joe wrote on Oct 8, 2007 8:22 PM:We have a water crisis, what is wrong with you?

ken wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:07 PM:Mulligans gets old, the movies is old having a water park would be awesome fun for the whole summer. I hope no... [one] stand[s] in the way, im counting down the days until that park opens.

Roy wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:37 PM:Great it only takes one... to stop a project that the whole community desperately wants. I will notate the name Alcheck as another selfish member of Southwest Riverside County.

Roberto1 wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:39 PM:What drought?

jojo wrote on Oct 8, 2007 11:01 PM:Forget about the kids, families and fun. We need furniture stores, 12 more starbucks and home developers.-

Heck. wrote on Oct 9, 2007 5:18 AM:We have plenty of water. Just turn on the tap. My next door neighbor hoses off the sidewalk and driveway everyday to get the dust off. No problem.-

Who Made Her judge? wrote on Oct 9, 2007 6:36 AM:The Judge is wrong. There is nothing an EIR will determine that has not already been determined. She blew it. She was so busy she failed to read the briefs on this issue and ruled the easy way with no study at all. Her lazyness will cost tens of thousands of local children....-

To Joe wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:05 AM:Do you honestly believe that the water in a water park just runs through and is not recaptured? Are you that uninformed?-

CEQA guidelines followed wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:09 AM:The judge made a ruling. That is her responsibility. If there is nothing wrong with the project, then they shouldn't be upset with having an EIR. That is the law. It is called CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), which prepares the guidelines under which a project might have been exempt. If the judge ruled, it wasn't exempt. Simple as that ! Where are the studies on what effects this project will have on the residents of the area. And a WATER park, of all things !-

Ha! wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:11 AM:It's not the judge's fault. She's only enforcing the law. There are laws in California that cities and counties must adhere to before they can permit a project (aka CEQA compliance). You can thank the tree huggers for that law. What is more troubling here is that this is a very standard procedure that every developer must go through, but our city council members believed they were above the law. This is the second time this occurred. The first was with the hospital on 79. Does anyone see a pattern here?-

Boo Hoo wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:22 AM:Poor Mikey didn't get his water park. I think we can use the water elsewhere instead of a water park. Don't those Temecula mommies know there's pools in their city? Why don't they just run over to Wal Mart and buy them a kiddie pool?-

To Ha! wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:31 AM:An EIR was prepared for the hospital - fact. Not doing an EIR for the water park does not mean there was not a study. Impacts were studied. They were studied in the same manner as if an EIR was done. If the judge had done her homework she would have realized that fact. This is not Raging Waters.-

Mom wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:51 AM:What they can build houses but not a place where families can go & have fun?-

finally wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:53 AM:Finally someone puts the brakes on our out of control city council. These people have no ears! or just refuse to use them. They thought they didnt need an EIR for the Hospital either-wrong! I guess you have to sue this city to make sure your quality of life wont go down the drain. The 68 million dollar civic center in Old Town doesn't have an EIR either! Eventually the citizens of Temecula will realize they are being duped by this gang of five who think if you just approve the goody goody projects for the citizens, they wont look at all the other corruption going on. Wake up Temecula!-

A Big Loss for Temecula wrote on Oct 9, 2007 7:55 AM:This is very sad. Temecula's children are the big losers. CEQA has run amok. It is driving the price of everything up. Now the latest CEQA issue is global warming. Evntually a little house will cost your kids a million dollars because of all the regulations and fees. Now YOUR KIDS will have to get in the car and DRIVE to go play at a WP somewhere else. BAD< BAD< BAD...-

Bad year for T-town wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:10 AM:Anyone else noticing?-

Resident wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:13 AM:99 percent of these people probably are not even concerned about there not being a hospital built in Temecula yet, and are worried more a stupid water park. Talk about screwed up priorities. If your kid needs specialty emergency care, the mini hospitals cannot facilitate your needs. Get with the program people.-

Concerned-1 wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:22 AM:The heart of the matter here is CEQA, a bad law that costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year with little or no return. An EIR is not needed on every project, especially those where significant development has already taken place. CEQA was conceived to create loop holes to stop development, not to save the environment. I suggest those who believe the Temecula City Council is "out of control" to check into property in Murrieta. Good luck with that city council.

Water Wiggle wrote on Oct 9, 2007 8:35 AM:Again, a couple of wet blankets are trying to ruin it for everyone. Please City of Temecula, APPEAL THIS!

