eminent domain, eminentdomainabuse, property rights,

THE US SUPREME COURT HAS A MESSAGE CONTRARY TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

     WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION MEAN TO THE SUPREME COURT?

                 What does the Constitution mean to you?

             WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION MEAN TO AMERICA?

Our homes, businesses, and churches are not safe in the United States. All levels of Government find no shame of exploiting, plundering, and taking by force from hard-working citizens and offer their homes and family businesses to others in order to increase tax revenue. These behaviors are primitive, and blatantly expose greed are traits contrary to our Constitution, and social contract. The character of this Nation has fallen because Cities may seize your private property for private use and profit. As a private property owner you are disposable and insignificant. It does not matter how many years you have invested in the community because profit equals victory opposed to traits of virtue such as loyalty and dedication. This is the climate and moral fabric of the United States of America.

Now is the time to support officials who are mature and stand up to protect private property rights. Whoever fails to do so must not serve in public office because to condemn your home or business is to condemn you. Why support officials who have the disposition to condemn and exploit you? Take the deadly tool of Eminent Domain away and teach your City to conduct business properly.

Answer in earnest the following questions: Would you invest in a home or business in a City which abuse and disrespect their citizens? Do you know there is a way to revitalize without using condemnation as a tool? Do you know cities who respect ownership and do not use condemnation as a tool for redevelopments are more resourceful? Do you know cities without a Redevelopment Agency earns more per-capita income opposed to cities with a Redevelopment Agency? Do you think Eminent Domain, Redevelopment, and Revitalization using condemnation as a tool should be used to resolve social issues? Why do cities fail to discern the social issue from Eminent Domain? Finally, do you believe in the American Dream and what does the Constitution mean to you?

Do you think you have security as a private property owner?

The government has the power to take your private property for others to profit.

You only own your property until the government decides to take it.

In short, we have lost our private property rights and in reality we lease our land until the Government at will change the land use and ownership. What is your opinion regarding this matter of leasing your land until your time is up to sell by force to the Government?

    EMINENT DOMAIN IS A NATIONAL PLAGUE.

Quotes:

In my opinion, private property rights are fundamental rights of every citizen, and I will continue to stand up and fight for this principle because I believe it is the right thing for all the citizens.

The American Dream is to own your own home and then pass the fruits of your life long hard work along to your children or loved ones. I just cannot sit back in good conscience and let the City of San Bernardino and the Municipal Valley Water District turn these hard-working citizens’ American Dreams into a nightmare.

Hands Off:

The Hands Off a coalition reveals an unknown world of Redevelopment, Revitalization using condemnation as a tool and Eminent Domain. This world is subtle, quiet, and unknown to the private property owner. Because of the Supreme Court decision, every property owner must know Eminent Domain, Redevelopment, and Revitalization using condemnation as a tool.

Deanna Adams, Ph.D., member of the "Hands Off" coalition, is knowledgeable regarding the unknown government. No one is safe and your property is next for the taking. As an active participant in the community the author is not part of the status quo or business as usual in City Government. The author asks the reader to examine the issues and research independently from any belief and opinion. The reader will see the Truth in the False. This website is about you because to exploit (the City, Muni, and Regional Water ) is to be exploited ( the citizens of San Bernardino ).

****

Who Is The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District?

The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District is known as SBVMWD or MUNI and was formed in 1954. The purpose of the formation was to plan long range water supply for the San Bernardino Valley. As a wholesale distrubtion agency the task is to import water into its service area through - participation in the California State Water Project that manages groundwater storage within its boundaries.

SBVMWD covers about 325 square miles in Southwestern San Bernardino County, about 60 miles East of Los Angeles, and has a population of about 600,000. It spurs the Eastern two thirds of the San Bernardino Valley, the Crafton Hills, and a portion of the Yucaipa Valley, and includes the cities and communities of San Bernardino, Colton, Rialto, Bloomington, Highland, Grand Terrace, and Yucaipa.

The task of a water district is to improve water supply reliability, improve water quality, reduce the risk of liquefaction, maximize beneficial use of water, and ecosytem restoration. The district and other districts are engaging in a integrated regional groundwater management plan. City of Redlands Municipal Utilities Department, City of San Bernardino Municipal Valley Water Department, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District, West Valley Water District, Yucaipa Valley Water District, East Valley Water District, Water Resources Institute CSU of San Bernardino, City of Riverside Public Utilities Department, Western Municipal Water, and SAWPA. The purpose of the IRGWM plan is to prepare a long term management plan for surface and groundwater resources of the region.Studying the plan, the author found no evidence for a need to raze an entire neighborhood of 437 affordable housing, 47 businesses, and 6 churches to manage groundwater storage within its boudaries. To the contrary, the IRGWM is to protect the environment and implement a plan of integrity to protect and serve the environment. Reviewing the IRGWM the plan implemented a good water management system. The North Lake Reservoir project was excluded from the educational material presented to the agencies and the public. Why? The North Lake Reservoir Project according to SBMVWD is an absolute necessity to resolve high underground water, contamination, and liquefaction for San Bernardino and the region. Examining the IRGWM does the Bunker Hill rely on the North Lake Reservoir or is that a political tool to benefit the wholesale distrubution to Orange County by the SBVMWD? Call the District and ask how much profit are they reaping from the sale of the water? How much property and or sales tax does the district pay on the land use ?(441/2acres) Why did the District not disclose to the public of their plan to sell water to Orange County?

.

*******************

The argument: Does the Media effectively communicate the message that serve the agenda of the dominant elite?

The North Lake Project is a classic example of exploitation which serve the agenda of the dominant elite. The argument of an environmental necessity for a reservoir and the tossing of law suits by Judge Wade support that the law serve the agenda of the dominant elite. The argument pertaining to razing an entire neighborhood does not support the claim of the respondents in the law suits. The evidence supported by the respondents are blatant lies that a need for a reservoir is to clear high underground water and resolve the contamination issue. The truth is: The need for Muni to sell water, our natural heritage, to others and pave the way for redevelopment at the expense and exploitation of the defenseless. So, to raze an entire neighborhood of two thousand people, forty seven-family businesses, and six churches are supported by laws which serve the agenda of the dominant elite and the political economy.

The government and the media cooperate to manipulate the opinions of the populous. The media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. The function of the media on one hand is used to amuse, entertain and inform, however, on the other hand it serves as a communication system of implementing values, beliefs, and codes of behavior which will integrate the person into an institutional structure of the larger society. In a world of conflict and mixed class the media are influenced to serve the agenda of the dominant elite.

The marginalization of dissidents are essential to further the agenda of the dominant elite, and the media's task is to manipulate the news "objectively," and on the basis of professional news values to ultimately benefit the intellect minority.

