Page 4 - Reedley Exponent 4-5-18 E-edition

The Reedley Exponent A4 Thursday, April 5, 2018 Editorial & Opinions
Serving “The World’s Fruit Basket” since 1891
A Mid Valley Publishing Newspaper
Founded March 26, 1891, in a two-story building on the corner of 11th and F streets, by A.S. Jones
Fred Hall — Publisher
In my OPINION
Thankfully the cold, dry winter we just ex- perienced has given way to a delightfully wet and warm spring. Here in the Central Valley, we are especially thankful for this godsend. However, property owners have a special re- sponsibility to maintain their holdings when it comes to all this sudden growth of greenery out of respect for our neighbors.
Jon Earnest — Editor
Chris Aguirre — Sports Editor Felicia Cousart Matlosz — Panorama Editor Budd Brockett — Editor Emeritus
QUOTE
“Acting is the most minor of gifts and not a very high-class way to earn a living. After all, Shirley Temple could do it at the age of 4.”
— Katharine Hepburn (1907-2003)
The time has finally arrived for a council vote on proposed shelter
One of the worst offenders here in the city
of Reedley at this time, without a doubt, would
be the United States Postal Service. If one al-
ready hasn’t taken note, we can guarantee you
that the Post Office grounds are an absolute
eyesore, even after having mowing done earlier this week. Having received numerous calls about the ugly mess — some even volun- teering to come in and do the cleanup on a pro bono basis — I only can suggest either they take care of the problem at USPS or Reed- ley’s nuisance abatement people clean up the property for them and then file a lien. We’ll keep you posted on this embarrassing mess.
•••
When one does a critical review of the news over the past week
or so, there clearly has been no abatement to the less-than-lucid thought process currently sweeping America. We’ve come to expect, and even accept, the craziness which passes for governance and public acceptance of inanity here in California. But we thought the rest of the country was more grounded in reality.
During that period, an over-endowed porn star has received headline status from major media outlets without the media appar- ently having the temerity to question her veracity. After all, this is a woman with a waning career looking to jump start her future earn- ings with a movie and a book deal. With the viciousness being dis- played toward our president, coupled with the venomous approach by Hollywood and our mainstream media outlets, no one was about to question the strangeness of such a claim 12 years after the fact. That would defeat the narrative.
We’ve been told, even by newspapers right here in our area, that our 15-, 16- and 17-year-old children are perhaps the best and brightest among us and should be consulted for answers to consti- tutionally settled issues. One local newspaper even suggested that the kids should be consulted in terms of the needs and budgets for our schools. Ever watch a teenager go through a hundred dollar bill?
We’ve even read in local newspapers that California is a virtual marijuana desert and somehow it’s an unfair situation that residents do not uniformly have access to this mood-altering drug. Perhaps our recently formed Bureau of Cannabis Control should step in and take steps to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to get stoned. Why not? Oakland is making sure that convicted criminals will get first choice on licensing as they are issued. Liberals say it is some sort of social justice because we originally put them in jail for selling drugs to our children. This process is so stupid I found myself shaking my head as I wrote it.
Anyway, California needed another bureau and staff personally chosen from the friends and families of politicians. When we have more than 500 bureaus and committees that do nothing but regulate and restrict the movements and actions of hardworking citizens, how much harm can one more cause? We’re talking about probably a dozen more bureaucrats, making six-figure salaries, who answer to no one.
California literally has become a magnet for the homeless and down-and-out because of the ideal weather conditions and our liberal social mores. Assembly Bill 109 and Propositions 47 and 57 provide cover for the very worst among humanity. If criminal activity was your calling, why wouldn’t you move to California and set up shop? The very same people in Sacramento who are busy passing such idiocy for legislation are the very same folks who are behind the exodus of people and businesses we are seeing.
Stupid seems difficult to fix in this day and age, but it’s good to be a thoughtful person who recognizes poor government when one sees and experiences it.
But, as always, that’s only one man’s opinion.
It finally appears that the issue that has polarized some southwest Reedley residents against city leaders finally will come to vote next week.
