Latest News, Muni, Letters

Corporate Welfare=Eminent Domain & Redevelopment. Animal Justice. Meditations, Poetry, Short Stories

Latest News, Muni, Letters

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. It imports water into its service area through - participation in the California State Water Project and manages groundwater storage within its boundaries. It was incorporated under the Municipal Water District Act of 1911 (California Water Code Section 7100 et seg., as amended) It’s enabling act includes a broad range of powers to provide water, as well as waster water, storm water disposal, recreation, and fire protection services.

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 District is governed by a five member board of Directors elected for over lapping four year terms from five divisions.

*********

WATER MUST STAY IN SAN BERNARDINO

The Argument: The respondents' brief reply pointed out an Environmental Necessity because of high underground water and contamination. Examine and find out if the respondents brief reply is true or is the brief reply a blatant lie? If the respondents brief reply pertaining to the Environmental Necessity is untrue what is the motive of not telling the truth? Let us examine Mr. Willis comments and the argument of High Underground Water.

Mr.Willis, a concern citizen of San Bernardino and former water commissioner for thirty-five years wrote an article about one-fourth page to the Sun on February 04, 2006. Why would Mr.Willis purchase one fourth space of one page to publish his article? Why is he interested in helping San Bernardino and what motivated him? The argument is simple! Mr.Willis understands the water department and his expertise relating to his thirty-five years experience serving as a water commissioner.

The following are his written comments pertaining to his knowledge of "water", the project, Muni, and City of San Bernardino.

"You have been told we have this huge amount of extra water that we can sell "to people down stream who need it. I was surprised to learn last March at a Muni meeting that we are in the worst drought in history. I learned this from Muni District Publication. In the meeting Muni talked about the tree growth rings, that these five years are the driest "ever". Mark Bulot who is the representative of the Redlands District, dutifully reports on the progress of the "High Ground Water Mitigation" every two weeks throughout the year.

There are many reasons why the Lakes and Streams project is a terrible idea, but I can't get past the fact that we are in the worst drought every. The City of San Bernardino's Leroy Well is just outside pressure zone at the 345-foot level. This is the lowest in history. So, it really comes down to the fact that we are the only entity west of the rockies who is trying to get rid of water they don't really have." Harold Willis

Harold Willis

S.B. City Water Commissioner 1964-1999

909-889-0828

*********

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

The North Lake Project is a classic example of exploitations that serve the ends of a dominant elite. The environmental necessity for a reservoir and the tossing of the law suits by Judge Wade supports the laws serve the ends of a dominant elite. The evidence of razing an entire neighborhood does not support the claim of the respondents. The evidence supported are blatant lies that a need for a reservoir is to clear high underground water and contamination. To raze an entire neighborhood of two thousand people, forty seven-family businesses, and six churches is supported by a law that serve the ends of a dominant elite and the political economy of the media.

The government and the media cooperate to produce an effective propaganda machine in order 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, the other hand is served as a communication system of implementing values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate the person into institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of conflicts and mixed class interest the media is influenced to serve the ends of a dominant elite.

The marginalization of dissidents are needed to further the needs of the elite and the media are able to convince themselves they interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values.

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. 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 aggression or bloody confrontation. The Law must not serve the ends of a 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 the laws that serve the ends of a dominant elite. We are well accomplished in science but our resistance to mature in consciousness are evident we are willing to shed blood to maintain the status quo and sell two-thousand people for the North Lake to serve the ends of a dominant elite.

The argument: Is not discontent a contentment of what is Real?

Mr. Patrick Milligan President of the "District" replied to the media that the people who filed the lawsuits are malcontents. Let us inquire into the nature of discontentment and contentment.

To keep discontent in your life it is essential to question any inquiry, to probe, to find out what is the real, and what is truth. To be content is to be a mediocre person satisfied with discomfort and accept what is told by the authorities and cling to a pychologically conditioned state.

So, than is not discontent essential not be smothered away by belief but to be encouraged, inquired to, probed, so that with the understanding of "what is" there comes contentment? A mind who is content seeks very easily a drug to make it content with beliefs from others and does not dare leave the center. To understand the center is to be free from discontent and understand the causes which bring about confusion most of us are caught up in. The mind has become lazy, indolent, through a formula which has given it a means of escape from action with regard to "what is".

The propaganda of the North Lake pacifies the mind, quiets the mind, influences the mind to subside, to put aside discontent and wallow in some form of contentment. Is it not essential to be discontent in order to find what is true and understand the "what is" in which there is profound revolution that affects society and individual relationship? So, a person who is malcontent has an urge to go deeper because he or she want to grasp the way things really are. Our minds must not be like a white sheet of paper for others to pacify, manipulate, and exploit.

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

MEMORANDUM

March 27, 2006

From: Hands Off Coalition

Deanna Adams, Ph.D.

1156 North F Street

San Bernardino, Ca. 92410

909-884-6105

www.sbeminentdomainabuse.com

information tool www.eminentdomainabuse.com

To: Respectable tax payers, homeowners, and business-owners

Attention: Do not Sell your Business and Real Estate to the Redevelopment Agency until you read this memorandum.

Dear Friends:

The City of San Bernardino passed a redevelopment project in your area and my interest is to protect you from financial, psychological, and traumatic harm. The Government is using abusive power to use your hard work and efforts to profit others. This is how it works.

The City gives the developer an exclusive negotiating agreement or the sole right to develop property still owned by you. The City and developer want to acquire your property as cheaply as possible. The small business property owners are then pressured to sell to the developer. If the property owner does not want to sell, the developer will ask the City to amend their agreement to include the acquisition of landowners’ property.

