Good Planning wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:46 AM:Nothing on the bottom for when it starts having annual 150 year flooding will help protect some of the people in Old Town.
Remember the $9 Million Dollar damages in Old Town in 1993 from up river run off? It only had rained 8 inches of rain.
What will 20 inches or more do?

Guess that we'll tradgically all are going find out with Climatic Global Warming now forecasted for our country and state as normal events of weather.

year old wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:23 AM:32 parking spaces for the Dalton building on third street, BUT what about if each unit had to people living in them, then that makes it 64 cars, WHERE are the extra 32 cars going to park.???? my 11 year old boy asked me that, what do you want me to tell him,?????

to Year old wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:45 AM:Tell him to mind his own business in life. Why is your 11 year old scrutinizing construction contracts in Riverside county? Does your 11 year old also evaluate irrigation projects and sediment studies? Go find a sandbox and enjoy your youth instead of being caught-up in some whiners hobby.

Kid Power wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:38 AM:Tell that brainiac that cars are expensive and when you add in the cost of insurance, gas and maintenance that most of those so called low income earners will not be able to afford a car. Let him know that in China there are over 400 million bicycles and you can park about 20 bicycles in one parking stall. BTW which stocks does he see as winners in 2 years from now?

messed up town wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:02 AM:to kid power, why don;t you move to china and take your bicycle with you. we will have a big parking problem in old town, and it is getting bad now.

Kid power RULES wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:22 AM:"Kid Power" was a GREAT comment! HA! I'm on board; "braniac kid" needs to rely on the public transportation; it's definitely in his future as the only option. Although, sometimes I wonder if 11 year olds should be in charge like that Star Trek episode ("Bonk-Bonk on the head).

Hmm wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:12 AM:Smart kid, maybe he should run for city council. He's qualified because he can count, not like the current council.

Missing story wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:14 AM:Where's the story about Murrieta getting the 4-rink ice and inline hockey arena? Now there's a newsworthy story! New Town getting another building, blah, blah, blah. Boring already.

tk wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:19 AM:What is the logic of making the apartments low-income? Wouldn't it seem logical to make Old Town a "hip" place to visit and live? If anything I would think that the apartments should be high rent, helping to bring more money into the old town area. Then they could hope that the high income people living there would spend more of their money there.

NEW OLD TOWN wrote on Aug 21, 2008 10:56 AM:Is it the mission of the City Fathers to cover any exposed dirt in the Old Town area with cement? Is Congested streets a goal? Old Town is gone, swallowed up by deveolper dollars, poor planning, and just plain greed. The Town goal seems to be to anchor the N with low income housing,the S with low income housing, throw a bunch of bars and restaurants in between. Thats a plan I can get behind!!!!

Ms T wrote on Aug 21, 2008 11:59 AM:Low income provides housing for those people who serve us. We certainly take them for granted, don't we? But my question is, why are we working so hard on these new buildings, including civic center, and leaving The Temecula Pantry to have to come up with rent money, which they do not have!!!!!!! That stinks.

To Mrs T wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:13 PM:Low income housing is State Mandated, and necessary. The question is simply, why in the heart of Old Town. It would be cheaper to builf affordable housing in a less congested area with lower land cost. I'm not sure what the plan is down in Old Town and I'm not sure the people who are in charge of the planning do either. The Temecula Pantry should be fully supported, and not given short shrift. Do you understand that the the Esciller House was moved to be a food pantry just to get if off the land it was on with little cost. The rent needs to be lowered to make the pantry viable. You're right, the present deal STINKS

unrealistic wrote on Aug 21, 2008 12:22 PM:What happend to spreading the money to other contractors. Is Temecula really that open about lining friends pockets that they will give the some companies contracts over and over again.

TO UNREALISTIC wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:40 PM:TEMECULA IS PRETTY MUCH A CLOSED SHOP. THEY HAVE THEIR FAVORITE DEVELOPERS AND WILL DO ALMOST ANYTHING TO MAKE SURE THE GRAVY GOES TO THEM. THE QUESTION IS, AND ALWAYS WAS, WHAT ARE THEY GETTING IN RETURN? FOLLOW THE MONEY SHOULD BE THE MOTTO OF ALL CONCERNED CITIZENS

Pantry Move wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:50 PM:The Pantry, Escallier House, was moved and became a charity. paid for by charatable organization at little cost to the City. Got the pesky issue of what to do with the Historical bldg. Couldn't destroy it without problems. It's now out of sight out of mind. Yeah they are, in my opinion, pretty brazen about the insiders whose pockets are lined through special considerations .