The alternative view of the North Lake is this website to inform effectively in reinforcing class consciousness that unifies the underclass (working class) because it fosters and alters the value system and framework established by the media who serve the agenda of the dominant elite. The potential power of the working people are encouraged by an alternative view to effect social change and realize the value of their constitutional rights as a property owner. The effectiveness of change is the "Law" not a revolution of violence or bloody confrontation. A revolution of violence and bloody confrontation are useless for the exploiter and the exploited. Real change is the "law" and  the law must not serve the agenda of the dominant elite but pursuit a just society where each member of society is recognized worthy. Revolution must not be used as violence to free the oppression but in intelligence rethinking the letter of the Law to benefit a just society. The need is a psychological revolution setting aside laws which serve the agenda of the dominant elite. We are well accomplished in science but our resistance to mature in consciousness notes that we are willing to shed blood to maintain the status quo.

                      THE WATER MUST STAY IN SAN BERNARDINO.

Click: Latest News, Myth of High Underground Water. Examine the graphic from the "District" to rebuttle the Respondents brief reply pertaining to high underground water.

The following are facts written by Harold Willis, former water commissioner and this humble citizen paid large sums to have his letter published by the Sun. Why? His passion is to point out the facts and expose the occult or hidden matters not made public by Muni. Mr. Willis was the San Bernardino City Water Commissioner from 1964-1999. To point out his credibility and his knowledge, Mr. Willis was installed as a water commissioner to resolve problems encountered by the water district on Thursday, April 30, 1964. Harold served as a board member for 29 years and President of the water board for six years and resigned after serving 35 years for the City.

The Argument:  Are the respondents brief reply valid regarding the Environmental Necessity? Is former SB water commissioner, Harold Willis, a knowledgeable witness pertaining to the high underground water and the bunker hill basin?

In the respondents brief reply, the High Underground Issue and Mitigation was argued that the North Lake project was an Environmental Necessity. Also, Milligan of Muni argued that the project area has high underground water and the North Lake can solve San Bernardino high underground water problem. The Planning Commission, Common Council, and Mayor followed the course of Milligan, however, who examined the reality of high underground water?  The EIR  support the argument of the High Underground Water and Contamination in the project area. What I find most disturbing is the fact that five years ago  the District was aware of the tree growth rings and the pressure zone of the Leroy Well was the lowest in history. So, how can the EIR be correct if the evidence is pointing to a Drought opposed to having a huge amount of extra water?  How can Muni receive money from the Feds if the true facts of this project are reported to the EPA who is the agency for NEPA? The project must be an Environmental Necessity opposed to an Environmental Injustice.

According to Mr. Willis, the public have been told that San Bernardino has this huge amount of extra water that we can sell to people down stream who need it. Mr.Willis was surprised to learn last March (05) at the Municipal Water District meeting that San Bernardino is plagued in the worst drought. Mr. Willis learned this from the Muni District Publication, and at the meeting Muni talked about the the tree growth rings, that these five years are the driest "ever". Further, Mark Bulot who is the representative of the Redlands District dutifully reports on the progress of the High Ground Water Mitigation every two weeks througout the year. Mr.Willis cannot believe the fact that San Bernardino is in the worst drought ever. The City of San Bernardino's Leroy Well is just outside the pressure zone at the 345 foot level and this is the lowest in history. Mr. Willis concluded that San Bernardino is the only entity west of the Rockies who is trying to get rid of water they don't really have.
**********

The Argument: What does the Constitution mean to you?

A letter sent to the people in the project area:

January 17, 2006

Re: North Lake Project: Over two-thousand disadvantaged people displaced, four-hundred thirty seven-affordable housing units, forty-seven family businesses, and six churches of which one is Historical and California Registered.

Dear Friends:

        The individual person's property is his or her primary right. Neither the State nor anybody else has the right to take away that which is rightfully his or her. So when I, for example, work at producing a home and chapel, that home and chapel should belong to me and I should get the benefits because I am the one that produced it. When the government takes through Eminent Domain what I have produced out of myself, they are engaging in a Theft, particularly if they then give my home and chapel to others in ways that I would not choose to. So, when they try to redistribute my home and chapel, we are in fact engaging in a Theft and is Theft the American Way?

The North Lake, a reservoir project, is nothing but theft, exploitation, and a project based on hope. The faculty of reason must not be based on hope or sensation, but on history and analysis of the Good for the entire City. The City's history of failed projects in the downtown area and the neglect of disadvantaged neighborhoods will cause the outcome of this project a severe setback of financial and painful consequences. The Municipal water district is the winner and the City officials unintentionally are blind to the deep reality of "what is" that will affect a severe adverse impact on the progress of San Bernardino. The media adds to this drama of sensational propaganda, a vision of "new life," which is an illusion and the history of the Central City project has proven this to be true. (06/27/1965) I think today especially, in the age of the sound byte, in the age where tremendously powerful forces and the media are trying to turn reasoning about public issues into mockery and into simple manipulation. The reality is there is no such thing as "new life" because life is present in all disadvantaged areas. The purpose of the Government is to lead and renew "new life" in the life of the people existing in disadvantaged neighborhoods and not engage in theft, exploitation, and plundering.

The solution is not outward but inward in working with people in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Last month I observed the entire City and I noticed new buildings. I also observed a significantly decline in people's morale and a decay in other disadvantaged neighborhoods. Mayor Valles did well in erecting new buildings but what about decline in morale and decay in other disadvantaged neighborhoods? The years of neglect reap the fruit of high crime, deterioration, and decline in morale that sixty five percent of the City has remained troubled. Further, the displacement of people in the area are an impact on other disadvantaged neighborhoods which would add to the stress of the City and increase crime.

My argument of a reservoir plunked in the middle of troubled crime ridden neighborhoods, past history of failed projects, City's budget and the City's lack of capacity equals an unsound plan. The Municipal water district is the only winner, in this case, exploiting the poor, using our water( not knowing the destiny of our natural heritage and water resources), our land tax free, and earning huge profits from selling water to others not sharing the profits.

One must go very deep and probe in depth the nature of this project, blight, crime, elected officials, and inquire the "what is". The outcome of that observation and inquiry, setting aside media and propaganda, you will find solutions to the problems that troubles this City.

Thank you for your attention.

Deanna

***

Arguments:

The Argument: How does the politician use cognitive psychology to frame ideas? How is language used to address the internal mental process?

Language is  used to propogate ideas and using selective words are tools used by politicians to create a desired illusion. In cognitive psychology language has a profound affect on the mind and language is used to frame ideas and words which has an impression from the senses such as: re-vitalize, vibrant, beautify, economic boost, and destination. Those words are pleasing to the internal mental processing but far removed from reality. One must set aside all media, propaganda, and discern the reality of what is and what is not.

The Argument: Is participation a psychological tool to ease the condemnation threat?

The Walnut Project is an classic example of abusive powers by the Agency, Mayor, and Common Council. A letter was sent to a family who owns two homes and one vacant parcel. These homes are the family’s ticket to escape poverty because the investment has potential to bear fruit in the future.

