Sue Chan recuses herself again from Kimber Park

17 Apr

As expected, Sue Chan recused herself from the discussion on Kimber Park at tonight’s council meeting. This time she mentioned that she had close relationships with several residents at Kimber Park.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Sue Chan recuses herself again from Kimber Park”

  1. bbox231 April 19, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    At least as interesting that Chan is continuing to refuse to do her job (you know, by VOTING on this very important matter) is the fact that the BANG news reporter covering this very same event (Rob Dennis) chose to omit this minor little tidbit from his coverage.

    How very polite of him to do so –

    Here’s a link to todays’ article –

    http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20428113/fremont-city-council-nixes-more-meeting-about-kimber?source=rss

    But, knowing that BANG doesnt host their own content for too very long – here’s a cut and paste of the article as well –

    Fremont City Council nixes more meetings about Kimber Park development
    By Rob Dennis
    The Argusmercurynews.com

    Posted: 04/18/2012 05:37:57 PM PDT
    April 19, 2012 5:19 AM GMTUpdated: 04/18/2012 10:19:15 PM PDT

    There won’t be any more community meetings about a proposed development in Fremont’s Kimber Park neighborhood, and a new application for the project must be submitted by mid-May.

    Council members reached the decision Tuesday night after an update on the issue led to a war of words between the developer’s attorney and neighborhood residents who want to keep the 13-acre wooded parcel as open space.

    Earlier this year, city officials tried to arrange a community meeting, but the two sides couldn’t agree on the scope of the discussion. In the end, developer Bella Vina Development set up two meetings in mid-February and mid-March. They didn’t go well.

    “We entered the meeting with open minds but were disappointed each time,” said Christina Broadwin, co-president of the Save Kimber Park organization.

    She said the developer was just “sloppily going through the motions” and didn’t want a true dialogue.

    “We felt betrayed in both instances,” she said. “This is not how you show good faith to the community.”

    Bella Vina attorney Paul Gumina said Broadwin’s statements were “inaccurate and misleading.”

    “We do not appreciate the name-calling, the aspersions on character, the questioning of people’s business judgment,” he said. “I think you see the closed-minded, absolutely-win-at-all-costs, no-other-option-available position from the Kimber Park neighbors.”

    Council members, though, said the developer’s meetings were poorly
    organized, one-sided and unproductive.

    “I had hoped for a really creative, true and authentic dialogue, and I’m disappointed both by the process and by the outcome,” Vice Mayor Anu Natarajan said. “I think it turned out to be a very traditional way of one-sided information.”

    At the second meeting, the developer presented a series of possible alternative plans, including several residential alternatives, a recreational facility and a cemetery.

    “To offer a cemetery as a credible proposal to me says it all,” Councilman Dominic Dutra said. “Clearly not something … that the community was going to seriously consider.”

    The dispute originally came to the fore last year during public hearings on the city’s general plan, when property owner Sheena Chang contested a staff proposal to redesignate the area as private open space.

    Chang said the city should allow the latest development application, which proposed 26 housing units. Neighbors showed up en masse at city meetings to oppose the plan.

    The council in December decided to allow a year for the sides to negotiate and for a modified development application to be submitted.

    City officials said Tuesday night that the application must be submitted by May 18 so it can be processed within the 12-month period.

  2. Bill_Fremont April 19, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    Interesting point Bbox

  3. bbox231 April 22, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Wouldn’t you hope that our Council members had “close relationships” all across Fremont? If that’s true, and if Ms. Chan’s reasoning for her recusal has any merit, then, why don’t we see other council members recusing themselves far more frequently?

    One thing is for certain, what *should* be the result of this action is that, both, Kimber constituency *AND* the developer, should feelcompletely abandoned by this council member on this action.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: