-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by beshiva:
y...bring people along in a gentle way, perhaps, even trying to think in terms "we are all in this together". OUr elected officials get elected, and then don't seem to give a damn or at least not enough. this particular issue (and there are many) was pushed through, ignoring the concerns of the public in the guise that we are children and they know better for US
but maybe we aren't all 'in this together' if by that you mean we all (except for those officials who somehow don't give a damn) want the same thing.
this thread is packed with people, many who don't live in Santa Rosa, who are, in a Trump-like fashion, vilifying anyone who doesn't feel exactly as they do. I have yet to see anyone acknowledge that some might prefer the new look over the current one on its merits. Personally, I find the current setup pretty charmless, like much of Santa Rosa. "Lipstick on a pig" to me is a few not-particularly-old-or-healthy redwoods in a sterile urban environment.
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
I think a lot of people are in for the reunification, but they didn't have to tear all those trees down and they don't have to put 4 lanes of parked cars and 2 lanes of moving traffic within the square. Hopefully I will get time to physically show the plan I proposed to them with only one reply and no followup on what he told me.(one of the council members).
The health hazards of the extra car exhaust on everyone frequenting the square are nothing to sneeze at (or cough or choke or get cancer from). My plan adds 60 spaces away from the center of the square and puts them at the perimeter.
As far as sterile, if they go with the plan they have; you will get sterile. The police will not be able to patrol like they want either with 4 lanes of parked cars blocking their visual path. The restaurants will have to deal with the fine black soot that they don't have right now.
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:
I know I will probably get stoned for this, but really, aren't there a lot more important causes than this to activate about.......
For me it's far more about the irresponsible money allocation. There are a LOT more important things to spend 10 million of our property taxes on and that take precedence over parking spaces by miles.
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Oh please......if Santa Rosa's courthouse square is the heart of the empire, we are all in trouble......
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:
the heart of the redwood empire is being torn out - the redwoods there cut!
symbolic and actual.
jude
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Sarcasm is a way to put someone in their place. More gentle than stoning, but in the same spirit. As for being in trouble, yes, you are correct on that, whether you realize or not.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:
Oh please......if Santa Rosa's courthouse square is the heart of the empire, we are all in trouble......
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Actually there has been someone who said they'd prefer a more streamlined look, although I don't recall the exact words, or who it was. But you could find it if you want.
I haven't seen much vilifying except toward the city council who apparently pulled a fast one on the residents,
and completely ignored their opposition.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
but maybe we aren't all 'in this together' if by that you mean we all (except for those officials who somehow don't give a damn) want the same thing.
this thread is packed with people, many who don't live in Santa Rosa, who are, in a Trump-like fashion, vilifying anyone who doesn't feel exactly as they do. I have yet to see anyone acknowledge that some might prefer the new look over the current one on its merits. Personally, I find the current setup pretty charmless, like much of Santa Rosa. "Lipstick on a pig" to me is a few not-particularly-old-or-healthy redwoods in a sterile urban environment.
-
RAISING FUNDS for Lawsuit to Slow Courthouse Square
Hello everyone,
As much as we would like to believe in City Council's ability to be clean about public participation for the funding of Courthouse Square, I think it would be wise to at least begin to immediately raise funds to see what resources we can pull together.
If any of you are resourceful in this area then I invite you to contact us right away. Thank you for your support!
-
RAISING FUNDS for Civil Rights Violation Lawsuit Santa Rosa City Council Courthouse Square
Hi everyone,
Quick update, as I'm hitting the hay. Please forgive any type-o's.
I just returned from the Santa Rosa City Council meeting at midnight, after being there most of the day. We had many opportunities for good commentary.
We utmost believe there has been a City Charter Section 10 violation, and perhaps one other. Its not as if we can't prove the violations. It's not as if we can't refer the matter of City Charter violations to the Civil Grand Jury of Sonoma County (not what it's cracked up to be). Or, to submit for attention to the District Attorney or State Attorney General. But these are long lead times to admonishment, and if lucky to prosecution. But it won't help protect our civil rights in the immediate.
Which means that a lawsuit is one way to stymie the Courthouse Square long enough to raise awareness to the funding issue and lack of public vote. We raise awareness by bringing the City Council back to the use of the City Charter to allow for public participation in the funding plan for Courthouse Square.
But in the meantime, a goal of raising $3,000 - $4,500 would likely be all it takes to hire a municipal attorney to file a lawsuit and stop any further movement of the Square for a reasonable amount of time.
AS FOR THE TREES: There are those who will not venture further, as they feel "what's the use"? Conversely, there are those who think the project is still worth stopping on grounds of a City Charter violation, (civil rights) which we think is easy to prove. Imagine for a moment if the Charter violation can be substantiated. Then what? Perhaps this would invalidate the Council's decision to further Courthouse Square on the grounds of malfeasance? Would an educated legal review of the evidence be worth raising $3,500 for representation in a lawsuit?
Many have been greatly hurt and betrayed by the "manner" in which City Council navigated the process to passing the Courthouse Square Project. Now fast forward and ask yourself: is the manner in which Council denied public participation to funding knowledge of Courthouse Square acceptable to you? Is it acceptable that Council may have deliberately sought to block your input into funding of the Square? Is it acceptable that Council, by way of inhibiting your public input through community boards may very well have cost you a vote on a $20 million dollar project?
If your answer is a resounding "no", then we ask that you give us your pledge of help (NO MONEY for now). But we will need it very soon! For we must swiftly set up a verified and legally documented local bank trust account for receipt of donations. We don't need much. If each person gave $10, then we would only need 300 donations to raise $3,000. We will look into some type of online fund-raising tool. We have a couple of people helping here.
Please give it some thought. For us, this is NOW a matter of a civil rights violation. And really, wasn't that the case all the time; trees or no trees? The tress were awful enough to see destroyed. But if we let the City Council get away with violating our City Charter, THE PEOPLES City Charter, which is the legal equivalent of our nations Constitution, then we have much bigger things to worry about.
Thank you for your support!
-
Re: RAISING FUNDS for Civil Rights Violation Lawsuit Santa Rosa City Council Courthouse Sq
I will pledge $20 from my social security income. I hope to see others step up to stand up for our rights to be heard. Many small donations can make a big difference, as shown by Bernie Sanders. If we don't use the limited amount of power we have, we will lose it, and continue to be steamrolled by those in positions to make decisions about how our tax money is spent, while completely disregarding our voices. We vote with our pennies every time we buy something. Let's buy some power!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:
....
But in the meantime, a goal of raising $3,000 - $4,500 would likely be all it takes to hire a municipal attorney to file a lawsuit and stop any further movement of the Square for a reasonable amount of time....
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
I understood Jude's comment to be referring to the fact that Santa Rosa is our biggest city in Sonoma County and Old Courthouse Square is the heart of the city. In a way, it IS the heart of the redwood empire, like it or not Scamperwillow.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:
Oh please......if Santa Rosa's courthouse square is the heart of the empire, we are all in trouble......
-
Re: RAISING FUNDS for Civil Rights Violation Lawsuit Santa Rosa City Council Courthouse Sq
I was thinking the same thing this morning. This is like the Bernie movement on a local scale. I don't have a job right now and I'll kick in a few bucks.
Yes, the word "steamrolled" is a good one and I was thinking "ramrodded" too.There were people of many ages at the council meeting last night, which I was impressed by; young people getting into the process and reminding me of the times when we were fighting for racial justice, the end of the VietNam war, the breakup of monopolies (which have now seeped back in because the fight is never over), the cleaning up of the environment, and implementing the will not to be steamrolled into compliance by the "powers that be".
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
I will pledge $20 from my social security income....
-
Re: RAISING FUNDS for Civil Rights Violation Lawsuit Santa Rosa City Council Courthouse Sq
Thank you! We have calls in to attorneys to size things up. We will need time to understand scope, cost, merit of case, etc.
We appreciate any support toward the fund should it come to fruition. I'll keep the updates coming in.