To sell properties by force to the developer will terminate any opportunities for the family's financial freedom. The family has lived in their home for thirty years, and the eldest member of the family suffers anxiety, and the fear from the unknown.

Why must an eighty-year old woman suffer this threat of losing her family home by a developer who is anxious to profit off her land? The offer of three-hundred and eighty nine thousand dollars from the developer for two homes on large lots cannot purchase the family a replacement. How can this family participate and compete on social security, and a low income job earned by the old woman's daughter who is also senior citizen?

A letter was sent to them and the Agency asked to meet with the family to discuss the neighborhood improvement plans and possible opportunities available to participate in the revitalization effort of the neighborhood. How can that family who is struggling be a participant and compete a project that is knowingly unapproachable?  Because the project developer has been unable to reach an agreement with the owners, the developer asked for the City’s assistance in completing the purchase. Is this the American Way?*************

The Argument: Should the rule of law benefit one group and discriminate against another group? Should a law be moral? Should a law be based on belief or reason?

"To see "what is" is to set aside our own beliefs and influences from propaganda and society and concentrate just on justice to a point that we might agree.

So, when African American Rosa Parks, for example, refused to give up her front seat to a white person on a bus why did the Law not protect her? The Law applied to one group of people but not to another group of people. The Law Ms. Parks violated was based on a Rule of Law which confirmed a belief that white people had the privilege to sit in front of the Bus. If Justice demand that all people should be treated equal why do so many people seldom think about the injustice of others, in this case Rosa Parks? It appears that everyone else was doing a moral mistake and it's very easy to make a moral mistake when others do, and it even takes some courage to do the right thing when other people are doing the wrong thing. That's part of the explanation why people did not do anything to help the African Americans until Ms. Parks violated the law and point out the law was flawed. The Law was flawed because the Rule of Law was based on a belief that nature created white people superior opposed to black people. So, is it possible to set aside our own belief and propaganda from influences and society and concentrate just on justice to a point that we might agree? The Law of Eminent Domain is a bad law because the Law favorites one group for another, in this case, the land use is taken and given to those who think they can do better with the Land. Since the Law discriminates one group from another, the rich from the poor than the Law is not only flawed but immoral and set the stage for corruption and the possibility of a terrible fate.***********

Quote:

"So, fortunately or unfortunately for yourself, you have heard something that is true. If you merely hear it and are not actively disturbed so that your mind begins to free itself from all the things that are making it narrow and crooked, then the truth you have heard will become a poison. Surely, truth becomes a poison if it is heard and does act in the mind, like the festering of a wound. But to discover for oneself what is true and what is false, and to see the truth in the false, is to let that truth operate and bring forth its own action."

"The powerful forces of the *media are trying to turn reasoning about public issues into mockery and into simple manipulation. Nobleness of the media is to probe the mind to pursue the answers and not being willing to take the traditional, culturally given answers as Truth."

"The way we see the world is in many ways constructed by our own mind. Much of the content, however, is not from our own reason but dependency on authorities until we reached maturity realizing that we are our own highest authority."

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 07, 2006

From: Deanna Helena Adams, Ph.D.

To: Respectable taxpayers, citizens, home owners, business owners, and the six churches of the North and South Lake project.

Re: Hear the arguments to protect your rights at Superior Court, San Bernardino on 01/11/06 at 8:30. Judge Wade will hear the arguments at Superior Court, Arrowhead Ave in San Bernardino.

"The ultimate violence is razing 437 affordable housing units for 72 upscale homes in order to pave the way for the affluent. The justification for this violence is "limited options" and the bogus Bunker Hill argument; however, alternatives for the reservoir and treatment of contaminated water in the Environmental Impact Report proved the arguments of the respondents flawed. What I find most disturbing and violent is the invention of this project to raze a neighborhood and our fight to retain our affordable homes and seek Justice." Deanna

PROFIT VS. PEOPLE? WHAT IS IMPORTANT PROFIT OR PEOPLE? COME and SEE.

Witness the Law in Action protecting our rights as taxpayers, citizens, and human beings.

The outcome of the cases pertaining to the North Lake will be known on January 11, 2006. The outcome is a reflection of our moral fabric in our society. Will the Law reflect our consciousness in the realm of exploitation, plundering, and profit or will the Law reflect consciousness in the realm of True Knowledge which Goodness is the highest and most important of all Forms?

What is your relationship with the Government? Come and find out what your relationship is with the Government at all levels. Find out if the Government is interested in protecting your home, business, and church. Is it acceptable to take your property and sell by force in order to avoid Eminent Domain procedures? Is it acceptable to take your property and give your hard work to others for profit? How about the fruit of your labor passed to your children and grandchildren as a blessing when you depart?

How will your life be psychologically, physically, and financially after you are forced to commit an act against your will?

COME AND HEAR THE ARGUMENTS BETWEEN THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS E. GOEBEL AND THE LAW FIRMS REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, AND THE REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES WHO ARE THE RESPONDENTS.

Witness Justice in action and observe the system at work pertaining to the need of thousands which will be impacted with this Environmental Injustice. JANUARY 11, 06 at Superior Court in San Bernardino. The cases will be heard by Judge Wade at 8:30 a.m. Room S-8.

Quotes and Questions:

"A mind that is like a white sheet of paper is a joy for the media and government to exploit."

What is ultimately more unjust for a society: To leave some people in poverty or to take property from others?

How can so many go about daily lives of comfort or even luxury, and think so seldom about the suffering of others?

"The ruling of the Judge is the genesis of slavery and corruption. Corruption begins in the lack of relationship and slavery to surrender our land to prosper the Master. Unless one understands the corruption of this, it seems to me, when we try to bring order in society, we are bound to create not only deep divisions between the slave and master, but also we will be unable to prevent corruption."

"Society is not something separate from you and me. Society is the relationship that we establish or seek to establish between each other. So you and I are the problem, and not blight, because blight is the projection of us, and to understand blight we must understand ourselves. The blight is not separate from us because we are society, and our problems are society's problems."

"A society whose structure is based on mere Greed must breed conflict, confusion, and misery. Society is the projection of us in relationship with another, in which the need and use are predominant. When you use another for your need, in actuality there is no relationship at all; you really have no contact with the other. How can you resolve deep social problems with the other when the other is used for profit and convenience? So, it is essential to understand the significance of relationship between the Government and citizen."

"The social morality, as I observe, is totally immoral; maybe respectable, but what is respectable is generally disorderly. The crisis in our society is the disorder in consciousness in which you and I share equally. It is consciousness that is in disorder; there is no disorder anywhere else. The crisis is not seeking outward solutions but in understanding of "what is" that flowers goodness and a transformation in society."

"The mind unadorned finds Truth in the Rule of Law by composing the parts that make up a whole. A just decision must equal the wholeness of the person interpreting because Integral is essential to completeness and nakedness is essential to uncovering the False from the Truth."

