Montebello passes budget without rancor this year

There are 198 comments on the Whittier Daily News story from Jun 27, 2013, titled Montebello passes budget without rancor this year. In it, Whittier Daily News reports that:

A year ago, the City Council needed a long, raucous meeting to approve a budget.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Whittier Daily News.

First Prev
of 10
Next Last

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#1 Jun 27, 2013
It took more than an hour for Jack Hadjinian's council orals and all the public comments on it.

By the time the budget item came up, apparently no one wanted to argue any more.
about time

Los Angeles, CA

#2 Jun 28, 2013
At least there is one council member in Montebello who speaks the truth. The others should listen and listen well.
I was There

La Puente, CA

#3 Jun 28, 2013
All Jack did was regurgitate what the developer has been saying for more than 6 years. As an alleged real estate expert, Jack should know that housing developments ALWAYS cost a city more than they return monetarily.

Water, Sewer, Gas, Electric, Roads, Fire Department Services, Police Services, Sidewalks, Phone Lines.

Look at the budget for the current year on the agendas from the last two city council meetings, and you will see that the money from property taxes pays for 10% of our budget, and just city and fire departments use up more than 60%!!!

There is NO way that this development will pay for itself, ever. Most of the one-time fees the condos will give the city will be used up in hiring extra inspectors to do the 10,000+ EXTRA inspections this development would generate, and the new infrastructure it would need.

After that, according to the city's analysis, also available on the city's website, the confirmed income and costs of the project would COST the city $100,000+, and some say up to $1,000,000 a year in perpetuity! There are some speculative, unverified revenues that the developer claims, and still claims to this day, but ask yourself: Why hasn't there been an independent financial analysis done, even though it has been 6 YEARS since the would-be developer applied for this project???!!!

Larry Kosmont is being paid tens of thousands of $$ to oversee a financial analysis of the condo project. It's been months, and still nothing. Is he unwilling to wreck his reputation by advocating for such an unwise project? Time will tell.

Also, like all of the dog and pony chamber advocates that shill for Cook hill, neither them or Jack want to address any of the dangers, financial and physical this crazy development could cause.

To have a man of medicine advocate for a project that could cause cancers and deadly diseases in children is SHAMEFUL. It is probably good that someone that appears to have so little regard for his hippocratic oath is leaving the chamber leadership. Not that others have been any better, but a man of medicine should know better, and is expected to have a conscience when it comes to the welfare of people.
Crazy

Montebello, CA

#4 Jun 28, 2013
It is time for the people of Montebello to wake up. Cortez and Barajas are not going to help this city. They are there to just take a paycheck every month. This city needs leaders who understand economics and are educated. As long as people like them are re-elected the city will continue to sink into the whole.
montebello hometown

Concord, CA

#5 Jun 28, 2013
I was There wrote:
All Jack did was regurgitate what the developer has been saying for more than 6 years. As an alleged real estate expert, Jack should know that housing developments ALWAYS cost a city more than they return monetarily.

Water, Sewer, Gas, Electric, Roads, Fire Department Services, Police Services, Sidewalks, Phone Lines.

Look at the budget for the current year on the agendas from the last two city council meetings, and you will see that the money from property taxes pays for 10% of our budget, and just city and fire departments use up more than 60%!!!

There is NO way that this development will pay for itself, ever. Most of the one-time fees the condos will give the city will be used up in hiring extra inspectors to do the 10,000+ EXTRA inspections this development would generate, and the new infrastructure it would need.

After that, according to the city's analysis, also available on the city's website, the confirmed income and costs of the project would COST the city $100,000+, and some say up to $1,000,000 a year in perpetuity! There are some speculative, unverified revenues that the developer claims, and still claims to this day, but ask yourself: Why hasn't there been an independent financial analysis done, even though it has been 6 YEARS since the would-be developer applied for this project???!!!

Larry Kosmont is being paid tens of thousands of $$ to oversee a financial analysis of the condo project. It's been months, and still nothing. Is he unwilling to wreck his reputation by advocating for such an unwise project? Time will tell.

Also, like all of the dog and pony chamber advocates that shill for Cook hill, neither them or Jack want to address any of the dangers, financial and physical this crazy development could cause.