In the meantime, if anyone has had decent experience with online fundraising and has time to help with that, it sure would be a blessing. Not yet, but if/when.
Thank you for your support!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
I will pledge $20 from my social security income....
-
Re: RAISING FUNDS for Civil Rights Violation Lawsuit Santa Rosa City Council Courthouse Sq
There are several online fundraising sites, and some take a higher percentage than others. I'm only familiar with GoFundMe, but there are others.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:
...We appreciate any support toward the fund should it come to fruition...
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
...this thread is packed with people, many who don't live in Santa Rosa, who are, in a Trump-like fashion, vilifying anyone who doesn't feel exactly as they do...
I'm not up on this topic very much, but I do believe the Courthouse Square project has been in the works for quite a few years now, perhaps a couple decades, and there has been endless public posturing and arguing over that period and now they are finally gong ahead with the project with all their ducks in a row. Now all the waccos come out screaming like this is something new that is being ramrodded ahead without any public comment. Well, folks, that's just not so
-
Re: RAISING FUNDS for Civil Rights Violation Lawsuit Santa Rosa City Council Courthouse Sq
I can pledge $20 to this cause. All of the points I read here have validity. When I found out about this plan just a couple months ago and went to a few council members to voice my concern, I thought I was a Johnny Come Lately since they all said this process had been going on for years.
Yes, it had been in the works for years but most folks thought unification was simply bringing both parts together and removing Mendocino Avenue in the middle. That the big, mature trees would come down to do the reunification was not a part of most people's understanding. This should have been clearly communicated in public documents before it became a done deal. The process Santa Rosa City planners and city council used was definitely deceptive and technically could be shown to be in violation of CEQA, I don't know. This project has so many ramifications to it and almost none of it good. They should not just quietly get away with this travesty.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
...Many small donations can make a big difference, as shown by Bernie Sanders. ...
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Gualala Spring 2016!
People get ready, Save the Redwoods of our Sonoma County Natural Heritage before it's gone !
Large Scale Logging slated for this 'summer' 2016 all along lower Gualala River watershed.
Gualala river park system was outbid by outside exploitive logging profiteers on this part of the river.
Camp, Enjoy Nature, Recreate, and Protect the Forest. Occupy, monitor, publicize, and RESIST! :thumbsup:
Gualala Spring 2016!
Interactive Maps showing the terrible extent of the proposed THPs (timber harvest plans):
https://dms-usa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingSwipe/?appid=805607d811bc417bb966692e078fb601#
https://gualalariver.org/slider-front-page/maps-of-logging-plans-on-the-lower-gualala-river/
Gualala Spring 2016!
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
This is the LETTER TO THE EDITOR in YESTERDAY'S PD
FROM THE DAUGHTER OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO HAD THE REDWOODS PLANTEDRedwood dreams
EDITOR: It is with sadness that I have observed the trees being removed from the Santa Rosa downtown square. My father, landscape architect Leland Noel, had a certain legacy in mind for “the city designed for living” when he had these redwood trees planted. His dream was shade for the children. His dream was shelter for bird song. His dream was laughter of family and celebration of community coming together under them. I know he would be disappointed in the decisions that resulted in the killing of these magnificent giants, sequoia sempervirens. We have all lost something extremely precious.
PAMELA NOEL
Santa Rosa
2/24/16
-
CHANGE: RAISING FUNDS for Email-Blast & Mail Campaign Santa Rosa Courthouse Square
Hello everyone!
UPDATE to fundraising strategy and a request for volunteers and one coordinator.
We would be ever so grateful for this short-term request of volunteerism. We have much time into this ourselves. Our BIG attempt to demand democracy in allowing a peoples vote (not City Council's) for Courthouse Square funding.
So...
For now the fundraising strategy has changed from requesting donations for legal fees to requesting donations for a media email blast campaign to Santa Rosa homeowners and renters. We mention renters not only because their vote has been denied as the rest of Santa Rosans, but because they are pressuring City Council to refrain from Courthouse Square on different cause. You see, they NEED the money allocated to alleviate the critical housing shortage in Santa Rosa.
We will seriously look at a snail mail campaign as well. If we do this, we HAVE AN OFFER to make to a good graphic artist to donate design of the mailer-postcard and email blast template. That is, free piggy-back advertisement on our outgoing mailer piece reaching thousand of homes. We have no issue with a small graphic related advertisement on the outgoing mailer, so long as it does no take away from the campaign message. As for the email blast: it will come with metrics for measurement, like click through, open rate, and actual time spent reading the email. Total cost for all = $4,500. Though, we could sure use some help from anyone who wants to price out other email and snail mail blast services for cost comparison. Please feel free to contact us and we can send you a link to the type of service we're looking for to make it easy to shop around.
So why NO lawsuit?
The short answer is that we can indeed use a lawsuit to stop the Courthouse Square. However, we think that with the time we have remaining before City Council attempts to pass a resolution for funding, that it would be better to use donated funds to demographically target Santa Rosan's who will object most to the $10 million dollar funding of Courthouse Square. In the long run, Santa Rosa residents are the support we will need no matter what. So why not educate them now?
Lastly, if anyone is interested in lending a hand with whatever small amount of time and talent you may have, we'd be deeply appreciative the gesture. Take heart that this campaign will not last for an indefinite amount of time. Wheeew right? For we have a specific time-line to meet in order to achieve our goal.
The good news is that we have two editors who have contacted us. One through Waccobb and the other outside. Many thanks in advance to Colleen and Janet should the need arise. We're not sure what editing comes with the email blast purchase package, so give us a little time to sort this out.
We need two signature gatherers in downtown Courthouse Square. We will train and supply materials in a heart-beat. Its easy to understand. Qualities of a good signature gatherer is someone who is respectful when prospective signers say "no". Does not engage in argumentative debate, and are drama and hyperbole free. And lastly being sharp on one's game; well spoken and good clean attire goes a long way!
Lastly, we need social media novices or experts who would donate time spreading the word about the cause for the Courthouse Square project so that Santa Rosa citizens may exercise their choice for the Square by VOTE! Places like Facebook, Nextdoor.com, Twitter. Please give us your ideas!
Thank you for your support!
-
LETTER Sent to City of Santa Rosa Chief Financial Officer, Ms. Debbi Lauchner
PLEASE FORGIVE THE TYPE-O's
Hello Ms. Lauchner,
Below is a link to information regarding use of COP's as reviewed by the Placer County Grand Jury. The review and subsequent report was generated from a public complaint in 2001-2002. I'm sending this report to you because it exemplifies our public concerns. It confirms our stance and or fears over use of COP's as a form of finance for municipalities and when inadequate public participation results in fiscal controversy.
https://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/grandjury/2001-2002/COPS.pdf
Also, we have Cc:d this email to the CAB... Santa Rosa "Community Advisory Board". We are attempting to educate them as well so they are better able to convey our community input and concerns to Santa Rosa City Council. As a side-note: we have proposed to CAB to place on their agenda an opportunity for our group to present an easy to understand slide show-speech about Certificates of Participation.
We want to achieve a goal of educating CAB to influence City Council to:
--- Use the Santa Rosa City Charter Section 10 and 28 to enable the citizens of Santa Rosa to participate in the financial decision making process of Courthouse Square. Notably, we want for public participation to the maximum level of public awareness through news media, that which City Council should provide, since the funding mechanism of "Certificates of Participation" is complex and not easily conveyed in public hearings, study sessions and the like.
--- We would like this participation to show itself in the same manner as City Council allowed for transparency and public participation for the design review of Courthouse Square. These methods are:
--- Public survey... not sure which form, perhaps Internet or by mail, which ever is known for achieving the highest participation and best metrics to measure results.
--- Retroactive public hearings, study sessions, special meetings, downtown subcommittee meetings, 1st and 2nd community meetings, and CIP meetings for Courthouse Square. All this for the lost opportunity (precious time) of public participation to give public comment and participation to the finance aspects of Courthouse Square.
