EGN refunds advertising purchase to Singh-Allen citing the Elk Grove City Council's unanimous denial of supportive housing
https://www.elkgrovenews.net/2022/08/egn-refunds-advertising-purchase-to.html
Regular readers may have noticed the paid political advertisements on ElkGroveNews.net for Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen. The ads started running in mid-July and were embedded in each story.
Last week Singh-Allen, along with Elk Grove Vice Mayor Darren Suen and Elk Grove City Councilmembers Pat Hume, Stephanie Nguyen, and Darren Suen, denied a proposed supportive housing project in the city's Old Town Special Planning Area. Their vote contradicts the city's proclamation of being a City of Compassion.
The partners who own ElkGroveNews.net have decided the City Council's and specifically Mayor Singh-Allen's denial is in stark contrast to their values and have decided to remove Singh-Allen's ads and refund their purchases in its entirety. The letter to the Mayor's campaign can be viewed below.
Posts
3 comments
As a business decision you can make whatever choices you want to make including deciding what comments gets posted. I will just say that Compassion also goes to the applicant who is making a business decision. There is absolutely no reason why they can’t put rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floor and comply with the OTSPA and having housing for the homeless. Another idea in which the applicant has been given many opportunities to move their project to identified properties for this type of project. Not mentioned is these residents would become Our neighbors who I worry that because of the train clogging some of streets how would that be an issue. It easy for some of you to bash the Mayor and the Council but this project would not be built in Old Town Sacramento, Folsom or any other Old Town that would violate the Old Town Special Planning area. It is the applicant that bought this project to forcefully move forward. It is the cities rights to protect zoning and the current residents. I realize this may not sit well but it would be best to challenge yourself and ask the applicant why build with the current restrictions when there are other identified properties? Why not work with the city to build a better project in a safer area that would offer closer medical needs. This my neighbors would be compassion because building something in Old Town would not be the best in the end.
If one of the "good ol' boys" wanted to develop that site with the same exact layout, except the residents being upper income, talk about inconsistency with the Old Town Plan would not have come up. That Plan would have been changed for that property so fast, it would make your head spin. And who knows, the Economic Development department might even have kicked in some taxpayer incentive money too!
Let's call this what it really is--Old Town NIMBY's gladly sucking taxpayer money for things like street widening, breweries, plazas, library, and new retail---but poor people stay out!
Kudos to Dan and EGN for adherence to their principles! Returning money and canceling ads shows that actions do speak louder than words. Awhile back, I posted that if the council's commitment to compassion is measured by its proclamations, pronouncements, resolutions, and speeches, then indeed our City Council is perhaps the most compassionate of any. However, if the council's commitment to compassion is measured by any means other than mere words, then our illustrious council led by its dubious "leader" BSA, is anything but compassionate.
I agree with DJ. This incident is NIMBYism at its finest. Exceptions can be made when they are chosen to be made and usually for non benevolent reasons. A variance is a potential workaround for the SPA restrictions. The Old Town site is a good location given its proximity to the food bank, Methodist Church, and bus lines. No location is perfect, however.
Post a Comment