I have a hard time reading periodicals that swing wildly in all directions, hoping to strike a blow on a non-existent foe. The January issue of the Fullerton Observer is such a periodical.
Chevron stands in the way of Chevron
The Fullerton Observer's January 2011 has an odd front headline that is causing a lot of people to scratch their heads.
The actual headline, Chevron Stands in the Way of City Receiving Funds to Save Coyote Hills as a Park, is wholly inaccurate. Chevron is not standing in the way of the City receiving funds. Chevron is exercising its constitutional right in its law suit with the City after the City failed to follow through on the terms of their mutual agreement.
Lastly, it is completely reasonable for any property owner to seek just compensation for the sale of their property. Why do so many people continue to believe that Chevron should just give up their land and their rights simply because they are a big wealthy corporation?
Chevron's property is our only hope
Another headline, Coyote Hills Has A Regional Park, is a letter to the Observer by David Hoonsbeen that pushes more open space propaganda. Mr. Hoonsbeen letter makes a common, but incorrect, argument that Fullerton lacks open space.
Just a few feet from Chevron's West Coyote Hills property sits Clark Regional Park. It is a great park with a large lake, hill top vista, athletic fields, and a museum. It is an amazing park that many seem to brush aside.
Also in north Fullerton is Craig Regional Park. Craig is another great public facility with a lake and tons of trails. On any given day, take a look at the tree tops and you might see one of the many owls napping.
There are many other smaller parks in the region that are also ignored to lend to the perception that Fullerton and the northern OC cities are somehow park-deficient. The reality is that we are park-rich!
Then come the comparisons to south OC. The comparison is apples to oranges. Much of south OC is/was owned by the Irvine Company, Rancho Mission Viejo, or other large holding companies. As a condition of their developments these companies must pay certain park fees or actually build parks. The Irvine Company and Rancho Mission Viejo have both been generous with their gifts which has helped stem some of the criticism for their massive housing projects.
In the case of Chevron's West Coyote Hills, Chevron was going to give the City of Fullerton more than half of their land for open space and park purposes. When was the last time another developer was so generous in Fullerton?
The open space answer
Since the City of Fullerton is so good at bulldozing private property around Valencia and Highland where they have evicted hundreds of very low-income residents to make way for moderate income housing, why doesn't the City take their bulldozers from and direct their attention on those big homes the Fullerton has hiding in the hills? Seriously though, I would not be surprised if the following decades brought us expansions of redevelopment into middle class neighborhoods to make way for even more open space.
It seems that many open space advocates want you to give up your rights and property without just compensation.
The sad truth
Because some feel deprived of parks, their jealousy has caused them to toss grenades in every direction. Those self-initiated and finite inadequacies have pitted neighbor against neighbor when we should be coming together to recognize the rights of individuals and companies. We all have a right to the use and enjoyment of our own property without the influence of big money, emotional diatribes, or fear mongering. The Fifth Amendment guarantees us that we shall not "...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Chevron stands in the way of Chevron
The Fullerton Observer's January 2011 has an odd front headline that is causing a lot of people to scratch their heads.
The actual headline, Chevron Stands in the Way of City Receiving Funds to Save Coyote Hills as a Park, is wholly inaccurate. Chevron is not standing in the way of the City receiving funds. Chevron is exercising its constitutional right in its law suit with the City after the City failed to follow through on the terms of their mutual agreement.The headline and article lead the reader to believe that the City would receive the funds and that it would somehow help the City. Actually the funds would be given to the seller, Chevron, not to the buyer for far less than fair-market value.
Lastly, it is completely reasonable for any property owner to seek just compensation for the sale of their property. Why do so many people continue to believe that Chevron should just give up their land and their rights simply because they are a big wealthy corporation? If that logic were applied across the economic spectrum of business, Microsoft would give everyone in Fullerton Windows 7 for free and Disney would give all of us free passes. It wouldn't take long for Microsoft and Disneyland to go belly up, much like Fullerton will if we don't get our collective heads together and fix City Hall.
At left is a letter from Pacific Coast Homes that explained to OCTA why the deal wouldn't work for Chevron (click images to view). Don't forget, it was the City who backed out of the deal, not Chevron's Pacific Coast Homes.
Chevron's property is our only hope
Another headline, Coyote Hills Has A Regional Park, is a letter to the Observer by David Hoonsbeen that pushes more open space propaganda. Mr. Hoonsbeen letter makes a common, but incorrect, argument that Fullerton lacks open space.
Just a few feet from Chevron's West Coyote Hills property sits Clark Regional Park. It is a great park with a large lake, hill top vista, athletic fields, and a museum. It is an amazing park that many seem to brush aside.
Also in north Fullerton is Craig Regional Park. Craig is another great public facility with a lake and tons of trails. On any given day, take a look at the tree tops and you might see one of the many owls napping.
There are many other smaller parks in the region that are also ignored to lend to the perception that Fullerton and the northern OC cities are somehow park-deficient. The reality is that we are park-rich!
Then come the comparisons to south OC. The comparison is apples to oranges. Much of south OC is/was owned by the Irvine Company, Rancho Mission Viejo, or other large holding companies. As a condition of their developments these companies must pay certain park fees or actually build parks. The Irvine Company and Rancho Mission Viejo have both been generous with their gifts which has helped stem some of the criticism for their massive housing projects.
In the case of Chevron's West Coyote Hills, Chevron was going to give the City of Fullerton more than half of their land for open space and park purposes. When was the last time another developer was so generous in Fullerton?
The open space answer
Since the City of Fullerton is so good at bulldozing private property around Valencia and Highland where they have evicted hundreds of very low-income residents to make way for moderate income housing, why doesn't the City take their bulldozers from and direct their attention on those big homes the Fullerton has hiding in the hills? Seriously though, I would not be surprised if the following decades brought us expansions of redevelopment into middle class neighborhoods to make way for even more open space.
It seems that many open space advocates want you to give up your rights and property without just compensation.
The sad truth
Because some feel deprived of parks, their jealousy has caused them to toss grenades in every direction. Those self-initiated and finite inadequacies have pitted neighbor against neighbor when we should be coming together to recognize the rights of individuals and companies. We all have a right to the use and enjoyment of our own property without the influence of big money, emotional diatribes, or fear mongering. The Fifth Amendment guarantees us that we shall not "...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete