Niche River Articles

The Commons

By Frank Schiavone

A controversial project is proposed for the foothills above Alta Loma where the Carrari’s Christmas Tree Farm once stood. The project applicant is Gary Miller, that’s Congressman Gary Miller of Diamond Bar. The project will lie at 3000 feet or higher and will be seen from virtually anywhere in the City. It will back up to slopes that rise dramatically up the Peak of Cucamonga. To the south are steep, heavily vegetated ravines. There’s only one long, winding exit out for future residents and it’s gated to keep us riff-raff out. A lot of people are upset about it. Now I happily admit that I am an environmentalist, but you don’t have to be a land conservationist to be angry about this project development. Congressman Miller’s project requires some good old-fashioned Kentucky mountaintop removal with the “overburden” and “spoil” pushed into canyons burying intermittent streams, a waterfall, and rare plants and animals.

Before Congressman Miller can build, however, he has some initial problems to overcome. First, he needs a General Plan revision. You see the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Planning Department says there are only 17 buildable acres up there. He needs 94 acres for his 110 homes (ranging in price to four million dollars, yes, you read that correctly). Next, he needs the City to amend their Hillside Ordinance because it explicitly states, “…building on slopes in excess of 30% is prohibited. ” Apparently, the terrain is a bit too steep and the people hired to assess his property could not get to all of it because they didn’t have “mountaineering equipment”. Zoning will also need to be changed. Forget half-acre horse properties that are the rule. An exception needs to be made for Congressman Miller so he can squeeze several of his homes on quarter-acre lots.

Last but not least, Congressman Miller will need to marginalize the growing opposition he is encountering. He’ll leave that up to Ken Ryan, his public relations guy. Now Mr. Ryan has some experience in this area and instructs other developers in the best ways to counter “extremists” like me. Congressman Gary Miller’s problems may seem pretty intractable to folks like you and me, but when you’re the people’s representative anything is possible. Congressman Miller is accustomed to getting what he wants.

There is a host of other issues that will need to be addressed not the least of which are fire risk, erosion, and the irreversible damage we are doing to our environment. Never mind those pesky critters and scrub that are rapidly disappearing from our foothills, washes and consciousness. Besides, Congressman Miller reassures us, there are no plans to develop his remaining land - probably because the slopes range from 50-80%. To address the extreme fire hazard, Ken Ryan indicates that Congressman Miller will contribute $750,000 towards a new fire station but he’s unclear about how this actually reduces the ill effects of the project or the threat to life and limb.

Nonetheless, Congressman Miller fervently believes his project is “safe and sound” and needed to solve the mini-mansion shortage in Alta Loma. He’s moving full steam ahead. Unfortunately for Congressman Miller, the community is not buying his PR firm’s slick presentations, misinformation and the lure that his new “Beverly Hills of Rancho Cucamonga” will bring to us rubes.

In all honesty, had Congressman Miller’s proposal not been so onerous it would not have raised much ire. But a tract map with 110 subdivisions is worth a heck of a lot more than one with 34 subdivisions, so his motivation is clear.

Let’s all hope that reason will eventually prevail and that this project is drastically scaled back and that it is consistent with our community. In a perfect world, the property should remain open space but we don’t live in a perfect world. No one is advocating that Congressman Miller’s economic rights be stripped from him. People just want to be treated respectfully and fairly.

Abraham Lincoln, perhaps our greatest president, believed government should not be just “of the people” and “by the people” but “for the people”. Let’s all pray that Rancho’s decision makers have the moral courage to heed these powerful words.

Copyright © 2008 Frank Schiavone

Frank Schiavone
fschiavone@verizon.net

We Americans are wealthier than we know. Jointly, we own some of the priciest real estate in the world. That beautiful Capitol dome on the mall in Washington D.C. along with the Smithsonian and all its magnificent contents belongs to us. Yellowstone, Yosemite and the Golden Gate, that’s ours too. Literally everything in the public domain is our common birthright. Our portfolio is almost immeasurable - countless miles of shoreline and endless water views, lakes and streams, roads and navigable rivers, vast forests and mineral resources, millions of square feet of office space, ports, airports, airwaves, parks and libraries, intellectual property, and infrastructure.

