New Rio Nido Lodge owner meets with neighbors

November 7 2009, Rio Nido -- 25 Rio Nido residents gathered on the site of the former Rio Nido Lodge (also known as the Rio Nido Inn) at 11:30am to meet with the new property owner, Dennis Judd. After a series of informal conversations with board members from RNHOA, the Sebastopol-based developer and owner of Cipora Properties invited everyone to a meeting so he could introduce himself and address concerns about his plans for the site.

This was definitely a good move on Mr. Judd's part, considering recent problems with the Rio Nido Lodge property itself; ongoing drug, crime and quality of life issues associated with other multi-unit dwellings in the area; and the fact that Mr. Judd's company specializes in affordable housing and recently obtained Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee (RRROC) approval for redevelopment funds for a nearby complex on River Road. For indeed, some neighbors did come with metaphorical torches and pitchforks in hand.

As people arrived, Mr. Judd and Stephen Radeljik (also from Cipora Properties) passed out fliers with an endorsement from local activist and West County Gazette publisher Vesta Copestakes vouching for Mr. Judd's care for the communities in which he builds on one side and yours truly's Top 10 possible uses for the Rio Nido Inn on the other side. (Flattery will get you everywhere!)

Mr. Judd described how he has worked with communities towards "transforming properties" and has been brainstorming with the Community Development Commission about possible uses. Many Rio Nido residents assumed that Mr. Judd intends to build another low-income housing complex. Instead, Mr. Judd stated that he really doesn't know "where to go with this property," and that he wants to work with us on "not just this property, but the whole community." He pointed out that since purchasing the property -- which has caused major problems due to neglect by the previous owner -- things have already gotten better. Mr. Judd also mentioned that the squatters are gone and "now it's cleaned up." He added that "this sends a message that we're a beautiful community & we're not going to put up with this crap any more."

With apparent sincerity, Mr. Judd restated that he hasn't made a decision on what do do with the Rio Nido Lodge and is open to suggestions. He even mentioned that his first choice would be to build a "healing retreat" for people suffering from cancer. Mr. Judd mentioned that he has also discussed the possibility of a specialty grocery store with the owner of a small, local chain. Amazingly enough, it appears that even real estate developers are capable of idealistic dreams.

Ironically, previous Rio Nido Inn owner Jim Friedman had also purchased the now-notorious Faerie Ring Campground in Guerneville back in 2001 with the intention of transforming it into "a healing retreat." Matthew Hagan wrote a flattering article, "Lord of the Faerie Ring", in the December 2004 issue of the North Bay Bohemian. Quel ironie. Then again, Mr. Friedman is a prison psychologist at San Quentin who rented out his various local properties to people just getting out of prison and recovering (or NOT recovering) methamphetamine addicts. So what would you expect?

Following Mr. Judd's presentation, a heated discussion followed. Rio Nido resident and writer Justin Raimondo (whose vituperative response to a conciliatory piece Mr. Judd wrote for the the West County Gazette will appear in next week's issue) adamantly warned Mr. Judd that "We WILL oppose affordable housing." (Not River Rattina -- the way things are going, she might actually need one of those units soon!) Others expressed similar levels of skepticism.

"I don't think you know what we're going through. We have three section eight houses which are drug houses," exclaimed second-generation resident Amy Merkel Rose. A discussion of problem properties throughout Rio Nido ensued, with one neighbor adding, "When the roach motel closed, the roaches scattered but they didn't go away." and another chiming in, "Some of them live next door to me." Dennis Judd responded, "You're fighting an issue that isn't real. I'm not saying we're going to do low income housing. We're still investigating." Justin Raimondo shot back, "You mean you bought a building for $250K without knowing what you'd do with it?" Another neighbor agreed, "That seems suspect."

Sonoma County Planning Commission member, Tom Lynch came to Mr. Judd's defense, explaining that the previous two owners did not have sufficient resources to maintain the Rio Nido Inn. "Dennis Judd has resources to wrok with the community. He fixes up and cleans up neighborhoods. You can't stereotype the tenants ... Can't we get some more positive energy to move forward?" Tom Lynch is also a local resident, member of RRROC, and the owner of a construction company. He is also a long-time friend of Mr. Judd who has worked on projects for him.

Domenic Farnocchia, RNHOA board member, Russian River Parks & Recreation board member, and unofficial Mayor of Rio Nido, inquired of Mr. Judd, "Are you willing to be part of this neighborhood and do a neighborhood watch with us?" The meeting wound down as local resident Randie Johnson asked, "How can we -- as your neighbors -- help you to come to a decision?" Tom Lynch stated that the next steps would be to hav a larger neighborhood meeting with more advance notice and someone from the Community Development Commission present. A tour of the vandalized and gutted -- but now clean -- interior followed.

The next meeting will be held Saturday December 12 2009, 2:00pm at the Rio Nido Lodge and facilitated by Mr. Farnocchia. Panelists are to include: Mark Krug, executive director of the Community Development Commission; 5th District Supervisor Efren Carrillo, RNHOA board member Doug Meisner, local resident and RRROC candidate Chris Auzten, and others.

Community forum on redevelopment needed, PLEASE help us, Efren!