According to Patrick Abitante, owner of the seventeen cottages, was pressured to sell his cottages for such a low price. The Agency informed him that they would go to Court and their offer would decrease. False! What will happen is that the money the Agency offers is deposited in an account and you have access to your money anytime. Than, you sue for financial, psychological, and traumatic harm the Agency has caused you and your family.

Page 1 of 2

The purpose of this memo is to inform you that you do not have to sell your property. This is not the American Way! I find Eminent Domain and Redevelopment using condemnation as a tool engaging in a type of Theft and is Theft the American Way?

The individual person’s property is his or her primary right. Neither the State or anybody else has the right to take away that which is rightfully his or her. So, when for example, you work at producing a home and a business that home and business should belong to you and you should get the benefits because you are the one that produced it. When the Government takes through Eminent Domain what you have produced out of yourself, the Government is engaging in a "Theft," particularly if the Government then gives your home and business to others in ways that you would not choose to have them being given away. So, when they try to redistribute your home or business, we are engaging in a Theft, and is Theft the American Way?

In the event the Agency approach you with an offer contact an Eminent Domain attorney . There are attorneys who will face the wolves in sheep clothing and Sue for the intrusion. The traumatic effect of selling your property by force must not be swept under the carpet and the tide is turning for those Greedy developers.

In California I work with an initiative that will limit Eminent Domain for private taking or profits. Please call and come in to sign the form or I can send you a form that you can obtain your own signatures. This Eminent Domain must stop and the Government must serve the people and not act as Real Estate Brokers pawning your efforts and give the fruit of your labor to others. The fruit of your labor is for you, your children and grandchildren.

To close, please do not be afraid and tell the Agency you will take them to Court and your fate will be in the hands of a Jury. A jury are ordinary citizens who do not have interest in pirating, exploiting, and plundering. Then call an attorney and let the attorney do the work and give you advice. Remember, do not say anything else to the Agency about your circumstances because the nature of a Wolf who is a rapacious person has only an interest in targeting his or her prey. Thank you.

Dr. Deanna Adams

Page 2 of 2

"The Eagle in its flight does not leave a mark. Inquiring into the nature of the Eagle in its flight is the insight here is no separation between the observer and the observed. ****

January 17, 2006

I received a CD from the Environmental Protection Agency and read the content pertaining to the contamination issue. The level of contamination in the project area needed no action for treatment. This project was formed on a pretense of contamination. The belief of contamination was a tool to profit from people in using their land selling water tax free. If anyone is interested in obtaining a CD, please do not hesitate to contact me. The graphs are simple to follow and read.

*****

August 18,2005

**San Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda, Redlands, Rialto, Bloomington, Highland, Grand Terrace, and Yucaipa.

"No taxation without representation" a must for the people at the Boston Tea Party. So, the cities above must have representation and voice and know exactly how, when, and where their money is used. Look at your property tax bill and you are without voice and vote. This is not the American way!The Sun (08-16-05) editorial "our view" wrote that Muni costs force an tax increase on properties.The tax add $20 for every $100,000 of assessed value, which means a homeowner with a $300,000 home will get a tax bill for $480 this fall instead of $420. (The average home increased 40%, so the $300K home is valued at $420K) (In reality the tax increase is $85.00 and not $60 according to the Sun ) It will affect every home, business, and vacant lot in the district's jurisdiction of SAN BERNARDINO, COLTON, LOMA LINDA, REDLANDS, RIALTO, BLOOMINGTON, HIGHLAND, GRAND TERRACE, AND YUCAIPA. The author of the Sun point out that the water district plans to add new pipes, but that doesn't mean Lakes and Streams. How would the editor know or the property owner know where the money goes to? When you look at your tax bill it is noted that the Boad of Directors without the citizens approval can increase the property tax at will. So, the property owners of the cities above have no voice in finding out exactly where the money is going and have no voting rights because the "power" is the vote of the Board of Directors of Muni. The Sun fail to expand on the rights of the citizens regarding the tax increase and the subtleness of the increases. The Sun's view the disgruntled taxpayer should feel a little better because they are being asked to cough up $60 more per year to make sure the faucet doesn't run dry is a loud sound of an alarm bell. (not $60 but $85 is the tax based on the 40% increase in real estate values) The disgruntled taxpayer must be very alert, focused, and demand a voice and vote knowing every detail how, where, and when the money is spent. The Sun indicates the Municipal Water District is at the beginning of a 20 year plan to build a massive series of pipes, pump stations, and reservoirs.The Sun's view is not complete in their information in "shoring things up"; however, the part of the 20 year plan reveals "Truth" and the future of the taxpayer. Unless the 600,000 citizens stop the madness than in silence the exploitation and plunder of the North Lake project will go forward. Also, the rise of property taxes at any time, without voice, and vote paying for an ill project. In either way everyone is at the mercy of the Municipal Valley Water District.

***The Municipal Valley Water District is using your tax dollars for a Pipe dream and an Environmental Injustice.

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

A letter from Professor Jim Mulvihill to the Voice of the People: August 18,2005.

TAX HIKE UNJUSTIFIED

With questionable reasoning, the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water Distict (Muni) board has raised the property taxes for the 600,000 residents living from Redlands to Bloomington (note:author listed the cities above)including all unincorporated areas, by $20 per $100,000 assessed value.(Properties taxes to rise,"by David Schwartz,Aug.11). And Proposition 13 doesn't apply, because Muni deems the increase necessary under its 1960 indebtedness contract to supply imported water.

Muni minimizes the impact by projecting constant home values in the future, but as Muni has stated, it doesn't have to follow Proposition 13 -- and home values in San Bernadino and Loma Linda alone last year increased more than 40 percent. So, a $300,000 home last year is worth $420,000 now, and last year's $420 tax will increase to $505.

Muni also claims the increase is necessary because of the state's property tax diversion, but that diversion must end next year, while the tax increase is permanent.