To have a man of medicine advocate for a project that could cause cancers and deadly diseases in children is SHAMEFUL. It is probably good that someone that appears to have so little regard for his hippocratic oath is leaving the chamber leadership. Not that others have been any better, but a man of medicine should know better, and is expected to have a conscience when it comes to the welfare of people.
Most of California's cities are developed in bad areas, such as everything along the 105, 91, 110.Too close for comfort. Also note that many cities are built on oil fields already including MONTEBELLO. It already is built on landfills and oil fields.

Anyway,
That doesn't make it right.

The true issue is the potential revenue vs cost.

The development wouldn't take all of the land, still leaving enough to satisfy the environmental groups. Please note , I'm Independent on the whole thing and just want MONTEBELLO to prosper.

The fire reports show it
Wouldn't be a fire issue up there.

Environmentally may be tough sell, and I don't know enough about that to make a comment.

The main basis for argument is money. Will the homes bring in enough taxes, one time revenues, etc to cover whatever costs it will take the city to make sure all of this is taken care of correctly.

Secondly,

If the cost to the city is 100,000 per year does the added tax revenue, sales tax, and new business bring in enoigh to break even.

Both sides are always so obviously biased its tough to make an informed decision.

Does anyone know a neutral party I can speak to? What about city staff? Where do they come out on this?

I would imagine they would be all for the 20-30 million dollars it brings In (or so I'm told)
Nothing new here

Montebello, CA

#6 Jun 29, 2013
Read the article. There are only a few ways to save Montebello from being another has-been city populated by people like Barajas and Cortez types. Council needs to step up or don't run again and go home.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#7 Jun 29, 2013
montebello hometown wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of California's cities are developed in bad areas, such as everything along the 105, 91, 110.Too close for comfort. Also note that many cities are built on oil fields already including MONTEBELLO. It already is built on landfills and oil fields.
Anyway,
That doesn't make it right.
The true issue is the potential revenue vs cost.
The development wouldn't take all of the land, still leaving enough to satisfy the environmental groups. Please note , I'm Independent on the whole thing and just want MONTEBELLO to prosper.
The fire reports show it
Wouldn't be a fire issue up there.
Environmentally may be tough sell, and I don't know enough about that to make a comment.
The main basis for argument is money. Will the homes bring in enough taxes, one time revenues, etc to cover whatever costs it will take the city to make sure all of this is taken care of correctly.
Secondly,
If the cost to the city is 100,000 per year does the added tax revenue, sales tax, and new business bring in enoigh to break even.
Both sides are always so obviously biased its tough to make an informed decision.
Does anyone know a neutral party I can speak to? What about city staff? Where do they come out on this?
I would imagine they would be all for the 20-30 million dollars it brings In (or so I'm told)
What fire reports are you talking about?

The city's own fire reports cited by the Montebello residents in the Save the Montebello Hills Task Force at city council meetings say that development would greatly increase fire danger, as do county fire reports of the area.

Ex-Fire Chief Wessel was careful to say that the danger of 'Wildfire' would be reduced by the development. He did NOT say that the overall fire danger would be reduced.

As to oil wells in Montebello, only in the Hills are there 100 or so operating wells, and these are above the level of current residences. If the condos would be built, the wells would be BELOW the condos, with all the carcinogenic and dangerous gasses from OPERATING oil wells going UP into the homes, a situation that does not now exist ANYWHERE in Montebello.

To us residents who live in Montbello, the main issue isn't money, it's SAFETY. If the issue was just money, level the hills and build an oil refinery or make it into another waste dump like the BKK landfill, and Montebello would be rolling in money.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#8 Jun 29, 2013
montebello hometown wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of California's cities are developed in bad areas, such as everything along the 105, 91, 110.Too close for comfort. Also note that many cities are built on oil fields already including MONTEBELLO. It already is built on landfills and oil fields.
Anyway,
That doesn't make it right.
The true issue is the potential revenue vs cost.
The development wouldn't take all of the land, still leaving enough to satisfy the environmental groups. Please note , I'm Independent on the whole thing and just want MONTEBELLO to prosper.
The fire reports show it
Wouldn't be a fire issue up there.
Environmentally may be tough sell, and I don't know enough about that to make a comment.
The main basis for argument is money. Will the homes bring in enough taxes, one time revenues, etc to cover whatever costs it will take the city to make sure all of this is taken care of correctly.
Secondly,
If the cost to the city is 100,000 per year does the added tax revenue, sales tax, and new business bring in enoigh to break even.
Both sides are always so obviously biased its tough to make an informed decision.
Does anyone know a neutral party I can speak to? What about city staff? Where do they come out on this?
I would imagine they would be all for the 20-30 million dollars it brings In (or so I'm told)
I have noticed a clear trend in supporters and opponents of the proposed project: Those who have read the Montebello Hills Specific Plan (MHSP) abd the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) are all against it, and those who support the proposed condo development know virtually nothing about it. That is the main reason that I trust those who are against it more than those who support it.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, opinions that are based on facts seem to me to be more valid than those based on unsupported developer advertising and speculation.