Attend a Council Meeting and wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:25 PM:you will find out that the reason affordable housing projects are being built in Old Town is apparently because 1) A developer who builds affordable projects already owns land in Old Town, 2) Old Town is in the Redevelopment Area boundaries, 3) the Redevelopment Agency is required by state law to spend some of its money on affordable housing projects within its agency boundaries, 4)Developers outside of Old Town aren't proposing affordable projects anywhere else in City, and 5) Where else should they put it - in your backyard? I didn't think so.

In terms of the pantry, it would be nice if redevelopment money could be used to pay their rent, but it cannot be used for such purposes.

unrealistic wrote on Aug 21, 2008 3:45 PM:The answer to your question is Yep

come november wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:28 PM:It's time to get rid of the planners/councilmembers that have destroyed Old Town for the benefit of a few crony developers. I can see the offramps now in the morning- backed up miles to get off the freeway and drive a one lane road for 3 or 4 blocks just to get into the entrance of the parking structure to get to city hall. Maybe they really dont want us coming to city hall! Maybe they will have valet parking for the developers. Temeculans need to make a change this November.

Chris wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:53 PM:I can't wait to see the new buildings! I absolutely love the development happening in Old Town (err...Downtown). That area will be very vibrant in a few years. To those concerned with traffic and parking, I say it's a good problem to have! More people, bigger crowds, MORE FUN! Life is short, enjoy the people around you and enjoy every minute, even it's behind the wheel in traffic. Throw on some good tunes and relax!

JUST THE FACTS wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:22 AM:Two parking structures are planned that will add 900+ spaces. The western bypass and two new overpasses across the freeway will serve Old Town. So don't believe the lies posted by people who won't step forward publicly. They know they are lying and would be sued for liable.
Lining developer's pockets? huh? Since when is a developer evil? One built my house and your house. They built our parks, library, etc. This is all election year garbage spewed by 3 DEVELOPERS (how ironic!) whose Old Town project was rejected because it was too big and didn't provide parking. Since they can't compete with successful long time residents who have risked their own money to build beautiful buildings in Old Town, they want to destroy the people that are now successful. Sad. But Old Town is getting more beautiful by the day. Just wait until the Farmer's Market expands when it moves to the huge new town square. Yes, Old Town is becoming the vibrant downtown that will survive and thrive thanks to proactive planning and people who are willing to invest in our future.

Nonsense wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:33 AM:The bizarre comments about "other contractors" and "closed shop" are ridiculous. Contracts, by law, go to the lowest bidder. If you don't like the way Old Town is looking, invest $5-6 million and build your own building! Oh yeah, I forgot. You tried that already and couldn't pull it off.
The rude comments about "affordable" housing are off base. "Low income" in 2008 is $50,000 a year for a family of four - not exactly minimum wage. My college graduate son and his wife would qualify because they chose to be counsellors for troubled kids. Do you think they aren't worthy of living in Temecula? They are more worthy than you people who write rude and misleading comments but won't sign your real names.

JimRT wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:02 AM:Was that "Podium Style" or "Podunk Style"? Old Town has gone the way of the fishing industry ever since it changed hands. We used to go there several times a year now about once in three.

To Nonsense wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:45 AM:Affordable Housing is necessary. Howver a 60.00 a sqaure foot, which approxmetly the cost of dirt in Old Town today, it makes sense to build that housing on cheaper land. As far as contracts, look into the LLCs some of our Council folks are involved in then Make up your own mind.