We think it's reasonable to ask for this, since the same weight of public participation was given to the ethics, transparency and disclosure of design review for Courthouse Square. We strongly plea for retroactive consideration. We think that City Charter sections 10 and 28 will validate our plea. We think that citizens were not given due process through City Charter for public participation via CAB and CIP at the time it was necessary for a public review-full disclosure of the finance methods for Courthouse Square. Retroactive status would go back as far as September 22, 2015 or earlier when talks of finance of Courthouse Square were taking place.
For example:
Guideline 17 page 41 of the CDIAC primer for use of COP's, aka, "Certificates of Participation", as well as, the Placer County Grand Jury Complaint Review of use of COPs, state that it is widely known that the public has long been left out of full disclosure in COP funding. The inadequate of disclosure by local governments has led to a public distrust of COP's to fund city projects. Thus, we think this substantiates further the reasonableness of our concerns for full public disclosure of COP finance of Courthouse Square before City Council votes for a resolution.
We citizens are in an emergency mode to attempt to influence City Council to pay attention to the fiduciary and moral duty of ethics and transparency it upholds for the interests of the citizens it represents.
Lastly, by continually reaching out the City Council with our concerns to the finance of Courthouse Square, our group is doing its civic duty for all of Santa Rosa citizens to strongly state that we are ringing the alarm bell. We want to document to City Council and other outside entities who may assist us, that we are taking and have taken all the necessary steps to enact our civic responsibilities to gain City Councils cooperation.
We thank you for your patience and support with this matter.
DEFINITION COPs for Waccobb readers:
A Participation Certificate (PC) (also known as a Certificate of Participation) is a financial instrument, a form of financing, used by municipal or government entities which allows an individual to buy a share of the lease revenue of an agreement made by these entities.
-
Re: CHANGE: RAISING FUNDS for Email-Blast & Mail Campaign Santa Rosa Courthouse Square
Jennifer, Thank you for sticking with this, "like a dog with a bone". I resonate with your determination and dedication.
I have a background in marketing, advertising and print design, although it's been a number of years since I had clients, I would be happy to evaluate any forthcoming designs, for potentially effective results. I've worked with many graphic artists, and have needed to educate most of them about designs that produce the desired results. Creativity is wonderful and appreciated. However, in a campaign like this where reaching the goal is not just desirable, but critical, it's important to evaluate in terms of potential effectiveness of the message.
I can usually spot an ad that's not effective, and I built a business around this skill. I've even contacted Wacco advertisers, and found that they weren't getting results. (even graphic artists!)
If this ends up being a snail mail campaign, it will be extremely critical. Email is flexible in that the message can be modified, and won't be as costly.
So, I'm offering this skill gained from many years. I do editing on a regular basis, in addition to marketing consulting. I don't promote this service, but get referrals, and can provide testimonials if desired.
Also, I would offer to promote the message on social media. Normally, I'd volunteer to coordinate, but there may be someone else more qualified and with more energy. I'd be happy to be a support person to a coordinator.
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
By the time this was actually presented to the public, at three crowded and contentious meetings, it was, clearly, already, a 'done deal'.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
I'm not up on this topic very much, but I do believe the Courthouse Square project has been in the works for quite a few years now, perhaps a couple decades, and there has been endless public posturing and arguing over that period and now they are finally gong ahead with the project with all their ducks in a row. Now all the waccos come out screaming like this is something new that is being ramrodded ahead without any public comment. Well, folks, that's just not so
-
Re: CHANGE: RAISING FUNDS for Email-Blast & Mail Campaign Santa Rosa Courthouse Square
Greetings Sandy,
Did I see an Angel? You just made my entire month!
I will be in touch with you over the weekend if that's okay?
My goodness. I think things are beginning to gain some momentum.
I spoke with the Press Democrat today and they will have a look at the letter I sent to Sonoma County District Attorney, Jill Ravitch. Lets see where that takes the issue insofar as the news-media..
Many thanks to EVERYONE for all of your support over the past month!
-
Re: LETTER Sent to City of Santa Rosa Chief Financial Officer, Ms. Debbi Lauchner
Thank you Barry!
I'm most thankful to you and the Waccobb community. I hope to see the results of our efforts.
Most sincerely, Jennifer
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
I think any city making major modifications to it's layout and design without consideration of the impact of autonomous vehicles to pedestrian & traffic flow over the next 20 years is making a poor decision.
I know they won't be here tomorrow. However they will be available within 10 years, and likely common within the next 20 years.
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
yes - infernal combustion engines, out. clean energy in. ABSOLUTELY. BUT AWAY FROM THE SQUARE.
AND the greater the space for PEDestrians all of us walking, sitting, playing, talking, sprawling, picnicking, acro-yoga-ing, massaging, sharing, playing music, dancing
on the earth (GRASS) under trees (SHADE) THE BETTER THE SQUARE.
COMMON SPACE.
not to be geared commercially, as is the usual planing motif/vested interests.
old squares in cities and towns, AND the latest redesigned squares in europe all go for getting people OUT OF CARS. and offer lovely places to BE. TOGETHER.
let's have THAT.
jude
p.s. how about permaculture there, by local permaculturists, artists, herbalists, indigenous people.
oh, and about the $10 million price tag (plus $10 MILLION in INTEREST) ... let's see, can we do the square for a paltry $1 million, hmmmmm? that money could save/better many lives urgently needing shelter.
TOO LATE, you say - design done, input ought to have been long ago. MAYBE. and we are where we are. let's see what's possible. what we do is our legacy. the square as it is planned now, though re-unification is good, is a travesty. thanks to all who feel and think and act, especially jennifer.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ChefJayTay:
I think any city making major modifications to it's layout and design without consideration of the impact of autonomous vehicles ...
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
The "this" I am referring to in my post is that many people, possibly most, did not know that reunifying the Square meant cutting down mature trees. The EIR does mention this but most people don't read EIRs. Usually only lawyers read them. Santa Rosa City did not clearly communicate the concept of tree removal to get a real consensus. If they had, you would not have had 90% of the audience at these meetings aghast and concerned with the loss of trees. Instead, they ignored this public reaction and concern and went ahead with something else. There is a difference between getting public comment and reflecting public comment.
That, folks, is so.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by jbox:
I'm not up on this topic very much, but I do believe the Courthouse Square project has been in the works for quite a few years now, perhaps a couple decades, and there has been endless public posturing and arguing over that period and now they are finally gong ahead with the project with all their ducks in a row. Now all the waccos come out screaming like this is something new that is being ramrodded ahead without any public comment. Well, folks, that's just not so
-
SR City Council Conflict of Interest Favors The Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square?
Hello everyone,
We have been oh so busy! (please read our letter to City Attorney Fowler at second half of this post).
We have accessed public information from the City of Santa Rosa website. We ask this important question for verification from City Attorney, Ms. Fowler:
Did Santa Rosa City Council potentially engage in a conflict of interest when it entered its September 22, 2015 "motion" as it pertains to the group called "The Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square"? See bottom of page 5 after clicking on this link. We simply want to know the law. This is a reasonable request.
WHAT DO Waccobb readers think? Please weigh-in! This may be one of few opportunities for your public input to truly MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the outcome of Santa Rosa's Courthouse Square Project.
Gone are the past 5 weeks, where we (as citizens in general) can sit on the fence. For it does not matter if any of us support or oppose the Reunification of Courthouse Square.
It's much more than this...
This is about DEMOCRACY and whether or not the proper protocols in governance were used correctly or potentially abused to the detriment of the people. This has been our agenda all along.
By the way, we think and know the Reunification of Courthouse Square is a noble and long sought cause. Though getting Courthouse Square to the finish line must be obtained with excellence in governance. We must have the tenets of full public disclosure, transparency, fairness and fiduciary duty.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Dear City Attorney Ms. Fowler,
We've answered partially to your replies to us on February 26, 2016 (as we have left you in blue text) and we reply with answers in black text.