The following is an email I sent to our 5th District Supervisor, Efren Carrillo, in support of my neighbor Lloyd Guccione's email requesting a community forum to address Sonoma County's handling of funds earmarked for the Russian River Redevelopment Area. For easy reference, I have posted the original email from Mr. Guccione below mine.

Dear Mr. Carrillo:

As a strong proponent of redevelopment for the Russian River, I'm startled to find myself writing in support of Lloyd Guccione (whose email appears below). Residents of the Russian River urgently need your support in setting up a community forum in regards to the goals and future of the Russian River Redevelopment Area. I feel extremely disappointed, angry and cheated by Community Development Commission Executive Director Kathleen Kane's newly stated (and unilateral) goals for redevelopment. Considerable effort, resources, funds, and time have gone into developing a Strategic Plan & Vision, which incorporated input painstakingly gathered from our community. Yet the papers I've recently received bear little relationship to the document which was approved by RRROC and posted on the Web site.

My family and I moved to Rio Nido five years ago (okay, four-and-a-half). During this time, I've seen Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee members, activists, business owners, tenants, property owners and other stakeholders work long hours for zero compensation to ensure that our redevelopment funds are spent in ways that reflect the values, goals and needs of our community. These people take time to meet, do research, write proposals and provide input ... only to have Kathleen Kane shut ideas down again and again. In all the RRROC meetings I've attended, I have never heard this woman say anything constructive. If Ms. Kane devoted the immense energy she spends on explaining why things CAN'T get done towards actually figuring out how to GET things done, the lower Russian River would be in much better shape & the county would be collecting considerably more tax revenues.

Given the fact that our tax dollars pay for redevelopment and her salary -- at the expense of our special districts who struggle to provide vital community services -- the Russian River Redevelopment area deserves a far more positive attitude and a higher level of understanding from the CDC than we currently receive. For starters, we have valid reasons for not wanting all of the redevelopment funds to be spent on directly promoting tourism. Ms. Kane acts as though tourism is the magical tonic we need to invigorate our community. Alas, the hospitality industry does not usually create the sort of steady, well-paying jobs (with benefits) needed to create the viable and locally-active middle class required for the economic and civic health of a community.

We need to devote more resources towards strengthening our infrastructure; providing financial and other assistance to new and existing businesses; and encouraging the development of the middle-class, year-round community necessary for supporting our local businesses and boosting our tax base so we can afford to provide vital infrastructure and community services. One way to achieve this would be to run advertisements targeted to individuals and families in the Bay Area who are priced out of the housing market in parents magazines (like Sonoma Family Life and Bay Area Parent) & alternative papers (like the SF Bay Guardian and East Bay Express), & encourage them to consider relocating. Our natural beauty, cultural & recreational amenities, good schools, proximity to the city, lack of gangs, low crime rate, etc. will prove attractive to many folks & the long commute won't scare them, since most people in the Bay Area already have horrible commutes. This sort of advertising would provide at LEAST as much bang-for-the-buck as the highly controversial "alternative" GLBT tourism ads.

During your campaign, you repeatedly stated your intention of improving our relationship with the County. PLEASE remember this and help us by setting up the community forum on redevelopment which Mr. Guccione has requested.

Thank you.

Elisabeth Parker

--- ORIGINAL EMAIL FROM LLOYD GUCCIONE ---

May 18, 2009

Dear Mr. Carrillo:

I have received no response from you or your staff regarding the planning, formatting, and particpation of a community discussion, dialog, and debate on the future of the Russian River Redevelopment Project. The format outlined by Ms. Kane at last month's RRROC meeting is clearly not that envisioned and hoped for by those concerned over redevelopment's impact and the staff and administrative work and relationship of CDC.

Would you please at least take a moment to clarify your perspective on your campaign standing on the issue of putting redevelopment before the community versus the current (Kane - CDC) effort which is other than a community dialog and debate (and vote) upon redevelopment itself. My desire is to clearly understand your approach to the matter so I will not have any miss-understanding.

Kindly yours,

Lloyd Guccione

11.15.2007 RRROC Meeting: Of Ballot Mishaps, Pulling the Plug on Redevelopment, & No Money For Administrative Support

Thursday, 11.15.2007, Guerneville Veterans Hall – The RRROC meeting has been moved up to 6pm & I believe this is a vast improvement. Alas, I (& a couple of others) arrived late due to an event at the Guerneville School held on the same evening.

PLEASE NOTE: I just picked up the latest Russian River Times & discovered their reporter had to leave the meeting shortly before I arrived, & that this blog posting picks up where their account leaves off. So if you read the Russian River Times' article & then my blog, you'll get the whole meeting.

The following topics were discussed while some folks passionately participated & others attempted to disguise the fact that they were slowly nodding off into dreamland.

1. RRROC elections & mishaps with sending out the ballots;
2. Responding to Mike Reilly & the Board of Supervisors' Subcommittee's recommendation to stop redevelopment projects throughout the County & return money to the "General Fund;"
3. No funds for hiring secretary to record RRROC & subcommittee meeting minutes. (But plenty of money -- which comes out of redevelopment funds allocated to the Russian River Project Area -- for paying hourly wages to amateurs who devote weeks to mismanaging voter registration & property tax databases with Excel spreadsheets for the purpose of managing the upcoming elections, instead of hiring someone with experience in databases & database programming.

