Tiime Time Tickin wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:07 PM:The time for negotiating is OVER! This is what eminent domain was intended for. There is absolutely no question. Actually, the delay by the property owner's has probably worked to the benefit of the city as land values continue to spiral down. However, these property owner's should not be permitted to further delay the long anticipated expansion. Council, this is what you were elected to do, no soft shoeing now. Start the procedure!

Bwah ha ha wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:34 PM:So I'm assuming the property owners thought the value was going to go up. Uh, nope. Sorry. You lose! Hey, thanks for playing our game!

There may be a reason wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:15 AM:When land owners refuse to deal with a governing entity on a matter that could end up in court, it sometimes points to a government that is dealing with owners in an inappropriate manner. This could be related to dollar values, to strongarm negotiating attitudes, or both. There are very few landowners who prefer the difficult and expensive alternative of a court confrontation. When things go this far, it is necessary to wonder about the abilities and tactics of the negotiators.

Tough luck city wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:23 AM:It's not your property so deal with it. You can't just TAKE things from citizens. Prepare for a long, multi-year lawsuit while your precious plans crumble.
Finally, the little-guy takes a stand like Tianamen Square in China!

Murrieta Mom wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:47 AM:The city buys their property for I am sure more than current value and then improves their remaining properties value by making it street front and ready for development.Smart move Curci-Turner but your about to get checkmated.

to Tough wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:59 AM:Yes, the city can take from citizens. For absolutely vital projects, and for true monetary compensation. The government can and should take under those circumstances. The courts are an expensive last resort for both a city and a landowner. Neither wants it. When things go that far, it is usually the result of a governing entity abusing its position of power, whether by using undue appearances of bullying, or by trying to cleverly or bluntly avoid paying cash value for a property. In the absence of those circumstances, only in the most rare of cases will a property owner do harm to himself by forcing a court confrontation.

history wrote on Nov 18, 2008 9:22 AM:I've read the paper for years, and Murrieta has a history of problems dealing with people when it comes to land for public projects. Could it be a personnel problem?

If the city has hired the same kind of experience and ability for land negotiations that it has for attracting major retail, they could save some big money by hiring cows. At least we'd get some fertilizer out of the deal.

Oh my how weve changed wrote on Nov 18, 2008 9:51 AM:It wasn't that long ago when Council candidate Thomasian criticized the city for using eminent domain to widen Jefferson Ave. Now that Thomasian is on the Council, I guess it's okay! To answer your question Councilman Thomasian ("I don't know why they don't want to sell,"), this is America. We are allowed to own property.

to history wrote on Nov 18, 2008 9:56 AM:Oh there coming (retailers)! At least that's what the politicians keep telling us. I've been hearing this for years. My prediction is we will become a bedroom community. Work and sleep in Murrieta, shop and play in Temecula.

Big Ed wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:48 AM:I guess Curci-Turner Company of Newport Beach has never traveled on Clinton Keith Road during rush hour. We should invite them to join all the cars traveling to and from the High School.

Down with personal rights wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:55 AM:Look, it's simple, the city "wants" and you will all give or they'll take it from you.
Who decides what is important? The city, the same who will take what they want.
The city was here first, the city is most important, the city is the focus! If all you "citizens" want to stay here, stop fighting the city.

Amateur Hour wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:16 PM:Where are the professionals? When it comes to vital public projects, a good negotiator can almost always come up with a true cash land value offer for an affected landowner. Friendly deals are rarely impossible for genuinely professional negotiators to accomplish. Are we using amateurs? The only people who end up profiting from an eminent domain legal struggle are lawyers. OMG! We're not using lawyers to negotiate, are we? If so, are they the same ones who would be paid to handle the litigation? OMG!!! No. Please. Tell me it isn't so.

Sue wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:45 PM:It always is about the money. Time and money; time is money, some variation of this theme. Agree now, the sellers get some money, the city gets its land. Spend time, spend money, maybe the seller gets a bit more money and the city gets its land by spending more money. Sellers, get good comparable values and make the city pay you THAT fair amount and we'll all be better off for it with modern roads, worthy of our city. You sellers knew the possible uses of land adjacent to the freeway and its major intersections when you bought it, right!?

to to history wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:24 PM:If so, sleep with one eye open, because so many, many of a city's "retailer" (to use your appropriate word) revenues go to pay for police services, among all the other quality of life benefits that can, if the city financially flourishes, make a city a truly great place to live. At the moment (hopefully this will change) some of our city's biggest planning foci are concentrated on how to continue to build planned permanent islands of low-to-very-low-income poverty level housing islands throughout the city. There is no affluent community that ever develops anywhere with that kind of social engineering going on.