The tax hike is one way Muni can fund the expensive Lake project, which obligates it to buy 82.4 acres of homes, churches, businesses, and relocate residents. The Muni board meets a 2 p.m. on the first and third Wednesday at its headquarters at 1350 S.E. street. Join me in telling Muni how we feel. Jim Mulvihill, San Bernardino.

***

"A man of intelligence is among our midst, rich with innocence. A man who is capable of intense feeling , capable of seeing the agony of the poor. His heart is full and his mind empty, a state of his being unfolds sudden as sunlight and as pure as the night". Deanna

"A true source of happiness is our daily entrance in the House of Death while Living. To die daily while living is to be freer from the Sting of Death." Deanna

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

"Land and Power Grab is the social morality against which I rebel because I see how absurb it is. What am I to do when I see the whole pattern of behavior in politics in which violence is involved to a greater or smaller degree? Surely, the taking of property is violent and whatever is violent is not true morality and contrary to our social contract written in the heart of Man." Deanna

***

MUNI CONSOLIDATION WOULD BE COSTLY FOR WATER CUSTOMERS. (the Sun, A15, October 13,2005. Authored byJody Scott, a member of the Highland City Council.)

At a meeting last month of the Local Agency Formation Commission, or Lafco, one of the commissioners made the comment, "If you stood outside a major store and asked the people what they thought about the consolidation of the San Bernardino Water Conservation District and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (Muni) they wouldn 't know what you were talking about.

Sad but true.

First, one must understand the purpose of each affected, water district-- Muni and the conservation district. Both special districts were formed and operate under different principal acts and are charged with critical water management responsibilities.

Muni is the "water master" under the Riverside judgment, and has statutory responsbility for importing and delivering State Water Project water. The water convervation district has the responsibility of protecting our local groundwater resources and quality. One moves water in and out; the other stores and preserves water for local use. As such, their different responsibilities are incompatible.

Typical of the politics in this area is the wording of the item of the Lafco agenda, which stated that consideration was being given for Service Review an Sphere of Influence Update for San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. The staff recommendation also suggested that Lafco support the ultimate consolidation of the two districts.

The report followed with a choice of four recommendations two of which clearly stated consolidation was the ultimate goal.

The Lafco board voted to "establish a committee to review the possible consolidation of the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District with the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, to be made up of the Lafco executive officer, general manager (or designee) of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; a representative from each of the major water stakeholders (City of Redlands, City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department, East Valley Water District, Bear Valley Mutual Water Co, and the City of San Riverside) to develop the parameters needed for consolidation.

Interestingly, four of the eight representatives already have gone on record supporting consolidation: Redlands, San Bernardino, Bear Valley, and Riverside. It's not too hard to figure out what Muni's position is, since Muni already has entered into memorandums of understanding with Redlands and Riverside, which assume the consolidation will occur.

Let's get down to what consolidation would mean to the citizens:

The conservation district is required, under it's statutory legislation, to act for the benefit of local residents, and to actively protect and conserve the groundwater in local groundwater basins. If Muni takes over the conservation district's role and responsibilities, its statutory mission will be different. We will have not a "groundwater guardian" anymore, because Muni has other, more powerful roles it exercises: IMPORTING and DOLING out State Water Project, sponsoring the LAKES AND STREAMS PROJECT for San Bernardino and administering the RIVERSIDE JUDGMENT for the benefit of agencies in RIVERSIDE and ORANGE counties. Ther interest differ from local interest.

Establishment of the pump tax, or assessment, must be justified and is passed on to water agencies. The pump tax is just a part of the water service rate that is charged to customers for the water they use. Public agencies are only allowed to charge what it actually costs to provide water service, and customers only pay for what they use.

Muni, on the other hand, HAS THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX -- WITHOUT GOING TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPE. Muni's tax is based on property size or value, not on much water we consume. Muni's tax is also hard to understand, because it doesw not providea clear publicf road map to justify its tax. Muni does not have a reputation for being accountable to the public.

Two concerns come to mind regarding Muni's ability to tax arbitrarily; the huge need for money for the SAN BERNARDINO LAKES AND STREAMS PROJECT, and Integrity.

If Lafco proceeds with consolidation of the conservation district and Muni, it must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and prepare an initial study and conduct appropriate environmental analysis of what the record indicates are serious potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The public and other affected agencies must be informed and given an opportunity to comment.

If consolidation of the conservation district under Muni is contemplated, the issue should be determined by the VOTERS, whose property taxes will be increased without their input, and whose water quality and control likely will be seriously degraded.

It is citizens' duty and responsibility to be informed and let representatives know if they support or oppose consolidation.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT MUNI'S POWER GRAB BE EXPOSED AND STOPPED.

The committee's report is due at the February Lafco meeting.

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

"If you want to know what you are, you cannot imagine or have belief in something which you are not. If I am greedy, envious, violent, merely having an ideal of non-violence, of non-greed, is of little value. The understanding of what you are, whatever it be ugly or beautiful, wicked or mischievous - the understanding of what you are, without distortion, is the beginning of virtue. Virtue is essential, for it gives freedom".Deanna

Victory for Eminent Domain Abuse 11/03/2005

Homeownership next to Freedom is a Goal every American should fight for.

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

A letter from the Institute for Justice 11/03/2005.

Dear Deanna:

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, by a vote of 376 - 38. Below is the text of the bill as passed by the House. The amendments that would have substantially weakened the protections it affords were rejected. This tremendous outcome was a direct result of your calls and letters to Congress. But the battle is just beginning; the bill now heads to the Senate. We will need your support again to make sure that the Senate follows the House's lead in refusing to fund eminent domain abuse.

YOU made the difference yesterday, and we appreciate your efforts and dedication to protecting private property rights. So from all of us here at the Castle Coalition - thank you!