RRROC Election Ballots Gone Awry

The item currently under discussion is the upcoming RRROC election on December 11^th. Despite the hard work of John Uniak & others who serve on the Elections subcommittee, things have gone terribly wrong. For lack of a more apt -- & printable – word, let’s call it a “fustercluck.” Ballots were sent to businesses & residents based on a combination of voter registration & property tax records. Somehow, some folks received multiple ballots, while others received none. Meanwhile, others were incorrectly addressed & were hence returned.

Personally, I think the whole process is rather odd, to begin with. I mean, why waste money on mailing ballots instead of having people go to a polling station? And there's another thing .. According to the letter which came with my husband’s & my ballots, voter eligibility is based on the following categories: (1) Owner of “real property” in the project area (what, owning virtual property in “Second Life” doesn’t count?); (2) Owner of a business operating within the project area; (3) Any resident of the project area.

BUT (& here’s a BIG but): If one’s eligibility is based on owning property, only ONE BALLOT may be cast per property, regardless of the number of owners on record. Does this mean that, since my husband & I jointly own our home, only one of us can vote? But if we were renting an apartment together, we could both vote? So basically, I only count as half a person? I haven’t heard of anything like this since the “three-fifths compromise” back in 1787 in which African American slaves would be counted as 3/5ths of a person for distribution purposes of taxation & proportional representation. Hmph.

But ANYway … moving on … Somehow the folks at CDC messed up while sending out the ballots.

During the Public Comments part of this agenda item, several people spoke & asked questions:

1. Zelda Michaels of Monte Rio admonished, “If you weren’t tracking the dollars & hours [for charging administration fees from redevelopment funds], then you would have had the time to do this correctly!” I was totally on her tip until she went a little too far & added, “THE FISH STINKS FROM THE HEAD!” (ummm ... What fish? A dead fish? & why does it only stink from its head? Because that's where its nose is located?).
   
2. A gentleman named “Craig” took the stand & commenced to fawn obsequiously upon Kathleen Kane & Boris Sztorch of the CDC. “Thank you,” he burbled, “for doing a great job.” (Kinda reminds me of “Heckuva job, Brownie.”) He continued with a litany of excuses for the CDC’s snafu, most of which I could not hear due the muffled acoustics are bound to occur when a person attempts to speak with his nose buried way up in another person’s posterior. But I did catch a little snippet involving the tendencies of tables in Excel spreadsheets (EXCEL SPREADSHEETS!!???) to “truncate” (cut off) data.
   
   As my Klingon friends would say … GA-A-A-A-GGH! I don’t know what is more horrifying: (1) The CDC mailing out the ballots incorrectly; (2) They didn't think to apply the "text wrap" option to all the table cells so parts of the text wouldn't disappear; or (3) They were using MICROSOFT EXCEL to handle the elaborate process of mailing ballots for the upcoming RRROC election to the entire Russian River Redevelopment area! HELLO? Like, Excel is a spreadsheet program, not a database program? No WONDER the CDC gobbles up "administration fees" from our redevelopment funds like Nibbles the Elephant Seal at a surfing convention. What other botched & inefficiently performed tasks are we paying for due to inappropriate & obsolete technologies? Do the folks at CDC also bill us for the 25 hours it takes them to drive from Sonoma to here because their cars all have square wheels? Good gawd.
   
3. Another man (whose name I did not catch) asked Ms. Kane to clarify the role of the RRROC Elections subcommittee & aptly concluded, “My head hurts!”
4. Ms. Kane explained that the subcommittee plays an “advisory role.” It “makes recommendations.”
5. Lee Torr IV of Monte Rio (yes, he ALWAYS introduces himself as “Lee Torr, the Fourth” & I keep wondering what he’s done with the other three) said that as a local real estate magnate – um, actually, he said “property owner” – “I got a LOT of ballots.” He then referred back to a previous discussion about how property owners whose tax records named them as “first name, last name, et al” (et al is not the Israeli airline company, it’s Latin for “& others” meaning that multiple people or business partners own the property) received multiple ballots.
   
   Mr. Torr then asked an extremely important question: “How can you validate ballots when submitted?” (i.e. to make sure that there’s only one vote per property & that owners of multiple properties don’t send in more than one ballot).
6. Ms. Kane replied that there’s a “code on the envelope,” Mr. Torr said, “I looked. There IS none.”
7. Someone else (alas many folks forget to provide their names or do not speak into the microphone) asked another very important question: “How much do ballots cost?” (i.e. the printing, producing, & mailing thereof).
8. “45 cents each for postage,” Ms. Kane. Um ... & what about an itemization of the printing, paper & envelope costs? And how does one explain this expensive & extensive effort in the context of no stamp being provided on the return envelopes?
   
