"....he’s not independent due to his employment relationship."

Talk about the pot callin' the kettle black.

What anti said.

At this stage of the local development game, I am at a loss as to why Ken Weir continues with this bully approach to conflict resolution. In light of the continued devaluation of property here in the county, and in much of the state, it makes no sense to develop any more properties in this area. There are plenty of infill areas that could be cleared first along with getting people back into the thousands of vacant homes that seem to grow exponentially each month. We have the largest inventory of homes on record. Why do we need one more new home in this town? This whole northeast development project has been a disaster from the start for all concerned.  A planed project that was given the green light more than 12 years ago for more than 11,000 homes has sold under 500 to date. Give me a break, but first give me a new Council Member who has a clue what world we inhabit. 

Just so you know...Weir is not pushing for The Canyons to go through, what he was saying is that Johnson voted to take 2/3 of someone's land without any reimbursement for the land.  Johnson voted to approve that for the Canyons, not Weir.  This is about private property rights.  Is it okay if the city takes 2/3 of your house and doesn't give you any money for it? 

bigqueen, so when the Canyons project comes to a vote, Weir will vote against it?

I can't answer that question for you because I am not him, but I am positive he will vote for what is right for the northeast.  Everyone's "favorite" commissioner Johnson I'm sure will be in favor of it.

The Council voted unanimously on that issue. Did Weir have a change of heart??? This guy changes his stripes every five seconds, and obviously isn't very good at spinning things.

Johnson only became a 'favorite' after Weir tried to circumvent protocol. Before that their were about a quarter million Bakersfieldians who couldn't name the Planning Commissioner.

That was voted for under Maggard's term, not Weir's term.  Do you know this guy?  Don't make accusations about someone based on a single source (Californian) because it is biased and most people know that an opinion based paper doesn't create fact.  Also, Anti, Mr. Weir is not employed by anyone, but himself.  He never worked for General Holding and he completely ended his relationship with Mr. Downs.  Check your FACTS! 

BigQueenKT, that's kind of the issue here.  Weir either isn't doing his homework and doesn't know what he'll do or is lying to the people about his intentions.  He claims to have a vision that Johnson doesn't share, but won't spell out that vision.

Well...I know part of his vision is to not take property without compensation.  I'm POSITIVE everyone in ward 3 would agree with that.  I'm pretty sure that most ward 3 members aren't criminals and Johnson voted in favor of STEALING 2/3 of a person's personal property.  May I have your backyard for free?

No property was stolen. The Hillside Ordinance simply reduced the number of houses that Mr. Downs can put on his extremely hilly property. It was never proposed that his property be taken. Nothing has been approved out there. What Mr. Downs has are drawings of houses/lots. Additionally, when the ordinance was approved, it was altered to affect Mr. Downs's property less as a kindness to him, even though the plan on his property requires an eye-popping (and unsafe) amount of cut and fill. The city frequently tells greedy landowners to alter plans for the safety of the city. To say that someone's land was stolen is absolutely incorrect- another strike against Mr. Weir.  

I am in no way saying that Mr. Downs is right to put an excessive amount of homes on his property.  I am simply saying that to take 2/3 of a person's property towards parks and trails or to say it is unusable without some form of compensation is unacceptable.  No, they didn't physically take his property, but they did make it valueless.  It doesn't matter who the person is, it matters how they are treated.  Whether you like The Canyons or not, he wasn't treated fairly.  Even when they made modifications to the land, it was 2/3 of his land that was unusable.  I'm sure if you bought land as an investment and then 2/3 of it was taken, you would want some sort of money for your property.  That's only fair.  It is not a strike against Mr. Weir to make sure that something is fair to all parties, that's a plus.  To you it's not stealing because it's not yours, but if it were yours I'm sure you would feel differently.  If the city came to you and said the front quarter of your property shouldn't be built on according to the planning commission, take your house off it, you would just say, "Okay.  Sure.  No problem!  No, don't worry about giving me any money for that.  You can just have my property"?

KT: It wasn't taken towards parks and trails. It is steep, and the city said it's too steep to build there.