Sincerely,

Christina Walsh

Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator

Institute for Justice

****

Click Will Leviathan Prevail?

On December 01, 2005, the author has statements from Kim Hoang pertaining to the Newark Operable Unit. Kim Hoang, Remedial Project Manager, of the Newark Operable Unit argued that the water is clean and clear. According to the Respondents the need is treatment of contaminated water. Evidence is contrary to contamination but truthfully a desire to exterminate the neighborhood.

****

The City of San Bernardino primary responsibility is the South Lake Project. The Water District admended their agreement and will not purchase any properties in the South Lake Project. To the reader you must be very careful of your negotiation with the City and Developers. The track record of the City is not favorable for anyone who owns Real Estate.

On December 07, 2005, I received written information pertaining to the proposed changes to Section 4 of Amendment No.2 to the Loan Agreement between the City of San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District:

The agreement is written as follows:

It is understood that future specific Project related tasks with respect to (I) the North Lake Project, will be the primary responsibility of the District, and (ii) the South Lake Project will be the primary responsibility of the City, including, but not limited to, relocation, planning NEPA analysis, property acquisition, and other activities associated with the planning, design and construction of the North Lake Project and the South Lake Project, receptively. The parties recognize that the City remains committed with its support for the North Lake Project to be undertaken by the District, and District remains committed with its support for the South Lake Project to be undertaken by the City. Nothing contained herein will prevent the parties, together with the Authority, from jointly applying for receiving and using for the payment of Project costs such as grant funds, bond proceeds and other jointly obtained funding resources as the parties may so obtain.

*****

News: Another study of the Environmental Impact will take and should take some time. Please do not sell your real property until you find out all the facts and outcomes of the EIS report. I will keep you informed. Remember that the value of real property increased 32% since August 2004. The EIS study including all the hearings from the public and agencies should take quite some time. Wait and do not sell. Go to the water District meetings and find information pertaining to the EIS study and other interest pertaining to the North Lake project. The water district amended their agreement with the City of San Bernardino and will not purchase properties in the South Lake project area. Read above for this information.

Also, for those who desire to write EPA, the leading agency for NEPA, pertaining to the Environmental Injustice may write to the following address.

United State Environmental Protection Agency

75 Hawthorne Street, SFD -3

San Francisco, Ca. 90410

1-800-424-8802

Remember, the Federal Government must fund the North Lake project and will not fund the project if the Environment is low income and minority. Your letters and concerns are a plus to the NEPA and USEPA agencies for the citizens of the project area.

The following information was determined on December 07, 2005 by the water district.

On December 07, 2005, Muni agreed to retain RBF consulting for an EIS study. The Federal Lead agency NEPA will be the USEPA.

1. The federal lead NEPA agency will be the USEPA.

2. The EIS will require less detail for the alternatives than the preferred project.

3.The off sites borrows/disposal sites do not require separate field studies and are within the scope of the original Program EIR analysis. (in terms of haul routes)

4.The program EIR's Project Description will substantially meet the needs for the EIS and will not have substantive changes which would acquire revisions to EIR technical studies and analyses.

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

December 17, 2005

Dear Friends:

Happy Holiday and happiness for the New Year. The purpose of sending a Holiday Card to the folks in the North and South Lake projects are two folds. One, is to wish you the best. Second, is to invite you to meditate and touch the deep part of you questioning your relationship with all levels of Government. Is it morally correct to take real property from you and give your hard work to others for profit?

The year of 2006 is a year of meditation, searching the depth of your mind and heart. An examined life is worth living and finding the truth pertaining to your relationship with your Government is to find out the Truth about your Self. This is the time to search deep and find the richest of the Mind that will liberate you from your own conditioning and patterns inherited and conditioned by political, social, religious, and personal boundaries. My blessing for you is an enrichment in Spirit and awakened your intelligence of compassion and love while Living. Meditation is your salvation that will find your happiness and possibility to live freer in your mind.

A psychological conditioned mind is crowded and falls short from our evolution by the Cosmos. Meditation is your salvation that will find you happiness and heal the dysfunction caused by psychological conditioning, numerous boundaries, and patterns imposed by religous, social, and political organizations and authorities.

I will keep you updated of any up coming events.

Sincerely,

Deanna Adams

*****

News 12/01/2005 from USEPA. Conversations with Kim Hoang, Ph.D., research materials, and CD from USEPA.

"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 EIR proved the arguments of the respondents flawed. What I find most disturbing and violent is the invention of this project to raze an neighborhood and our fight to retain our affordable homes and seek Justice".Deanna

"Surely, the invention of this project materialized deep in the Cave by those of primitive minds anchored moving within the radius, narrow or wide, of its own center.From its center it dare not wander, and when it does, it is lost in fear. The inventors of the North Lake Project carry on like machines with tiresome daily routine. How eagerly their mind accepts a pattern of existence, and how tenaciously it clings to it! Like a driven nail, their mind is held together by idea, and around the idea it lives and has its being. Their mind is never free, pliable, for it is always anchored".Deanna

****

This part of "Will Leviathian Prevail" is the author's rebuttal of the Respondents arguments in their reply brief to the homeowners. The first challenge is the Argument of Contaminated Water. Once this argument is published other arguments challenged by the author are to follow.

The Argument of Contamination.

References: Administrative Record pages 8034, 8036, 8037, 8038, 8039 and 1006.

References: Respondents brief: statement of facts pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 17,and conclusion page 27

Evidence: Department of Toxic Substance Control, Site cleanup mostly tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethyl (TCE). pages 1, 2, and 3.

