General Holding Inc. isn't a development company. It is a group of investors with a dubious track record at best. Two projects in Northern California met stiff local opposition there. One in Winters, which was totally scrapped, and another near Benicia that stalled for many years over environmental and access issues. I am not sure what the final result was for the Benicia development,  but General Holding Inc. did not make a bunch a friends in the  process. 

It is so sad that the people in Ward 3 will have to go to the expense of recalling Ken Weir.  But he is hardened and autocratic towards those who are pleading with him to relent with his on-going effort to change the Planning Commissioner's term, politicizing that body and rendering it impotent.  If only Council member Sullivan would refuse to continue this insanity in  committee, it would at least bring some relief.  Ken Weir has made many people in his ward, AND out of his ward,  very mad.  Will that lead to a successful recall?  It will have to get going soon in order to make the November election.  In the meantime, will Weir fulfill everyone's expectation by trying to sabotage the very good Hillside Ordinance in June?  I hope that "Willard Winn" is ready for his phone to ring off the hook and his emailbox to fill up ... or, maybe not. 

adampayne said: "another near Benicia that stalled for many years over environmental and access issues".

These are the exact issues General Holding has now! They have lots drawn on anything that doesn't move out there, drainage into an endangered cactus preserve, plus eye-popping amounts of cut and fill. They have struggled with access issues because the land is basically on a peninsula. They want a grand entrance off the bike path, but to do so would require major grading. (really most everything they plan requires major grading, because they are not workign with their topography) If they just used some common sense and realized that their land is not flat, they could scale back their plans and get out of town. Their track record in Benecia shows that they are not capable of commoon sense. Has a project in Bakersfield ever taken this long to be approved??

I'm with you Lois- I'd love to see Castle and Cooke, the Nickells or Tom Carosella buy the property.

I am confused by the comments on this page.  I agree that the hillside should maintain its beauty and I really don't want any homes built there myself.  Obviously this is an issue with General Holdings.  People obviously did not watch or attend the council meeting because they did not hear what Mr. Weir said.  Here are quotes from his statement.

"The purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to preserve and protect the esthetics and environment of the hillside areas.  I agree with that purpose in concept and in theory."

"Throughout these articles there has been the assumption that I somehow profit or benefit from General Holdings.  No one has scoured my financial disclosure reports in more detail than the paper.  They know that I have not received any contributions from General Holdings or other investors in the Canyons Project."

I understand your anger and frustration with the Canyons Project, but I believe it is misdirected.  If you read the above quotes you will see Mr. Weir's position.  Where does it say that he will do anything to promote the Canyons?  That is your ASSUMPTION, not what actually is happening!

 P.S. - Really a minister is leading this???  What happened to forgiveness?  Or is that something that you just preach and not do?

Berzerkeley?  Et tu, Lois?  :)

Actually, FYI, the preferred spelling is Bezerkeley and stuff gets built a lot faster than this there.

Has anyone tried contacting Chad Louie and seeing if he's paying attention to any of this?

bigqueen, couple of things, if Weir actually was doing what he promised, we wouldn't find ourselves where we find ourselves today.  He contradicts himself a few times in his 15 minute speech as well and never actually says what his real plans are.

As for a minister leading it, the church has a long history of acting for social change.  Also, forgiveness only comes after penitence, which Weir is showing none of.

Please explain to me what he promised you and didn't do.  That should be interesting.

Largefemalemonarch:

After saying that he agrees with the Hillside Ordinance "in concept and in theory,"  Mr Weir continues:  "However, there are portions of the Ordinance which I believe need further evaluation and provisions that I would like to discuss with staff as a Councilmember."  He does not say what kind of evaluation or what kind of provisions.

Interestingly, he next says, "I also want to ensure that the Ordinance does not unfairly discriminate against any property owners."  I realize the following is a somewhat circuitous argument but....If the property is owned by General Holding AND General Holding's plan for development is called the Canyons AND Ken Weir wants to ensure the rights of the property owners (General Holding), THEN couldn't that be considered an implied approval, if not support, of the Canyons Project?

The Hillside Ordinance does not just protect aethestics. It is primarily a health and safety ordinance. The Californian had some very thorough articles on it when the changes were being discussed. (we actually already had an ordinance from the early 90s(?) the controvesy is about some revisions that were made) Chief Fraze from the Fire Dept did a very thorough presentation at one of the City Council meetings on the need for the ordinance with regard to fire access and safety. Also, the ordinance attempted to address some of the past soil settling problems in northeast Bakersfield. Regarding Ken Weir's connection with the Canyons project- he is apparently good friends with one of the investors in the Canyons project. The man, Gordon Downs,  was also a client of his, but Weir let him go when he became Councilman. He was not able to vote or have anything to do with the Canyons project for a  year after he ended theie business. I am not actually sure why he ended his business with Downs in the first place. He regularly recuses himself from discussions when they involve accounting clients of his. Why not just keep Downs as a client and just recuse himself from the Canyons issues? Unfortunately, right after being elected, when the conflict of interest issue was still in effect, he also sat in on a discussion about the lawsuit the Canyons brought against the city. That combined with his unwillingness to recuse himself from Canyons issues, makes the whole situation look bad. If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk.....