To Just The Facts wrote on Aug 22, 2008 12:48 PM:The Facts are Old Town is a congested overbuilt over hyped mess, The parking spaces touted by you are really useless to Front Street. I've watched the walking pattern here for a while( I consider my casual visual study as valid as the laughable parking study done by the City). People need parking lots between buildings,to make retail parking viable. They tend to walk North Or South and not East or West up or down on a incline. This City, with their cement over everything course of action, did not want the property "wasted" on small and convenient parking lots. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I find a conglomerate of huge buildings with no parking, and no real blending of architecural syle a affront to the very idea of careful planning. The "Just The facts seems to be part of the hype." The Western bypass and The propsed freeway ramps are a long way off if ever, and very essesence of this town has been destroyed. We have brought Tustin with us.

To To Just the Facts wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:55 PM:I've heard a lot of talk in these forums about Old Town merchants preferring the Western Style of architecture to all of the other "New Town" buildings being built. If you are of that opinion, tell us all how you would solve the so-called parking problem? Last time I checked a history book, cars weren't around during the Old West, so they didn't need to provide parking. Your suggestion to have parking lots between buildings would require some building owners to tear down their buildings. Why should someone do that for you? Are you willing to demo your building so your neighboring businesses can have parking?

TO JUST THE FACTS wrote on Aug 22, 2008 3:15 PM:I don't remember me ever mentioning western style buildings. Let's do Historical town refurbishing class A 1. One does not have to have slab fronted movie set buildings to make a cohesive town. You just have to have a style of buildings that blend. . For example: Penfolds is modern but fits. The Cities own theatre is well done and fits. The Chaparell, Butterfield Sqaure and many other buildings complement each other. Then you have Daltons San Francisco multi story full block long building, which on its own is attaractive, but looks like it dropped here from the moon. That building should have had a parking lot, and just a little less structure.
I believe the Perkins building has no parking. Big building minimal parking provided. According to M Edwards, City Council Member, Merecedes will have Chicago Style multi story structures put in place. I'd bet they will be large buildings with very little or no parking on site. Daltons new Warehouse apartments and restaurant has provided for 32 spaces for 32 units. That's one vehicle per unit, not reality. What about the restaurant? These are modern times. Dirt streets wouldn' t fit. Adhering to a general theme in Old Town does. Over crowding lousy parking and traffic congestion is not a goal to praise.

New town to ruin Old Town wrote on Aug 22, 2008 4:59 PM:It will be as historic as Disneyland when they get through with it.

Not Facts Opinion wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:03 PM:In all of your complaining, I've never heard you offer a solution. People only walk north and south? Are you kidding? They walk from where they can park. You can't seriously be suggesting that people only walk up and down Front Street. Lets say someone drives in from San Diego one morning to buy beef jerky and buffalo hooves. Are you telling me they won't stop if they can't park on Front Street, and they will drive all the way back home without ever getting out? Ridiculous.

You said there should be parking between buildings? And where would that be when north/south streets are wall to wall? And of course, since nobody will walk east-west. You also didn't offer any sage wisdom on the topic of how you would fix the problem. It doesn't appear you are willing to give up space, yet everyone else should. Nice solution.

Heres some cheese wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:05 PM:To all of you that are whining about these developments, you need to remember that if it wasn't for developers in this area you probably would not be here either. They offer you housing and shopping. Development helps the economy in that area they are building by giving local people jobs who in turn spend their hard earned pay usually in the area they work and live. Down town Temecula has a lot to offer with a lot of locally owned business’s. Check it out!
You have our support, Mr Construction Work

Local People wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:40 PM:Local people were spending money in Temecula way before you probably ever heard of this place. Developers had nothing to do with me being here. The charm of a town that had history, needed a little help was what drew me. It needed help and wound up getting developed out existance. Progress is positive thing if it's done well. If done otherwise it swallows up what is important and becomes a congested,overbuilt crowded carnival. Carnivals are full of people, and noise. Old Town is a large real estate developement and no more. Welcome to the midway.

TO NOT FACTS OPINION wrote on Aug 22, 2008 6:56 PM:Nope, they get out. The reason Front St has always been the best place for retail is people walk North and South on the flat not up hill to the East You get foot traffic on Main to the West because it is flat. Shops that were located up Main to the East suffered. I know I owned one. Before this monster construction with max building to the property,lots could have been planned for and would have given this Zoo called Old Town some congestion relief It is what it is now. If you're happy with it so be it.