Newmark Groundwater Contamination Superfund Project. U.S. EPA Completes Construction of Treatment Facilities for Newmark Groundwater Contamination. pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Letter to EPA from Senator Clinton, et. al

Press Release

Kim Hoang, Remedial Project Manager. U.S. EPA (S-7-4)75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, Ca. 94150 1-800-231-3075

The author is compelled to argue the matter pertaining to the Respondents argument

that the North Lake, a disguised Reservoir, is an Environmemtal Necessity. Upon reading, researching, and reading between the lines the author found no evidence of their arguments regarding the above and targeting the project area as the respondents described as "Environmental Necessity. The Respondents claimed the following: page 27 from their reply brief.

"Environmental injustice? Hardly! What was pursued what was conceived, what was reviewed, can be far better described as enviornmental necessity. Better control of San Bernardino's underground water has become essential, and the interaction of the Bunker Hill formation and the contaminant plumes dictated the placement of the reservoir(s)". page 27.

The respondents in their reply brief wrote "that the objections of the Petitioners have couched their objections almost entirely on emotionally - based, but wholly supported, contentions of evil intent and a lack of thoroughness of review". page 27.

Yes, the project is of evil content but not lack of thoroughness of review. The following is the response from the author pertaining to the bogus argument of the contaminant plumes dictating the placement of the proposed North Lake Reservoir.

Author's Research

The Bunker Hill groundwater basin has been polluted by contaminants from military and industrial use with mostly tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethyl (TCE). About 8 square miles of groundwater are contaminated with PCE and TCE.. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed the Newmark site on the National Priority List to expand the required remedial actions. PCE and TCE exposure has been linked to development of cancer, damage to the nervous and immune system as well as birth defects. These organic solvents could have a detrimental impact to the health and safety of women of productive age as well as children and seniors in particular.

Two contaminated sites known as plumes are currently located North of the proposed North Lake project. These plumes are gradually migrating Southwards and slightly Eastward. These two areas of contamination are called the Newmark Operable unit and Muscoy Operable unit. Both of these flank the Shandin Hills area. Efforts are underway to clean these contaminated sites under the guidance of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in order to limit the projected southeast migration of the Newmark Operable Unit. Clean up of the Newmark site began seven years ago and is estimated to go on for thirty years. Water treatment plants and barrier wells are expected to remove 11,500 pounds of the above mentioned contaminants.

With EPA assistance Muni obtained the property for seven extraction well sites whose construction began in 1996 and ended 1998. This is when cleanup from contamination of underground water started. Currently these are in operation and include the Waterman plant and 17th street/ Sierra for the clean up of the Newmark Plume or contamination site. In addition, there exists a number of extraction wells (at least 5)

along 11th street, South of Baseline between E street and Waterman. The objective of these is to limit the spread of the groundwater with PCE and TCE. In addition there are series of test wells South of this area also.

According to Ms. Kim Hoang, the remedial project manager( for region 9 )from the USEPA as of today, December 01, 2005 the five wells South of Baseline tested were found to be CLEAN and CLEAR of contamination, from PCE and TCE.

One can deduce from this negative well findings that the Southward migration of the Newmark Plume has been halted. Muni claims it is an environmental necessity to have the lakes and streams to be placed in the North Lake area in order obtain better control of San Bernardino’s underground water and the interaction of the Bunker Hill formation and the contaminated plumes. So, than if that area is clean what is exactly that Muni wants to control over or perhaps this is a pretext to abate the people and our neighborhood?

According to the USEPA, Ms. Kim Hoang, the contamination is quite deep in some areas of the Newmark Operation Unit. Contamination has been found at depth of 400 to 500 feet. How is a Lake, or reservoir of 100 to 150 feet deep suppose to control the issue of contamination, if it exist at all in our particular neighborhood since so many factors come in play in this matter?

There are 10 extraction wells : 6 of them on the east side of the 215 fwy along 11th street between "E" Street and Waterman Ave. The other 4 extraction wells are located West of the 215 freeway.

( more research under construction)

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

Cases to be heard by Judge Wade on 01/11/2006

Will Leviathan Prevail?

THE LAWSUIT

(The homeowners asked not to publish their reply brief because of sensitive information)

The Lawsuit published below is the Historical Issue of 1156 North F st, San Bdno, Ca. Petitioner: Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams v.s. City of San Bernardino a California Municipality, San Bernardino V alley Municipal Water District, A Public Entity, and Does 2 through 25 Respondents, San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority Real Parties in Interest. Attorney for Petitioner:

Louis E. Goebel and Rober M. Miller. Law Offices of Louis E. Goebel 110 West A Street, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: 619-239-2611 Fax: 619-239-4269 Attorneys for Respondents: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District:

The attorney's for the respondents:

Municipal Valley Water District: Bruce D.Varner , Stephan G. Saleson , Brendan W.Brandt. Varner, Saleson & Brandt, a Limited Liability Partnership.

City of San Bernardino: James F. Penman Henry Empeno, James Nolan, Jennifer M. Guenther.

San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority: David F. Gondek , Aimee L.Grana.

Case No: SCVSS 126708 Department S-8 Hon. John P.Wade Date: January 11, 2006 Time: 8:30 a.m.