Sop ALL New Development! wrote on Oct 9, 2007 9:11 AM:Read this and other papers. We're in the middle of a water shortage. A water park is the LAST thing we need.-

Jane wrote on Oct 9, 2007 9:27 AM:For the sake of our kid's health oppose this project. Environmentally it will contribute to increased traffic and pollution (i.e. dust during construction, smog). Not to mention the increased risk of skin cancer due to sun exposure in the middle of the summer. The sun is so strong inland that it feels like your skin can melt from your bones.

Rodney King wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:23 AM:Can't we all just get along!

Gary wrote on Oct 9, 2007 10:47 AM:HAHA, I would like to say thanks to everyone for trying to get this job done.-

Jane wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:30 AM:For the sake of our kid's health oppose this project. Environmentally it will contribute to increased traffic and pollution (i.e. dust during construction, smog). Not to mention the increased risk of skin cancer due to sun exposure in the middle of the summer. The sun is so strong inland that it feels like your skin can melt from your bones.

Former Temeculite wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:31 AM:Why would the greedy City of Temecula want to build a waterpark right next to the busiest intersection in town? Isn't traffic already a nightmare? It appears all they care about is money. Lake Elsinore is the ideal place to put it as the weather is always warmer and without the 2pm breeze...

Toad wrote on Oct 9, 2007 11:33 AM:CEQA is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed. It basically says any SIGNIFICANT environmental issues must be addressed and mitigated. However it doesn't define "signficant". Now the standard being applied is "any potential environmental issues, real or imagined" must be addressed and mitigated regardless of cost or benefit. Good luck with future development.

elsinore stinks wrote on Oct 9, 2007 12:49 PM:they have a nice baseball stadium and not enough people go there cause no one wants to chill in Elsinore except for the bros on motorcycles.

Jane wrote on Oct 9, 2007 1:17 PM:For the sake of our kid's health oppose this project. Environmentally it will contribute to increased traffic and pollution (i.e. dust during construction, smog). Not to mention the increased risk of skin cancer due to sun exposure in the middle of the summer. The sun is so strong inland that it feels like your skin can melt from your bones.

Bob wrote on Oct 9, 2007 1:28 PM:How about a Mercedes Benz Dealership/Waterpark/Traffic Circle/Nightmare? LOL, what a joke!

Randy wrote on Oct 9, 2007 2:24 PM:If you want a water park, drive over to Wild Rivers. Don't squander my Precious.

Jane wrote on Oct 9, 2007 2:31 PM:For the sake of our kid's health oppose this project. Environmentally it will contribute to increased traffic and pollution (i.e. dust during construction, smog). Not to mention the increased risk of skin cancer due to sun exposure in the middle of the summer. The sun is so strong inland that it feels like your skin can melt from your bones.

Ed wrote on Oct 9, 2007 2:55 PM:If they were to build a water park, how would SCE make up the lost revenue from the outrageous electric rates they steal from those who live in this desert?

yes water park wrote on Oct 9, 2007 2:57 PM:This community needs more for kids to do during the weekends and the summer break. Isn't a waterpark a better option than hanging out at the mall? We do not have a beach close by - We built a family community with a limited amount of activities for the the kids to do. Every parent I know is excited for this waterpark.

Concerned-1 wrote on Oct 9, 2007 2:59 PM:In response to "finally" at 7:53, I think most citizens realize the only duping going on is by the NIMBY stop-growthers. BTW, Temecula does not need to be "rescued." Keep all your banjos in Murrieta!

Build it now wrote on Oct 9, 2007 3:28 PM:I think the water park would be a great idea. I think we need more stuff for the kids to do during the summer. For all the people that don't think it's bad idea, move somewhere else and get a life.

Temecula Resident wrote on Oct 9, 2007 3:39 PM:Developers can build homes on any available lot, tearing down groves of trees, bringing in tens of thousands of people with thier cars, trucks and suv's to pollute the air. But the same people who oppose the water park because of pollution want thousands of people to drive 50+ miles (creating more pollution) to visit a water park in another city where they will then spend thier money. GET WITH IT! Our kids need somewhere to have fun in Temecula, I have two kids (a teen and a toddler) and we have to drive to different counties to visit places like water parks! We have one place to go currently in Temecula...Mulligans....(LAME). Hey kids I know what we can do let's go play another round of miniature golf. Temecula let's get with it.

question wrote on Oct 9, 2007 3:43 PM:is there a reason my posting is not listed. It appears to be up there but edited.

waterparkhater wrote on Oct 9, 2007 3:50 PM:Isn't the story above this one about our county having a water shortage!?!? Water parks are a ridiculous waste of space, energy and WATER!!!!!!!!