9. And – Oh, Goody! – here comes Lloyd Guccione (who I often adore, even though I adamantly don’t want him to replace Dan Fein on RRROC), who gravely intones: “It would seem that after all these elections, we would have a clue of how much it costs to mail a ballot.” He went on to say that part of the problem with the elections is that they’re intended to represent property owners, business owners, & tenants, & that each group should have access to their own legal counsel. He also pointed out that there has been no outreach to tenants (who won’t receive ballots unless they’ve registered to vote at their current address). There’s a “problem with basic organizational structure.” The tenants’ representatives are not necessarily elected by people who are representative of tenants’ interests, since everyone votes for people in each category. Whew! That’s complicated, I hope I got it all right.
10. Deborah Waller of Guerneville said that there seems to have been a “quality control error,” and inquired, “Is this election in jeopardy?” Which is exactly what’s on my mind, too.
11. Mr. Uniack suggested that from now on, we should have the candidate’s forum BEFORE the ballot goes out.
12. Larry Weinstein of Guerneville said, “I’d like to see a debate with real heart-to-heart talk.” I like that idea. Or, perhaps, some sort of exciting contest like “Dancing with the Stars” or "Monster Truck Rally."
    

Pulling the Plug: Mike Reilly & Board of Supervisors Want Redevelopment Funds Back In The General Fund Coffers?

On to the next agenda item: How should RRROC respond to the recommendation of Mike Reilly & the Board of Supervisors’ ad-hoc committee for ceasing redevelopment operations & putting the money back into the General Fund due to budget short-falls.

Tom Lynch wants to meet with them in order to “defend our redevelopment funds,” because they will "eventually increase our tax base," but really because he's a staunch & caring advocate of redevelopment projects in our area. He then filed a motion for the RRROC Chairman (Dan Fein) to “write a letter” to the Board of Supervisors. (Hmph. I'd rather go to a local park, scoop up some dog poop, broken beer bottles, dirty used needles, & some cigarette butts, put them into a box & send THAT to Mr. Reilly, but Mr. Lynch has much nicer manners than I do. But what the hey, nobody could possibly expect lovely manners from a River Rattina like me).

1. John deSalvio asked if there’s “anyway to hold them to it?” (i.e. do we have legal grounds for objecting to the withdrawal of redevelopment funds?). Ms. Kane replied that they basically have the right to do this, “though it hasn’t been done.” (The Board of Supervisors has never pulled the plug on redevelopment funds for this or other project areas).
2. Mr. Weinstein inquired, “Is the County bankrupt?”
3. Mr. Lynch replied, “No, but it’s bad.
4. Mr. Weinstein expostulated, “How – with all these wineries, tourist development, etcetera – how can this be?” Yeah, I wonder about that too.
   
5. Mr. Guccione stated, “Mr. O’Reilly needs to come here & sit at this table … You NEED to invite Mr. O’Reilly here.” He's definitely right about that.
   
6. Someone (alas, I can’t remember who) explained that there’s a problem with various agencies in the County demanding funding … “it’s melting down.”
7. Mr. Torr advised that “the letter ought to be more sweet than sour.” I initially disagree because I’m so mad about this, but eventually feel obligated to admit that Mr. Torr is totally right about this. After all, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar & as someone wisely told me, “You don’t cross Mike Reilly.” Part of me wants to say, "Why? He's only there for another year, he's a lame duck." Yet, I hold back because another part of me enjoys the luxury of untainted tap water.
   

No Money for Administrative Support

NEXT … Mr. Uniack says that RRROC & the subcommittees “NEED a secretary … someone to take the minutes [of meetings].” He explains that it’s hard to discuss things & take notes at the same time & that the meeting minutes hence lack sufficient detail. He also points out that redevelopment is supposed to be about “local jobs for local people. Why not hire someone local?”

1. Ms. Kane explains that the CDC office is “staffed at capacity” & there are no funds for additional staff. Also, they can’t just hire a local person on a contract basis because hiring procedures, unions, & other factors are involved.
   
2. Mr. Uniack restates that RRROC needs administrative support for subcommittees.
   
3. Ms Kane replies, “My job is to guard the budget. What can we do to work together without sparring?" (Ummm ... perhaps you could occasionally choose to guard the budget in a way that favors us? I really wish we COULD bid CDC's administrative functions out to a company that can actually work efficiently & make appropriate use of modern technology. An awful lot of problems could be avoided this way).
   
4. Ms. Michaels kept croaking, “Six years ... shut it down.” This rather disappointed me. Can't a smart, funny & powerful woman like you figure out something more CONSTRUCTIVE to say?
   
5. On the other hand, this WAS a rather depressing meeting, during which River Rattina made a multitude of flaky, overwrought & inappropriate comments which included: (1) demanding that the folks on RRROC hunt Mike Reilly down while carrying torches & pitch forks (flashlights & butterfly nets would be far more environmentally friendly & humane); & also ranting on about the huge amount she pays in property taxes & even saying how much it is so that all of the folks who've had their properties in their families since the 1800's & are grandfathered in by Proposition 13 would know how much recent homebuyers are paying ... and ... um ... that was probably TMI (too much information).
   

Hmph … like if we just shut down RRROC & the Russian River Redevelopment area projects, the County will give us all the money back? Fat chance. As a property owner who – like other recent homebuyers – pays exorbitant property taxes for a modest home, I really want to see these projects go through. We ALL deserve our fair share of local improvements & services ... but folks who are struggling to pay out the nose are less likely to put up with the lack of improvements & services.

Sigh. On this note, the meeting came to an end. The atmosphere felt rather deflated & even a bit sad. This is too bad, because I believe that the redevelopment process has come a long way since it began. Redeveloping low-income & ecologically delicate areas such as ours is a long & complicated process -- especially when such a large degree of public representation, oversight, & input are encouraged & required. Although it takes longer for us to see results & we run into glitches along the way, I do strongly believe that we're basically on the right track.

Do we want to go back to the days before RRROC, when the County was trying to ram projects through willy-nilly without so much as a by-your-leave? Folks around here were up in arms, which is why RRROC was created in the first place.

On the bright side, a well-informed individual whispered to me that Mike Reilly, et al's mutterings about shutting down County redevelopment projects aren't really directed towards us & the Russian River Redevelopment Area. They're intended for the Sonoma Valley Redevelopment Area, which has exhausted its funds & has requested more. I hope she's right!

Redevelopment & RRROC: Some Myths & Facts

Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee (RRROC) & Redevelopment: Some Myths & Facts:

1. RRROC has committed "Brown Act" violations: No, RRROC has been threatened with legal action for allegedly committing Brown Act Violations, which have all been instigated by a single individual (Lloyd Guccione) & these allegations are repeatedly thrown out. The Brown Act is a California Law that requires all deliberations of publicly-elected entities to be transparent & to be conducted in a manner which allows the public to participate in the discussion & be allowed to speak up. Chairperson Dan Fein sent emails to RRROC & CDC members about calling a special meeting to discuss agenda items which had been postponed because the RRROC meetings were running too long. RRROC member John Uniack responded with an email questioning whether the Chairman (Mr. Fein) has the legal authority to call a meeting. A lively argument ensued concerning THIS particular point of procedure, which resulted in the extra RRROC Special Meeting held in September, of which the public & all parties concerned were duly notified. Hence there was no violation of the Brown Act. Many folks (including me) have advocated the creation of an RRROC Web site which can (among many other things to make information like this more readily available to folks who don't have time to dig through PDF files on the CDC/RRROC Web site. But this is an issue of available technology & resources (a Communications Outreach Subcommittee has been created to address this)
   
   I agree with Mr. Guccione, John Uniack, Zelda Michaels, Lenny Weinstein & others that RRROC needs to rigorously follow procedures & conduct itself in a manner that places them beyond reproach. But I also believe that RRROC & CDC members are making a HUGE effort to keep the public informed & to encourage public participation. If there have ever been lapses (I have only lived here for three years & hence don't know everything that happened in RRROC's early years), it seems like they would have more likely occurred due to lack of time, resources & experience, NOT from evil intent.
   
   I do NOT appreciate Mr. Guccione's treating our hardworking RRROC members like Watergate criminals instead of trying to help them facilitate communications & public outreach. A Communications & Outreach subcommittee has been created for this purpose & anyone who lives, owns property, or owns a business in this area can apply for membership in this subcommittee.
   
   Hmph. Mr. Guccione wants to be seen as a community watch dog, but he's behaving more like a community pit bull.
   
   
2. Redevelopment = Overdevelopment: Only if we WANT that, & the majority of us (including the folks serving on RRROC) do NOT. Redevelopment funds are set aside by the County (via the Community Development Commission) to fund a variety of public improvements which the Russian River Redevelopment area (Rio Nido, Guerneville, & Monte Rio) could not otherwise afford. We NEED stuff like parks, public restrooms, clean restrooms, & restoration or removal of crumbling buildings. Nobody is trying to change our downtown areas & nobody is advocating any large, for-profit housing developments. Nor has RRROC recommended funding for the evil & over-priced Monte Rio Sewer (though I do hope we can find a way to provide funds for people to upgrade their septic systems so human & chemical wastes don’t leak into our river & groundwater systems).
   
   We are required to spend 25% of these redevelopment funds on affordable housing & this requirement can be partially met through the rehabilitation of existing dwellings as well as via new construction … if only we could figure out a viable means for doing this. The county currently has a program which would ease requirements for homeowners with “granny units” to make these units “legal” (& who reportedly would not impose penalties if these units are currently being rented) … but alas, we currently have no mechanism to create funding for the conversion of these units. Although the County will be lenient about some requirements like minimum ceiling heights, I assume they will still insist upon modern standards for electrical & septic systems & the like. Potential owner-occupant landlords hence do not have the incentive for converting their potential units. But we could CHANGE that.
   
   
3. RRROC doesn’t get anything done, part 1: Actually, RRROC has played a key role in providing funding to a variety of desirable public improvements which have enjoyed strong community support, including: A grant to KGGV FM, our beloved local radio station; Low interest loans (which don’t require repayment until a property is sold) for raising homes above the flood-line; Rehabilitation of dilapidated buildings which house Russian River Childcare Services, the Rio Nido Fire Station & Post Office, & the Monte Rio Community Center (formerly the Koret Club); local clean ups & removal of abandoned buildings & vehicles; substantial rebates for replacing old wood stoves with modern ones which are safer, more energy-efficient, & more environmentally sound; funding for the creation of two beautiful new river parks in Guerneville; & more items than I can list here.
   
   For now, the most comprehensive list of projects for which RRROC has recommended funding is located on the About RRROC page of Dan Fein's campaign Web site.
   
   
4. RRROC doesn’t get anything done, part 2: They can only “get things done” if YOU submit proposals for project funding. Sometimes, this would require you contact the appropriate local agency or organization & get them to submit your proposal. Agencies & organizations, which you can approach with your ideas include the following: Your local parks & recreation department; your local school, your house of worship, your neighborhood association, your chamber of commerce, or a non-profit organization with whom you are involved. If you’re REALLY committed, you could even start your own organization.
   
   
5. RRROC controls redevelopment funds: Um … yes & no. Technically, the Board of Supervisors controls redevelopment funds. But first, they have to go through RRROC, which was created to prevent the County from spending redevelopment funds willy-nilly. Project funding proposals are presented to RRROC, which deliberates over the proposals, makes suggestions, & votes whether or not to recommend them to the County Development Commission (CDC)f or funding. The CDC then passes this on to the Board of Supervisors, which issues the funds.
   
   RRROC recommends funding for projects based on whether they are appropriate & legally within the scope of redevelopment’s stated mission, & whether these projects will meet the needs of & be embraced by our community. They have often required substantial changes to proposals based on public input. For example, Sonoma Parks & Recreation (for the Guerneville River Park) & Luther Burbank Housing (for the 5^th & Mill Street affordable housing construction) have been required to grant RRROC an extensive role in reviewing the project designs & budgets before receiving their recommendations for funding.
   
   
6. Nobody knows what RRROC is doing: RRROC is making substantial efforts to reach out to the public. They send out a quarterly newsletter to every household; Dan Fein has a regularly occurring broadcast with Milo on KGGV FM; & lots of news & information are available via the County’s RRROC site & Microbulletin Board. Everyone is invited to meetings, which take place on the 3^rd Thursday of each month at 7pm & which alternate between the Guerneville Veterans Hall & Monte Rio Community Center. Members of the public can also apply to serve on the various subcommittees. Audio broadcasts of RRROC meetings are available via the Guerneville Library & Microbulletinboard.com. You can also contact Vicky Sacksteader of the CDC at 565.7500 & ask her to mail you meeting materials on a monthly basis.
   
   
7. The Affordable Housing Project at 5^th & Mill will be hideous & poorly managed: RRROC recently recommended funding to Luther Burbank Housing to acquire land for this project after many go-arounds & much public debate. Burbank has an excellent reputation for working with communities to design high-quality, attractive, & well-managed affordable housing developments. & RRROC has managed to obtain substantial control over the design & planning of the project. I’ll be sad to see Noonan’s Garage gone. Otherwise, the main things we’ll be losing are some dilapidated vacant lots & substandard multi-unit housing.
   
   I would like to see adequate temporary housing provided for current tenants who may be displaced, & for them to be placed first on the list of applications for apartments in this complex. These mechanics are still being hashed out. Though I MUST admit that I will NOT be sorry if that lady with the poorly-built fence & herd of aggressive, renegade, cat-eating pit bulls is forced to leave!
   
   The other proposed affordable housing project (at the end of Laughlin Rd.) is likely to be a “sweat equity” development partnership with the folks at Habitat for Humanity, which would enable low & middle income local residents to realize their otherwise impossible dream of becoming home-owners.

So, basically, what happens with our redevelopment funds is almost entirely up to US.

RRROC's 60th Meeting Part II: Overview of What Was Discussed

The January 18th RRROC meeting at the Guerneville Veterans Hall started at 7pm & ended at 10pm. And -- based on several accounts from folks I talked with -- this was a SHORT meeting. I'll try to sum things up as best as I can. Please feel free to add comments & corrections, since I'm sure I've missed a lot of stuff & misinterpreted even more stuff.

1. Call to Order: The meeting has begun officially.
2. Roll Call: Made sure all the committee members, county representatives & presenters are present. Dan Fein, head of the Communications Ad-hoc Subcommittee was the only one absent.
3. Minutes: Go over a summary of the previous meeting & agree that all the things discussed & decided upon were done so according to consensus & procedure.
4. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters: We had a quiet meeting & sailed through this with nary a squall.
5. Information Sharing: Likewise, we seemed to sail through this, although I admit to not understanding much of what was discussed.
6. Correspondence: Letters from the public are discussed. A list of businesses participating in the GLBT niche marketing program from Lloyd Guccione in response to a previous request from Boris Sztorch, Redevelopment Manager; an email from Margaret Kennett, our Chamber of Commerce president requesting postponement of the Sidewalk Repair agenda item until obtaining approval for the Chamber's official statement from their legal counsel; Letter from Regional Parks requesting an additional $110K funding to complete development of the new park down by the river.
7. Monthly Reports: Tom Lynch asked about the Wood Stove upgrade rebate program. Vicki Stacksteder, Redevelopment Associate, replied that the program has been discontinued because CDC (Community Development Committee) lawyers determined it to be out of the purview of the RRROC mandate for reasons that would require a Talmudic scholar or Mensa member to fully analyze & explain. This SUCKS, since it was an affordable, accessible program that directly benefits our air quality as well as local residents. I was present when the measure was approved & felt it was an excellent, incremental accomplishment. Boris Sztorch, CDC Redevelopment Manager also reported that they have received ADA (American Disabilities Act) clearance for proposed renovations to the the RCCS (River Child Care Services) building. Some funding comes from the county for the public part of the area, the rest will be a low-interest loan.
8. John De Salvio's Design Guidelines Steering Committee: Still reviewing documents to avoid conflicts with permit regulations, the General Plan, etc. They're conducting a traffic study report & will finish in a few months.
9. Housing Subcommittee (Ken Wikle): They're still working on an official report/study on the homeless in our area. Mr. Wikle seemed genuinely emotional as he explained that we have homeless working families in addition to chronic homeless & the issues are "hard & complicated" to sort through.
10. Restrooms Subcommittee with John De Salvio: I'll attempt to paraphrase him: We're a tourist town. We need restrooms. They're still doing studies & making inquiries in regards to 3 possible locations: The Safeway parking lot, the Park & Ride lot, or under the bridge. They are waiting for a response from Cal Trans.
11. Infrastructure Subcommittee with George Zastrow: A need to more thoroughly study & assess large projects like the renovation of the Koret Club. It's too late to review the Koret Club project since it's already well-underway, but in for future undertakings, he wants "more direction" from the RRROC.
    
12. Communications Ad-Hoc Subcommittee with Dan Fein (absent): George Zastrow reported that the RRROC newsletter has been sent out & plans are underway for a Web site, but he can't say any more because Dan Fein wasn't there.
13. Spring Clean-up Appreciation: Tom Lynch proposed issuing an award to Margaret Kennett & Scott Mitchell & even had plaques made for Dan Fein to sign, because they "Did more work than everyone" and he felt that "Their efforts were slandered" the RRROC should "stand by them" and give more awards to folks in general. Lengthy argument concerning who should receive award plaques for service to the community & whether or not to offer awards at all. John Uniak aptly pointed out that if awards are to be issued, then there needs to be an established procedure for giving recognition. He then recommended that we "pass for now." A gentleman from the audience who was also involved in the clean up commented that a LOT of people worked really hard on the clean-up & how he himself took many loads to the dump at his own expense & how people did this willingly for the community without expectations of public recognition & questioned how we would decide who should receive awards.
    
14. Guerneville River Park (with a Parks & Rec representative whose name I unfortunately did not catch): Readers may have noticed that a park is being constructed under the Guerneville Foot Bridge. It currently has a rest room, some brush was cleared & that appears to be it. Parks & Rec wants $110,000 to complete the original scope of work for Phase I, including a concrete path, family picnic sites, group picnic sites & an outdoor stage area for performances. The bathroom facility cost way more than was originally estimated. Parks & Rec also distributed drawings of plans with the meeting packet. Catherine Young from the Design Guidelines Steering Committee expressed concerns about the aesthetics, because we're trying to "raise the image of the community." John DeSalvio asked whether we have studied existing parks in similar locations. John Uniak mentioned that the new restroom opens right onto the main path & provides no privacy. Parks & Rec guy replied that in regards to aesthetics (too much concrete, etc.), they're trying to accommodate potential flooding & "long-term maintenance issues "(County-speak for "there's NO money for long-term maintenance").
    
    During the public comment period, yours truly, River Rattina, launched into a tirade about how we're spending all this money on a new park that we can't afford to maintain, while existing local parks (Drake, Pacheco & Monte Rio) have no bathrooms (except for the porta-potty at Drake which is so utterly vile, my daughter refuses to use it), are poorly maintained, littered with trash & drug paraphernalia; & how the park in Monte Rio is unusable because the wood chip ground covering is infested with mold. I ranted on about how there are more families with young kids than folks realize -- both of the local preschools are full & Kindergym is well-attended -- & we are not being well-served. If we want to create a good impression of our community, we should have clean & well-maintained parks. After all, the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, etc.) tourists we're targeting our niche marketing efforts to often have children as well, since they're sometimes marrying & adopting in increasing numbers. Basically, I was totally rude & went WAY over the 3 minutes allocated to speakers during the public commentary period. People pointed out that this is outside the scope of the RRROC & there's no budget for maintenance. We would need to raise property taxes by $10 per parcel. I snarled, "What? In addition to the almost $7,000 in property taxes we are CURRENTLY paying?" Oy vey. I was totally rude & out of line, but what the hell, you only live once.
15. Continuing to include correspondence (letters written by the public to the RRROC) as a line-item agenda for meetings with Tom Lynch: Tom Lynch proposed eliminating this as a standing agenda item. He pointed out that folks sometimes abuse this, it takes up a lot of administrative time & money; & it keeps more important business from being conducted. Apparently that 150 page letter from a couple months back -- which required extensive review & printing the required 20 copies for the meeting packet -- has just about done poor Mr. Lynch in! Mr. Lynch pointed out that stuff like this is why fewer people come to meetings. John Uniak advocated keeping this agenda item because RRROC is supposed to be open to public input & we shouldn't make a decision like this based on a single incident. Catherine Young pointed out that printing & distributing the letters can give the wrong impression because it looks like the RRROC is officially endorsing the opinions & information expressed in these letters. During the public comment period, I ranted about how maybe meetings are not well-attended because the RRROC does not discuss issues that are important to many of us River Rats, like speed bumps, meth heads, parks, etc. Plus some of us have kids & can't stay out till 10 or 11pm. An articulate gentleman with a civilized British (or maybe Australian?) accent followed me & gently pointed out that RRROC should figure out a way to publicize its accomplishments & get people excited again. The woman next to me -- who muttered a stream of brilliantly lacerating & hilarious commentary under her breath throughout the meeting -- took the mic & gave us a (fairly well-deserved) tongue-lashing because we need to go to more meetings & not expect instant results because that's simply not how things work.
    
16. Affordable Housing : Hard to get developers. Follow Luther Burbank model?
17. Communications: Targeting potential tourists from the LGBT communities?

As you can see, I did a slip-shod job on addressing items #16 & 17. I'm totally starting to lose it -- it's way past bed-time for this buckarina. Yikes, my eyes are glazing over. Does Sonoma County actually want us to accomplish our goals, or do they hope we'll screw up so they can take all the money back? Mwahahah. Tune in next time.

RRROC's 60th Meeting Part I: Background Info & What's the Problem?

I went to the sparsely-attended 60th meeting of the RRROC (Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee) on January 18 at the Guerneville Veterans Hall & ... once again ... discovered that not much seems to be getting accomplished. I know for sure that we cannot blame this unfortunate state of affairs on our dedicated, hard-working & highly knowledgeable -- & locally elected -- RRROC members. So what's the problem?

It is my personal & highly unqualified opinion that two main factors are to blame for the Russian River Redevelopment Project's lack of progress:

1. Unfortunately, it is fairly typical for government & community projects to slowly surge forward at the utterly glacial pace of a herd of banana slugs stampeding through fields of molasses -- even when everyone involved pursues the same vision & seeks to cooperate with one another. Procedures must be observed or set in place; input from various sectors of the community needs to be gathered; feasibility studies must be conducted; budgets must be created; contractor bids must be sought & reviewed; unintended potential consequences are pointed out & require further study, etc.
   
   Alas, even the less-than-ideal scenario that I describe -- in which everyone works as a team striving to overcome the cumbersome but inevitable hurdles required by a functioning democracy in order to keep moving in the same direction -- does not seem to be happening here;
   
   
2. I strongly suspect that the Sonoma County CDC (Community Development Commission)'s interests vastly differ from those of RRROC -- which represents River Rats & Rattinas like me, who actually live, work & do business here in the Russian River Redevelopment zone. It's only natural for the County to care about increasing our tax base via the sorts of bells & whistles that would attract tourism & higher-end development. Meanwhile, many of us River folks feel ambivalent about gentrification &/or care about more mundane stuff, like parks, speed-bumps, "crystal meth", the effects of environmental degradation, & getting the Permit Resource Management Department (PRMD) to stop red-tagging our homes for stuff we can't afford to fix -- or at least make the permit & inspection processes more transparent.

For those of you who do not know (actually, I don't know much either, but I'm trying to learn awfully fast), the CDC has hoarded a huge stash of money for re-investing local property tax dollars in the communities from whence these funds came throughout Sonoma County. The RRROC was created in July 2000 in response to local concerns (and -- according to some long-time residents I know -- local outrage) in regards to the CDC's redevelopment plans for our community.

I plan to conduct more research & interviews in regards to the Russian River Redevelopment Project & the ongoing & conflicted relationship between the CDC & RRROC. I promise to share this information with you -- my readers (do I even have any readers?) -- & will post my insights & discoveries & invite you to share in my process of digesting this information via reader-comments. In the meantime, please bear with me.

Here is what I think I know: The RRROC is composed of locally elected members who represent various interests in our community. Here, along the bucolic & mostly Caucasian banks of the Russian River, these interests are fairly simple & consist of: Property owners, business owners, & resident non-property owners.

However, the Russian River does have a fair amount of diversity compared to the rest of Sonoma County, including lots of GLBTs (gay, lesbian, etc.), a sizeable Latino population, a handful of other ethnic groups & immigrants, a significant number of homeless folks (working families who've fallen on bad luck & couch-surf &/or live out of their cars, as well as the more stereotypical characters who are considered to be mentally ill & chronically homeless by the standards of modern society), etc.

RRROC members make strong efforts to gather & represent the views of these various contingents, & serve on various committees which have been determined as important to our community via procedures which I do not yet understand -- including Affordable Housing; Strategic Planning, Infrastructure, Communications, Spring Clean-Up (in which all trash, hazardous waste, defunct vehicles, etc. are collected free of charge & with no questions asked), Elections, & even the construction of Public Restrooms (we don't have any, but most of the local businesses are extremely kind in this regard, thank Gawd).

The RRROC meetings take place on the third Thursday of every month, at 7:00pm, & the location alternates between the Veteran's Hall in Guerneville & the Koret Club in Monte Rio. Everyone is invited & encouraged to attend. The format of the meetings resembles that of panel discussions. If anyone bothers to read this, I fervently urge you to attend. It's hard to get excited when nothing seems to be getting done, but our community's future is at stake & perhaps some items on the agenda should NOT get done.

The RRROC meetings often seem boring & appear to accomplish nothing whatsoever, but we still NEED TO KEEP GOING TO THESE MEETINGS. The County -- which controls the funds provided with our property taxes -- does not necessarily hold our best interests at heart.