CITY ATTORNEY FOWLER SAID: There will still be further opportunities for you and other members of the public to advise the City Council of your opinions regarding the use of Certificates of Deposit as a funding mechanism for Courthouse Square. You can sign up on the City’s website to make sure that you receive copies of future agendas.
OPPOSE COURTHOUSE SQUARE SAID: We disagree.
Whereas, on September 22, 2015 we citizens question if Santa Rosa City Council engaged in a conflict of interest by motioning (see page 5 of MOTION) for preferential treatment to the interests and assistance to the "Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square" for the opportunity to explore funding options for Courthouse Square with city staff, but to the exclusion of other forms of public participation (groups) to enjoy the same and equal treatment by the same direction as City Council motioned for the Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square?
Whereas, we citizens believe we may have been damaged since September 22, 2015, by the acts of City Council, staff or other employees to limit our public participation by way of exclusion to "Funding Review for Courthouse Square", as well as, to "Capital Improvement Project" meetings, whereby you, Ms. Fowler tell us that Courthouse Square does not fall under CIP, though we have evidence to the contrary.
Please answer our following questions in detail, and not generalities.
- By what law is City Council permitted to pass MOTION on September 22, 2015, page 5, which allows the downtown organization called "The Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square" to participate in Funding Review of Courthouse Square with city staff, but to the exclusion of other groups, including ours?
- What law permits City Council to accept donations from the "Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square" while allowing itself (as City Council) the ability to direct city staff to "work with the Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square to explore other options to support the financing method", as it pertains to Funding Review for Courthouse Square Project?
Oppose Courthouse Square
Protect OUR Vote
-
Affordable Housing Protest: Santa Rosa City Council Tuesday, March 8, 2016 @ 4:30 PM
Hello everyone,
Whether or not your live in Santa Rosa, if you think this a worthy cause, we'd certainly appreciate your presence at City Hall. We have a "Letter of Opposition" for you to sign! It takes but 20 second to make a BIG impression.
https://www.change.org/p/santa-rosa-california-santa-rosa-california-city-council-santa-rosa-4-affordable-housing-not-a-10-million-courthouse-square/u/15702647
Thank you for your support!
-
Re: Affordable Housing Protest: Santa Rosa City Council Tuesday, March 8, 2016 @ 4:30 PM
Hello everyone,
City Council cancelled its meeting tonight. So next week we're off to the races.
UPDATE:
We have discovered through Public Records Act, that approximately 4,200 public (counts) of opposition in the form of letters, emails and petition signatures have been directed to Santa Rosa City Council regarding Courthouse Square. Most have occurred in the past 2.5 - 6 months. These letters are in combination to the opposition of tree removal, including the square being developed, as well as financial expenditure. This has warmed our hearts a bit to know that we're not the only ones.
The good news is that there's no shortage of evidence to prove conflict of interest, including City Charter violations and California Common Law Doctrine violations to continue to move toward the documentation needed in substantiating cause for investigation of City Council and certain staff as it pertains to CHS.
Civic duty shot its bow, and not everyone is love struck. Oh well. One thing is for sure, we've seen some changes made. That's a good thing. But far from the right changes that have disenfranchised many citizens over this debacle.
If only every city had a full scale volunteer ombudsman committee to audit the actions of their local government.
Wow! Ya think? Thank you for your support!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:
-
Re: Affordable Housing Protest: Santa Rosa City Council Tuesday, March 8, 2016 @ 4:30 PM
Jennifer, I'd vote for you to be Ombudswoman! You are a present day Joan of Arc, leading the way with the flag of Justice for the People. Thank you for your tireless, unceasing fight for our rights. If I were younger and more able, I'd be right next to you. I'm hoping that you have some support from strong allies who are willing to go the length with you.
City councils and others should somehow be monitored for "conflict of interests" in financial expenditures of taxpayer money. I would think that every governing body of this sort would have some kind of checks and balances, otherwise it's a little kingdom, with the fox guarding the hen house. With no one overseeing the activity, the hens are in great danger. We are the hens, and we're experiencing the dangers of unchecked authority spending our hard earned pennies any way they want. Our wants and needs are not considered, and even blocked.
City governments are just a peek at what's happening on a larger level of government, that will keep gaining more control over our lives, until it will be too late to protest, as we fall in our tracks. We'll be scooped up by government machinery, and dumped in the landfill of lost humanity, maybe to be recycled into pet food, so we can continue to add to their bottom line.
-
Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Hello everyone,
Please see the email I sent to Santa Rosa Community Engagement Director, Jaime Penaherrera. Please let us know if you're interested in participating and we will notify you when the meeting will take place. Now is the time to make a difference in expressing your thoughts over fiscal outcome of this $10-$20 Million Dollar expenditure.
Hello Jaime,
I'm sorry that I did not have chance to talk with you last night, as I had to leave.
As you overheard my request, I asked for CAB to add to next months Agenda a public discussion regarding the Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Review mechanisms.
I would like to invite a group of interested citizens to sit in on an active two-way dialogue with CAB so that we may gain a better understanding of funding of Courthouse Square. That is, for us to share what we know of the finance-funding so far, and exchange ideas, concerns and education.
Of utmost importance is for a two-way dialogue to occur. If not, then the entire process for public participation is stymied and choked off. It is non productive and alienating when one-sided. Surely, there is a way to have a two way venue for discussion with CAB, as we saw a similar platform for the Courthouse Square Design Review, where there was no discrimination to one sided conversations. We do not want to be discriminated against in our time of need and documentation in asking for help.
We have precious little time to explore our public participation and we cannot wait for the Finance Department to get involved if they have to calendar this discussion beyond the next CAB meeting. I recall asking for this Agenda item at last meeting and reaching out, but I received no reply.
Additionally, our group has documented repeated requests to meet with your CAB members outside of CAB meetings, but receive no reply. How can we enlist their cooperation? For we need generate public discussion, but we are given the boat, but not the oars.
This is very frustrating in our time of need and what CAB purports to be as mechanism for public outreach and participation.
Please, will you help in the capacity to which you have been hired and entrusted for our community?
Sincerely,
Jennifer Coleman
Oppose Courthouse Square.
Protect OUR Vote.
P.O. Box 12
Cotati, CA 94931
707-888-7046
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Hello everyone,
If you can voice opposition at Santa Rosa City Council meeting tomorrow @ 5 PM to 8 PM it would be of great service. 100 Santa Rosa Avenue City Hall inside City Council Chambers.
SIMPLY read the text below during your three minute commentary if you agree with the letter I wrote to Santa Rosa Community Engagement Coordinator, Jaime Penaherrera.
Thank you for your support!
LETTER TO MR. Penaherrera:
Hello Mr Penaherrera,
Please click on the hyper-links embedded on the text of this email to follow documentation I reference.
I am asking you again in your position of City of Santa Rosa Community Outreach to please make yourself available discuss this public concern. Myself and two other concerned citizens are requesting a meeting with you. Precious time is going by and we need to make sure that city protocol is followed in allowing due process for budget review of Courthouse Square. It is not sufficient to have only a budget review at City Council meetings when City Charter Section 10 governs that CAB must also fulfill its requirements.
We want your help in enacting what is required in City Charter Section 10 to allow public participation in the form of a minimum of four (newspaper) advertised community outreach meetings for CIP budget review per the City Resolution guidelines recently amended in 2015 and 2016.
Are you going to fulfill these requirements? So far, they have not happened. Also, CAB has held not meetings for Courthouse Square budget review in its minutes of agendas. Minutes and Agendas are located on the left side of the page in the form of hyper-links. Not a single meeting has taken place regarding Courthouse Square until last week, which only spoke to the DESIGN aspect, not budget. I have been begging for these meetings for weeks, and they are clearly outlined in the constitution of the City Charter, section 10.
