Letter: City proceeds with legal threats in mind
by Jim Reed, Scotts Valley
Dec 23, 2009 | 1264 views | 9 9 comments | 8 8 recommendations | email to a friend | print

To his credit, Jeff Gallagher’s letter to the editor last week (“Seek input on south side,” Dec. 18) acknowledges that much of his comments are based on what he has “inferred” from a recent letter of mine about the Target proposal rather than what I actually wrote.

Nevertheless, he touches on legitimate issues regarding due process and the city’s extension of the 45-day public comment period. And Gallagher’s question is a fair one — “Is there any proposal so outrageous that it isn’t obviously wrong for SV?”

There’s a twofold answer. The first point is that to many people, of course, Target locating in Scotts Valley wasn’t something outrageous but rather something to be considered seriously with an open mind once all the facts were in. That’s certainly the position all five council members have taken thus far.

Putting this aside, when dealing with matters involving basic rights — whether they are rights of property, due process or speech — the ultimate arbiters of those questions are judges. To the extent a developer can convince a judge that a city has denied its rights of property and/or due process protected by the U.S. Constitution, any city is vulnerable to an expensive lawsuit it could lose.

As is their right, those leading the charge against Target have threatened legal action against both the city and people affiliated with it several times over several issues in the past two years. In addition, like any city, Scotts Valley is at risk of being sued by developers who consider either specific decisions or processes they don’t like a violation of their constitutional rights. It’s sad that our society is as litigation-happy as it is, but it’s a fact of life no responsible city leader can ignore.

Regarding the 45-day public comment period extension Gallagher noted, the city granted that in large part so that anybody who didn’t comment previously because they thought the store would be a Target would have the chance to do so. Understandably, those who already have their minds made up may call this extension unnecessary, but it’s the right thing to do to ensure everyone’s voices are heard.

Scotts Valley will continue to allow people to be fairly heard from, respect constitutionally protected property rights and ensure everyone is equitably treated in our land-use process, which is the same used throughout California.

Jim Reed

Mayor, Scotts Valley
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Rights Exercised
December 27, 2009
Title two has had it's constitutional rights exercised. It has gotten it's fair shake and it's Target application. There the law ends. The application was not submitted with a committed tenant, that is sloppy business on Title Two's part. The CIty is proceeding with a headless application which does not fit the description of what the law allows. They are making this up as they go, illegally.

Like the fire station which was voted NO 5 times by referendum, but still the city is channeling money to build from the general fund, They are in the habit of doing whatever they can since they think they have the political cover.

No one is above the law, even those who think they have it manipulated to their advantage, in fact when the weak part of their support looses face, which will probably happen, they will be running for the hills and any political connected with the, will be sorry for the day they went along with their ill conceived ideas.

Beware The ides of March. Because you think you an get away with this doesn't mean there won't be a price. In fact the Target has South SV against you, Lowes will have the North, and Reed will have to hope the other members of the council mend fences before the election or he will be the first on the board not to be elected from that posse.

Reed how do you feel about the signs of overdevelopment in the City?

Why should we allow you to continue to spend the city into ruin? for the same money, you could have bought the Gateway south ACRES and put the library there instead of turning the skaterink

into a money pit. You should have let this go to foreclosure and snapped it up at a bargain price.

Owner was too connected to City leaders and now the tax man commit to create a boondoggle. Do you think that when you loose your seat on the Council that the rest of the council will shed a tear for you? They will be happy it wasn't them. You are allowing them to let you be the scapegoat for their misdeeds so they can feel secure during the NEXT elections. And where will it get you Reed?

You have been enamored by the greedy ambitions of the town center pushed by your supposed friends. Look how they treat their friends when they get into trouble. They push you right to your sentence and step back so you can have it. Then hope they can sweep it under the rug when time passes.

Is this the kind of public service legacy that will get you appointed or elected to higher office?

Time to show some courage and elect new leaders.

December 27, 2009
>.. I guess I could have let it be the same for the last 10 years and have the drug problems and illegal dumping go on..<

Um I think that you have built a canvas for graffiti artists. Do you really think that the Berlin Wall of Scotts Valley is an improvement over mother nature?

What are you planning to build behind that wall?

What's next an over roof like in vegas, you can push images of blue skys and trees.

I bet you think velvet paintings of Elvis is an improvement of your wall space.

Colin is diversion
December 25, 2009
forwarded by someone who is doing something they do not want public attention too.

Stay focused, and publicize those getting special treatment at the expense of the general population.