So, if it is too steep, then why would anybody be allowed to sell the property to a person as residential land?  If the city has it zoned as residential, but then doesn't allow homes to be built, they need to compensate the owner for the land they are taking out of the residential zone.  Like it or not, it is not okay for the city to make the land unusable without paying for what they've taken. 

bigqueenkt: "I am in no way saying that Mr. Downs is right to put an excessive amount of homes on his property.  I am simply saying that to take 2/3 of a person's property towards parks and trails or to say it is unusable without some form of compensation is unacceptable.  No, they didn't physically take his property, but they did make it valueless.  It doesn't matter who the person is, it matters how they are treated.  Whether you like The Canyons or not, he wasn't treated fairly.  Even when they made modifications to the land, it was 2/3 of his land that was unusable.  I'm sure if you bought land as an investment and then 2/3 of it was taken, you would want some sort of money for your property.  That's only fair.  "
 

KT, more than 2/3 of the property is currently unusable. The fact is, the Canyon's project is only possible with a large amount of cutting and filling land which is currently too steep to build on. The "Hillside Ordinance" defines the amount of slopes permissible to build on, and how close to certain types of slopes is acceptable. The simple fact here is that this property, which you yourself call an "investment", is far from "valueless".

If I were to buy a car which the state says is not safe to drive, should I demand that the state pay me back for what the car would be worth completely restored? Without doing a lick of work to it?

You certainly know nothing about land use, or private property "rights". Zoning as a form of "taking" is not a compensatable action. I can't currently build a nuclear power plant on my property. Does that mean the government owes me for the loss of revenue I'm experiencing without said reactor? Certainly not. If I bought my property expecting to put a nuclear plant there, and I can't because of zoning ordinances, does that mean the city owes me for that "loss"? Of course not. And the situation with The Canyons is no different.

Well, obviously you're angered by my opinion.  I'm sorry that you don't like it, Matt, if I am trying to put the truth out there.  I am not saying that I support General Holdings or building on the bluffs, but what I am saying is that if someone were to take something from you, you would want it returned or something similar in return.  If the state said that your car was safe for driving, but then revoked their safety approval after purchase, then yes, I would say they owe you.  That property is zoned residential; therefore, meaning homes can be built on it.  If they are removing that zoning then yes, they owe him money.  Obviously he is not going to be able to build on every square inch of his property, but to take 2/3 is excessive.  Are you okay with going to Target and buying something that is unusable, but getting no refund?  Don't insult my intelligence because my opinion differs from yours. 

KT: Yes, it was zoned, and the city did change its ordinance between the time Downs bought the land and the time he tried to build.

However, like Mattloch said, there are limits, and downzoning happens all the time -- usually through changes through a planning process, as this was.

It doesn't change the fact that it would be proper to then compensate him for his loss.

People have made that argument, but haven't gotten far in court or at the ballot box. Once you start applying that standard to everyone, you have the government in for a whole lot of money.

Mr. Weir will get his day in the sunlight, in November during a recall election. He's committed so many gaffs in his first few months in office, his Abernathy handlers must be speechless, and I be they hope he'll be speechless for a bit as well. From trying to change the rules to oust the planning commissioner, to voting on conflict of interest items, to taking donations from a company he is doing business with....what's next????

I would not be a bit surprised to see other Council Members, even his allies, shuffle a bit away from him for fear of a lightning storm. 

KT, I'm not "angered" by anything you say. The "truth" that you're "putting out there" is far from the facts. The Canyons project requires much cutting and filling (grading) of currently unbuildable land. The City Council (through the Hillside Ordinance) isn't making General Holding's land unusable, nature did that millions of years ago. Just because the land is zoned for, say, ten houses per acre doesn't mean that they can build at that density. You'll find that many projects are built far from their maximum permitted density because of required things like streets, landscaping, setbacks, etc. That doesn't mean the builders must be compensated because of their "loss" in total units. In this case, General Holdings is able to do less overall grading than they would like to, and build houses further back from the edges of slopes. They're still able to build more houses (1/3 of the total possible density) after grading than they are currently (much, much less than 1/3 total density).
 

I'm not "insulting" your intelligence, least of all because of your difference in opinion. I'm telling you that you have an opinion, and not "the truth" as you state earlier in your post.

The fact is that Mr. Weir is trying to circumvent the system. He wants to oust someone for something that was approved by the City and the Council. If he could, would he oust all of them too? It is simply not his turn to choose a new Planning Commissioner.

I did assume that Mr. Weir was on the Council at the time. But if you are going to take me to task about facts, yet you thought the property was being confiscated for parks, maybe you don't have all the facts down pat either.

You claim that your third graders are better writers then Lois, then you become the grammar police for a blog message banged out in a hurry, yet you want to claim that Matt is insulting your intelligence.

The people will decide Mr Weir's fate. I can live with whatever decision they arrive at. Can you?

Wow, there is only one thing I wanted to ask. Now I know threes all these things about Downs was a client and Russel works for whoever blah blah blah.....