Petitioner's Reply Brief. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................ii

Preamble.....................................................................................................1 OVERVIEW OF REPLY............................................................................1 1. RESPONDENTS' CLAIM THAT PETITIONER'S CLAIM ARE NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW IS WITHOUT MERIT, BECAUSE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT REVIEW....................................................................2

II. RESPONDENTS WELL KNEW THAT PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, THE STEPHENS & BOBBITT MORTUARY, WAS ON THE DOOR STEP OF BEING LISTED ON THE CALIFORNIA HISTORIC

REGISTER....2

111. RESPONDENTS ATTEMPT TO DEFER THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF MITIGATION AND HOLD THEM IN VAGUE LIMBO IS CONTRARY TO RECENT CALIFORNIA LAW.............................................................3

1V. IT IS PATENT THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO RELOCATE THE STEPHENS & BOBBITT MORTUARY TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION..5 V. A "STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION" AS TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION WAS NOT GIVING BY THE LEAD AGENCY....................................................................................................6

VI. RESPONDENTS CITATIONS OF ANDERSON AND ENDANGERED HABITAT ARE MISLEADING..................................................................7 CONCLUSION...........................................................................................8 Table of Authorities:

Statutes: page California:

Cases: California: Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal. App.4th 1173.......7 Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131. Cal.App, 4th 777........4,6.7. Federation of Hillside Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal. App.4th 896..............................................................3,7 No Oil Inc v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 13 Cal. 3rd 68......................................4 Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal. App.4th 1597...........................................................................................................3 Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351....4 Page 1 Petitioner's Reply Brief Petitioner Deanna Helena Petrovna Adams respectfully submits the following Brief in reply to the Opposition filed by Respondents:

Preamble

As with Page (1) Introduction of the Joint Opposition of the City of San Bernardino (hereafter "City"); San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (hereafter "Muni:); and the San Bernardino Regional Water Resources Authority (hereafter "JPA"), Petitioner Deanna Adams acknowledges that the two cases here presented have very similar underlying facts and allegations by Petitioner. Accordingly, for the convenience of the Court, this Deanna Adams Reply will focus only on those narrow issues raised in this case which are not fully addressed in the other case with multiple Petitioners. The responses to the other "issues" that were submitted in regard to the other case (SCVSS 126706) will be incorporated herein by reference. OVERVIEW OF REPLY

1. Respondents claim that Petitioners claims are not ripe for review is without merit.

2. Respondent City well knew that Petitioner's property, the Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary, was on the door step of being listed on the California Historic Register on April 25,2005, the date of approval,(and was in fact less than four month later).

3. Respondents attempt to defer the specific details of mitigation and hold them in vague limbo is contrary to recent California law.

4. As to the Historic Preservation Issue, the Lead Agency did not give Respondent a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." Page 2 RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT PETITIONER CLAIMS ARE NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW IS WITHOUT MERIT, BECAUSE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW. Respondents seek to case the matter before this Court as merely a "Program EIR". not even yet ripe for review. In reality, whatever its original intent, it has long ago passed that stage. The 437 households have been invited to public meetings for open discussions, and a large relocation company has been engaged and its employees have knocked on the 437 household doors and delivered fliers and information pamplets relating to their removal. Very likely, parcels of real property within the "Super Block" have changed hands from private owners to public owners. More importantly, the fact that the approval of the "project EIR" includes a General Plan Amendment means that review as to what Amendment must occur now, or it will never occur.

II. RESPONDENTS WELL KNEW THAT PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, THE STEPHENS & BOBBITT MORTUARY, WAS ON THE DOOR STEP OF BEING LISTED ON THE CALIFORNIA HISTORIC REGISTER. Respondents feign a total lack of knowledge that the Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary (now "Victory Chapel') has, as of August 5, 2005, been formally listed on the State of California Historic Register. Please see page 4 of Joint Opposition. In addition, see also Exhibit 36, a letter from Janet Hansen confirming the listing of the property on the Register, and Exhibits 6 and 19, identifying Ms. Hansen and describing her dealings with the City. In fact, at least City, if not all Respondents knew well before April 25, 2005 (the date of Council approval of the project EIR and General Plan Amendment), that the Adams historic property was qualified to be on the California Historic Register, was applying for same, and City had been formally invited to comment, if it wished. (Exhibit No. 19) City elected to take no position.

Although Respondents are in denial of the listing of the Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary, they do acknowledge that the destruction of the structures would be a significant environmental impact. However, they assert that they have two alternatives for mitigation, either of which they contend would take the impact below a significant level, either physical movement of the structures or documentation. As they correctly note, Petitioner believes the approach of describing two alternatives but not subscribing to one of them renders the "project EIR" defective as to this impact.

III. RESPONDENTS ATTEMPT TO DEFER THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF MITIGATION AND HOLD THEM IN VAGUE LIMBO IS CONTRARY TO RECENT CALIFORNIA LAW.

Respondents apparently have concluded that they may defer the details of mitigation leave the fate of the Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary swinging in limbo, and shoe to demolish the edifice, if physical relocation is not feasible:* California Courts do not agree!In the case of League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources v . City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal. App.4th 896,909, the Court of Appeal declared:

..... .....Documentation of the historical features of the building and exhibition of a plague do not reasonably begin to alleviate the impacts of its destruction. A large historical struture, once demolished, normally cannot be adequately replaced by reports and commemorative markers. Nor, we think, are the effects of the demolition reduced to a level of insignificance by a proposed new building with unspecified design elements which may incorporate features of the original architecture into an entirely different shopping center. This is so particularly where, as here, the plan for the substitute building remain tentative and vague. We conclude that the stated mitigation measures do not reduce the effects of the demolition to less than a level of significance. (Quail Bontanical Garden Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas, supra, 29 Cal. App.4th at pp.1606-1607,emphasis added.)

1. Exhibit 6 shows that the highest levels of City Hall received and discussed this letter.

2. Guess which choice would be less expense and burden to Respondents.

In view of the whole record and the City's repeated recognition of the historical significance of the building, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that significant impact may occur. An EIR is required to identify and examine the full range of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to demolition. (See Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 351,376 (7Cal.Rpt.2nde 307).Accordingly, the City failed to proceed in the manner required by law by certifying the mitigated negative declaration. (Quail Bontanical Gardens Foundation,Inc. v. City of Encinitas, supra,29,Cal.App.4th at p. 1607, emphasis added.)