The Hope Now House of Faith — the emergency shelter formerly called Faith House by its proponents and regularly called a state-funded transitional home by its detractors — is scheduled to come up for a vote to approve or deny at the Tuesday, April 10, regular meeting of the Reedley City Council. The resolution would be to finalize the Reedley Planning Commission’s approval of a Condi- tional Use Permit and environmental assessment for the property at 1697 W. Huntsman Ave. Heritage Church is the nonprofit presently in charge of the facility, and will eventually convert over to Hope Now Ministries once it converts to its full 501c3 non- profit status.
Ken Baker, pastor of Heritage Church and the director of opera- tions for Hope Now Ministries, said he wants to establish that ministry to stand on its own, like Open Gate Min- istries in Dinuba. Hope Now is in the process of attaining nonprofit status. In the meantime, people wishing to donate to Heritage Church to support the shelter. Baker said the facility is meant to serve displaced families, vic- tims of violent crimes and community members needing temporary housing.
“Our goal is within two years to have Hope Now be established with its own 501c3 and its own entity,” he said.
I had the opportunity to go onto the property earlier this week. I wasn’t able to go into the house, but will do that at a future time. It was immedi-
ately evident that maintenance would need to be done to the property if the shelter site is approved by the council. A large swarm of bees were bunched in an outside corner of the building on the second floor, and a stone or brick wall would replace fencing on the north end of the property.
“It would depend on the structural repair that needs to be done on the home,” Baker said. “We’re supposed to get a structural report from an en- gineer with the city. We’re waiting on that.” Sixty percent, or $336,000 of the $560,000 state grant, would go to the city’s general fund and be used to make structural fixes and repairs. “It’s the city’s property, so it’s their in- vestment,” Baker said. The remaining 40 percent would go to the nonprofit to staff the facility. Baker said that will be used for one full-time site manager and perhaps others to ensure 24-hour supervision.
Only four members of the City Council would approve or deny the project. That because Mayor Pro Tem Frank Pinon has recused himself from voting. Pinon, like Baker a part-time chaplain with the Reedley Police De- partment, is a non-paid staff support member of Hope Now Ministries’ board of directors. Other members of the Hope Now Ministries board are Silvia Rios, administrative assistant; Rosalinda Padilla, treasurer; and Kim- berly Baker, staff support.
Reedley Beach Families, the group of residents near the facility opposing the project, did not appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit for the city. Group representative Cliff
Unruh has written a guest editorial on this week’s opinion page.
The April 10 meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the City Council chambers, 845 G St.
Fred Hall
Jon Earnest
Editor’s Note: A vote on the proposed Hope Now House of Faith emergency shelter project in southwest Reedley is tentatively sched- uled to take place at the Reedley City Council’s regu- lar meeting on Tuesday, April 10. This is a submitted opin- ion column by Cliff Unruh, a representative of the Reedley Beach Families group that is opposed to the project.
By Cliff Unruh
Guest columnist
“Character is what you are when no one is look- ing.” I have said this be- fore of our City Council. What we initially thought was an open and honest de- bate about the placement of a transitional (half-way) house in our neighborhood has become an ever-widen- ing window that provides a glimpse into the character of those elected to repre- sent us and how $560,000 of state money can induce less-than-ethical behavior with the rationale that “it is all for a good cause.”
To this day, we cannot understand why members of the City Council will not meet with us. Quoting Coun- cil Member Ray Soleno, our desire to talk directly to him and other members of council “wreaks of nefari- ous intent.” Nefarious?
Under the City Coun- cil’s direction, Director of Community Development
Rob Terry (with a master’s degree in planning and na- tionally certified as a plan- ner) “goofed” and only no- tified five of the some 25 to 30 homeowners he was lawfully required to inform of the Sept. 25, 2017 Plan- ning Commission Hearing regarding the transitional house. He then misled some half dozen homeown- ers by promising to keep them informed of future meetings but conveniently left out the fact that the City Council would vote to receive the funds for the transitional house the very next evening. Why would Terry do that?