'I was there' raises many valid points, but the most telling is the lack of an objective financial analysis after 6 years!

The "100,000" annual deficit figure is actually $120,583 IF 900 sq ft condos can be sold for about $700,000. If the condos sell for about $630,000, the deficit is projected at$277,261. If the condos sell for about $560,000, the deficit is projected at $433,937. The outdated Financial Impact Analysis (FIA) doesn't give a figure, but if the 'luxury condos' sell for their current market value, by extrapolation, the deficit is about $1,000,000 every year.

Upscale gated communities inside of lower income areas don't have a great track record about the amount of sales tax generated by their residents. The residents usually go to upscale shopping areas, and that would be almost certainly the case with this proposed condo project, with all the exits pointing north right at the freeway.

Some facts submitted in the MHSP, FIA and DEIR of the proposed development:

1. All the 'dwelling units' fit the definition of 'condominium', mainly because NO prospective homeowners will EVER own their land.

2. AT LEAST 100 oil and gas wells would continue to operate under the homes, with another about 100 available to be restarted if necessary, and another 100 completely abandoned.

3. The proposed development would be completely surrounded by highly flammable coastal sage plants in an untended preserve.

4. There is no disaster, fire, or evacuation plan for the proposed development.

5. The plan envisions 10 years of grading, dust, and construction with 6 million cubic yards of polluted dirt being moved.

6. Much of the economic benefit to the city relied on redevelopment area tax breaks and financing, none of which exist any more.

7. The change to the current visual profile of the Hills is changed to such an extent that it is listed in the 'unmitigated effects' part of the DEIR.

8. The parkland envisioned in this proposal is about 1/3 what is required under the current General Plan, and about 1/8 of modern recommendations.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#9 Jun 29, 2013
montebello hometown wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of California's cities are developed in bad areas, such as everything along the 105, 91, 110.Too close for comfort. Also note that many cities are built on oil fields already including MONTEBELLO. It already is built on landfills and oil fields.
Anyway,
That doesn't make it right.
The true issue is the potential revenue vs cost.
The development wouldn't take all of the land, still leaving enough to satisfy the environmental groups. Please note , I'm Independent on the whole thing and just want MONTEBELLO to prosper.
The fire reports show it
Wouldn't be a fire issue up there.
Environmentally may be tough sell, and I don't know enough about that to make a comment.
The main basis for argument is money. Will the homes bring in enough taxes, one time revenues, etc to cover whatever costs it will take the city to make sure all of this is taken care of correctly.
Secondly,
If the cost to the city is 100,000 per year does the added tax revenue, sales tax, and new business bring in enoigh to break even.
Both sides are always so obviously biased its tough to make an informed decision.
Does anyone know a neutral party I can speak to? What about city staff? Where do they come out on this?
I would imagine they would be all for the 20-30 million dollars it brings In (or so I'm told)
I have noticed a clear trend in supporters and opponents of the proposed project: Those who have read the Montebello Hills Specific Plan (MHSP) abd the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) are all against it, and those who support the proposed condo development know virtually nothing about it. That is the main reason that I trust those who are against it more than those who support it.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, opinions that are based on facts seem to me to be more valid than those based on unsupported developer advertising and speculation.

'I was there' raises many valid points, but the most telling is the lack of an objective financial analysis after 6 years!

The "100,000" annual deficit figure is actually $120,583 IF 900 sq ft condos can be sold for about $700,000. If the condos sell for about $630,000, the deficit is projected at$277,261. If the condos sell for about $560,000, the deficit is projected at $433,937. The outdated Financial Impact Analysis (FIA) doesn't give a figure, but if the 'luxury condos' sell for their current market value, by extrapolation, the deficit is about $1,000,000 every year.

Upscale gated communities inside of lower income areas don't have a great track record about the amount of sales tax generated by their residents. The residents usually go to upscale shopping areas, and that would be almost certainly the case with this proposed condo project, with all the exits pointing right at the freeway.