Look this is what concerns me, OK the planning commish guy is not squeaky clean, and  I bet neither is Weir. But Weir should be able to pick who ever he wants as planning commish, right? I mean everyone else picked theirs and I don't give a ratz butt if he just doesn't like the guys hair, its his job to pick whoever he wants.

Look I see the coverage in the paper and other places and it definitely seems like its all one sided. When that happens it concerns me

Supe:

The system set up by the city council back in 1999 is a rotation system. Every year, two planning commissioners' terms expire (except in leap years, then it's only one). And they have a calendar, which was devised by drawing lots, which determines which council members get to appoint to which planning commission seat. And under the calendar, Weir's turn comes next April. He decided he didn't want to wait, and started the process to change the system; when that wasn't going to go fast enough, he tried the legal-but-unprecedented (as far as we can tell) attempt to remove Johnson.

Yes, every other council member has had a chance to appoint a planning commissioner. Also, every other council member has served at least twice as long as Weir.

So let me ask this: does the city owe all the residents of Bakersfield for "no burn days"?  If I buy a house with a fireplace and then the city says I can't use it whenever I want, should I be compensated?  Are you going to vote for a tax hike to pay me for my lack of use of my fireplace?

Tom:     That was snarky and sarcastic. It was snarcastic.

Look, bottom line is that Weir has every right to question the guy that *should be* his appointment. That position is supposed to be appointed by Weir. I know Johnson's term isn't technically up until April, but his actions should at least vaguely reflect the ideas and best interest of Bakersfield. Note how the planning commission voted to render 2/3 of Downs' land useless, and the city council unanimously voted to overturn that decision. You people don't even know Ken Weir, and yet you spend your days burning him on the internet. Get a life. Or at least a job.

City Beat , Thanks I really didn't know the sched stuff.

So I don't know if anyone thinks like this but I just have a feeling that this really isn't about anything other that petty politics. So this guy wants to go ahead of schedule and pick his own guy like everyone else did. I'm assuming none of the other council man had to wait so long to name theirs.

I think this Russel guy and weir are just have opposing friends but who cares about that stuff, I just want guys to do there job. You said it was unprecedented but not illegal. Meaning he did things just fine right? If weir is doing something wrong that's what I want to know, not if he people like Russel or some don't whatever. I don't think a recall is necessary unless there was some wrong doing. 

The simple question of did he do something wrong doesn't seemed to be asked. If he was appointing someone that was unqualified OK but that's not true either. It seems like people are trying to take advantage of a situation to paint this a weir is a horrible guy abusing power and going against what he was elected to do, serve the ward.

What has he done not to serve, what has he done that was illegal, wrong or corrupt. Him picking his own guy when it is his right doesn't seem to qualify as recall material.

Someone help me out, fill me in?

Well, Superman, the truth is that Weir did nothing illegal.  He wanted to change his planning commissioner, as is allowed by the city ordinance.  It is already a part of the city law.  He also wants to change how commissioners are appointed.  He wants commissioner's appointments to coincide with the election of the council member, just like the county.  Now, the paper will have you believe that he is receiving money from General Holdings, but it's not true.  He is a good man who tries to fight for what is best for the community. 

Actually, KT, the paper will have you believe that Weir received money from General Holdings funneled through another group, and gave it back as soon as the connection was pointed out. The paper would also have you believe that what Weir was doing was legal. That's what we've printed several times.

No, not all of your columnists print the truth.  I am glad though that you acknowledged "that what Weir was doing is legal".

Supe:

Actually, others have to wait longer. Here's the time lapse between the beginning of a term and the time a council member gets to appoint a planning commissioner:

Ward 1 (Carson), 5 months

Ward 2 (Benham), 17 months

Ward 3 (Weir), 29 months

Ward 4 (Couch), 41 months

Ward 5 (Hanson), 5 months

Ward 6 (Sullivan), 41 months

Ward 7 (Scrivner), 5 months

Now, that's assuming normal. Scrivner served a two-year unexpired term before his normal term, so he had to wait a total of 29 months. Sullivan was on the council before this system was put in place, and she was assigned Jeff Tkac, and she's just reappointed him each time. Now, she likes him, so that makes it easy for her.

On the recall, whether something has to be illegal to merit a recall is of course up to the individual voter. But you'll recall that Gray Davis wasn't accused of doing something wrong, he was just accused of messing up, and that, according to a majority of voters that day, was enough to throw him out. (At the time, I was covering a recall in the town of Concrete, Wash., and there you had to allege wrongdoing, but not prove it.) The allegations against Weir by the recall faction are more along the lines of, he's doing a poor job of being a councilman, so he should be removed.