01/11/2006

The Decision.

                                     People Sold for Profit.

The case was predetermined and no consideration and compassion for thousands of people. The Judge read a brief response pointing out the Environmental Impact Report is good enough for a start, and officials can address issues as they arise. The Environmental Impact Report must not be rationalized as "good enough" and address issues as they arise. The theory of "ripeness" is not acceptable to address a project of this magnitude and how can the whole be determined if the parts are not critically examined? What I find disturbing there is no evidence of a social-economic benefit, and development. Ignoring the reality of "what is," a human condition minimized in order to reap a profit is the rule of law. The Judge did not have the courage to stand alone and the nature of his ruling, in this case, are the forces that tie the Judge to the establishment. I am questioning his interpretation of the Constitution and what does the Constitution mean to him?

The "Project EIR" according to Judge Wade was free of abuse from the water district and the City of San Bernardino. The Judge found no errors in the Law and his own psychological conditioning advanced him to sign the judgment to evict two-thousand citizens who are now strangers and considered inferior.

The "Project of a Superior Anglo Race" was considered a righteous law and Adolph Hitler found the project Good to exterminate folks he considered inferior including those of Jewish Faith.  This infantile behavior stimulates patterns of desire and justify any action imposed on others as righteousness.

Both Laws  promoted the self interest of the dominant elite in order to purue their agenda of the establishment and the nature of those laws are similar -- a depiction of a certain group of people unfit for society.

In the United States there is a gap between the rich and poor. The poor are subject to the pressure of economic necessity and they have to be preoccupied with their own self interest, will not share in a self-rule, and as a result virtue is corrupted. The rich are also preoccupied by luxury and virtue is corrupted because they are ill equipped to share in a deliberation about the common good. It is this grave gap between the rich and the poor that destroys the common life, destroys any possibility of sharing a sufficiently common life, so that we can deliberate as a political community about the common good. Unless this grave gap is significantly narrowed, it is this that will corrupt the virtue of the poor and the rich that protect themselves against the possibility of a terrible fate.

"Suppose all the people of our society could gather in one place. Suppose by some miracle no one knew whether they would be rich or poor, black or white, Mexican or Asian, male or female. And suppose they have to agree upon rules to govern their society. In this situation, wouldn't each person choose rules that would be just to everyone, and protect him or herself against the possibility of a terrible fate? Surely, the rule of Eminent Domain for profit would not be a law to govern their society.

"The core of ethics as I see it is doing the right thing. Are people going to be better off under a given set of Eminent Domain practices? Doing the right thing means acting in such a way that you promote the interest of the people who are affected by your actions, where everyone's interest is given equal weight."

Argument:

The Argument: Is Morality the Extension of the Social Instinct?

The view that people in the state of nature are nasty is the veneer theory. The author find the veneer theory flawed since humans are social and morality is essential for survival. The author's research conclude that our ancestors possessed instincts of empathy and reciprocity, and those traits are extension of the social instinct. Humans lie but our ancestors do not lie or pretend, and observing their nature the research found evidence that these instincts are wired in the human brain and are independent of traits passed by genes or learned from the environment. Further, these instincts are essential for survival and since empathy and reciprocity are considered moral instincts human-beings are moral because of the extension of the social instinct.

Of course, biologically we have inherited behaviors to fend off those who aggress against us, but empathy and reciprocity are equal in significance because of their instincts to assure survival. Now, what has this to do with Eminent Domain? The law of an Eminent Domain is a bad law because the taking violates empathy and reciprocity. A law that violates empathy and reciprocity is a bad law because the law is contrary to the extension of the social instinct and an overall insult to the organism.

Letter to the Sun 01/18/2006 by Paul Christopher Adams

Violation of the Social Contract.

As I sit and reflect upon the trials and tribulations that have Lead us to seek the protection of the appellate courts. You see, I have been painted by The Sun as a person who wants to stand in the way of the future of San Bernardino, I have sought the privilege of serving my neighborhood on the city council, and I have stood with my friends and neighbors against the injustices.

But what are the injustices that we speak of? Well, I was born in the United States and as a citizen of the US, I entered into a contract with the government that would consent to be governed under the laws of the constitution and the bill of rights. In the constitution it says the government will have the right to take property "for public use" providing fair market value is paid. I do not disagree that the government has the right to take nor do I take exception to the just compensation. I do disagree with the Lake project when it comes to for public use for two reasons.

One, the idea that government should make the lightest footprint upon the people governed as possible argues greatly on the side of those of us that have sought a compromise of the smaller lake.

Two, the sad fact that the city is not getting any of the projected 120 million dollars a year that muni is going to make on the sale of water. As a proud citizen of San Bernardino I hate to see our resources being given away when we need all the help we can get. If asked to give up our property we would like to see our city get something out of it. So Mr. Milligan (president of muni) if you are so interested in the taking of our land give us something back. By pledging to the city a percentage of the profit to lower the price of water paid by the citizens of San Bernardino, and help make this project a success by providing funds for more police and emergency services. In short give to the public good or is all your wishes are to take. This is where the social contract has been violated by our government in this case. We get nothing except some magic beans that might grow into something some day, but we lose a precious commodity our land and citizens.

We need to remember that we are all a part of this city. We must stop the killings or nobody will ever want to come to our city let alone stay. We must have more after school activities. Our parks need to be a place where parents and kids feel safe to go. Not a place for drug dealers and sexual deviants to lurk.

No wonder why it is so easy for muni to want to plunder our resources. We have lost our sense of hope. We see no future in our own people. We see the profit in displacing people. We want to give our land away because or politicians do not know what to do with it.

I hope that we can stop the violence. I hope that the new mayor is able to see that the citizens and our land as a resource to be used to improve our city not to be given away. I hope my neighborhood is here in the future. I hope our City can be more prosperous.

I hope.

Paul Christopher Adams

******

Will Leviathan Prevail?

The North and South Lake Project: A joint project of the City of San Bernardino, Valley Municipal Water District, and Regional Resources Authority.

*This is only the beginning. Vision 20/20 plan identified seven (7) districts throughout the City that would eventually have a Lake, a Stream, or both. (Administrative Record, page 8564)Who is the Municipal Valley Water District? The Municipal Valley Water District is a large wholesale water distribution agency. It is not the City's water department that delivers water to your house. Instead, the Municipal Valley Water District delivers water to water companies generally. The water district would operate the proposed North and South Lake as a water regulating reservoir in San Bernardino. Once the reservoirs are built and the water is on the surface, the water becomes part of the Santa Ana River Watershed. The project points to liquefaction mitigation; however, I have yet to unearth the study that shows that denaturing is an effective liquefaction mitigation strategy. What I have unearthed, and is quite common knowledge, that denaturing does cause subsidence ground failure.