Some facts submitted in the MHSP, FIA and DEIR of the proposed development:

1. All the 'dwelling units' fit the definition of 'condominium', mainly because NO prospective homeowners will EVER own their land.

2. AT LEAST 100 oil and gas wells would continue to operate under the homes, with another about 100 available to be restarted if necessary, and another 100 completely abandoned.

3. The proposed development would be completely surrounded by highly flammable coastal sage plants in an untended preserve.

4. There is no disaster, fire, or evacuation plan for the proposed development.

5. The plan envisions 10 years of grading, dust, and construction with 6 million cubic yards of polluted dirt being moved.

6. Much of the economic benefit to the city relied on redevelopment area tax breaks and financing, none of which exist any more.

7. The change to the current visual profile of the Hills is changed to such an extent that it is listed in the 'unmitigated effects' part of the DEIR.

8. The parkland envisioned in this proposal is about 1/3 what is required under the current General Plan, and about 1/8 of modern recommendations.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#10 Jun 29, 2013
montebello hometown wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of California's cities are developed in bad areas, such as everything along the 105, 91, 110.Too close for comfort. Also note that many cities are built on oil fields already including MONTEBELLO. It already is built on landfills and oil fields.
Anyway,
That doesn't make it right.
The true issue is the potential revenue vs cost.
The development wouldn't take all of the land, still leaving enough to satisfy the environmental groups. Please note , I'm Independent on the whole thing and just want MONTEBELLO to prosper.
The fire reports show it
Wouldn't be a fire issue up there.
Environmentally may be tough sell, and I don't know enough about that to make a comment.
The main basis for argument is money. Will the homes bring in enough taxes, one time revenues, etc to cover whatever costs it will take the city to make sure all of this is taken care of correctly.
Secondly,
If the cost to the city is 100,000 per year does the added tax revenue, sales tax, and new business bring in enoigh to break even.
Both sides are always so obviously biased its tough to make an informed decision.
Does anyone know a neutral party I can speak to? What about city staff? Where do they come out on this?
I would imagine they would be all for the 20-30 million dollars it brings In (or so I'm told)
'Environmentally may be tough sell, and I don't know enough about that to make a comment.'

Look at the saveourmontebellohills.com site under 'fact sheets', and you will be able to know enough to make a comment. The SCAQMD response to the DEIR is available easily online, and in it you can see their response, which says basically that there isn't enough information for them to make a complete response. Among the 28 or so specific problems they have with the proposal is that they recommend that current Montebello residents cover their gardens with sheets for the 10 years of grading so polluted dirt doesn't land on foodstuff, and that pools be covered for a like time. Children playing in backyards people exercising are similarly discouraged, with masks recommended.

SCE says the DEIR uses improper analyses and methodology, and the Army Corps of Engineers says there isn't enough information for them to give comments, either.

One thing for certain is that US Fish and Wildlife, under the Bush Administration, said that it was ok for 1/2 of the plants and animals to be killed for this project.
Cant believe it

Montebello, CA

#11 Jun 29, 2013
42 north montebello resident continues to spout out the same old stuff he has been saying for years about the hills development. Get a life man. The city needs some dough and unless you have better ideas on how to bring in some much needed cash, let progress take its course. People are tired of hearing the same old culprits on TV waste their time about the hills.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#13 Jun 29, 2013
Cant believe it wrote:
42 north montebello resident continues to spout out the same old stuff he has been saying for years about the hills development. Get a life man. The city needs some dough and unless you have better ideas on how to bring in some much needed cash, let progress take its course. People are tired of hearing the same old culprits on TV waste their time about the hills.
This is not my stuff, this is mostly what the proposed developer says.

If you don't believe what the proposed developer says in legally binding documents, you don't believe government agencies, non-profit agencies, 90+% of the residents of Montebello, and you don't believe me, who do you believe?
Wonder Why

AOL

#14 Jun 30, 2013
Cant believe it wrote:
42 north montebello resident continues to spout out the same old stuff he has been saying for years about the hills development. Get a life man. The city needs some dough and unless you have better ideas on how to bring in some much needed cash, let progress take its course. People are tired of hearing the same old culprits on TV waste their time about the hills.
I wonder why you don't care about the negative health effects on current Montebello residents or any future residents of the proposed project that would result from building a dense housing project on top of an active oil field surrounded by a ring of flamable coastal sage? I also wonder why you believe that any development, no matter how unwise, can be defined as "progress". The "better ideas" for bringing in "much needed cash" include two words, "retail" and "commercial" as in businesses, not residential development. Whittier Boulevard and South Montebello are ripe for that kind of development which would actually help the city economically.
montebello hometown

Concord, CA

#15 Jun 30, 2013
42 yr North Mtb resident wrote:
<quoted text>'Environmentally may be tough sell, and I don't know enough about that to make a comment.'

