The Californian Supports Summerhouse

The Californian Editorial Section: Project OK right decision for Temecula

http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_59b36697-c34b-522a-bee8-46fcd1308441.html

Nowhere in the article is there a mention of Rancho Community Church or the Rescue Mission Homeless Shelter. Nowhere in the article is there a mention of Mayor Edwards’ ties to the church and the fact that she lives next door to the pastor.

We at this site understand that the city is required to have a certain amount of low income homes.

We DON’T appreciate the fact that the City Council is doing this without informing the surrounding residents. It gives the impression that someone is hiding something or the Council feels it could do whatever they want without our input. It’s just not right.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Californian Supports Summerhouse”

  1. Dollars Says:

    The County\City\Church connection is not the biggest problem with this. The Opinion Staff of The Californian misses the fact that Temecula has by the council’s own admission exceeded the requirements for the number of low income units a city it’s size must have – without Summerhouse. Besides, the low income aspect isn’t the big objection. Aside from approving the project outright with limited opportunity for community input, THE problem is the TRANSITIONAL HOUSING component of the project. Transitional housing, as defined by County Department of Public Social Services is designed to assist the chronically homeless and mentally ill. The County will be steering this element to this project. Lack of community input, church coziness with public tax dollars, and the transitional element are the objections. Californian Opinion Staff, you have missed the point.

  2. Whitney Says:

    Location! Location! Location! A house for homeless has no business near neighborhoods with families and children! It is irresponsible for the city to sneak this in on the homeowners in and around that area. If the city council is so hard up to help these people, shouldn’t a facility like this be in an industrial part of town… Employment for them would be walking distance!

  3. caught off guard Says:

    When you watch the video ( and most of us had to watch the video because the Council failed to inform the public about this until the very last minute) you will notice that the Pastor shows up in the public comment section of the meeting. Cozy indeed. It’s not the low income housing that is the focus of the objection. The 20 units posited for transitional housing were glossed over and I think this is where the tie-in lies with RCC… The opinion staff over at the Californian may want to watch the video since apparently they weren’t there either.

  4. Offended Says:

    What your kidding me, A shelter for homeless people in a valley of respected home owners. Next to a AM-PM now what are you thinking. Crime will Rise for sure. Next we will have them pan handeling on the corner or 79 and Margarita….

    Thik about it the builder of trhis property needs a bail out and this is how?
    Dont let this happen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: