Re “Santee once again approves development of 3,000 Fanita Ranch homes, bypassing voters” (Sept. 15): Let me count the ways Fanita Ranch is a bad idea: 1) Too crowded; 2) Too much traffic; 3) Absence of fire/evacuation hazard; 4) Drought/water shortage.
Traffic in Santee is as problematic as Highway 52. How did this project come to be called essential housing? Essential housing is expected to improve affordability and yet only 150 units are included in the low-to-moderate income housing category, some of which can be built off-site. How does this help Santee residents? How can the mayor say that the removal of the referendum from the November ballot has nothing to do with the progress of the project?
Residents deserve to speak out on this issue, especially when it increases residential density. The mayor and city council were elected by the voters and should do what the voters want – not Fanita Ranch. Put it on the ballot.
UT welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public issues.
What incredible brazenness for the residents and voters of East County. The unnamed street running east to west on the map is Mast Boulevard, which is already a crowded entrance and exit for the neighborhoods on it. What was the city council thinking?
Well, anyone reading the full article can see what they’re thinking: let’s do everything we can to deny voters the right to choose. Legal gibberish. Environmentally, do we really need 3,000 more homes requiring flush toilets and electricity? And affordable housing? This expression is mutually exclusive. People like the Normal Heights resident who wants “community and solar parks and farms” need to be reminded of the real costs involved, including the threats of wildfires and overcrowding. Ideally speaking, that sounds good; then there is reality.
What happened to “Of the people, by the people, for the people”? Apparently, all is well as long as the almighty dollar and the developers are considered first.
Edge of the lake