and modernization of school facilities from the passage of Propositions 47 and 55, and estimate the need for the next five years to be $12.2 billion in order to keep up with the growing demands on the educational system for facilities.
Con: Opponents contend that California still faces a financial crisis, and while the state needs new schools, it does not need to accumulate more debt for taxpayers. Just like the prior ballot measures, Proposition 1D favors Los Angeles Unified School District at the expense of the rest of the state and it will raise our taxes.
Position: ___ FOR ___AGAINST _X__NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
PROPOSITON 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.
Summary: This measure would enact the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 which would authorize $4.09 billion of general obligation bonds to fund infrastructure projects for flood protection and levee repair. The allocations are as follows: $3 billion for levee repair; $500 million for the state flood control subvention program; $200 million for the state flood corridor program to establish floodplain corridors and set back levees in areas where annual flooding takes place; $90 million for floodplain mapping; and $300 million for the storm/flash flood protection program.
Pro: Proponents argue that a catastrophic levee failure in urban areas of the state would flood tens of thousands of homes and major transportation corridors, and would result in long lasting devastation to both local and state economies. Further, proponents contend that Proposition 1E will rebuild and repair California’s most vulnerable flood control structures to protect homes and prevent loss of life from flood-related disasters, including levee failures, flash floods, and mudslides; it protects California’s drinking water supply system by rebuilding delta levees that are vulnerable to earthquakes and storms.
Con: Opposition to this measure has yet to register with the Secretary of State’s Office.
Position: _X__ FOR ___AGAINST ___NEUTRAL ___NOT REAL ESTATE RELATED
REGIONAL
Los Angeles County
Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights are the next in line to get upgraded street signs. Signs are expected to be installed within the next 12 months. The signs are designed to help designate these unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County from the neighboring incorporated areas.
$293,000 has been appropriated for a clean-up of the San Gabriel River. The project involves environmentally sensitive removal of vegetation, litter, debris, and other foreign materials from the streambed of the San Gabriel River in Baldwin Park, Industry, Irwindale and Pico Rivera. The project is expected to be completed by mid-November.
LOCAL
BALDWIN PARK:
The Council promoted Ed Lopez to the position of Chief of Police. Lopez is a 25 year veteran of the department and had been serving as the Interim Police Chief.
Superior Super Warehouse stores has purchased a 59,000 square foot property on Ramona Blvd which was previously occupied by Albertsons in hopes of expanding the chain. The food retailer is working with city officials to forward their plans in spite of a moratorium on grocery stores larger than 10,000 square feet. Although the City Council has eyed the site for a mixed use/urban village concept which would not include a supermarket, residents are frustrated at the lack of a full service supermarket and would welcome Superior. If approved Superior would provide more than 200 jobs to the community.
The Council has enacted a ban on certain types of businesses in the downtown area. The ordinance forbids new businesses, including auto repair shops, pawn shops and manufacturing establishments from opening in the downtown. The area encompasses 120 acres along Ramona Blvd north to Los Angeles Street and west to Baldwin Park Blvd. The Council hopes that the ban will promote uses which will encourage people to dine and shop in the downtown area.
CHINO:
City officials have awarded a $930,970 contract to build a sundial in the center of the Paseo Del Sol Community Services Facility Plaza. Paseo Del Sol is a 20,000 square foot property on Central Avenue that when completed will include two buildings primarily used for medical offices and a facilities center what will be used for counseling services. The project will include the sundial, decorative lighting, a water fountain, landscaping and irrigation improvements should be completed in fall 2007. The City also approved a 600 seat theatre for the Paseo Del Sol site. The theatre which will cost $15 million to build will cost the city $900,000 a year to operate while bringing in revenues of $248,000 annually. Officials said that they will cover the $652,000 annual deficit from other funds. It is hoped that the theatre will attract bigger-quality productions similar to the Los Angeles Playhouse. The 91 seat Seventh Street Theatre will remain open for smaller productions. The theatre is expected to be completed in 18 months.
CHINO HILLS:
Construction of the 800 acre site Vellano development has resumed. The project by Chino Hills Land West LLC was halted in June due to cost overruns. The development will include houses ranging from $900,00 to $2 million, neighborhood parks, a country club and fitness center. 205 homes are slotted for the development.