Chief..... wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:31 PM:Go ahead, take what's not yours. Who cares about personal property. Your the damn government, you can do what you want!!!

to Sue or not to Sue wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:10 PM:City governments often try to squeeze land out of citizens at less than true value for public purposes, and if they're using competent negotiators they'll make a deal that benefits the city without even going near the courthouse. The key word here is "competent". Many unwise cities try to cut corners by using their own in-house management or legal staff as negotiators. That's like having your truck mechanic try to do a bit of surgery on your nose. He's good at what he does, and cheaper by the hour than the surgeon, but guess what? Fixing the damage becomes more expensive than just doing things right to start with.

panic wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:13 PM:The City of Murrieta has known for the past ten years Clinton-Keith was eventually going to be entended east and "The Bridge" was going to widened. So, one month or so before construction is scheduled to initially start, the city is in a panic--where have folks been at City Hall!!!!!

to panic wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:22 PM:I was going to say that, but you beat me to it. Also, have you ever asked a city employee exactly where Clinton Kieth will be built? I have and I get contradicting answers every time!

Just another lawsuit... wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:24 PM:...and more money. No bother, us taxpayers will just continue to pay! Wht does it seem like Murrieta get's sued more often than other city's?

Re panic wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:45 PM:Well, I hate to say it, but legal types know you can start (at council level) the em domain process and ignore the concern about the landowner. The road can begin without being hindered by the still hanging legal process. Who does this benefit? The land owner? The city? Give me a break, folks. Too often, the only beneficiaries in this kind of very, very expensive nightmare are those who start cranking out bills for legal services, and those bills can and very often do get very, very large for both sides. Does this tell us all something about who is usually to blame for almost every expensive eminent domain mess that ever occurs in almost every small to middle sized city? Maybe. Maybe not. All I know is that it's starting to look like we're all, as a city, heading to court. We'll definitely "win" there, if you want to call it that. But oh, my goodness, at what a cost.

to to panic wrote on Nov 18, 2008 4:33 PM:Doug and Randon are still working that to Dans advantage!

Too little too late wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:39 PM:The argument about "making the city a great place to live" has been going on for years, but never grew legs.

In 1989, there was Temecula (Rancho California) and Murrieta, poised to be shining examples of "new suburbia".

One took off, and never looked back, the other stuttersteps, tripped, and never got back in the race.

Fortunately for those of us living in Murrieta, we received the unintended, but welcome benefits of Temecula's success, despite our own failure...and not much will change in the future.

Our claim to fame will be for those of use who have lived here for two decades is that we got nice big cheap houses close to Temecula.

In years to come, when anyone from southwest riverside county is asked where are they from, their answer will not include Murrieta, but their answer will be we live in (or just outside) Temecula.

Its sad, but its not a total disaster. A total disaster would have been for Temecula to have faired as miserably as Murrieta has, then we wouldn't have anything going for us.

actually wrote on Nov 18, 2008 6:48 PM:its not the landowners fault that the city built too much without thinking it through first
i think they should fight it
we wouldnt need a bigger bridge if the city hadnt over built so much
its not progress
its greed

Crack me up wrote on Nov 18, 2008 7:12 PM:The extention of CK has been proposed for almost 20 years for the purpose of cross traffic to and from the French Valley Airport, check the county records for that.
Also be aware, that just because a company owns a piece of property doesn't mean they bought it after the freeway went in. The freeway over pass was only built in 1975 when this area was still farm county and many of the family ranches are LLP's. Some of the people that own pieces of properties that were their farmlands see them as heir looms to be developed (farming isn't profitable in cities) leased to retail (never sold) and continue to support their now much larger families.

The results wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:12 AM:Okay, now that council hearing is over and all of the naysayers either attended or watched to it, do you now understand why the land acquisition has come to the eminent domain stage? If anyone did attend or watch it I hope they paid particular attention to the land owner's attorney when he said "because of the economy the project (CK bridge)is not a necessity". This attorney resides in Murrieta. If he knows nothing about the traffic across that bridge then he must have his head buried in the sand.