Please Mr. Penahererra: Will you or will you not fulfill the City Charter requirements? If you will not, then please educate me as to "why"? Please educate me as to "how" City Council and you are permitted to exempt Courthouse Square from CIP public budget priority and review without breaking the law of the city constitution-city charter and California State Constitution? For we citizens want our say, which is so clearly stated regarding public transparency and governmental accountability; found in many places on the City Website.
I am fully aware that CAB has no decision making authority. This is not the issue I am begging. I want public participation requirements fulfilled per City Charter Section 10 and resolution requirements.
Below are numerous links which make my point regarding CAB and public participation requirements.
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/2012.08.07.CC.Resolution%2028174.pdf
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/D...on%2028442.pdf
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departme...s/default.aspx
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/2016.02.01%20Updated%20Workplan%20with%20Metrics.pdf
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/CAB%20CIP%20presentation1.pdf
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/DEPARTME...s/default.aspx
Sincerely, Jennifer Coleman
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
I am a little confused about his controversy. I must admit I did not give it a lot of attention when the idea was first discussed, so I am unclear about the process that was followed. You seem to be saying that this whole plan was passed without any opportunity for public input, is that right? Were there no public meetings to discuss either the design or the funding of this project when it was originally being considered?
Patrick Brinton
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Your question is answered right here in Jennifer's statement:
"Minutes and Agendas are located on the left side of the page in the form of hyper-links. Not a single meeting has taken place regarding Courthouse Square until last week, which only spoke to the DESIGN aspect, not budget.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
I am a little confused about his controversy....
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
The links all seem to concern the CAB. What I was curious about is the process that was followed by the city council before even approving the plan. Were there public meetings to present the different plans under consideration, or was all this decided behind closed doors and then imposed on the community as you seem to suggest?
Patrick Brinton
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Your question is answered right here in Jennifer's statement:
"Minutes and Agendas are located on the left side of the page in the form of hyper-links. Not a single meeting has taken place regarding Courthouse Square until last week, which only spoke to the DESIGN aspect, not budget.
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
I am beyond appalled that the city of Santa Rosa is scheduling its Earth Day event in Courthouse Square!!! Are they utterly oblivious??!!:hmmm:
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
you bettcha- they ARE totally oblivious! i wonder if they have removed All the trees already or will they be leaving them logged on the ground, so people can come and sit on them for Earth Day. That's how insane they might be
peace
beshiva
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Hi Patrick,
From what I researched, City Council advised me that since they did not approve the $10-$20 million Finance Plan for Courthouse Square (CHS) until September 22, 2015, and since the Resolution to approve the Design Plan did not occur until January 26, 2016, that the CHS Design and Finance of Construction was not the obligation of the "Community Advisory Board" (CAB) to place it onto their monthly agenda... OR to perform public outreach.
BUT I CONTEST THIS. (please see links below). I think that early in the year of 2015, City of Santa Rosa Community Advisory Board should have been reviewing CHS with public outreach methods, since City Council KNEW that CHS was on their target list of "Council Goals". And especially as the CAB seat for the "Downtown Core" was vacant for 2.5 months during the hotly debated Design Review in November-December. Why? I've been told that it was vacant becasue one officer moved out of the district and they were searching for another appointee. Well, none of that happened until I hounded Council to fill that vacancy. I volunteered. Mayor Sawyer advised me to fill out an application. The next day the seat was filled by someone else. Bear in mind that CAB exists in an important "advisory" capacity to City Council. Of course, CAB does not make decisions about city matters, but it's Section 10 charter tells it to perform outreach and to advise Council to the shaping sentiments and will of citizenry.
The 2015 agendas and minutes of CAB indicate that no discussion of CHS design or finance took place at monthly meetings when CHS and City Council talks were concurrently in play. CAB completely MISSED the January, 2016 deadline for public participation on the CHS CIP Review for public outreach! Yet CAB knew of Council's motion to approve a finance method in September of 2015. Hence, it is my perception that public participation for input to CHS annual CIP budget review was omitted. In fact, only until March 23, 2016 was the first CHS CAB meeting held on agenda. Sadly, many CAB members were asking clarification questions and expressing concerns about CHS Design (just like the rest of us). The fact that City Council (NOT CAB) performed the Downtown Subcommittee Design Review in November-December 2015... the height of holiday didn't help. Did you know that of the 2,050 participants surveyed in the Design Review, that only 1.19% of the city population was represented? We have a 171,200 populace! Even more disappointing; when I asked what percentage of the community group objected to the Design, I was told that they didn't poll for that. Why not?
BUT HERE'S WHAT I THINK IS SUBSTANTIAL for ACTION TODAY. I have more meetings scheduled with City of Santa Rosa Representatives at City Hall on the afternoons of April 4th @ 1 PM and April 7th @ 3 PM, and would truly appreciate support of anyone who wants to appear with me. There is limited seating to no more than three to four people in the room. But that doesn't keep others from showing support by appearing outside with petition letters I can provide for signing.
I've been persistent in asking City Council, alongside City Attorney, Caroline Fowler, including Community Outreach Coordinator, Jaime Peneherrera and CFO, Debbi Lauchner and others at City of Santa Rosa to please be legally accountable as to "why" the City Charter, Section 10 (recent resolution) is being defied when it comes to the Public Participation Finance Review for Budget Priorities pertaining to "Capital Improvement Projects" (CIP)? You see, CHS is a CIP Project with a five year seed to harvest time-line. Since a finance mechanism was chosen by City Council September of 2015, then most certainly I contest that CAB should have followed the Charter requirement close behind. This would mean CAB must have issued a minimum of FOUR newspaper advertisements calling attention to a minimum of FOUR separate "Community Outreach Meetings" to be held in four distinctly different neighborhoods throughout Santa Rosa. Yet, my eight week pleas at council meetings and in-person meetings with city officials for this have been stonewalled, or I have been given misinformation, or plain been told that City Council can do what they want and override.
Furthermore, City of Santa Rosa advertises ubiquitously on its website that all Capital Improvement Projects are a five year process, but somehow, Courthouse Square evades that five year time-line, which I believe is a violation of City Charter, Section 28. But to City Council's credit, indeed, they have published four newspaper adverts in public notices section of the Press Democrat for finance review of CHS, but this public participation for finance review SHOULD NOT be confused with Council answering as to why the CHS project is not going to settle into the five year CIP process. Instead, it will fast-track and bypass the next four years of review. So why ONLY this project, while all other CIP Projects incubate for four additional years after initial passage?
City Attorney Fowler told us that since CHS is a a "Council Goal", that it is not a CIP project, yet we have evidence that contradicts this from others in City of Santa Rosa, or the version of the way its interpreted changes from different departments. There is no supporting governing law which indicates that City Council may pick and choose which CIP projects it can fast-track and which ones it cannot. And I think that any diversion from the City Charter rules is a violation of due process and omission of public participation from annual budget review, don't you? It's a "shell-game" in attempting to pin Council down to making or acknowledging commitment to the "due-process" of the City Charter governing laws. Make no mistake: City Charter violations are not a light matter, but they do not seem to take them with much seriousness (at least here).
See links here: I apologize. Too many at wee hour of midnight to label. But each take you to the exact page of everything I've spoken to in above text
Most important is the CAB Work-plan Link here. This is why I think the City Charter has been violated.
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/2012.08.07.CC.Resolution%2028174.pdf
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/2014.03.11.CC-Resolution%2028442.pdf
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/departments/cityadmin/cab/pages/default.aspx
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/Documents/CAB%20CIP%20presentation1.pdf
https://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/DEPARTMENTS/PUBLICWORKS/CAPITALIMPROVEMENTPROGRAM/Pages/default.aspx
Thank you for your interest and support!
Sincerely, Jennifer Coleman
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
The links all seem to concern the CAB. What I was curious about is the process that was followed by the city council before even approving the plan. Were there public meetings to present the different plans under consideration, or was all this decided behind closed doors and then imposed on the community as you seem to suggest?
