Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-2015 Public Comment WhitneyMAR '16 'r015 Lomeli, Monique Subject: FW: St. Fraty's Day -- -what else? COUNCIL MEETING:- MY ' / r From: Sharon Whitney [mailto:whitney.sharon(o)a oail.com] ITEM NO.: - Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 5:14 PM To: Linda White Cc: Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Mejia, Anthony; Lichtig, Katie; Gesell, Steve; Dietrick, Christine Subject: Re: St. Fraty's Day -- -what else? Linda, Frankly, I guess I have already reached a "tipping point " -- beyond anger (or maybe it's just submerged at the moment). I think I have come to a point of "resignation." My resignation, however, does not admit defeat nor excuse the collective abdication of protecting neighborhood wellness by the specific and cumulative effects of both CSU and City land -uses allowed and /or tolerated despite significant unmitigated impacts on neighborhood wellness. It simply says, "I've grown accustomed to its face." I agree with you that the piece- meal /incremental City ordinance approach and the "let's talk" approach adhered to by CSU has so -far yielded no effective change in the problematic culture with which we have become inundated. On the other hand, those approaches are still probably better than nothing. And al /though we are sick and tired of this long fight, I guess, as a student of major democratic social movements relying on legal strategies, I'm resigned to major change taking a relatively long time. Are there untried but feasible steps? I'm trying to think "out of the box" here. Frankly, I believe college towns with taxpayer - supported colleges and universities might consider banding together and legislating at the state level to amend their state constitutions so as to enable local municipalities to enact zoning ordinances which protect family occupancy in areas comprised of single- family detached dwelling units. I am no lawyer, but I am sure something could be crafted that does not run afoul of legitimate interpretations of the constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection of the laws. By- the -way, I don't consider the current interpretation that allows groups UL L1V� UL L[LVLte- U11LC1dl.CU dUU -Lub 11V1ily together in zones designed for single- family occupants as a,legitimate interpretation of those constitutional rights. Nor do I think that ordinances requiring permits for six or more as "probably unconstitutional." As things now stand, I'm feeling there has been a "taking of private property without just compensation" because of ongoing "public uses" of privately owned housing. The public use are the "mini- dorms" that have evolved in our residential neighborhoods. These have come about as a function of insufficient on- campus housing by taxpayer- supported colleges and universities and inadequate city land -use and circulation protections of neighborhood wellness in existing residential neighborhoods. z Of course, I guess there would be just compensation if we all wanted to all sell our homes to buyers so they can convert our homes into mini - dorms, or if we all wanted to permit waivers and re- zonings. I know we don't. I know we have fought those steps. Instead, we want to protect, preserve, and improve the quality of our residential neighborhoods. So, maybe we need to add another element to our existing legal strategy of fighting a flawed CSU certified EIR. Just a thought; of course we would need competent legal advice to pursue an additional strategy. My two cents worth. Sharon P.S. There are undisclosed recipients of my two cents worth. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Linda White <lindaleewhitel5(c,Qmail.com> wrote: This is a letter that I had no intention of writing. Everything being said about the St. Fraty's Day fiasco has been said before -- -many times before. However, after listening to a week of banal responses from both the City and more specifically from the University, I had to write. We are all relieved that there were no serious injuries associated with this irresponsible behavior. However, this debacle should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Those of us living in the neighborhoods surrounding the University have been pleading with the University, City, and Police to do something proactive for at least 16 years. As our pleas have fallen on deaf ears, the situation has just worsened. Why must it take a party of 3,000, a roof collapse, and injury to 8 students for the City and Police to take notice. Where was your concern March 31, 2014, when the party of 500 on Slack St. did not even rise to a mention in any local media. (See attached photo.) Where was your concern on March 25, 2014, when over 200 residents spoke at the Town Hall Meeting about our concerns and frustrations with the proposed freshman dorms . You later stated that the University needs to C build more on- campus housing and you don't care where on the campus they put it. If the dorms were located closer to the inner core, perhaps the City police would have had a few minutes more warning from the University police that the dorms were emptying and moving into the neighborhoods. What will happen when we have 1475 freshmen right in our front yards with no buffer? Where was your concern when you inadequately negotiated for mitigation of the negative impacts associated with the proposed building of 1475 freshman beds on the corner of Slack and Grand. You ignored the pleas from the neighborhoods to secure effective and adequate patrolling of the adjacent party neighborhood. You ignored your own staff reports outlining the many negative impacts not adequately