And besides that the process has come down to this stage, no on can tell me the land owner (aka developer) didn't know that the project was coming. If they didn't know then they are in the wrong business.

Murrieta Mom wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:08 AM:Murrieta still has plenty of opportunity to make good.The leaders of this community"which the public just voted for again"are to blame for the lack of tax based business.The whole corridor on the 15 and 215 should be already be developed with industrial ,light industrial with city funding directed to these areas for roads.The city council penalizes all parties willing to invest with gross cost.You wanted these fools you got them,now watch the weeds grow!

Jay wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:10 AM:It alway's seems that cities want to buy only portions of land which generally leaves the balance useless or of very little value. They lowball and then just attempt to steal it if the offer isn't accepted.

to The results wrote on Nov 19, 2008 10:58 AM:Sure. You're the one who always calls anyone a "naysayer" who opens their eyes and says what they see. You clearly have a vested interest in protecting the status quo at Murrieta City Hall. We can only wonder why.
The fact is that Murrieta does have a history, as "Jay" says, of lowballing. That's OK, as long as the city has negotiations personnel who are competent enough to keep the process from degenerating into a legal mess at great cost to both the city and the landowner. Experience to date, going back to this city's birth, has shown that the city does not understand the need to employ professional negotiators. They make the same mistake when it comes to matters of major economic progress. The leave it up to their in-house amateurs. All with very poor results. I say "nay" to that. Everyone with common sense would say the same.

robert wrote on Nov 19, 2008 12:13 PM:this is awful!!! no entity should ever be allowed to take property to expand freeways. we cant keep paving over everything. end freeway expansion now, prohibit it and fully fund bus and commutter rail. this car culture is killing us, but we can save ourselves now. with no expansion, at some point traffic will get so bad that poeple will get out of there cars and use transit. that is what we want and it would cost us nothing to use traffic to get cars off the road. just sit back and watch.

Another Murrieta Mom wrote on Nov 19, 2008 1:11 PM:This is a big question for a lot of us. I have been in contact with the city and the county for several years over the extension of Clinton Keith. All those people who have to use the dirt Los Alamos, Hot Springs or Winchester to get in and out of French Valley would really like to know the outcome of this adventure. Please just get it done already.

TO robert wrote on Nov 19, 2008 1:48 PM:Silly entry. Intended I think to divert attention from the real issue, which is the City of Murrieta's use of less than qualified people to conduct negotiations in matters of eminent domain.

MURRIETA PENCILMAN wrote on Nov 19, 2008 3:28 PM:Now, this is a clear cut case of total tiddildy winks, fellow citizens. It's a game in other words. It's also a case of not seeing the forest will, no doubt, be litigated well into decade after next. By that time, what with global warming, there will be NO NEED for the silly interchange. The very wisest and smartest course of action now would be to plan an interchange further north on much less valuable land!!

to to robert wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:18 PM:this is simply not true my friend. not at all. furthermore, this will never happen, clinton keith is doomed as sure as the dodo bird was. what will happen then you may ask. that ramp will be closed and cars will find it a blessing in disguise, since that spot is so difficult for various reasons, among which are the predominant slant of the sun with the angle of the freeway is often blinding. remember that.

To -- wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:11 PM:Another Murrieta Mom -- we have the leaders to the south to thank for not having Clinton Keith done. With their lawsuit it set the prorities and Newport Road won out. And then when it came to robbing peter to finish the job keith lost out.

The Results wrote on Nov 19, 2008 11:26 PM:Actually 10:58 you wrong in many points. 1) Before today I have never used the word naysayer 2)all of the lowball bozos are off the council and out of the hall 3)the developer is fine (his words) with the price. The real issue is he wants access to CK, just a hop, skip and a jump from the onramp. Now wouldn't that just be (another)fine mess in Murrieta. And 4) I have no vested interest in the makeup of City Hall. I'm just a resident that actually pays attention to what both parties have to say during their public performances instead of making assumptions from half reported events.

to The Results wrote on Nov 20, 2008 4:05 PM:Even if you just used "naysayer" once, the 10:58 assertion about you could still be true. It is also true, exactly as stated at 10:58, that the city does have, as it says, a history of lowballing. And, nothing in that blog came to the defense of the CK landowner's motives. You cast thin evidence about other peoples "assumptions", and yet your own assumptions are grossly wider and heavier than those of anyone else in the blog. Unfortunately, that's something you may never see butt in hindsight.