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Hi Patrick,
Great questions. I replied in detail in your previous thread to mine. It always helps to keep me on my toes. Sometimes I'm just too close to all if the information. I hope my reply helps.
Sincerely,Jennifer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
The links all seem to concern the CAB. What I was curious about is the process that was followed by the city council before even approving the plan. Were there public meetings to present the different plans under consideration, or was all this decided behind closed doors and then imposed on the community as you seem to suggest?
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Should we organize a boycott of Earth Day at Courthouse Square? What groups are involved with this? Green Party, Sierra Club, who else? There isn't time to organize a different event unless it was moved to a different location. If we want to do this we should act on it now.
Emerald
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by american dream:
I am beyond appalled that the city of Santa Rosa is scheduling its Earth Day event in Courthouse Square!!! Are they utterly oblivious??!!:hmmm:
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Jennifer, Thank you for your tireless effort to educate us, who may have noticed your many postings, but didn't actually read them, and now are wondering what it all means. :hmmm: Your continued patience in breaking it all down, in an effort to clarify what you've already said, suggests that you're a very patient, but persistent crusader. Front runners, and whistle blowers are always at risk to be shot down, but it would seem that there would be less of that from a "conscious community" , so I'm glad to see that you got a few "gratitudes" because you certainly deserve it, and more.
I wonder how many members will take action in joining with you to protest this obvious "shell game". and at the very least, show their appreciation of your not so "tireless" work.
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Let's give our OPPOSITION to Earth Day at Courthouse Square a VOICE!
Emerald at Occupy Sonoma County is correct. We would have to organize QUICKLY. Protesting at Courthouse Square with some news-media coverage? So who wants to show up at the Square?
Date is April 23rd @ 11 AM to organize. Event begins at 12 noon.
Sources we can use or ask to use are Waccobb, Craigslist, Occupy Sonoma County, Peace and Justice, Nextdoor.com, Facebook. If someone helps to create a flier, then I can help to post on a couple of these media sources.
"Many hands make for light work"
Here's a great reason to protest in an excerpt taken from this link: "If you are angry and just try to repress it, the molecules are still made in your body and are usually made in more chronic amounts because you did not have an emotion, express it, and then let it go."
Who will help? Will you help? We can gripe here all we want, and that's exactly how City Council want's it. They LOVE it when we remain apathetic and give them NO problems at the helm. In fact, they're counting on us NOT to make a scene. But one person cannot do it alone. So let's help one another, yes?
Most of all, it will be a FUN and healthy way to get out and exercise out Freedom of Speech!
TASK LIST:
Social Media Flier Creator
Social Media Flier Poster (As I said. I can post flier on Craigslist, and Nextdoor.com and my Facebook)
A page for people to RSVP
Protest Sign Creation (if you cannot make your own then your voice is just fine).
People who can give rides to those who cannot drive. (I can taxi two people in my car).
Thank you for your support!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by american dream:
I am beyond appalled that the city of Santa Rosa is scheduling its Earth Day event in Courthouse Square!!! Are they utterly oblivious??!!:hmmm:
-
Re: Contesting the Approved Santa Rosa Courthouse Square Reunification
Hi Emerald,
Please see my thread below. If someone creates a Flier, then I can post on three social media spots. I can provide taxi rides to and from Courthouse Square for two protesters.
Jennifer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by EmeraldMatra:
Should we organize a boycott of Earth Day at Courthouse Square? What groups are involved with this? Green Party, Sierra Club, who else? There isn't time to organize a different event unless it was moved to a different location. If we want to do this we should act on it now.
Emerald
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Interest, yes; support, so far not so much. I asked what I thought was a fairly simple question, capable of a fairly simple answer, and got back a wall of text and a blizzard of links, none of which actually addressed my question. I know nothing of the minutiae of the CAB and its purposes or procedures, and I suspect I am not alone in this. Is it too much to ask for an easily understood account of how the issue was decided in the first place? I have in mind something that would perhaps list the dates on which decisions were made by the city council, and a brief summary of those decisions, as well as any opportunities that were afforded for public input during the period before the final decision was made.
If, as seems to be the case, you are trying to drum up public support for your cause, you might consider breaking it down in ways that are more digestible for those of us who might be interested, and even supportive, if we understood better what you claim happened. As it is, I see far too many unexplained technicalities that I have no way of evaluating without doing a lot more work than my present level of interest warrants.
Patrick Brinton
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
Interest, yes; support, so far not so much. I asked what I thought was a fairly simple question, capable of a fairly simple answer, and got back a wall of text and a blizzard of links, none of which actually addressed my question. I know nothing of the minutiae of the CAB and its purposes or procedures, and I suspect I am not alone in this. Is it too much to ask for an easily understood account of how the issue was decided in the first place?
+1 Actually, I'm not at all against reworking the square; I think it's ugly, I don't buy the arguments about traffic flow, and the trees don't impress me as 'nature' in their current context amidst a bunch of flat concrete slabs.
But I am interested in the (implied, as far as I can tell) charge that there's been an effort to limit public awareness of the way it's financed. I'm very interested in the concepts of open government and very resistant to the idea that government needs to hide from public scrutiny in order to avoid unwarranted interference. Which this may be; but Jennifer sounds like she's spent enough time to understand the world they're operating in.
Depending on which side of an issue you're on, you may find the ability of members of the public to throw wrenches into the workings of local government a nuisance. And it is - I can sympathise with someone trying to put a plan into execution who keeps being confronted with delaying tactics. But that's the price of doing anything with public money in the public's name.
Attempts to deflect criticism or hide some parts of the program are very undemocratic and no matter the worthiness of the end goal can't be accepted. Actually, more than having Jennifer explain her objections more simply, I'd rather hear public officials explain why she's wrong!
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Hi Patrick,
Skip to bold black text 5th paragraph BEFORE the red text if you wish to bypass reading.
You have my empathy. Wrapping one's mind around the machinations of City Council is like nailing Jello to a tree, for they change the rules or apply them to some tenets of the City Charter, but not others (or at least as I experience of City Council and staff in how they answer to what simple questions you have asked). I would be remiss and cavalier (and even prone to a lawsuit) to connect the dots of this story with a straight-edged ruler, becasue this tale is not a linear one. And yes indeed, I threw in the kitchen sink on my answer to you in the service of others, as well, since I hope it is not only you who will be reading.
I have told evolving versions of the CHS story over eight weeks; each one with new information to remain accurate. I want to economize my use of time as I have so little of it to volunteer, but happy in doing so. As you told me; you had seen my posts over weeks passing, but not paid much attention to the story until recently. I say this without anger, but to be fair to myself and to you: lets say that I'm guilty of being too wordy (indeed) and you are getting in a little late on interest. :wink:
To help you relate, take your expertise in photography (you're a photographer, right?) Let's take Photoshop (for example) and imagine I'm asking you to explain use of Photoshop to me in a matter of simple procedures. While you could put forth some of the basics and I'd get the concept, nevertheless, I could not hope to put to use the nuances and minutia upon asking you a few simple questions to the finer use of Photoshop. For sure, Courthouse Square is a complex Photoshop job.
From my lens and experience to the inconsistent answers I've received from CC and City Attorney, I personally think that they have breached City Charter sections 10 and 28 (city governing constitution) and have also violated the Brown Act in omitting public participation.
Below is an editorial I wrote. It's 780 or so words. It hits a better target. That's as short and sweet as it gets. I'm out the door to work a 12 hour shift. Lack of sleep to an 60 hour work week. LOL.
