Laserfiche WebLink
<br />04~'-'7 <br />Dt <br /> <br />"First, if I may respectfully call your attention to the fact that on <br />December I, 1959 many of the people I represent, as well as myself, <br />appeared before you and asked that the resolution of the Planning <br />Commission, recommending the rezoning of these 20 acres, be sent back to <br />the Commission for the purpose of permitting us to introduce evidence <br />before them. Parenthetically, if I may say, we had talked with some of <br />you gentlemen before the meeting and were told that we didn't have a <br />chance of accomplishing this. Apparently it was also common knowledge, <br />at least among the real estate men of the area, that the matter was cut <br />and dried and we didn't have a chance. However, at that time we had faith <br />that if a sufficient number of citizens vigorously opposed your action on <br />a logical basis that the pleas of such citizens at that time would have <br />been at least listened to. And what happened at that meeting? Our pleas I <br />went not only unheeded but they went unlistened to as well. This is <br />readily apparent, I feel, from the fact that each of you Councilmen <br />appeared to read from a prepared statement at the, conclusion, at least you <br />had a lot of statistical information that one doesn't readily carry in <br />your head. Now after what I w6.u~{,te.~" a. s"orry' dispJay)hese citizens <br />whom you profess to represent hao no alternative but to turn to the use of <br />a citizen's vested right, a right so basic it's been protected from <br />encroachment not only by our Bill of Rights but by the Constitution and <br />laws of the State of California and your own City Charter as well. This, <br />as you know, is the right of referendum. Now what happened then? <br /> <br />"Even before the citizens started to circulate the petition these same <br />citizens were smeared and their motives were maligned by the brush of <br />innuendo. You, Miyor Reibold, immediately called the supporters of the <br />referendum 'Arcadians for Increased Taxes'. The fact of the matter is <br />that either the increase or the decrease was never discussed before the <br />Planning Commission, the body where this rezoning is supposed to have <br />originated. This was the start of the attack by innuendo. Further, with <br />the declared surplus of over $50,000.00 last year and comparable <br />surpluses the past three years, all without the benefit of this rezoning, <br />I believe you have grievously misstated the facts when you stated that our <br />action in opposing the rezoning would result in higher taxation. There- <br />after you personally see fit to telephone Mr. Hackstedde. You ask <br />Mr. Hackstedde if the Association had authorized me to look into certain <br />matters in City Hall. You likewise contact other acquaintances of mine. <br />This time the innuendo, rather than being directed against the citizens, <br />is directed against me. Now I ask you Sir, was it ethical to call the <br />client of an attorney and question what the attorney was doing? Otherwise, <br />Sir, why call Mr. Hackstedde? <br /> <br />"Last week you stated you had reservations as to how some of these <br />signatures were obtained. I would ask you at this time Sir, what <br />reservations? You tell us and we will check into it. Again, however, <br />the brush of innuendo inferring something sinister. <br /> <br />'''Mr. Wallin resigns from the Planning Commission, submits his resignation <br />by letter. Councilman camphouse is quoted, and we checked the record. <br />He says: 'Pressures were applied', All right, if there were pressures I <br />applied, what pressures are they? Who applied them? We, all of us would <br />like to know. Were I to wield this same brush of innuendo I might imply <br />Mr. Wallin resigned because he was displeased by the actions of the Counci <br />I don't know. I do know he signed the referendum petition. <br /> <br />"Councilman Balser said that if the City is to be ruled by a referendum on <br />planning affairs we have reached a sad state. Here too another duly <br />elected official publicly states his opposition to recourse by citizens <br />of their vested rights in their normal desire to exercise and make known <br />the wishes of a majority of the citizens of Arcadia. You strip the <br />citizen of these rights and it verges on a dictatorship. I would say <br />gentlemen, it's far more regrettable to see the City Council as you sit <br />in an ivory tower and fail to consider the pleas of a large segment of <br />the people that each of you profess to represent and then further, once <br />these same people challenge your action through legal means, to see you <br />resort to this brush of innuendo. <br /> <br />~f\\ <br />~ <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />2-9-60 <br />