addressed in the EIR. Your $530,000 total mitigation pay off is totally inadequate. The police must be commended in handling this in a manner that did not turn into a riot. That is a big success. Unfortunately, we have been asking that the Police do something proactive before the situation becomes dangerous and uncontrollable as did this situation. If the increased fines in the safety enhancement zone deters parties, then keep them in place year round, not at the discretion of the police chief. The students already know that they have only a 14% chance of receiving a fine. In their immature and drunken state those seem like good party- hardy odds. Chief Gesell is quoted as saying, "Enforcement alone solves very few problems." Have we tried enforcement yet? If enforcement doesn't work, what does? As a resident of these neighborhoods, I can tell you that whatever you have tried is not working. As to another ordinance outlawing roof sitting, if we don't enforce our present ordinances why would another work? Don't we already have an ordinance that does not allow furniture on the roof? How well is this enforced? (See photo attached) Regarding Councilman Ashbaugh's concerns, he should do as adults do to view the beautiful sunsets and take his wife to Santa Rosa Park, Laguna Lake, Morro Bay or Los Osos not to his roof. I must agree whole - heartedly with Councilwoman Christianson, "... legislating against one dumb choice at a time is not a particularly effective way to approach this very serious problem ". Chief Gesell is quoted as saying, "There is no legal remedy to order them off the roof'. How dangerous does behavior need to be before a policeman can warn citizens of danger? Does common sense disappear when a police uniform is put on? Is this the same attitude when students are seen setting up their weekend beer pong on front yards? Why don't policemen ( or specially- trained - part-time security) act when a situation is actionable, before it gets out of hand and dangerous? You don't need to ticket or cite, just let the students know that you are present and patrolling the area (hopefully on foot, bicycle, or Segway). Inform them of the ordinances in place. Give a name, phone number and offer of assistance if the party gets out of hand. Leave the legal wrangling to the City Attorney when parents complain that their spoiled darlings are not permitted to drink and smoke pot on the roof of their private home. Leave it to the City Attorney to deal with the few irresponsible parents that might complain about their pampered offspring being denied their constitutional right to disturb neighbors by getting drunk on a private front yard located on a public street. How many parents do you believe would actually fight stupid behavior? Take a chance, don't let fear of the courtroom tie the police hands to act. Chief Gesell is also quoted as saying that police and university officials need to be more proactive in keeping tabs on social media to keep future events from spinning out of control. This is true but if the Police already had a proactive presence in the neighborhood (rather than being complaint driven) every Thursday, Friday and Saturday they would be able to keep events under control by their presence. The students know from years of neglect by the Police, City, and University that they are participating founders in the creation of Isla Vista North. In my very first letter to the City Council 18 months ago I said that if you have decided to abdicate my neighborhood to student housing, a la Isla Vista, at least have the courage to tell us. I repeat that plea. If on the other hand, you value this once diverse middle class neighborhood then please fight for us. We are tired of going it alone. The few of us who remain are dwindling and almost ready to move. Will the Mayor who lives right in the middle of this conflict be able to take part in this discussion or will our timid City Attorney choose the easy way out by invoking a strict interpretation of the FPPC letter? Finally, I must say that the City has at least expressed some concern for this situation. I hope that it will not be forgotten when International news forgets us. The City response has been more concerned than that of Cal Poly. We have yet to receive an apology from the University. We hear nothing but the same concern for students that we have heard in the past. It is true that President Armstrong's responsibility ends at the school border at Slack St. Your responsibility, however, begins at that same border. I would like to encourage you to realize, take ownership of, and exert the powerful influence that you have over the University. It may be easier to ignore or diminish your influence but it is time to stop being passive and submissive to the University. It is no longer acceptable to merely accept a seat at the table of the many CP Kumbaya committees. The velvet glove must be removed. We are the host City for this University and we have been abused and disrespected for far too long. After all, President Armstrong is not picking up his new Warren J. Baker Center for Science and Mathematics and moving. Begin to represent us the way President Armstrong represents his students. We should demand equal partnership. San Luis has as much, and perhaps even more, to offer the University as the University has to offer us. If this University was not located in San Luis, it would be as popular as Cal State Bakersfield or even Cal Poly Pomona. Please don't abdicate your responsibility to this once desirable, diverse, northern corner of the city by allowing it to continue to devolve into Isla Vista North. We are all teachers and students for each other.