It was quite a pathetic display in the civic process by the Claremont city council tonight. Not because of the decision they eventually came to, but the process they used to arrive there.
The council had a special meeting tonight to consider changes to the affordable housing project on College Avenue. The council had 2 options to consider.
Option one was to leave the project at 45 units for families and 30 units for seniors. Option 2 would lower the density by taking out some family units and replacing them with the smaller senior units.
I’ve never seen a race to make a motion before, but that’s exactly what happened. The first to make a motion wins.
Being the first councilmember to make comments after hearing from the public, Sam Pedroza won the race and his motion carried. The motion carried unanimously, even though 3 out of 5 council members were in favor of the alternative.
Pedroza was in such a hurry to make his motion so he could win the race that he didn’t even bother to share his thoughts about why he’s making the motion or hear what his colleagues had to say.
After a request from Councilmember Peter Yao, he did make some comments. In the name of compromise with area residents, Pedroza pushed for a project with less density and less family housing units.
The project will now have 36 family housing units rather than the 45 that were originally planned. The trade off was an increase of 10 senior housing units, upping the number to 40 from the original 30.
Yao, Mayor Pro Tem Linda Elderkin and Councilmember Larry Schroeder all wanted to keep the project in its original form. But Elderkin seemed more concerned with having consensus on the council than voting for her beliefs. When it came down to the vote, Yao and Schroeder followed suit.
One thing fiscally prudent mayor Corey Calaycay did not mention is that the changes he supported will cost the city an additional $485,000. After squabbling with Yao about Pedroza’s motion, Calaycay threatened to kill any consensus if the motion on the floor was changed.
So in summary, the city council decided to squeeze 9 low income families out of Claremont and pay half a million bucks to do it.
On a positive note; they did it by unanimous decision, even though a majority wanted no changes at all. Good work council.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Greetings Tony,
ReplyDeleteI don't question your remarks in this most recent City Beat post. I wonder however if you are not interested in why consensus seemed so important in this case?
You have watched seemingly endless 3-2 and 4-1 votes on this Council. I myself have lost 4-1 more than once on such issues as the bonding of the Johnson's Pasture million dollars. Consensus has never been an obvious goal.
Why here?
Linda
Hi Linda,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can clarify why consensus was the driving force behind this vote.
At the meeting, you said, "I have my preferences, but I would not like us to go out of here 3 to 2 tonight if we can help it. Because 3 to 2 is a very tight margin on a project like this."
So the majority opinion (Peter Yao, Larry Schroeder and you) acquiesced to the minority in the name of consensus just because the minority threw out the first motion.
If I were a high school student attending a council meeting for the first time, I would have learned that consensus is more important than voting for what you believe in. So you better be the first person to make a motion.
Please explain.
Hi again...This is my very first posting on any blog. I comment only because I value your reporting and involvement in our City.
ReplyDeleteYou simply repeat your point, and I will do the same because I think you do in fact know that this was very unusual for our Council:
You have watched seemingly endless 3-2 and 4-1 votes on this Council. I myself have lost 4-1 more than once on such issues as the bonding of the Johnson's Pasture million dollars. Consensus has never been an obvious goal.
Why here?
You asked me to clarify my understanding of the vote. Speaking for myself:
ReplyDeleteClaremont has not succeeded in building low income housing in a long time. A key element in the long effort to do so is a strong commitment from a Council that can work through the challenges as they emerge.
This Council, this time, took the position that a unanimous 5-0 vote was extremely important in achieving that overall commitment to build affordable housing. (And this Council as you may know is quite well-known for 3-2 and 4-1 votes…).
The unanimous vote demonstrates the support of five Council members who are all in this for the duration.
I received this comment by email from Joseph O'Toole, who asked me to post it here.
ReplyDeleteFor those interested in adding comments, you have to take a minute to sign up for an account before doing so. Simply type in your comment, click on the drop down box below and choose from one of the 6 option. I would recommend the Google Account, as it is quick and easy.
Dear Tony,
I believe that you missed the beginning presentation by Brian Desatnik on the choices of primary or an alternative selection of increasing senior housing and reducing
family housing at the College site. The
increased cost was discussed adequately and $485,000 as an extra cost makes sense as described below.
I have been working as part of the Citizens for the American Dream group for over 4 years and initially I was apposed to more seniors housing at the expense of low income units.
But, after checking the facts,affordable housing is clearly in the lead for numbers of units in Claremont. And, very important in this
matter is that College Ave does have serious transit problems due to a two lane road.
Reducing the density based upon family housing losing units and increasing senior units makes good sense for the College Ave site. The ROI cost for senior housing is $485,000 more but a wise decision.
I don't believe that YOU picking on Sam Pedroza or Council for choosing the alternative to increase seniors and reduce family to remain within the density criteria was fair to Sam
or any Council person.
I'm most pleased that they had the good judgment to take a decision on family housing that has been on the council
books for the past at least 7 years...and, in my opinion the unanimous decision was an excellent step forward in good government...and, long overdue. I believe the
Council and Mayor should be commended
for their Friday night vote.
Regards,
Joe O'Toole