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, only a few months ago, in Endangered Habitats League,Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 777 explained the manner in which the courts should review deferred mitigation standards and recalled the pronouncemednt of the landmark California Supreme Court case of No Oil, Inv. v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 13 Cal.3rd 68,88 as follows:

The standard used in the EIR ....impermissibly lenient.....The proper standard, set out above, is considerably broader...The use of an erroneous legal standard is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law that requires reversal. (Citing No. Oil. supra) (Id.,at 793, emphasis added.)

So it is also on the Historic Preservation issue here that "the standard used in the EIR is impermissibly lenient" and the result is "a failure to proceed in the manner that required by law that requires reversal." (ibid.)

In Federation of Hillside Canyon Association v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 83 Cal. App. 4th.1252, the City of Los Angeles adopted a "general plan frameword" which anticpated future growth in the city. The general plan frameword contemplated monitoring growth in order to "consider regulating' developmentif the infrastructure remains inadequate." (Id.at p. 1255.) The City did not, however, require that mitigation measures be implemented as a condition of development. (Id. at pp. 1255-1256.) After first pointing out that the purpose of requiring that mitigation measures be binding is "ensure that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development, and not merely adopted and the neglected or disregarded.""(id. at p.1261, italics omitted, emphasis added), the court concluded that the City failed to make a "binding commitment to implement the mitigation measures or, more appropriately, that they are incorporated into the project or required as a condition of project approval in a manner that will ensure their implementation." (Id at p.1262,emphasis added.)

At page 6 of their Opposition, Respondents disingenously assert that the "project EIR" requires that relocation of the Chapel take placed if feasible" (Emphasis theirs.) Predictably, Petitioner harbors the suspicion that although one might think the impact could be effectively mitigation be relocation of the structures, Respondents do not seriously intend to do that, but are merely using that as a means to get to the next step, at which point they will photograph and bulldoze the Mortuary, a much cheaper proposition.They should be required to commit to their plans in a manner that will ensure their implementation as the Court at that time. Perhaps this is what they mean when they refer to Guidelines, 15168 (c) (1) at page 6, lines 19-22.

To put it another way, why not tell Petitioner Deanna Adams now whether relocation of the structures is "feasible?" The obvious point is to dodge the ultimate result that if the project is implemented as it is now vaguely described, the significant impact of the loss of the historic structure cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. After all, this is not a newly birthed project. This project or a similar one has hung heay over the occupants of the Super Block for more than five years. See Joint Opposition, pages 2 and 3.

IV. IT IS PATENT THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO RELOCATE THE STEPHENS & BOBBITT MORTUARY TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION.

Beyond speculation (and perhaps wishful thinking) Respondents have not shown any basis for success at an endeavor such as moving the Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary. On the present wording of the proposed mitigation language, there is considerable "wiggle room", causing concern that Respondents could make a weak effort to move this complex edifice using a variety of different building materials and then throw up their hands and bring on the bulldozers.

Recent California cases, including a 2005 case from the Fourt District Court of Appeal, Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th 777 make it clear that more specifically is required.

V. A "STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION" AS TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE LEAD AGENCY.

On the issue of Historic Preservation, Respondents cannot hide behind a "Statement of Overriding Conditions" because such a statement was not given by the lead agency. See Petitioner's Evidence, Exhibit 35, which plainly shows historic absent on the final "Statement of Overriding Considerations" list. Thus, Petitioner Deanna Adams "historic" issue must be considered on it own merit- and its own merit is, as to Respondents, not good.

Aside from having tentative and vague proposed mitigation measures, Respondents have failed to proceed in the manner required by law in certifying the EIR because the rules of CEQA and the Appellate Court decisions require the lead agency to identify and examine the full range of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to demolition. For example, in this 82 acre project, Respondents have made no visible efforts to examine mitigation measures that do not involve demolition, such as slightly redesigning the general project, so as to exclude the property from the reservoir (As Respondents have previously done with property owned by the City itself.) *

In particular, the Adams property is located near the extreme norteast of the Super Block and its north boundary is contiguous to the Base Line commerical property, which is not in the lake and is scheduled to remain as commerical use. See Exhibits 32 and 33. Please see also the discussion of a smaller lake, recommended by Councilwoman Longville and others, as described in Petitioners' Opening Brief in case number 126706, pages 11 and 12, and a similar discussion in Petitioners Reply Brief in case number 126706, at page ___.

Again see also League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic

Resources v. City of Oakland, supra,52 Cal. App.4th 896,909 (EIR is required to identify and examine the full range of feasible mitigation measures and alternativ es to demolition." To fail to do so require reversal. (emphasis added.)

VI. RESPONDENTS CITATIONS OF ANDERSON AND ENDANGERED HABITAT ARE MISLEADING.

In their Opposition to the other Petition, at page 18, Respondents offer pithy quotations from two 2005 cases, Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal. App.4th 1173, and Endangered Habitats League, Inc. vs. County of Orange, supra, 131 Cal. 4th 777, all to support the argument that the Court should give deference to a City's own interpretation of its own General Plan and finding that the proposed project is consistent therewith, and can only determine inconsistency if no reasonable person could have reached a determination of consistency on the evidence. In both cases, however, the true outcome of the case was that Mandate relief was granted.

In fine, approval of this project was flawed. Since the project and the

specific plan amendment are both inconsistent with the general plan, and theEIR is inadequate, the petitions for a writ of mandate should have been granted. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v.s. County of Orange, supra (31 Cal. App.4th 777,796.)