Well sure, you can make your own assumptions and play on words any way you want, but it doesn't make it true.  So I could also then argue that because Mike Maggard pays Russell Johnson as an employee that Maggard actually tells Johnson every single thing he should do.  Maggard is secretly controlling the committee through his puppet.  I can also then say that because it is known that Johnson wants to have a political career that he is setting Weir up to look like he is underhanded.  I could also say Sue Benham controls what is written about her in the paper because her husband works for the paper.  I could assume a lot of things, but it doesn't make them truth.  Also, he doesn't have to recuse himself from the Canyons discussion because he did fire his client and has no money from General Holdings or those investors.

Here is the part of the ordinance that Mr. Weir disagreed with and Johnson thought was okay...

"The Ordinance was subsequently amended on the fly.  Verbal amendments were made from the dais, for unfairly, impossibly unlawfully taking an individual’s land." 

Queen:

Mr. Weir said, "That is the Ordinance that Mr. Johnson supported with his vote."  The antecedent to "That" is not clear unless it is the Ordinance that the newspaper wanted Mr. Weir to "promise to support."

Then, he says, "Simply fascinating was what happened next." (emphasis added).  "Next" meaning after Mr. Johnson had supported the Ordinance with his vote?  "The Ordinance was subsequently amended on the fly."  Subsequently as in "following in time or order" as in following and after Mr. Johnson had voted?

I fail to see how this proves that Johnson thought the "amendments on the fly" were okay.

Say "Hi" to IamRIGHT for me.

The amendments were made at City Council. The Planning Commission actually approved the ordinance as it was written, so Johnson had nothing to do with the amendments.The amendments were made to benefit Gordon Downs, Mr. Weir's former client, and his partner and relative, Robert Kapral. The amendments allowed for more houses to be built on Downs's land then would have been allowed under the revised ordinance. There was never to be a "taking" of Downs's land. There was an article in the Californina with pictures showing how hilly Downs's land is and how a superhuman amount of grading would have to take place to build. If I remember correctly, there was a huge cut (like the top of a big hill) and two big fills (over 30 feet, I think) Considering  the problems with past and present NE development, regulating that mess is hardly a taking- they were only trying to reduce the number of houses, not eliminate them.  Actually, Weir does indirectly have money from General Holding. If you look at his donations, he received money from Diana Mestmaker, who is the sister of Robert Kapral, General Holding's engineer, and co-investor with Gordon Downs.

I fail to see how talking down to me proves your point (ojoreal).  I understand what you are trying to say and I am just trying to explain my point.  If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but I happen to know it as truth.  I know that Weir doesn't endorse any plan of General Holdings, simply because it is their plan.  He has agreed to look at each case as it comes and then make a decision.  That is a fair position.  I think that you all have questions, so ask Mr. Weir.  I really don't think that anyone is planning on listening and truly hearing what I have to say. 

It`s all money, behind the doors under the table money, The hills are a eyesore, they serve no purpose, they are there to be exploited, there is a growing population in Bakersfield with no place to live, we need the extra high priced housing, it`s extra tax income for the city, build it and they will come, money......

Note to Mr. Tandy:

This is an excellent example of why we  "islanders" don't want to be annexed.  It's not about taxes or services--it's about representation.  Our county supervisors are paid professionals, and they take their jobs seriously.  That's because they have real authority.

The City Council has had its share of good representatives over the years.  However, what smart, rational person would take on such a job knowing that they have no real authority?  Listen to the whining that goes on at the end of every council meeting and how the City employees ignore, roll their eyes, or patronize the Council members.  City government is dysfunctional because the citizens are not truly represented by elected officials.  It's no  wonder that paid lackeys are the usual candidates.

Big Queen KT:    P.S. - Really a minister is leading this???  What happened to forgiveness?  Or is that something that you just preach and not do?

Forgiveness, grace and mercy will surely be extended to Mr. Weir by everyone involved if he repents (definition: turns away).  The Bible also says, "confess your sins (definition: missing the mark) and you will be forgiven."  In this situation, Mr. Weir has definitely missed the mark by first trying to remove commissioner johnson before his term ended, and secondly by accusing johnson and the paper for the scandal which he started.  Third, he has not "confessed."  When he does, he will be forgiven.  Mr. Weir, "Please resign, save our city the embarrassment of a recall and go away and rehabilitate yourself."

Here's a fresh perspective...

http://www.bakersfield.com/...