Keep is all about. your hands off my Home, Ministry, and Chapel.

The Final Environmental Impact Report blighted the neighborhood. The authors of the Report failed to address the contributors of Blight. The City of San Bernardino and the Municipal Valley Water District are contributors of blighted property. The vacant land parcels owned by the water district are an example of blighted properties. The responsibility of a City is to model an example for setting standards of excellence for the citizens. The City and Water district failed to do so in the project area.

"The relationship of the alliance based on hope blossomed into marriage. A bride adorned filled with a promise of eternal love exchanged holy vows with her beloved groom. The groom seals her passion and promise with a Kiss, a Kiss of betrayal, yielding the fruit of her plan, a lost legacy and isolation."Deanna

There are reasonable options available for the North Lake project. The Eminent Domain law requires an option which is compatible with the least private injury and the greatest public benefit. To wipe out an entire neighborhood is the option that bears the greatest private injury opposed to the requirement written in the Eminent Domain law. Therefore, the option approved is an option of great prejudice which cause great private injury to an entire neighborhood.

San Bernardino does not need a reservoir in the middle of the City. It is irresponsible for the City of San Bernardino to approve the taking of 82.5acres of land and human resources to sell water profiting millions to serve others.

Serving others at the expense of loyal citizens who are at the disposal of the political advantaged goes against the public good.

Southern California is experiencing a population explosion and a real estate boom.

This increase requires a substantial need for supplying water in other regions because people need homes and homes need water. The developer cannot build homes until the issue of water is resolved.

San Bernardino for the next 25 years will experience a population boom and need the water for their own future growth. It is irresponsible to sell the idea  San Bernardino has an abundant water supply; after all, mother nature is independent and follows her own course. Cities facing problems of a water shortage to meet the need of rapid housing demand must look elsewhere for water.

The City of San Bernardino must not sell her natural heritage, a gift, to be exploited realizing no benefit. This project does not guarantee benefits only the use of a reservoir for the Municipal Valley Water District. Then, why did the City approve a senseless project? The answer to this question is noted in the Final Environmental Impact Report. This entire project is reduced to one argument "to limit blight." To erase a functional established neighborhood and to justify the cause to blight is an environmental injustice. The truth is, the City of San Bernardino found a golden opportunity and joined the Municipal Valley Water District creating a project that would serve the needs of the City and the Water District. The Municipal Valley Water District offered to purchase all the properties in an exchange for a large reservoir selling wholesale water tax free. The alliance of the City of San Bernardino and the Municipal Valley Water District is to erase an entire neighborhood and exchanged it for a 441/2 acre reservoir, selling our water wholesale, tax free, and permanently. The bait is a promise of 72 upscale homes surrounded by a sparkling Lake that delivers a destination for people to flock. The history of the City's projects has failed in the downtown area. To jolt our memories the promise of three destinations failed in the downtown area. The Seccombe Lake project, Sante Fe Depot, and Central City Mall project promised destinations; however, each project failed. The experts promise to deliver a destination for people to come and years later we are waiting for that promise. The voters of San Bernardino have the opportunity to halt the project, dissolve the unholy alliance, and point out to the elected officials’ alternatives to revitalize. The alternative; however, must include our loyal citizens. Our loyal citizens deserve respect and be able to retain their affordable homes and not be displaced and lose their jobs. To erase an entire neighborhood because the City failed in this neighborhood should not be at the cost of the citizens. The City point out the neighborhood failed, on the contrary, the City failed the citizens and the entire neighborhood. A matter of fact, the City failed to provide service to the area since the planning of the project. Our citizens in this area have been under the ax for years worrying what is next. The City must take responsibility and invest in the neighborhood opposed to brow beat loyal citizens.

Most of the people have their homes paid for and pay low property tax. The homeowner must be rewarded for his or her due diligence in paying off a mortgage but instead the homeowner is forced to sell.

The City of San Bernardino's Economic Development Agency noted on their web site that affordable land/housing makes San Bernardino the most ideal location for business and family recreation in Southern California. In the year two thousand, when the Environmental Report was drafted the availability must not be a valid argument to displace hundreds of people. The availability of affordable housing for the average couple is considered history in San Bernardino and the region. The loss of 672 jobs is an environmental injustice to the people who are in need to support their families. The toil and struggle for survival add to the citizens need to lament and cry for Justice. Jobs are difficult to find in this City and the region. The American dream is to own a home and your loved ones inherit your home. Your home is your castle and your safe haven. The government must keep their hands off your home.

Most of the business owners in the project area are family operated. The owner of the family business work long hours to retain and expand his or her business. Again, the government must keep their hands off his or her family operated business.

The author and her family are victims of losing a home, ministry, and Chapel. The government must keep their hands off the minister's home, ministry, and church and not violate what America