Quotes:

"The demand for the North Lake project comes from our own violence, from our own ugly, and limited selfishness. Surely, it can hide politically "doing well for the City. I am certainly for social change; however, this project requires observation to see where the subtleties of the self, of selfishness, are hidden."

Are we really actually concerned about the transformation of society - society which is corrupt, which is not Good, which is based on ruthlessness, exploitation, and plundering? That is the society in which we are living. Are you really interested, deeply interested in changing that, even as a single human being? If you are, then you have to inquire into what is society. Is society a word, an abstraction, or a reality? Is it reality or is it an abstraction of human relationship? It is human relationship that is society. What your relationship is, your environment is. That human relationship with all its castes, complexities, its conditions, its hates, its exploits, and its plunder, can you alter all that relationship? Yes, you can. You can stop the exploit and plunder and all that goes with it. If your relationship is destructive, exploitive, and self centered, you are creating a thing around you which will be equally destructive. So, the individual is you and you are mankind. Surely, the promoters, authors, and those in authority have contributed to the decline and primitive state of human consciousness and lessen the intelligence in human relationship. The outcome of Environmental Injustice is the Decline in the development of "Good" in Consciousness and in the World because you (individual consciousness) and the World (collective consciousness) is one. To be Good is not to follow and be satisfied with superficial revolutions in politics. To be Good is to be able to understand the whole movement of life because you are society. Is the Society different from us, or have we created this society, each one of us, through our ambition, through our greed, our envy, our violence, and wanting our security in the community? This shameful Environmental Injustice is an example of our primitive consciousness, in human relationship and a step in the wrong direction to undergo a radical transformation psychologically. The hope for us is to bring about a radical psychological revolution in the very structure of our thinking, of our acting, of our behavior and our outlook. The exploitation and plundering of Eminent Domain for profit are systems of Corporate Welfare and an example of our decline and deterioration in consciousness and human relationship because society is human relationship."

A warm note from Attorney Louis E. Goebel

A SHAMEFUL EXAMPLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE."This project is a shameful example of environmental injustice as its worst. The government agencies openly demonstrate their lack of respect for the honest hardworking people who have lived long and worked in this neighborhood. They have toiled long and hard to improve their community. Many of the family homes and small businesses in the area are well maintained and show pride of ownership. It is grossly unfair for the City to threaten to take these citizens' private property for their government cohort's great profit in SELLING WATER TO OUTSIDERS. Instead, the City should respect hard work, ethnic diversity, and entrepreneurial spirit of these citizens who are striving to make San Bernardino's a better place. The City ignores the fact that much of the "BLIGHT" it complains about is the result of the threat of Eminent Domain which has been hanging over these people's heads for many years. Contrary to state law and the City's own General Plan and related housing ordinance rule and guidelines, this City and their government cohort adopt an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) and blatantly expose governmental agencies’ SELF-CENTERED GREED and LACK OF COMPASSION for fewer fortunate citizens by performing like an ostrich, burying its head in the sand and ignoring 437 affordable homes, 47 businesses, and six churches with a mere 72 unaffordable homes possibly being offered later as so called replacements." Louis E. Goebel, Attorney.

(Affordable means a home the average San Bernardino citizens could afford and not limited to subsidized housing no federal, state, local government, or charity.)

Additional Comments by Louis E. Goebel The City openly states in the Final Environmental Impact Report that the proposed project is not consistent with the City’s General Plan. The 2000/2005 Consolidated Plan, required by State law)published its program priorities as follows:

High Priority one: Preserve and Rehabilitate Existing Single Family Dwellings.

High Priority two: Expand Home ownership Opportunities and Assist Home buyers with the Purchase of Affordable Housing.(Existing and New Construction)

High Priority three: Provide Rental Assistance and Preserve Existing Affordable Rental Housing.

If this is the case, what does the General Plan Amendment do but allow jeopardy, if not destruction, of not less than 437 affordable single family housing units, in direct derogation to the overriding priorities contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Consolidated Plan, which are mandated by State Law?

The Respondents claim that the case is not ripe. With all due respect to the authority cited by Respondents as to ripeness, why go through the ritual of the "project EIR" if there is no project?

There is simply no mitigation proposed except the assertion that the normal relocation processes for condemnation will apply. This does not answer the ultimate question of the irretrievable loss of 437 units of existing affordable housing to the City of San Bernardino. The absence of a mitigation the General Plan Amendment should not have been approved and Mandate relief is available to reserve that approval.

The respondents obviously rely entirely on the relocation provisions of Government Code section 7260, with the idea that as to any individual resident or property owner, if and when the Respondents decide to do so, if affect, the parties can then negotiate. This is no way mitigates the overall impact on housing in the City of San Bernardino, but rather only partially mitigates the impact as to some of the residents of the 437 affordable housing units Respondents plan to destroy.

***

Notes:

Eminent Domain for profit is Corporate Welfare.

Bad Government is condemned to repeat ill projects. The North Lake project must not go forward unless Seccombe Lake and the Central City Mall, a.k.a. Carousal Mall project delivers the benefits certified in the Final Environmental Impact Reports. Good Government recognizes failed projects and offers atonement and restitution to displaced citizens who were forced to sell their homes, businesses, and faced Eminent Domain. Good folks lost opportunities to benefit from today's profit in home equity if they where not forced to sell, and some folks were sent further into poverty. Also, other folks lost the opportunity to pull themselves from poverty and Eminent Domain steals the chance for their children to inherit their property. A failed project, Trojan Horse, Unuseable, and a White Elephant result. Good Government must finish all unfinished business of ill projects. To finish unfinished business is the mark of Good Government and responsible City Officials.

The North Lake project: The first reservoir: A backward project and embarrassment for the City of San Bernardino and citizens. To wipe out an entire neighborhood to limit blight is a step in the wrong direction. The North Lake Project is developed from an idea based on "hope" that downtown will be revitalized creating a San Antonio dream like a river walk. The plan is to raze 437 affordable housing units, six churches, and 47 businesses for a Lake disguised as a Reservoir, 72 upscale family single homes, plunked, isolated, and three large commercial pads.

The hope of the project is that the North Lake will be the focal point of a revitalized downtown. The author sees no evidence, on the contrary, the author views the project as an exploitation and plunder by the Municipal Valley Water District and the City's inability of solving social problems dealing with issues in the project area and other distressed areas. Bad government repeats ill projects and without expertise and risk these projects are nothing more than a Trojan Horse, Unuseable, and a White Elephant.

