On the city council's agenda for the Wed. 16th meeting is a council vote to approve a big contract (over $400,000) for the design of the public works yard.
Does it make sense that they are going to spend this money prior
to swapping the land or getting a rezone.
What did I miss?
Was the city so confident that Prop A would pass that they put this issue on the agenda and forgot to take it off?
Or, are they awarding contracts without a site?
appears from agenda they have this on consent calender #3. folks need to email council members and ask that they take it off consent calendar and address city government acknowledgement of defeat of prop A and protection by city government of 130 acres of ag open space preserve.
ReplyDeleteor an EIR.
ReplyDeleteCouncil tries to do that all the time, just pass stuff thru the device of the consent calendar. Dan Dalager told me he doesn't have time to keep up with all the staff reports, agenda items, run his lawnmower biz, too.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, Council thinks it has every right to change the in perpetuity agreement, still, re public works yard, by a 4 to 1 vote of Council Members, despite the public mandate of No on A.
Council is overstepping bigtime. People come together. Try to go to Council Meeting tomorrow, or e-mail Council, or both.
There is a reason this on the consent calendar. City thinks it is already a done deal, now contract remains to be awarded, only.
Wrong again. Don't tread on us.
City Clerk says one has to be present to remove item from Consent Calendar.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue that probably went thru on the Consent Calendar, that I just heard about through Gil Foerster, is Resolution 2005-52, making a lot more developments categoricaly exempt from review by the Coastal Commission, including the proposed Public Works Yard, I assume.
I'll forward Gil's letter to JP, so you can check it out. City is up to its sneaky tricks, still, even after public vote. Arnold was humbled by all of propositions' defeat. Why is our Council still so cocky, sneaky, deceitful, unfair?
UPDATE
ReplyDeleteMayor Dan "Gomer" Dalager voted against the contract...
But it is amazing that he voted against it. Why would he do that????????????
He put it on the consent calendar, where trivial items that need no explanation and that no one could object to would be found, that is, in normal Cities. If he wasn't 100% sure that the entire council was going to vote for it he shouldn't have voted for it (and he is a part of the voting council).
Why is it that no one thinks Dan is being paid off when he attempts to sneak things through like that? It is because we know that you don't have to pay him off. He is gullible and doesn't need unethical incentives. Maybe he didn’t realize he was sneaking it through. Which is more dangerous the inept or the corrupt?