On September 22, 2015 City Council passed the following motion:
"MOVED by Council Member Olivares, seconded by Mayor Sawyer, and CARRIED
unanimously to select the Certificates of Participation method of financing and direct staff to work with the Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square to explore other options to support the financing method and direct staff to begin the process of pursuing this method to fund no more than $10 million for Courthouse Square reunification project". Source: Santa Rosa City Council Meeting Minutes
Of interest is the fact that this motion directed Santa Rosa City staff to work with a group called "The Coalition to Restore Courthouse Square"*--- to explore options for financing the Courthouse Square project. The Coalition is comprised of business owners, merchants, real estate owners, and developers. As such, it is a special-interest group, that is, a group whose members would hope to benefit from particular decisions. Four months later, on January 19, 2016, the City of Santa Rosa accepted a $116,000 donation from The Coalition, which donated the money to pay for a portion of the design plans for the reunification of Courthouse Square.** They asked City Council to add to the design two additional streets ("Hinton" and "Exchange" streets) and 47 parking spaces on two perimeters of the reunified Square. The estimated cost of the new streets and parking spaces totals $4 million* to be paid for by taxpayers. These streets and parking spaces will be installed in front of several multi-million-dollar buildings located on the border of Courthouse Square. When complete, the changes stand to markedly increase the value of these buildings. Coincidentally, some of the buildings are owned by members of The Coalition.*
As my research took me further into the City of Santa Rosa website, I discovered that Courthouse Square is classified as a 2016 "Capital Improvement Project" (CIP), and as such, it has certain PUBLIC budget priority and review requirements, which take place over a five year period prior to the commencement of a project. On September 22, 2015 City Council "motioned" for a chosen finance method for CHS construction. On January 26, 2016 City Council passed the CHS Design Review Project to proceed to construction on June 1, 2016. After passage, I was confused as to why City Council did not place CHS construction project design and finance modules into the five year CIP process. For clarification of governing rules, I read the City Charter sections 28 and 10. Section 28 requires that "prior to any annual goal setting meeting held by the Council, the Council shall hold a public hearing seeking oral and written comment from the public on budget priorities for the upcoming fiscal year." The capital budget records for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 (CIP) reference Courthouse Square, but only as it pertains to water and sewer street repairs, and not for the remaining expenditures related to the reunification project as a whole. Further, City Council is required by section 10 to receive advisement through its appointed "Community Advisory Board" (CAB). The CAB's responsibility is to "greatly increase citizen and neighborhood participation and responsibility", including helping to set annual "CIP budget priorities for their respective districts". But I could locate no record of CAB public outreach in their 2015 agendas or minutes as it pertains to the Courthouse Square District for public Design or Budget Review. In fact, the seat for that district was vacant for two and a half months, the window when public outreach for budget input was crucial.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
Interest, yes; support, so far not so much. I asked what I thought was a fairly simple question, capable of a fairly simple answer, and got back a wall of text and a blizzard of links, none of which actually addressed my question. ...I have in mind something that would perhaps list the dates on which decisions were made by the city council, and a brief summary of those decisions, as well as any opportunities that were afforded for public input during the period before the final decision was made.
...
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Jennifer, You have gone beyond what most people would do in tracking down the legal minutia,(despite a heavy workload) explaining it in the best way you can, and continuing to show patience with those who may have some interest, but not enough to follow your carefully laid out information, and still want you to break it down further. (like a momma bird does for her babies) I think your reference to Photoshop is just more evidence of your brilliance!
Your command of the written word, may border on that used by lawyers, and as you indicate the City Council is not above using some subversive language to keep the real facts hidden from the public. As evidenced by a general lack of interest in the workings of government (state, county, city) most people only become alarmed as it affects them directly, and usually in the final hour, when it's too late to change things.
I do appreciate the many long hours that you've put into this crucial issue, and although I don't see much evidence of "gratitude", there must be many "conscious" others who feel as I do, but haven't expressed it. At least, I hope so. Could it be that those who don't live in Santa Rosa bypass this issue because it's not about their town? I have seen evidence of readers in the thousands, but that may just be people who are counted each time they click on your thread. It doesn't appear that there are thousands of posters or even readers from what I can tell by those who do post, and member list, which shows numbers of posts.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:
Hi Patrick,
Skip to bold black text 5th paragraph BEFORE the red text if you wish to bypass reading.
...
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Greetings Podfish,
Many thanks for your comment. I agree with all that you've said.
When I first approached City Council, (CC) I asked them to please show me that I'm wrong, as I would love to "eat a plate of crow" if it meant that I could find some relief in knowing that they were going about Courthouse Square (CHS) in a democratic manner; no violations or omission of public participation. I expressed to them that I lament having to spend X amount of hours researching facts just to make sure and/or enforce that they are doing their job in an honest manner. I expressed to them that if they aren't, that I would at least feel compelled to put them through hoops [if] they were indeed curtailing the proper process.
Trying to keep it brief, but so much convolution to this story.
My concern is that I staunchly believe the information I've gathered demonstrates that CC is allowing CHS to completely BYPASS the usual and customary process of placing all "Capital Improvement Projects" (CIP) (Courthouse Square is a CIP Project) into the five year annual and public Budget Review and Priority process. Hence, the flurry of links I posted the other day, which reference this. The rumors in the newspaper portray that CHS is being "fast-tracked".
I've contacted EVERY MEMBER of the Open Government Task Force who, in 2014 put together the City of Santa Rosa Governmental Transparency and Accountability Guidelines for City Council. While the few I spoke to were very kind, and others I left VM's; none of them were compelled to help me use their charter to hold CC accountable to walk the walk to their high grade ethics in governance and public transparency.
Additionally, on September 22, 2015 CHS was "Motioned" by CC to be financed with a funding mechanism called "Certificates of Participation" (COPs). I object to this as well, as we citizens should have a say in how CHS is funded.
Definition of Certificates of Participation (COPs): a method of leveraging public assets (as in SANTA ROSA CITY HALL) and borrowing all or a portion of the value of a public agency's equity in those assets (CITY HALL) in order to finance other assets (as in SANTA ROSA COURTHOUSE SQUARE). Borrowing equity by way of Certificates of Participation is paid by taxpayers through the city's General Fund at a HIGHER INTEREST RATE than a voter-approved tax. This finance scheme is a NO VOTE form of taxpayer indebtedness typically used when a city government knows it cannot get the 2/3 required vote from a conventional tax referendum. "A $10 million project, if fully funded with such certificates, would cost the city’s general fund about $670,000 per year for 30 years, or a total of $20 million." Source: Press Democrat, Sept. 15, 2015.
To date, our group has lazily collected 521 petition signatures six weeks ago... objecting to the funding mechanism without additional public participation, of which the "Community Advisory Board" (CAB) is obligated to provide per the City Charter, Section 10 and the recent and very detailed Resolution setting out the process of which CAB must follow in the solicitation of public participation for a project like CHS. CAB missed the January deadline to advertise FOUR public community meetings for CHS Finance Budget Review. For eight weeks I've begged CC and CAB to make up for these meetings.
Very frustrating to compel them to act according to the City Charter, as the CC and officers twist the use of the Charter in replacing with their own rules of governance . One officer tells us one thing, and another something different. City Attorney, Caroline Fowler told us that she will not debate with us, even when we hold the facts up close. I have not had opportunity to show her the latest evidence (of which she signed herself); the Resolution of the very detailed responsibility of CAB. Alas, she will not allow us a second meeting with her. Our last meeting with Ms. Fowler was punctuated by her telling us the CHS is NOT a CIP Project. That CHS is a "Special Council Goal" and not subject to the five year CIP process. When we asked her "why", we were told that CC can exercise authority to override and just do it. When I asked her to show me where it states that CC can do this and how it does not violate City Charter or break the law, she shut the meeting down to myself and two witnesses That's hardly the form of governance we put in place to guide our City Council.
So while I'm dying to know why I'm wrong, I can't even get that far.
Jennifer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
+1 Actually, I'm not at all against reworking the square; I think it's ugly, I don't buy the arguments about traffic flow, and the trees don't impress me as 'nature' in their current context amidst a bunch of flat concrete slabs.
But I am interested in the (implied, as far as I can tell) charge that there's been an effort to limit public awareness of the way it's financed. ...