The author's point of view pertaining to the project is a bait and switch promise and a knife in the heart of San Bernardino's progress if this project goes forward. This project is an irreversible step in the wrong direction and exploitation by the water district unmatched for a City like San Bernardino. The City must find a way to solve social problems and not raze an entire neighborhood to benefit the water district and an unrealized dream of a revitalized downtown. The author does not find evidence realizing a benefit like a river walk in the middle of downtown, the center, of San Bernardino.The South Lake project: The second reservoir. This project area includes about 482,000 square feet of office and supporting retail development uses on about 34 acres, and this is located north o the Lytle Creek Flood Control Channel. South of the channel are approximately 13 acres of open spaces and wetlands’ area. (A reservoir) The South Lake area offers 5 acres for the Reservoir and only a handful of residents is affected by the South Lake project. The South Lake area is more appropriate for a large lake (34 acres) opposed to the North Lake. According to the Consolidated Administrative Record, page 8536, only four (4) housing units in the South Lake Area Project would result in demolition opposed to (437) housing units in the North Lake Area Project. The evidence is clear that the purpose of the North Lake is to vacate more than two thousand souls and raze an entire neighborhood using a 44 ½ acre of Reservoir to serve the need for Greed.

The South Lake project includes about thirty-four acres of office and supporting retail development. The City and the City's Economic Development Agency would be responsible for all the development or redevelopment activities. Today, our land and properties (North Lake) are valued at one hundred and fifty million to two hundred million dollars and has the potential to increase in land value over the years. The City would lose the potential shared property tax and sales taxes for years to come. Since August 2004, Real Estate in San Bernardino County increased thirty two percent. Why would San Bernardino give millions of dollars in land and properties for reservoirs to serve others using our valuable resources not earning one cent for the City? The math of new infrastructures, at some point in time, (10yrs-25yrs) is a multi six figure number, a cost this City cannot manage. Further, why would San Bernardino vacate (to give away ) the underlying streets for Free. In other words, this City is giving Muni all the infrastructures owned by the Public Free. Follow the downtown track record of this City. The downtown track record for San Bernardino is zero and now the City wants to eliminate an entire neighborhood for a reservoir, seventy two-upscale homes plunked, isolated, and three large commercial pads in an area surrounded by neighborhoods in distress.

The problems are social and bad Government repeat mistakes from the past. The Central City Mall project a.k.a. Carousal Mall and Seccombe Lake are classic examples of bad Government. Both projects desired to limit blight and promote revitalization and a destination for people. The experts and the joint power authority failed at the expense of citizens and businesses who were forced to sell and faced Eminent Domain. The problems are social and revitalizing not using condemnation as a tool is a way to go and guarantee success without taking a financial risk and leave the failed project for others to burden. Renovation is a valuable tool and most prudent for a City like San Bernardino. Renovating the neighborhood and work the infrastructure in the project area but also other areas in distress are prudent. The Municipal Valley Water District must not own our land, tax free, and sell our natural heritage "water." The Municipal Valley Water District needs to understand that selling water must be independent from exploiting our citizens, land and water resources.

To point out, the North Lake project like other failed projects above is deemed to repeat; however, this project is unmatched for San Bernardino and will suffer consequences of great loss to all. The track record in the downtown area for failed projects is evident and to see the truth in the false, is to let the truth operate and bring forth its own action. The outcome of Seccombe Lake and the Central City Project a.k.a. Carousal Mall is "Truth in Action" today. Quick Facts

The California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) was intended as a legal document to protect the fullest possible protection to the environment. According to the Administrative Record, page 8560, the overall, North Lake Alternative 4 has been determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative aside from Alternative 1.(page 8554) Alternative 1 is the No Project Alternative. Alternative four is the North Lake Storage Tanks This alternative is good for the City's housing stock and reduce the City's population by less than the proposed project.

Alternative three is the South Lake Superior Alternative. According to the Consolidated Administrative Record, page 8574, South Lake Alternative 3 has been determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) guidelines, decision makers are required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. In the event the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." Further, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino having reviewed and considered the information contained within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, and having reviewed and considered the information contained within the public record, and having balanced the benefit of the project against the unavoidable effect which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in consideration of the following overriding considerations discussion. (Consolidated Administrative Record, page 8575.) The Mayor, Planning Commissioners, and Common Council failed to examine the Reports and failed to examine, and analyze the Records in depth. The record proves the fact that interest in critical review, analysis, and reports in the flawed Environmental Impact Report was absent. Further, comments’ presented by Valerie Ross was the final curtain draw for the Show. In other words, Ms. Ross concluded her comments as the finality and no other comments were made regardless of contrary facts and evidence presented. Due to the size and nature of the projects the Statement of Facts and Findings and all of the evidence presented the Mayor and Common Council failed to examine the impact of the Project. The project was a done deal! If the project was reviewed, analyzed, and examined the evidence would be contrary to the memo's on record. In short, there were no memo's from the Mayor and Council members (except Longville - read further) reviewing, analyzing, and examining this immense project of such significant nature.

Planning Commissioners: A handpicked group by the Common Council, uncertified, failed to mitigate the Environmental Impact.The only qualification the Commissioners must have been his or her appointment by a council member and residence in the ward of the Council member.

Reading the report on March 08, 05 the questions the Commissioners asked was evident that they failed to examine the Environmental Impact or perhaps a lack of concern knowing that they would vote in the direction to pass the certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Six City Council members (except one member) failed to examine the content of the project and mitigate the Environmental Impact.

The author examined the Administrative Record of almost 10,014 pages and not some written memos from the Council except from Councilwoman Longville.

According of the Administrative Record, page 8527, the Mayor and Common Council of the City have independently reviewed, analyzed, and exercised judgement in making their respective determinations, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1 (c)(3). If this is the case, the record must provide evidence of such effort. On the contrary, the only memo's in the record is from Longville. The Council members did not analyze and exercised judgment because from the evidence the members never participated in reviewing, analyzing, and exercising judgment in depth! A project of this magnitude surely requires intense examination and multiple memos’ because of the significant impact.

Certainly this is evident that the council members had this project voted as a "done deal."

The numerous memos from Susan Longville are evident that her passion was the "project". The author is questioning her drive, motive, and direction of her passion. Is it possible that her drive, motive, and direction of her passion point to the promotion of the project or to protect her constituents?

Longville was involved with the project for many years and is knowledgeable pertaining to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Longville's knowledge pertaining to CEQA is her employment as an Interim Director at the Water Resource Institute. The Water Resource Institute at Cal.State University, San Bernardino offers Education in the Field of Water. According to the staff at the Water Resource Institute an interim director is knowledgeable pertaining to CEQA and specializes in the "field of water."

Councilwoman Longville point out in her numerous memos the needed requirements in order to pass CEQA.

In short, Longville's interest and attention point out requirements throughout the project in order to pass the California Environmental Quality Act. Longville was silent to her constituents in her ward until April 25, 2005, the evening of the vote, to certify the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Since Longville's expertise is in water why did she not inform us about EPA and status on the Newmark Operable Unit? Why did she not inform the public of the monitoring wells and the extraction wells that are located 11th st - East of the North 215? Since the test results are done by the City of San Bernardino why did she not monitor the test results of the contaminant TCE and PCE and report to the public about the latest results? The outcome of the Council's vote is a tragedy for two thousand one hundred and eighty-five people, four hundred and thirty seven-affordable housing units, forty-seven businesses, and six churches. The council woman is a specialist in the field of water, the California environmental quality act, and from the evidence she has access to information but withheld valuable information from the citizens in the project area and other professionals who could have helped in saving our village. The reader is to find out the reality of her drive, motive, and direction regarding her efforts promoting the project and her contribution to the Environmental Injustice.