As for whether Weir would appoint someone unqualified, well, we don't know. He has said he doesn't know who he's going to appoint.

Okay, City, so what you're saying is that if some people believe that Weir is doing a poor job, that that is reason enough to recall him.  They aren't required to have any actual reason other than they don't like his performance.  So, when Weir wanted Johnson to resign because he wasn't happy with his performance that was reason enough to remove Johnson as well without any further explanation.  Right?

KT,

I think you've got it right — Mr. Weir and Mr. Johnson are in the same situation:

As I think CityBeat has pointed out in the past Mr. Weir has every legal right to ask the rest of the council to remove Johnson.

The recall proponents have every legal right to ask the voters to remove Mr. Weir.

KT: Yes. Indeed. However, now they need to convince 4,100 people by the end of June, and 10,000 people (maybe more) by the beginning of November.

The main difference is that when you ask Winn for reasons to get rid of Weir, he has them. They're highly subjective, but at least they're specific. It took Weir two and a half weeks to come up with a specific reason.

What's your beef burger? If you hate Repub's so much move your Thompson loving self to San Fran.

Sheesch, you take GOP whining to hitherto unexplored frontiers.

Liberals whine. Conservatives throw down.

Neither of which has anything to do with the Weir discussion, until you, the ultimate whiner, tried to bring it into it. This is all about Weir doing a rotten job, and nothing about his party membership. Only a paranoid whiner would think otherwise. I'll confess that I liked "snarcastic" though. Concise.

Liberals created this country.  Conservatives have resented that ever since.

 If you hate Repub's so much move your Thompson loving self to San Fran.

+What a novel argument. I 've never heard a conservative say that+

For the record, liberals are the antithesis of what our founding Fathers intended for our nation.

For the record, silly girl, you need to study some more.   You may yet go the route of Churchill.

It's really a shame that Teddy Roosevelt took all the brains of the Republican Party with him in 1912. The party that gave us Lincoln and Teddy has never been the same and the country is all the worse for it.

For the record, liberals are the antithesis of what our founding Fathers intended for our nation.

Interesting, British colonies not wanting to be a part of the British commonwealth isn't a liberal idea in the 18th century. What were their intentions?

The only thing the Founding Fathers had in common with today's conservatives is "they were rich white guys who didn't want to pay taxes," to quote Robert Wuhl.

City...Weir did state the Maggard factor the night of the council meeting.  He also stated that Johnson didn't vote correctly the same night.  Maybe they weren't as clear as possible, but they were there that same night.  If you read the transcript you posted of Weir's statement from the council meeting, you will see that it is in there.  It wasn't two weeks later, it was the same night.  So there really is no difference. 

Weir still had to be forced by the state to disclose his connections. I mean business associates.

The planning commission did not vote to take 2/3 of Downs's property and the city council did not  overturn the planning commission's decision. This is flat-out incorrect.  I have tried to be polite in my comments, but  good grief, woman, learn the difference between facts and opinions As a teacher, you should be teaching your students this- it's one of the standards! Yes, we can have different opinions, but facts are either correct or they are not. So far, yours are not. Read the articles the paper did at the time, or get the transcripts of the meetings or present opinions as opinions and facts as facts. By the way, repeating opinions over and over does not make them facts.

Lily, please do YOUR research before you make derogatory statements towards me.  I do know fact from opinion.  It's funny to me that you think repeating an opinion doesn't make it true, yet you read and believe a paper that is famous for that.  The city did render 2/3 of Down's land unusable.  This is from Marylee Shrider's Article.

This is from City Planning Director Jim Movius.

"He does not lose all his lots," Movius said. "He would not be able to build two-thirds of the homes he planned."

So, under the best-case scenario, Downs will get to develop only a third of the lots he planned for."

I think you have the quote wrong. As I recall, Movius said that Downs would be able to build 2/3 of the houses he had planned. He only lost like 4 lots or something.  I followed it closely at the time, and will call Monday and confirm. Considering that Downs's proposed tract requires a 75' cut and 2 30+' fills, I hardly think the city is being draconian in its policies.  The Tuscany tract had far less cut and fill, yet they are having terrible settling problems. Many of the houses built on fill south of BC have had to be mudjacked. In the early 1980s, lawsuits were filed, an engineer lost his license and a pool slid down a hill in some fill areas near Fairfax and Auburn. The city owes its residents safe development. They have been generous with Mr. Downs to the point that he stands to make back far more than his $400,000 investment.