By wading through the City Council’s website, we learned that Mayor Pro Tem Frank Pinon and Ken- neth Baker are partners in a newly formed 501 (c)3 non-profit corporation, formed specifically for the purpose of applying for and receiving the $560,000 grant, $224,000 of which will be placed under their direct personal control. Granted, Council Member Pinon has “recused” him- self. However, his partner, Ken Baker, has been pub- licly advocating on behalf of their non-profit organi- zation. Meanwhile, Frank Pinon’s fellow council members voted to receive the funds bringing Frank and Ken o,ne step closer to controlling that $224,000. When we hand-delivered a
formal demand to the City of Reedley to explain why two dozen homeowners were left out of the formal notification of the hearing, Frank Pinon’s partner, Ken Baker, suddenly withdrew their application for the Conditional Use Permit, postponing the project into the new year.
Nefarious? The city of Reedley owns the proposed transitional house they used (together with Frank Pinon and Ken Baker’s nonprofit corporation) to get the $560,000 state grant. The City Council, including Frank Pinon, came up with the idea to apply for the grant, the terms of which require a special Condi- tional Use Permit to use the property as a transitional house. Without the Condi- tional Use Permit, Pinon and Baker do not get con- trol of $224,000 nor does the City Council have control of the remaining $336,000.
The City Council’s em- ployees publicly advocated for the transitional house and applied for the Condi- tional Use Permit, the hear- ing for which was heard (twice) by five Reedley Planning Commissioners, all appointed by the mayor and City Council including Frank Pinon.
On Jan. 18 the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit and the 10-day period for appealing the vote ended on
Jan. 28.
So, why
didn’t we
appeal?
The ap-
peal for
the Con-
ditional
Use Per-
mit is
heard,
under Reedley City Code, by the Reedley City Coun- cil; the very people who have refused to talk with us but require us to pay a $500 fee for the appeal. By the way, one of the reasons of- fered for not meeting with us is that, because they will hear any appeal, they “have to maintain [their] objectiv- ity.” Huh? Does this seem to you like the sort of city gov- ernment we can respect?
There is far more to this story than can be related in this editorial. As a result of our experiences with the City Council, we have es- tablished a special website, reedleybeachfamilies.com. There you will find not only documentation supporting everything you have read here, but more reasons for all of us to consider chang- es in how our City Council is elected and how long they can serve.
Cliff Unruh is one of more than 100 residents now organized as Reedley Beach Families, who are opposed to the Reedley City Council’s plan for a transitional house in their neighborhood.
•••
There are a lot of events — truly a
lot — going on in Reedley and eastern Fresno County this weekend. One not mentioned elsewhere in this week’s issue is the Kings River Conservan- cy’s seventh annual Spring Fling on the Kings from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday, April 7. The free event is at the Lapp River House, 26210 Elwood Road off Highway 180 east of Sanger.
Attendees can purchase a taco lunch along with beer, wine and brownies. All proceeds from those sales go to benefit the conservancy’s ongoing projects such as trail mainte- nance and public safety education. A raffle also will be held to raise money for the river. Donated prizes include yard art, trail shoes, a microwave oven, gift baskets and more. Other attractions include Kings River Wa- ter District biologist Heidi Isner on hand to answer questions about fish and water mammals while Fresno Wildlife will bring raptors and share knowledge about local wildlife.
For more information about Spring Fling on the Kings, contact the Kings River Conservancy at (559) 787-9500 or go online to kingsrivercon- servancy.org.
City’s actions puzzle shelter opponents
CliffUnruh
Letters Policy
THE REEDLEY EXPONENT invites letters from the public on
any topic of local relevance. We reserve the right to edit letters for clarity or brevity, and we reserve the right to NOT publish them if they could be deemed libelous or profane. Letters should be 300 words or less, and bear the author's name, address, and phone number. Letters can be mailed, emailed (jon@midvalleypublishing. com), submitted via our website, or personally delivered to: Editor, Reedley Exponent, 1130 G St, Reedley CA 9365 .