Town hall meeting raised lots of questions

By Gail Paparian
For the Record Gazette

“We're Dodge - Get Out.” No, these were not words uttered at a Wyatt Earp reenactment. They were some of the rude people yelling at a recent town hall meeting held at the Edward-Dean Museum in Cherry Valley.

Residents of rural Cherry Valley were notified that their questions could be asked and answered at a forum presented by the Riverside Economic Development, Redevelopment Division. The county was represented by staff and Ernest Glover, president of GRC Redevelopment Consultants.

I'm not sure Glover ever really had control of the meeting as he didn't get to make his intended presentation until an hour or so into the meeting. To say that people were being rude is a massive understatement.

I haven't met all five thousand residents of Cherry Valley any more than I have met the approximately 6,000 inhabitants of Sun Lakes in Banning. A small group of outspoken people intimate they represent the entire community. This is not always true.

Through the Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Commission, temporary boundaries for redevelopment were recently approved. This town hall gathering was the first in a series of meetings, environment reviews and public hearings to see if redevelopment could, should, would be established in Cherry Valley.

To show that democracy was being stretched, one audience member stood up querying who opposed redevelopment and about half of those gathered stood up. At this juncture I must point out that only the first slide of the presentation had been made, so the audience was condemning the presentation before hearing any of it.

I believe there are two main outspoken groups in the area: Cherry Valley Acres and Neighbors and Beaumont Citizens for Responsible Growth. I hear them say pretty much the same thing whether they are testifying in Banning, Beaumont, Cherry Valley or Riverside. Many conversations end with the threat or initiation of a law suit. As most of us know, one doesn't have to have a valid reason to sue.

The county folks were still trying to get to the slide presentation without much success and decided to see if a little audience participation would work. A list would be compiled about what people “liked” and “didn't like” about the Cherry Valley community.

The likes included: rural feeling, large lots, 1 acre control growth (except when Supervisor Marion Ashley came in and sanctioned 2 acre lots). The dislikes are almost too long to list. Here's a few: “someone downtown is picking on us,” the sewers, everything is 2 miles down the road, we moved from Beaumont because it's getting to ‘citified,' “taking Cherry Valley from us,” flood control has never been properly addressed by the county and finally, “Beaumont put you up to this.”

E.D. was brought up - that's eminent domain - and Glover tried to point out that the Board of Supervisors had decided NOT to use eminent domain. I'm not sure I really believe this, since peoples' property has been “taken” for public use. I'm reserving my opinion on this one.

People asked how the redevelopment subject could be taken up for a vote. Since it is a state constitutional issue, it must be voted on and could be placed on the ballot by referendum or initiative. No, Cherry Valley would not be voting on this separately. The whole country would.

A bit frustrated, Glover asked why Cherry Valley hadn't incorporated. The responses were a bit more subdued. It seems that under LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission), the folks who can allow incorporation to happen, Cherry Valley didn't have enough of a fiscal base to sustain itself as a city!

Redevelopment money could bring in the ability to enhance blighted commercial buildings (although many in the audience deny there is any blight in Cherry Valley); help with facades, provide marketing money and provide write downs on buildings to make things economically feasible.

People didn't seem to consider this information for long until many indicated that their properties would then be reassessed. “No,” Glover pointed out. Under Prop. 13, there are only 3 ways to re-assess: Sell property, add on to property, have an annual inflation increase of 2%.

Staff tried to tell the audience that MACs (Municipal Advisory Committees) had a strong say in what an area wanted. People didn't seem to want to hear about this and were certainly not interested in the county providing parks for the area. One resident said, “Our yards here are our parks.” Subject closed.

Measure B was mentioned several times. This was the recent contentious failing ballot measure that would have required the installation of sewers in the Cherry Valley area rather than the current septic system (currently under moratorium). Many in the audience opined that they thought this was an end run by the County to get them to install sewers.

Some disavowed the existence of “blue baby” syndrome, due to the amounts of nitrates leaking into the Beaumont water table.

HEY, I LIVE IN BANNING AND IF BEAUMONT'S WATER SUPPLY IS TAINTED; AND BANNING BUYS WATER FROM BEAUMONT AND THE SAN GORGONIO PASS WATER AGENCY Š HOW LONG WILL IT BE BEFORE THE CONTAMINATION MIGRATES?

I don't blame people for not wanting to bear the cost of installing sewers but the reality is that everyone pays unless they live on a lunar crater! I've already made my contribution to paying for my portion of building and maintaining the sewer system (not voluntarily, I might add). Then, as a Sun Lakes resident, I received a $24 a month increase on my association dues to help pay for the millions of dollars of road repairs needed within the community.

I cannot go to other members of the community to ask them to defray the costs of these roads, yet I pay to help defray city/county costs. There's no free ride, no free lunch and no free sewers.

What should be the bigger question - whether you covet or decry development is - Is our water supply being contaminated by nitrates and other foreign sources? If any part of the answer is “yes,” it must be addressed and remediated immediately.

We do not have the luxury of wasting an already seriously endangered resource. Before folks throw stones at those who represent the County of Riverside, why not use their considerable money and clout to determine if there is a serious problem contaminating our water supply. We need to dig deep and find a solution!

Gail and her husband Bill Paparian created a service called Writing Solutions in 1996. Gail has also written for a number of local and national magazines and newspapers over the years.

Currently, she provides public relations consulting services for the Banning Unified School District. She can be reached at info@WritingSolutions.com.

Print this story

Email this story