City business should involve residents

Several interesting observations came to surface just prior to and days after the joint meeting of the Moorpark City Council and Redevelopment Agency.

With the Project Area Committee recommending the reinstatement of the past eminent domain powers, it was apparent that the PAC had the trust of the people. This trust was seen when the people supported the recommendation of the PAC. But when that recommendation came before the agency, it was apparent that the people had no trust with the agency/city administration.

I personally had several people come to me and say, "We trust you (the PAC). We don't trust them (City Council and staff)." This was conveyed during the public comment, without question. Additionally, the council got this message loud and clear, with the exception of one council member. She stated that she didn't know where this mistrust came from. This proves even further that some have their head in the sand.

Ex-council member Harper and his comments further validate the feelings of the people. Mr. Harper needs to remember that it was during his tenure that this mistrust festered. His recent comments add to the mistrust and proves that Moorpark is better without him.

Planning Commissioner Peskay quotes misinformation. He states, "The amendment had nothing to do with homes. It wasn't intended to affect residential properties." Mr. Peskay obviously did not see the two options that were presented to the PAC that did include residential property. Furthermore, the PAC's recommendation did include commercial-zoned property that has residential use. This source of misinformation seems to be from Mr. Peskay.

City Manager Kueny also states that the city never intended to forcibly acquire homes. Then why did the agency give to the PAC on Feb. 17, 2006, a letter outlining two options that would have given the power of eminent domain on residential-zoned properties? If Mr. Kueny never intended this, why was it included or even brought up for that part?

Councilmember Van Dam's guest opinion in the Moorpark Acorn Sept. 28 has many good thoughts, but I feel he and all the council members miss the point. The point being is that you reap what you sow. The city did nothing to squelch these misunderstandings.

This city for years has conducted business behind closed doors. A prime example is Mr. Kueny's statement about the finalization of a development agreement for the High Street development. Shouldn't the city residents and businesses be involved or at least informed of what is planned for High Street? Would it be pertinent for the area property owners to participate in the process?

The challenge I have for the City Council is to make the necessary changes in city hall and start to repair the years of damage done. Will Whitaker Moorpark