-
Re: Public Input Meeting to Discuss Courthouse Square Finance and Funding Options
Unfortunately, it appears that "Benign? Dictatorship Reigns in Santa Rosa City Council" Jennifer, you are like a nuisance fly that can be simply swatted away. If only you had the clout of a lawyer who sees through this corruption for what it is, and could use legal power to expose and halt it.
-
Possible Boycott of Earth Day at Courthouse Square?
What I am proposing is to contact the groups who normally participate in Earth Day and ask them not to participate. If the environmental groups don't participate it won't be Earth Day. I am willing to write letters to the groups but only if there is support from the community for this idea. I also need a list of the groups and their email addresses.
Earth Day coincided with the Peace & Justice Center's Awards event which we are participating in. None of us at Occupy Sonoma County will likely be at Courthouse Square protesting - we will be volunteering at the PJC awards event.
Emerald
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jennifer Novascone:
Let's give our OPPOSITION to Earth Day at Courthouse Square a VOICE! ...
-
Re: Possible Boycott of Earth Day at Courthouse Square?
Hi Emerald,
I support the idea. Do you have any others who have come forward?
Thank you, Jennifer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by EmeraldMatra:
What I am proposing is to contact the groups who normally participate in Earth Day and ask them not to participate. ...
-
PETITION 4 Santa Rosa City Council to REINSTATE Public Budget Reveiw, Courthouse Square
Hello everyone,
If you happen to agree with this petition, then please read, sign and circulate it among your friends.
https://www.change.org/p/the-santa-r...rthouse-square
Many thanks! Jennifer
-
Northbay Bohemian Newspaper PUBLISHES Brief Editorial "Courthouse Square Malfeseance?"
Hello everyone,
A big THANK YOU to The NORTH BAY BOHEMIAN Newspaper for publishing my "Open Mic" editorial. I found a public voice here and I'm grateful that they gave me the opportunity.
https://www.bohemian.com/northbay/ci...nt?oid=2950073
-
Re: Northbay Bohemian Newspaper PUBLISHES Brief Editorial "Courthouse Square Malfeseance?"
Jennifer, I'm glad to see your article in the Bohemian, and have responded there with my following comment, and urge anyone to support your well researched and documented findings, by also commenting. I did see another letter to the editor in reference to Courthouse Square, below yours.
"Thank you Jennifer, for your well researched and documented article on Santa Rosa City Council's failure to uphold the city charter guidelines for including resident input for spending their tax money for capitol improvements.
The charter's constitution is ineffective if it's rules aren't enforced. That would seem to make it easy for "special interests" to influence the City Council, and bypass citizen review of proposed expenditures.
I think this could be a big case for an attorney willing to step up to the plate, and "step" on some toes of the offending parties, who's actions would be considered criminal activity in a court of law.
You've done the preliminary detective work, so it should be easy enough for an attorney to take up this very important cause.
This is just another action, in addition to the missing "millions" that should have been spent on much needed housing.
Looks to me like Santa Rosa City Council is getting away with illegal activity bordering on embezzlement. I hope that your hours of dedicated research to represent Santa Rosa citizens is recognized, and honored with a lawsuit." Sandy Murphey
This will also be posted to my Facebook page.
-
Possible Flawed SR Traffic Study Did Not Include SmartTrain Congestion to Courthsouse Sq.
Hello everyone,
Yesterday, a few of us met with Santa Rosa City Manager Sean McGlynn to present what we believe is evidence of a flawed and outdated traffic impact study pertaining to Courthouse Square. The report relates to the Smart-Train installation and Hwy 101 metering lights, which impact the heavily congested Third street area. Third street is rated a level "F" by Caltrans. This means that Third street (even before the Courthouse Square project takes place) is already failing below the standards of where it should be for congestion; a level "C" or "D" is ideal.
The Smart-Train, Measure Q was passed by voters in 2009. However, the last traffic study performed by City of Santa Rosa was in 2008. We cannot locate that either the Smart-Train nor the Caltrans metering lights (on all on county Hwy 101 on-ramps) were included as "comments" on the traffic study report from Caltrans to Santa Rosa. We believe these potential deficiencies may have a significant impact on the surface streets once Mendocino Avenue (the main traffic artery for downtown Santa Rosa) is removed from the now bifurcated Courthouse Square.
Once in commission, the Smart-Train, when running a peak commute times will use the traffic gates once every fifteen minutes. The gates will lower for 60 seconds every fifteen minutes on Third street. The train tracks are about 1/8 of a mile from the Hwy 101 and Hwy 12 on-ramp. Can you visualize the congestion these changes will cause? When significant traffic changes like these are not factored in according to Caltrans Guidelines, it is not only poor planning, but a risk for emergency vehicles and added aggravation for all drivers county-wide.
We've contacted Caltrans for further help, and we hope that the city manager and city council will take our information and look into the matter for themselves.
This traffic study affects ALL residents of Sonoma County. It's not just about Courthouse Square, but perhaps we can discern that the reunification of Courthouse Square will indeed influence the way traffic is routed for drivers who visit Santa Rosa.
You can help by writing or calling Santa Rosa City Council to express your opinion. Please ask city council to have a closer look at the traffic impact report of 2008. With 16,000 in added population and the projected increase in tourism that the city is expecting to draw with Courthouse Square, well?
Thanks for reading! Jennifer
-
Re: Possible Flawed SR Traffic Study Did Not Include SmartTrain Congestion to Courthsouse
Wow! More is revealed by my favorite "bloodhound". I don't like the traffic in the downtown area already, and can imagine the future nightmare once the Smart Train is fully functioning. I'm wondering how businesses will be negatively impacted, and if they realize this.
Thank you again for your time and energy in advocating for all of us who commute in Santa Rosa. I hope that those who will be impacted, and that's most of us, will spend a couple of minutes to share their thoughts with the SR City Council, which pales in comparison to all the hours you've given, and continue to give.
Hope you submitted this to the Bohemian....
-
Sonoma County Gazette Publishes Editorial: Civic Malfeasance at Courthouse Square?
Hello all,
Here is a link to an editorial I wrote regarding Courthouse Square, which was published in the Sonoma County Gazette on April 6th.
Jennifer
-
Re: Sonoma County Gazette Publishes Editorial: Civic Malfeasance at Courthouse Square?
How can we go about repealing the city charter so that the state can oversee what's going on in the largest west coast city between S.F. and Portland,OR? If we think that corruption and cronyism is only at the federal level, we can think again.
I have heard that the Coalition that "donated" $116,000 so far for "part" of the cost of the plans (their plans, not ours) will hold title to the land right next to the City Hall building. Should we, the people who are going to pay for all this, default; they get our land.
These creditor's plans include a lot of room for cars and a tiny piece of grass in the middle for a city of 174,000 people to gather and pass out from fumes. 2 extra streets and 4 lanes of car parking in the middle of the "park" ....fantastic.
I showed them a plan to make it bigger, more beautiful, more usable, with plenty of parking, exhaust fumes facing out at the perimeter of a large square with no extra streets, satisfying police oversight of the park,making it less expensive to build. They act like they're listening, but their minds were made up of approving anything the creditors want, excluding the people of Santa Rosa's needs, wants, desires, even though we're footing the bill in the end, which will be, up to twice the amount of the original cost .
And when the council comes up with the excuse that the original layout from the distant past was of that configuration (streets on all sides of a courthouse), I have to laugh (or cry) since there was a building there and horse and buggies don't take up as much space or have cancer causing fumes. Going back to the past isn't how to evolve....I don't want to live among dinosaurs.
We have a chance to make a really nice space for the people of this area to come to, but they think keeping people in cars and moving them in and out quickly to shop and spend tons of money ( they will be disappointed) is better than letting them park at the perimeter, get out, stroll down 3rd and 4th and shop around, buy, eat,and gather for events at a large, beautiful, reduced-fume area.
Once they get the "park"ing lot done, my medical advice is to not expose yourself to more than 1/2- 1 hr. in the square and eat at the outside dining on the periphery at your own risk.The view from any dining seat will be rows of cars anyway.
Lauri