But maybe he could tell us what funding he will receive for emergency evac procedures that will be required if propane facility is relocated next to his Janis way property. He will need more than a block wall.
December 25, 2009
Yes I'm not afraid to use my name. My family has been in Scotts Valley for years. If anyone would like more info on me you can Google my name.......Ya... that has already been done and pasted on this blog. I'm proud of who I am and don't need to hide. Not sure why putting a fence and a block wall on the 42 Janis way property is developing. I guess I could have let it be the same for the last 10 years and have the drug problems and illegal dumping go on.
not afraid
December 25, 2009
Good for Collin Roberson, he has the guts to use his real name.
December 23, 2009
Is this your make-up for your last post about Reed? :

"I have never been to a Lowe's. How much more traffic would it make on Santa's Village rd exit. Have you ever exited that exit before? That would suck if Lowe's had its own exit. I remember when Borland had the plans for their second building and the exit was planned for both buildings.."

and considering his other post featured on the Target site:

"Sentinel | Tuesday, 8 April 2008


What a great idea to open a Target in Scotts Valley. My wife and I have been longtime residents of Scotts Valley. We have two young children and we currently have to drive 25 minutes to Watsonville to take advantages of great prices. Now, we can have one in Scotts Valley. What a plus for everyone. The city will receive much-needed tax revenue. The residents of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and the San Lorenzo Valley will have a Target so close to do their shopping. How many of you have read Target ads and seen the deals that they have? This could only be a benefit to our local community and business by drawing people to shop in Scotts Valley.

What a great idea.

- Colin Roberson, Scotts Valley"

I believe you are listed as the Project Sponsor for the initial CEQA regarding the relocation of the Suburban Propane Facility from 260 Mt. Hermon Road to 34 Janis Way. Your views are soiled in this debate since your interest are aligned with development...

Until it effects your neighborhood. Should we just say it's good for the CIty and let Lowes be approved?

Way to keep us informed..

Maybe you should reconsider who your friends are.

Then look at this:

"This article is deplorable. First, why is it predetermined that Jim Reed is the "Soon-to-Be" mayor of our town? Don't we first get to VOTE? Shame on you Sentinel.

Second, this article is thin at best and lacks any substance other than getting Jim Reed's name on the front page. Why is the Sentinel promoting Mr. Reed? How often have we ever seen a Watsonville council member on the front page, or a Capitola member promoting their campaign?

Third, I live in Scotts Valley and Jim Reed has been the mastermind behind promoting many risky spending and development initiatives that have literally left our city and coffers empty (including misleading the public on the cost of his library project to avoid a public outcry and be forced to seek a 2/3 majority vote). Only now he has gone public with what has grown to become a $20mil library project, a project that he now is also managing even though this community clearly never endorsed this large of expenditure of our monies.

Bottomline Profile: Jim Reed is what I would refer to as a "clever politician" plain and simple. He has his agenda, he has connections to the papers including the Sentinel and uses those connections to manipulate public perception much like this article. Mr. Reed is not interested in listening to the community, he is the least transparent on the council and has become a "swift vote" spending maverick by using Bustichi, Lind, Johnson to pass anything and everything he wants.

Have you ever seen his counterparts disagree on anything and stop passage? You won't. They figure out what they want to do, and do it. With our without us. Watch closely.

This council needs balance, insight, and transparency so that we can all contribute in our city's future direction. I surely do not want to rely on a couple of insurance salesman (Reed & Johnson), a retired cop passing anything to protect the city retirement plans (Lind) and a local builder (Bustichi) as our only means of worldly experience carving out the future of our city. Time to put the "buddy system" aside in SV and get some fresh views on our council. We have so much talent here. Let's tap it.

I do applaud Reed for one thing - he actually took off his blinders and stepped out from the back office where he pulls the strings and went out to meet the "real" people his decisions impact. Sadly it is obvious he is only doing this because he is recognizing there is traction to unseat him in 2010 and bring back transparency to our decision making process. Shake hands and kiss babies Mr. Reed. We know, we know.


We need new leadership now!
the law
December 23, 2009
Where in the law does it allow the same application to be used for two projects?

The application is proceeding outside of the law.

BTW, since to mention it, what projects to find objectionable?

I challenge you grow a pair and tell us. Apparently halfway houses for sexual predators are not on that list since the City Council just approved that under justification for State requirements.

What's left, nuclear waste dumps? I bet you could be openly opposed to that.

December 23, 2009
The two main issue:

1) Jim Reed believes the Target application not be be outrageous. That is the clearly the case however.

2) Jim Reed is worried about litigation. If you develop in a responsible manner, the Targets of the worlds would know what is wanted in Scotts Valley. Since Reed has just said he doesn't the believe the Application to be outrageous, it's they same as saying he's ok with the size and location of the project if that facts fit.

It clearly is wrong on all accounts including safety, crime, environment, and the traffic.

3) We need a leader who will spend as much energy representing the quality of life of us Scotts Valley residents, than finding every last hair to close the gateway south project to bail out his BAD decision to run a 20 Million deficit for the Library!

Dude, you are chasing good money after bad. Gateway South was a mess, the Library is a cash hog, the waste project is following in the waste footsteps.

If you follow Vellejo, the Council ran it into the ground because of spending, now we have a council member trying to justify a tax grab at the Gateway South to cover his poor judgement.

Why should we pay for it?

And I do mean pay for it, the report shows the Gateway project to increase everyones property taxes. And the 100 million every 3 years that will leave the city trough that robs the community of circulating local dollars.

There is no justification for this to continue, time to find someone who can stand up the council.

We need new leadership before it's too late and the city is run to ruin over uncontrolled spending and uncontrolled development.

We need new leadership.

December 23, 2009
Great letter Jim. Keep up the good work. Keep everyone informed.

We encourage your online comments in this public forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a forum for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Readers may report such inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at pbeditor@pressbanner.com.