The Nation’s wildlife, fisheries, and estuaries are further exemplars of our common wealth. No one single person or interest group, regardless of their wealth, power, or status, can claim sole ownership of these public resources.

Finally and most importantly, we own our government - local, state, and federal. We own our city halls and state houses along with all “their assets”. Grant deeds and titles may be in favor of one instrumentality or another, but the interests and “state property” they represent are held in trust for us - We, the People.

All of this wealth literally dwarfs the capitalizations of mega companies like IBM, Toyota, Exxon, and General Electric.

Our representatives are the custodians of our commonly owned wealth (the Commons) and are charged with its management and stewardship. They serve at our pleasure. The concept of the “Commons” dates back to 528 when the Roman Emperor Justinian codified imperial law. The doctrine was reestablished in the Magna Carta when it was thrust upon King John in 1225.

The Commons are our birthright, passed from one generation to the next. Our shares are equal and are not determined by our class, our affiliations, or our influence. Our stake is infinitely valuable.

Knowing this, why are we so apathetic about how the stewards of our wealth manage our legacy (the Commons we all share)? Perhaps our laxity is caused by the myriad of obstacles our decision makers put us through. Business conducted in relative secrecy and unapproachable, insular “public servants” just add to our frustration.

Nevertheless, we (The People) need to know what our public servants are doing and how their actions impact our vested interest in the Commons. Our input isn’t just a painful exercise they must endure. It’s necessary. Narrow decisions made without public participation fail to openly examine the merits, risks, true costs, and impacts of a particular governmental action. Holders of the Public Trust should weigh their decisions very carefully using all available information.

Moreover, our Trustees should never exchange short-term gains for irreversible, negative impacts. It’s not a smart business practice and it’s not good public policy.

A perfect example of this is the County of San Bernardino’s “surplusing” of lands they “own”. The County Flood Control District is the owner of record of hundreds of acres of land once needed to safeguard communities downstream of major canyons along our mountain front. The construction of debris basins has reduced flooding threats (but has not eliminated them entirely). The Flood Control lands no longer serve as a protective buffer and are increasingly viewed as a “cash cow”.

On the surface, this course may seem reasonable since the lands are no longer “needed”. But things aren’t always that simple. The natural community found on the land is the most threatened in the State. It is home to scores of rare and sensitive plants and animals. Further, its value as a watershed cannot be overstated given the increasing preciousness of water. And in light of the increasing fire threat, a defensible greenbelt around our communities might just be a good idea. Finally, as open space rapidly disappears in our region, it is pure folly to sell off public lands for development.

The point being that decisions to sell public lands should be made in the light of day and devoid of backroom dealings and influence peddling. Personally, I resent my and my children’s legacy being squandered and sold off to make our public servants’ lives a little easier. I doubt most of us would be very sympathetic if Charles Schwab, Merrill Lynch, or any other money manager failed to take their fiduciary duties seriously or sold off our assets to solve problems of their own making. We need to hold our government to the same standard and account.

We are blessed with an unimaginable legacy. We are all owners of our Nation, our State, and our community. More importantly, we are bequeathed with a system of government that gives us a voice and a say in how our common birthright is overseen.

Let us not forget that men and women suffered and died to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” and that it is our duty to preserve this Nation’s great bounty for future generations. The Commons and Public Trust Doctrine are more than obscure legal constructs. At one time, the public trust was virtually sacred and synonymous with America’s promise of freedom. Many early states incorporated the ancient code directly into their constitutions. Today, the Public Trust Doctrine is forgotten, ignored or, worse, held in contempt.

Copyright © 2008 Frank Schiavone

Frank Schiavone
fschiavone@verizon.net