Look at the saveourmontebellohills.com site under 'fact sheets', and you will be able to know enough to make a comment. The SCAQMD response to the DEIR is available easily online, and in it you can see their response, which says basically that there isn't enough information for them to make a complete response. Among the 28 or so specific problems they have with the proposal is that they recommend that current Montebello residents cover their gardens with sheets for the 10 years of grading so polluted dirt doesn't land on foodstuff, and that pools be covered for a like time. Children playing in backyards people exercising are similarly discouraged, with masks recommended.

SCE says the DEIR uses improper analyses and methodology, and the Army Corps of Engineers says there isn't enough information for them to give comments, either.

One thing for certain is that US Fish and Wildlife, under the Bush Administration, said that it was ok for 1/2 of the plants and animals to be killed for this project.
That's why I said I don't know enough about it. George bush top 3 worse presidents of
All time right up there with mr Obama. So I'm hoping that wasn't a left wing liberal coming out in you.

Liberals ruining this country. And here is where I stand: yes on gay marriage, yes on legalizing marijuana and I'm not gay or have ever smoked. Liberty's cause is liberty for all.

Anyway, I don't know enough about it but did read a fire report somewhere that didn't seem like it would be an issue.

It's not all about money, but I was saying if everything else really didn't matter or wasn't as dire as some have said, it would be a matter of $
Cant believe it

Montebello, CA

#16 Jun 30, 2013
Whittier blvd and south Montebello are gang-infested. What normal business wants to build there? Crime is a daily occurrence. Unless you use eminent domain nothing is going to change and Bill Molinari will stop that like he has stopped so many other projects over the past 30 years. Montebello looks more like Bell Gardens every day. This issue is all about money. No money and people with it will move out replaced by people with little or none to spend then small developers can build apartments and section 8 housing similar to south montebello. Before you know it, north and south will look the same. So stop listening to those who focus so much and only on the environmental aspects of the hills project. There should be a balance between it and the monetary benefits to the community. Those who write so much about the environmental part are selfish in that they don't see the big picture on how a development can help the city long term get out of its horrible fiscal mess brought on by a poor economy and council members that have mismanaged the people's money's.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#17 Jun 30, 2013
Cant believe it wrote:
Whittier blvd and south Montebello are gang-infested. What normal business wants to build there? Crime is a daily occurrence. Unless you use eminent domain nothing is going to change and Bill Molinari will stop that like he has stopped so many other projects over the past 30 years. Montebello looks more like Bell Gardens every day. This issue is all about money. No money and people with it will move out replaced by people with little or none to spend then small developers can build apartments and section 8 housing similar to south montebello. Before you know it, north and south will look the same. So stop listening to those who focus so much and only on the environmental aspects of the hills project. There should be a balance between it and the monetary benefits to the community. Those who write so much about the environmental part are selfish in that they don't see the big picture on how a development can help the city long term get out of its horrible fiscal mess brought on by a poor economy and council members that have mismanaged the people's money's.
I don't know anyone who is concentrating just on environmental aspects of the proposed condo project, so if you find someone like that, feel free to stop listening to them.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN lack of any fiscal analysis based on objective,independent data for the proposed development 6 YEARS after the proposal was made.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN annual budget deficit the proposed condo project would cause the city.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN, virtually limitless liability the city would assume from the developer from the health (a laundry list of carcinogenic chemical emissions) and location (on top of 5 known earthquake faults) dangers of building on top of an ACTIVE oilfield.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN, unmitigable (unfixable) traffic congestion this proposed project could cause.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN decline in single family home values (and the concurrent property tax revenue decline) that ALWAYS happen when condos are built next to single family homes in LA County.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN health danger to current residents from 10 years of grading 6 million cubic yards of contaminated dirt.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN increase in fire danger the city's and county's fire reports cite for any residential development in the Hills.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN incomplete, incorrect, unsubstantiated, and unaddressed portions of the MHSP and DEIR, especially those cited in the 1500+ pages of comments submitted more than 3 years ago by governmental agencies, non-profit groups, city residents, and concerned citizens.