Murrieta Resident ~30K wrote on Oct 9, 2007 4:21 PM:To Jane: We got it. Stop posting the same thing over and over. To the editor: If we have to wait for you to filter our posts, why did you let Jane post the same message 4 times. I say build the water park, but require adequate barriers to the surrounding community, and obviously require road improvements so that traffic is not worsened.

Jane wrote on Oct 9, 2007 4:35 PM:For the sake of our kid's health oppose this project. Environmentally it will contribute to increased traffic and pollution (i.e. dust during construction, smog). Not to mention the increased risk of skin cancer due to sun exposure in the middle of the summer. The sun is so strong inland that it feels like your skin can melt from your bones.

Modern wrote on Oct 9, 2007 4:51 PM:Blah Blah Blah. A water park will be great for the surrounding businesses. A water park uses for the most part, reclaimed or recycled water, A water park is long overdue in our area. A water is a great idea...period!

Sounder wrote on Oct 9, 2007 4:54 PM:Hey Jane, let's get rid of the Mall and all the restaurants in Temecula, because that increases traffic and pollution too.

Did someone say . .. wrote on Oct 9, 2007 5:11 PM:this will cost thousands of children? Give me a break. I like water parks too but I certainly wouldn't feel that my kids are deprived if they don't have a water slide and $5 hot dogs . . . Get a grip on the important things . . that is just sad.

matt wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:43 AM:they are closing the water park in irvine...and me and my friends used to drive all the way to irvine to go to a waterpark...so now maybe all the people from the o.c. can drive here and make more traffic for us!-

o yeah and wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:49 AM:the winchester offramp and intersection with ynez is already backed up for miles...adding a waterpark which will obviously attract people from other cities too will do nothing but worsen the traffic..build it somewhere else in temecula-

Traffic - NOT wrote on Oct 10, 2007 1:16 AM:The water park is open only four months year and generates MUCH LESS TRAFFIC than any of the other approved zoning uses. There's a HUGE freeway interchange going in that will lead right to the water park, Winchester won't be affected at all. If Murrieta would put Ynez Road through, we'd have another way to get to and from Murrieta and Temecula. This is a great idea. NIMBYs are ruining everything. Please try again to bring this park to Temecula.-

Robert wrote on Oct 10, 2007 6:28 AM:Just because it is a WaterPark does not mean it is a waterwaster. As a developer out of Texas, I can tell you that on a per person basis, a WaterPark does not use much more water than a sit down restaurant.-

Just saying.. wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:37 AM:If the park is built it will need metal detectors at the entrance to keep out the "trash"... We do not need more problems here with traffic and crime. Drive to the beach or go to the lake with your ski boats.-

squirt wrote on Oct 10, 2007 1:23 PM:Temecula needs to look around you and you can see all the environmental impact - clean, safe family recreation is not an impact or eyesore, it is a necessity. I agree with the other commenter about - build more houses, Starbucks, and furniture stores, Oh a few more car dealerships also, pretty soon T town will be like Moreno Valley.

funster wrote on Oct 15, 2007 12:00 PM:Why not just bulldoze all the those ugly foreclosed homes? Temecula has plenty of room. ;o )

Tim wrote on Oct 19, 2007 10:02 PM:Is there an 18 hole golf course in your area? Sorry to say but a 9 hole golf course uses double the water that a waterpark would use. It's sad that no one fights a golf couse (which is primarily for adults) but we will complain about water issues when it comes to good family fun and entertainment. I support this project!

JF wrote on Jan 16, 2008 8:10 AM:OMG! Temecula is such a hick-town. HaHaHa...Ewwwwwwww, watch ot Temecula, it would be someplace NICE for the kids to be this summer instead of the MALL! Oh, but, just like anything else in the hick-town, let's not think of the kids ok? Let's have MORE housing (WE can have even MORE traffic from housing)and Starbucks, oh and FAST_FOOD places...yea that's right. Temecula is such a waste of time. Thank you City Council for thinking of our kids and giving them something to do this summer. How about an ice-plex where kids can go and play sports or just ice skate if the Water Park can't get approved. SOMETHING for the kids. All you adults Hmmmmm go have another cup of $3.50 coffee and chill out!

JR wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:22 PM:Anyone know statistics about the likelihood of increased rif-raff with a water park? I like the idea of a water park, but am more concerned about an increase in crime.