The Mayor wrote this in a letter to voters in the North Pacheco Annexation area: “…Platt is a Martinez resident who opposes nearly every issue and/or project before the Martinez City Council.” He extended his attack in the ballot argument.
I wonder why is he spending words attacking me, rather than discussing the annexation issues.
He is right that I have actively opposed many of his and his City Council’s ideas/projects. For instance I opposed:
- Building up to 500 houses on the geologically unstable Franklin Hills from Highway 4 to the Marina park. It’s now mostly open space.
- His and his Council’s effort to convert the Freitas Open Space to housing development. Lawyers hired by citizens scared him off.
- His attempt to sneak high density housing in the Marina park across from the Amtrak Station by fast-tracking a project with virtually no public notice. The public excoriated him. It’s a sports facilities area now.
- The North Pacheco Annexation which is a money-loser for everyone except the Mayor and his Council’s pals and the County. Citizens got it to a public vote over his and his Council’s wishes.
- His and Mike Menesini’s “Downtown and Waterfront Revitalization Master Plan” that would have allowed up to 3000 new housing units in our Downtown/Marina area. The report was passed and immediately tabled after wasting over $ 200,000
- The Martinez Redevelopment Agency which he and his Council passed. It was stopped by citizen referendum. This could have bankrupted the City, as it is doing elsewhere.
There are many more examples. If he had some ideas that truly benefitted all of Martinez, I could support them, ideas like helping protect vital open space such as the Alhambra Hills, revitalizing downtown without destroying it and the Measure H Park/Pool/Library bond, all of which I actively worked for.
We do not need more failed experiments like this current annexation proposal. Go to the website www.pachecoannex.com for more information.
Have you noticed that most of the good ideas in this town have been proposed and pushed through by citizens? Most of the bad ideas have come from the Mayor and the Council, and have been shot down by a lot of citizen effort and energy. What is wrong with this picture?
P.S. Before the Mayor attacks citizens, he needs to explain why he was publically chastised by the Contra Costa Mayor’s Conference on which he represents Martinez.
Ed. note: here is the text of the letter Mayor Schroder has sent to residents in the North Pacheco annexation area. Those residents are being asked to vote on this issue via mail-in ballots, which will be counted on Aug. 31.
This week you will receive an official ballot in the mail (Measure T) giving you the opportunity to vote on whether your neighborhood in North Pacheco should be annexed into the City of Martinez.
There is one individual – Tim Platt is his name – who is disseminating incorrect information to North Pacheco residents about Measure T. Mr. Platt is a Martinez resident who opposes nearly every issue and/or project before the Martinez City Council. I wanted to take the time to write you personally about Measure T to outline a few facts before you vote.
First, a YES vote on Measure T will mean that you support becoming a Martinez resident and being served by the City of Martinez. The specific benefits are many and well documented by facts:
- Gus Kramer, our County Assessor, has indicated that housing values could increase by as much as 5% is your home is brought into the City of Martinez vs. North Pacheco where you currently reside.
- Your garbage bill will also be lower, and you will receive weekly recycling pickup, two additional yearly pickups of bulky furniture and appliances, and seven additional special garbage pickups a year – AT NO ADDITIONAL COST.
- When you dial 9-1-1, you will no longer have to wait for a Sheriff’s patrol to respond from West or East County – the Martinez Police will respond immediately, which is critical if there is a serious crime, a burglary or an assault in progress.
Should you have any questions or need further documentation on any of the above items, or you would like to talk further about Measure T, please call me any time on my cell at (925) 708-1469. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Rob Schroder
Mayor of Martinez
There is an undeniable anti-anything element that is well organized, has feet on the street and has been instrumental in ensuring the status quo for the city of Martinez and her residents for decades. Again, this is undeniable. While our city coffers shrink to uncomfortable levels, these are the voices who oppose anything that could possibly spark economic resurgence. Note these same voices will point to so-called victories that have done nothing to move the ball so to speak. Open space, which I am a huge proponent of, does not add to our city coffers, public parks, do not add to our city coffers; these voices have not recruited one new business, created one new job. Growth has to come from somewhere in order for either Martinez or Pacheco (preferably both) to compete for the best and brightest. These voices have said, unequivocally, Not In The Downtown. Ok. Not In Our Hills. Ok. Then where? I would argue the most obvious choice is Pacheco. Those who are hyper-risk adverse will continue to say Not In . . . merely fill in the blank and pick the location.
There are many attributes that add to Martinez, and economic growth is one of them. Nobody here need be an apologist for the council. Tim Platt is a very eloquent guy and a savvy organizer. I'd love to believe he could use his intellect to offer economic proposals that would result in the kind of growth he envisions (whatever that is). It's not enough to be the well-spoken opposition all the time. I guess another way to say this is that it's easy to criticize others' ideas and plans, but not always so easy to put forth ideas that may be (gasp!) subject to criticism.
If I lived in the portion of Pacheco under annexation consideration I would be wondering why I was suddenly the target of attention from Martinez residents, when in truth these same residents avoid Pacheco almost exclusively. Whose interests are truly being protected? Those with homes in the proposed annexation site or those in Martinez who fear change? And what, exactly, is there to fear from this proposition? No hills or historic buildings will be razed, no view corridors will be disrupted, no extra burden on city streets, I fail to see how advocating for the inclusion of Pacheco destroys anyone's quality of life experience. However, I do see a strengthening of economic opportunities for both communities with this merger. Merely stating developer friends of the Mayor and City Council will be enriched as a reason to say no is not enough. Who else might benefit? The current residents? Potential new residents? Potential workers?
Anyone?
Your property values could be lowered Your garbage bill may be higher and finally my personal favorite The Martinez Police Department just might take longer than the Sheriff department to respond to your emergency Frankly if those were the messages conveyed by a non-interested party to these proceedings, then the embarrassment and shame rests there. If those were the messages conveyed, then Mayor Schroder was duty bound to defend them. And finally, if those were the messages conveyed, again I ask whose interests are being defended? Intentionally hampering this merger does a disservice to future Martinez and Pacheco generations. Those who would be drawn to our city for all the amenities delineated above but then told, sorry you need to drive 35+ miles to find work or choose from the ever shrinking list of major employers we have now. You work in the tech industry? Sorry. Alternative energy, biotech? Nope, not here, sorry. But our green hills and open space will be here to greet you at the end of your 90+min commute. Oh and by the way could you be sure to buy a Prius, we really value a small carbon footprint :)
Without studying the facts--it *seems* north Pacheco might be a great place to build high density residential and commercial campuses. Does the potential tax revenue from the annexation cover the costs of acquisition and its future demands? People pay for ambience and character. Open space, architecture, public parks, etc. create place and reduce government costs by increasing health and welfare. Our City Coffers have benefitted from Measure H and kept city workers and the private industry employed, and directly through the tax payer. No pooling of tax funds to be given away to special interests whose coffers are generally much more plentiful than anyone's here and who are favored by our County and City taxes and City staff. I don't know why, but the Montclaire area of Oakland just came to mind.
I have real heartburn when anyone, private citizen or elected official, politicizes emergency personnel. The first blog post talked about the raw deal Martinez was getting with this annexation. Problem with that message is Martinez isn't voting. The post had to resonate with Pacheco voters. What better way to do that then suggest what they residents could be losing and threaten their sense of well being.