I am concentrating on the CERTAIN water problems this city faces, and am not willing to give any of our dwindling allotment of water to enrich ONLY real estate speculators, out of town developers, and Texas oil companies.

Then there are those dangers and problems that only have an 80 - 90% probability of happening. For now, let's just talk about those that are CERTAIN from this condo proposal.

Perhaps the project supporters might try to address them? Just once? We 99 percenters are always interested in the opinions of the 1 percenters.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#18 Jun 30, 2013
montebello hometown wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I said I don't know enough about it. George bush top 3 worse presidents of
All time right up there with mr Obama. So I'm hoping that wasn't a left wing liberal coming out in you.
Liberals ruining this country. And here is where I stand: yes on gay marriage, yes on legalizing marijuana and I'm not gay or have ever smoked. Liberty's cause is liberty for all.
Anyway, I don't know enough about it but did read a fire report somewhere that didn't seem like it would be an issue.
It's not all about money, but I was saying if everything else really didn't matter or wasn't as dire as some have said, it would be a matter of $
Facts, ideas, and philosophies shouldn't depend on the character of those that advocate them. They should stand or fall on their own merits.

We have similar backgrounds, but, I suspect, different experience. I don't base any evaluations on ideas because of who is saying them, unless some conflict of interest or perfidious motive can be established, such as advocating a project that financially benefits yourself. That is why I only believe the legally binding documents submitted by the so-called developer (a company that has yet to build a single sold building, as far as I can tell), and NOT their advertising or whispered promises to desperate groups.

Those promises are probably as accurate as the proposed developer's assertions that 'This is the first time Montebello residents will be able to legally visit the Hills', or their initial claims that 'All homes will be single family homes like those in nearby neighborhoods',''It came to our attention that on several occasions members of the public made erroneous statements that PXP is drilling, and completing wells at our Montebello Oilfield utilizing hydraulic fracturing.' and many, many other similarly false statements.
Need for concern

Montebello, CA

#19 Jun 30, 2013
montebello hometown wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway, I don't know enough about it but did read a fire report somewhere that didn't seem like it would be an issue.
Montebello Hills Specific Plan
http://www.cityofmontebello.com/depts/plannin...

APPENDIX N
DRAFT MONTEBELLO HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN
FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM

pages 5-6
Table 3.3 Characteristics of Sections Representing the Defensible Space Perimeter

Compare the totals given for sections D and E with the 100 feet of defensible space required by California law.

http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/communic...
Been reading

Montebello, CA

#20 Jun 30, 2013
Interesting blog. After reading through the type, find cant believe it quite believable. 42 yr...sounds bent on forcing their will on having no development in the hills all at the expense of the community who appear to need an influx of money to support their services. His/her rational is almost psychotic in not wanting anything built up there. I give him/her kudos for their resolve but perhaps they should think big picture here and for the better of the people of Montebello and the San Gabriel Valley.
Montebello everyman

Anaheim, CA

#21 Jun 30, 2013
How come no one noticed the big flip flop by Frank Gomez????????

I pulled out his flyer he gave to me when he came to the door and asked me to vote for him. it said

I am running for the Montebello City Council because our city needs leaders who put our people first. What do I stand for? No new taxes! No sole-source contracts! No Montebello Hills development!

Frank A. Gomez, Ph.D.

Whats he doing now? Screaming for higher taxes, voting for solesource contracts, and schilling for that stupid condo project that no one wants!!!!!!!!!

Now I see what 'Doctor' Gomez stands for ---- whatever anyone with money wants!!!!!

I guess brains dont garantee honesty.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Montebello Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Condo Proposal Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 6 hr Moaning in Montclair 1
News Montebello police officer accused of DUI in Walnut Sat Ted 2
Developer files $4 million claim against city o... (Feb '14) Fri Wonder Why 74
Motocross Track May 22 La Merced Dude 1
End Run Around Montebello Voters by Legislature May 21 Compassion for th... 54
News Montebello City Council votes 3-2 to give city ... May 21 anonymous 114
Hill Condo Proposal 5/27 Public Hearing City Co... May 20 Wonder Why 3
More from around the web

Montebello People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]