Land: All the land is held by Muni until some time in the future for development. Water: The profit made on two reservoirs and the sale of the water is for Mini. Why would the City give Millions of profits and our natural heritage? The City's budget is about one hundred and twenty-six million and the City has numerous projects to fund leaving the City short to meet the need to fund those projects. Vacate: The City is to vacate (give away) the underlying streets owned by the Public. Millions of dollars lost in infrastructures. Bond Indebtedness: The City and the City's Redevelopment agency are to purchase at some point in time twenty five acres (North Lake) and thirty-four acres (South Lake)

Tax: Government does not tax Government. In short, Tax free. Infrastructure: The City has to purchase new infrastructures. The reader must investigate the cost of new infrastructures and who will pay for that cost in the future?

People: Two thousand one hundred and eighty-five people are displaced and need their affordable homes and family businesses in order to provide for their families.

Businesses: forty seven-active family businesses.

Churches: six active churches.

Housing units: Four hundred thirty seven affordable housing units Affordable housing: In the City's current General Consolidated Plan the highest priority is the existing affordable single family units and the preservation of affordable single family units. Seventy four percent of the families living in Census Tract 56, the project area, earned incomes less than $24,912.00.

Value of Properties: Value of Properties $150M - $200M. a 32% increase since August 2004.

Loss of shared current and potential property tax.

Loss of sales tax.

One hundred Seventy-three-Historical Homes click Flawed EIR

Extreme displacement of people, housing, and businesses.

Draft Environmental Impact Report readily concedes that this aspect of the Project has "unavoidable significant impact" but provides no meaningful mitigation.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report hardly touches on the specific effects on the 437 affordable homes, numerous businesses, relocation demands as short as 90 days, impact on the elderly and disabled with homes within the Project, the dilemma of the numerous homeowners whose homes are presently "paid off," problems with non English speakers, and the effects of shortage of comparable affordable housing reasonably close to the site and the prices likely demand for such for being available.

The so-called statistics in the Draft Environmental Impact Report are universally stale, some relying on the 2000 Census. In the intervening time, real estate values in San Bernardino have sky rocketed and the availability of affordable housing has dramatically shrunk.

Affordable location for 437 housing units

Affordable location for 47 businesses

Affordable location for six churches

The project must pass NEPA.

The project must be approved by the EPA, the Lead Agency (Environmental Protection Agency)

The North Lake project are surrounded by blighted areas.

The people displaced from the project will intrude in other blight neighborhoods compounding the blight.

The North Lake project is close to a unkept Seccombe Lake in an disadvantaged neighborhood.

The North Lake project is close by a malfunction mall in an blight area.

San Bernardino will have three Lakes to deal with if this project goes forward. All three lakes will be in blighted areas!

San Bernardino will have to replace every single family home taken that is affordable, a requirement by the State.

The City must measure or analyze the impact of the new construction of 437 affordable housing units.

The law requires that each affordable housing unit razed must be replaced.

Affordable housing shortage in San Bernardino and region.

Mitigation is not a written and photo documentation on a Calif. Register Historical and Culture Resource.(Stephens & Bobbitt) a.k.a. (Victory Chapel)

The City does not have an official register for historical buildings. (Stephens & Bobbitt) a.k.a. (Victory Chapel)

The City does not have a plan to preserve and designate a historical resource. (Stephens & Bobbitt) a.k.a. (Victory Chapel)

The City has freed one of its owned properties from the North Lake project. (An inferior property, both in current and in historical significance) (Boys and Girls) Click: The Latest News.

Boys and Girls club, the property not listed on the California and National Register.

The promoters of the EIR fails to analyze the same treatment for Victory Chapel, a well-kept treasure that is listed on the California Historic Register opposed to the Boys and Girls club not listed on the California and/or National Register.

No detailed studies of the scope of more than 400 properties proposed to be taken and demolished and the scope of realistic mitigation of the unavoidable significant impact, i.e., what property is available for relocation, how distant is it, and how much will it cost.

The Land Use and Relevant Planning section boldly and incorrectly states "the proposed Project would be consistent with the City of San Bernardino General Plan (DEIR) This is false because the Housing Element of the General Plan declares as its highest priority: "preservation . . . of the affordable existing single family units.

As currently presented, the Environmental Impact Report adopted by the joint power authority on April 25, 2005 as to the Project is contrary to California Law and Regulation.

Increase in water bills, click latest news.

Increase in property taxes for Muni to pay for the project. Click latest news. One hundred Seventy-three-Single families’ residential units average size: 1,500 sq. ft.

Two hundred sixty four-multi residential units.

Two hundred eighty seven thousand and seven hundred twenty-one square feet commercial establishments.

Six thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven square feet industrial establishments.

Ninety-nine thousand and three hundred and sixty eight-square foot churches

Twelve thousand one hundred and sixty linear feet of roadways to vacate.

ALERT:

According to the Administrative Record, page 6893, the ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION COSTS IS SET AT $72 MILLION. The report from Dudek & Associates, 520 West Blue ridge, Orange, Ca. 92865 (714-998-8330) to the Municipal Water District was an updated report to March 2005.

Now, divide $72 MILLION into 437 units: houses, multi-family dwellings, and apartments. Not only the housing units will be affected but six churches, 47 businesses, and more than two-thousand people.

Divide $72 million into the total acquisition and relocation costs and the calculation is a mere $165 thousand per unit and household. In short, properties and relocation costs are valued at $165 thousand per unit and household. The average home (1500 sq. ft) in San Bernardino sells for $352K. (a 32% increase from August 2004) This is an another shameful example of Environmental Injustice and an unrealistic view of Real Estate today!

The firm in Orange is out of touch pertaining to the rising cost of Real Estate and Relocation of the Residents plus Businesses, and Churches in San Bernardino.