COVINA:
Los Angeles County Parks and Public Works have installed no-parking signs along Shadydale Avenue between Irwindale and Morada Avenues. The signs have been posted at the request of residents who have complained that the Badillo Street frontage was being used as a makeshift used car lot. Those parking cars along Shadydale Avenue will receive a $50 citation.
The Covina RDA is expected to purchase property at 962 W. San Bernardino Road which is now occupied by Century 21 owned by Jeff Sakiri and several business partners. The property which adjoins the RDA owned property at 980 W. San Bernardino Road, will be sold by the RDA for $4.4525 million to the developer Rich Covina LLC as the site of a Home Depot. The agreement is expected to generate $13.3 million through 2025 for the City of Covina and the RDA. The Century 21 business will relocate to either West Covina or Covina most likely by year end 2006, and Home Depot expected to open in 2008. City officials are also looking at a potential mixed use development which will provide housing and retail space near the civic center. The are included in the proposal includes the northwest corner of Citrus Avenue and San Bernardino Road which would contain a minimum of 148 dwelling units and some office space on 5.2 acres. The southwest corner of citrus and San Bernardino Road which is 4 acres will contain a single commercial building and the northeast corner which is 5.4 acres is proposed for office or office-industrial space. The city hopes that if finalized the development will encourage residents to work, live and socialize in one city.
ROSEMEAD:
Wal-Mart officials have backed away from initial statements indicating a September opening date, saying only that the 207,000 square foot Supercenter on South Walnut Grove Avenue will open sometime in “early fall”. Officials cite the need for final approval from the city, hiring people, stocking shelves and other factors as making it difficult to arrive at a specific opening date. City officials have not yet issued the certificate of occupancy which is in the hands of the planning staff. An early fall opening would put Wal-Mart on track for the Christmas shopping season.
UPLAND:
The City will get approximately 355 new family developments near Cable Airport despite criticisms raised by local residents and neighbors from surrounding cities. Four councilmembers denied an appeal by the Airport Landuse Committee thus paving the way for the development. Councilmember Ray Musser did not vote on the issue due to a conflict of interest from previously owning a business tied to the airport. The Lewis Group of Upland won the bid for the area and plans to build the town homes and single-family developments on the northeast corner of Monte Vista Avenue and Foothill Blvd south to 11th Street. Titled Upland Crossings, the community homes are expected to sell from the low $400,000 to the mid $500,000 range. Many residents believe that the construction of homes in the area will equate to the demise of Cable Airport. Cable Airport which is one of the largest private airports in the nation has been in Upland since 1945.
The Colonies project developers have stated that they are willing to cut a $301 million damage claim against San Bernardino County in half if county officials agree to the deal quickly. Runoff and right of way issues have been a part of the 434 acre property in northeast Upland since 1997. Construction of the 210 Freeway cut off 40 acres at the northern end of the property, and developers knew going in that a 30 acre piece across the property had been used by the county for water recharge and flood control. State plans to build a storm drain on 20th Street meant about 67 acres of the land would be needed to route water. In 2001, the Colonies wanted $25 million from the county to bring the 61-acre water basin up to standards. County officials balked claiming it should cost only $ 3 million. The Colonies filed a lawsuit. On July 31, Superior Court Judge Christopher Warner issued a tentative ruling on the flood control facilities in which he accused the County of San Bernardino of deceit, coercion and jeopardizing public safety. If the Warner decision is upheld a jury could award the Colonies damages in six areas: $108 million for property taken for flood control, $74 million to create a nonprofit to maintain and operate flood-control facilities on the property and protect developers from liability, $43 million in lost land values because the county impeded the developer’s ability to sell 457 lots, $36 million lost because of a delay in opening the Colonies’ shopping center, $28 million for basin construction design and legal fees, $11.5 million in higher infrastructure costs. The developers of the Colonies are urging the county to act upon their offer.
WEST COVINA:
The West Covina Council voted 4-0 to send out a $230,000 conceptual plan for the downtown to developers. The plan which was created after nearly 20 community meetings will focus on the west side of Glendora Avenue, and will include more comments from business owners in the area. The plan includes mixed use housing, a parking structure and entertainment components. The Council also approved an agreement with wireless Internet provider NEXT G to offer service via street lights and traffic signals on the south end of the city, which will generate $2,600 for the city its first year. Officials are investigating the possibility of creating a wireless system which will allow residents to log-on from anywhere in the city.