Respondents go on to claim that AR 8188-94 and AR 8197-8200 show 38 items of analysis to assure compliance. Petitioner submits that a review of this documentation demonstrates that on the issue of historical significance as to the Stephens & Bobbitt Mortuary, the actual analysis patently falls far short, and in the absence of proper analysis, Mandate relief is warranted. (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, supra, 130 Cal. App.4th 1173, 1189 (Interstate 5 improvements too speculative), Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 796 (Project and specific plan amendment both inconsistent with general plan, EIR inadequate but approved, writ denied in trial court, reversed by Court of Appeal.)

CONCLUSION:

Petitioners claims are certainly ripe, specifically because of the approval of the general plan amendment. The City knew all along that Petitioner's property was eligible for listed (and now it is in fact listed) California Historic Register as of the date of approval, and the lead agency did not give Respondent a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations."

A Writ of Mandate should issue to nullify the general plan amendment and decertify the EIR, since, by Respondents own admission it fails to require mitigation of significant impacts which could be lessened or mitigated upon consideration of less drastic alternative projects.

Dated: November 14,2005

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS E. GOEBEL

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

Michigan Legislature Approves Nation’s First State Constitutional Amendment To Curb Eminent Domain Abuse

Amendment to Go Before Voters Next Year

WEB RELEASE:

December 14, 2005

Arlington, VA—Last night, the Michigan legislature became the first state legislature to pass a proposed constitutional amendment in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London and the widespread abuse of eminent domain throughout the state. The Michigan House and Senate approved resolution SJR-E, which will place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to provide greater protections to home and small business owners from eminent domain abuse. The amendment is expected to be voted on by Michigan citizens in November 2006. The resolution passed the House by a vote of 106-0 and the Senate by 31-6.

The amendment prohibits "the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues." Moreover, the amendment changes so-called "blight" law within the state. While the amendment does allow for the taking of blighted parcels of property, the burden would now be on the government to demonstrate that a particular piece of property is blighted by clear and convincing evidence. In contrast, under current Michigan law, it is unclear whether whole areas rather than individual pieces of property can be declared blighted, but it is clear the burden is on the property owners to show that the takings are illegitimate.

"This is a solid constitutional amendment," said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "Michigan has a bad track record of eminent domain abuse and this proposed amendment goes a long way toward stopping these practices. Putting the burden of proof on the government to show that a specific piece of property is blighted is a significant and welcome change. The Michigan legislature should now follow up on this amendment by passing legislation to further reform its blight laws to make sure they are not used as a backdoor way to get property for private development."

"By wholeheartedly endorsing the use of eminent domain for private commercial development, the infamous Poletown case from Detroit started the country on the path that led to the Supreme Court’s dreadful decision in Kelo," said Dana Berliner, another senior attorney at the Institute. "It is especially appropriate for Michigan to renounce that shameful legacy and assure Michiganders that their homes and businesses will not be taken for private development."

"We are confident that the citizens of Michigan will overwhelmingly approve this amendment," said Steven Anderson, Coordinator of the Castle Coalition, the Institute’s grassroots advocacy project. "Developers and some powerful local officials may be in favor of eminent domain abuse, but the average voter is totally opposed to it. Michigan citizens can lead the way by ensuring that home and small business owners are safe from an unholy alliance between politicians and big business."

In the wake of the Kelo decision, Alabama and Texas passed initial reforms of their eminent domain laws, curbing the ability of municipalities to take homes and businesses for private profit, and nearly 40 state legislatures are considering eminent domain reforms. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would strip federal funding from municipalities that engage in eminent domain abuse, and the U.S. Senate is expected to take up the issue in the new year.

The Real Estate Report

C.A.R.’s Housing Market Forecast for 2006

The rate of home price appreciation will moderate next year following four years of steep increases, while sales in 2006 will decline slightly from this year’s record pace, according to the California Association of Realtors"2006 Housing Market Forecast.

The median home price in California will increase 10 percent to $575,000 in 2006 compared with a projected median of $523,250 this years, while sales for 2006 are projected to reach 630,610 units, falling 2 percent compared with 2005. The double digit gain in the median price of a home, which California has experience for most of the five years, will again be fueled by the continuing shortage of housing across much of California, according to the C.A.R. economist. California typically gains nearly 250,000 new households, yet only will build about 200,000 new housing units this years, creating a shortfall of about 50,000 units.

"We expect the fixed mortgage interest rate to rise to 6.4 percent next year, and the adjustable rate to hit 5.1 per cent, which will make it more difficult for many families in California to be able to afford a home,"said C.A.R. President Jim Hamilton. "While still near their historic lows, up-ticks in interest rates coupled with the continued increase in the median home price will push afford ability in California to a new all time annual low of 15 percent next year."

"The economic fundamentals at both the state and national level continue to support a strong housing market in the Golden State for the foreseeable future," said C.A.R. Vice President and Chief Economist Leslie Appleton-Young. "However, we also expect that the wave of new loan products that have flooded the market over the past several years have injected a higher level of risk into the market, while afford ability barriers to home-ownership will continue to push residents inland even out of state.

"We expect the fixed mortgage interest rate to rise to 6.4 percent next year, and the adjustable rate to hit 5.1 per cent, which will make it more difficult for many families in California to be able to afford a home,"said C.A.R. President Jim Hamilton. "While still near their historic lows, up-ticks in interest rates coupled with the continued increase in the median home price will push afford ability in California to a new all time annual low of 15 percent next year."

"The economic fundamentals at both the state and national level continue to support a strong housing market in the Golden State for the foreseeable future," said C.A.R. Vice President and Chief Economist Leslie Appleton-Young. "However, we also expect that the wave of new loan products that have flooded the market over the past several years have injected a higher level of risk into the market, while afford ability barriers to home-ownership will continue to push residents inland even out of state.

Scrapped Redevelopment Plans: City Officials Finally Say No to Eminent Domain Abuse

Responding to overwhelming popular outcry, city officials throughout the nation have begun to pull the plug on plans involving eminent domain for private development. C