ALERT.The respondent’s statement of facts, in their reply brief, of the Newmark Operable Unit argued the contamination of underground water. Click: Will Leviathan Prevail? and read statements from Kim Hoang, Remedial Project Manager, for the Newmark Operable Unit. As of December 01,2005 the water is clear and clean!The response of the Law Suit from the Respondents is that the purpose of the reservoir is the treatment of contaminated underground water and the oldest neighborhood depicted was the suggested location because of extremely limited options. The respondents in their factual summary wrote: "In analyzing the best location for a proposed reservoir, the CITY and MUNI recognized that they had only extremely limited options about its placement. The reservoir had to be large enough to meet MUNI'S water storage needs, as well as address the serious problem of potential liquefaction resulting from the build-up of subsurface water from the Bunker Hill formation. Additionally, prior military and/or industrial activities in the northern portion of the aquifer had resulted in substantial groundwater contamination, and had created a southward - bound plumes. Since much of this is now being mechanically filtered out above Baseline Street, the suggested location for the reservoir(s) was north of "downtown", and south of the contamination sites, thus, placing it in one of the older neighborhoods". Page 1 & 2 Case No. SCVSS 126706Further, the respondents pointed out that the potential impact was considered of more than 316 acres for the project. If this is the case why did the Joint Power Agency commission CRM TECH to do an in-depth survey of the 316 acres? Also, why was it necessary to take 316 acres if the suggested location for the reservoir was north of "downtown," and south of the contamination sites? The interest of 316 acres was to eliminate entire neighborhoods opposed to one of the older neighborhoods. Because of severe opposition, the plan reduced to 82.4 acres with an interest of taking the rest of the acres to finish their Vision 2020 project. The respondents point out that much of this contaminated groundwater is now being. mechanically filtered out from the northern portions above Baseline Street. I question why change a method that works well? If such underground contaminated water exists from the military activities in the northern portion, why not hold the Federal Government responsible for the clean up? Why use a bait and switch to obtain Federal Funds for a clean up project using a reservoir and intrude an entire neighborhood? Also, where is the evidence of the claim from independent agencies to confirm the claim of underground contamination? Also, why stop the filtrations above Baseline Street? The author believes the aim is to target properties below Baseline. This was evident when Patrick Morris, mayoral candidate, point out that there are many rentals south of Baseline. The truth is, rentals are located north and south of Baseline; therefore, his argument is flawed. The project EIR pointed out that the superior alternative was NO PROJECT or alternative 4 -- the Storage Tank Project! (Administrative Record, page 8554.) Councilwoman Longville point out Alternative 3, the smaller lake which provided sufficient storage. Longville conclude the smaller lake alternative, Number 3, on Page 36 of the Final EIR that is in the Fact, Findings, and Statements of Overriding Consideration be substituted as the preferred alternative in the Final EIR. The respondents; however, stated the approved project fulfilled the need for Muni's Reservoir.

Apparently, project EIR and Longville noted superior alternatives opposed to the approved project as the only valid alternative. To conclude, the respondents point out they are extremely limited in options. Wrong! According to the Final EIR other options opposed to the respondents findings were more environmentally superior. Also, the respondents point out "MUCH OF THIS IS NOW BEING FILTERED OUT"; in short, the underground contamination is now (currently) being filtered out. If this is the case, filtering is a good method of treating the problem and we must have evidence from other sources which are independent from the Municipal Water district pertaining to underground contaminated water. To conclude, the reader must read the responses and discern the truth between the lines. Click: Will Leviathan Prevail? The argument of contamination.

*Alert 12/01/2005

The argument of the respondents in their reply brief: "Much of this is now being filtered out". According to the director in charge of the Newmark Operable Unit in San Bernardino the wells are clean and clear. Apparently, the water district does not need the reservoir because the problem has been resolved.Solution: Develop Don't Destroy.

RESPECT HUMAN LIFE. "HANDS OFF" OUR HOME, BUSINESS, AND CHURCH. THIS IS AMERICA!

The City point out renters are the source of the problem causing blight. The City contributes much of the blight and renters are scapegoats which burden the City's years of neglect, Renters are people and people have potential to become home owners. Renters are consumers and are vital to our community. The theater, base ball park, grocery stores, retail stores, beauty shops, auto repair shops, gasoline stations are businesses patronized not only by home owners but also by renters. In short, renters are the City's main consumer and needed to keep this City financially sound.

To eliminate affordable housing in order to vacate renters is an Environmental Injustice.

Stop the myth of downtown revitalization.

The reputation of "water" as pleasant is contrary to our point of view today. Our view of "water" today has changed significantly over the years. The focus of an aesthetically pleasing body of water is in reality the contrary of the desired and realized benefit and results of the project. A belief a Reservoir will transform San Bernardino into San Antonio is a myth. The river walk does not make San Antonio. San Antonio makes the historical river walk, Alamo, and the Spurs.

Renovate each historical home. Modern and historic will do well as each generation contributes a unique craftsmanship. Work out social issues and have people work for it.

Stop giving away our resources and millions of revenue.

Stop the Bond Indebtedness of Redevelopment.

People, land, water, and infrastructures are ours. (S.B).

Beautify Seccombe Lake and look for Mosquito breeding.

One Lake is sufficient to prevent further natural disasters.

If the Lake is for fishing and is loaded with mosquito fish how will the mosquito fish (2-3inch in length) handle the predator? In other words, the lake will be loaded with fish for people to fish, and since the fish is larger than an ornamental fish, how will the mosquito fish survive? ( Mosquito fish eat the eggs before it matures into a mosquito)

Resolve the Central City Mall a.k.a. Carousal Mall.

Workshops for the business owners. Teach Code Enforcement.

Workshops for the homeowners. Teach home and lawn skills.

Out of town property owners. Clean up or suffer the consequences. A No nonsense approach.

Use our historical resources and enhance the listings on the California Register. San Bernardino has five historic listings on the California and National Register. The Court house, Post Office, Santa Fe Depot, Land, and Victory Chapel. (Stephens & Bobbitt)

COMPASSION

****************************

Quotes:

"To the author there is only direct perception - not only reasoning - not only calculation - not only analysis. You must have the capacity to analyze; you must have a good, sharp mind in order to reason; but a mind that is limited to reason and analysis is incapable of perceiving what is Truth. This immediate perception of what is false and what is true is the essential factor - not the intellect, with its reasoning based upon its cunning, its knowledge, its commitments. Surely, that is perception; seeing the truth of something immediately, without analysis, without reasoning without all the things that the intellect creates in order to postpone perception. It is entirely different from intuition, which is a word that we use with ease. So, if you commune with yourself, you will know why you have committed yourself to this project, and if you push further, you will see the slavery, the cutting down of freedom, the lack of human dignity which that commitment entail. When you perceive all this instantaneously, you are free; you don't have to make an effort to be free. That is why perception is essential."

"What are you but the accumulation of the known, of all your troubles, your vanities, your ambitions, pains, fulfillment, and your frustrations? All that are the known, the known in Time and Space; and as long as the mind is functioning within the field of Time, of the known, it can never be the unknown, it can only go on experiencing that which it has known. To experience the unknown, the mind itself must be the unknown. Burdened with the known, the mind seeks to discover the unknown. Only when you have ceased your facade, your emptiness, and your psychological conditioned "state" that you may be "radically free"to experience Reality and Truth. Surely, "the religious mind" is whole, and has a quality of a deep abiding sense of compassion, intelligence, and order"

****