‘Overwhelming Yes’ to Curb on Monterey Park Growth

Does Proposition K have merit as a growth control measure?

Unfortunately, that question was never addressed during Councilman Chris Houseman’s insufferably long diatribe against myself and the Residents Assn. of Monterey Park.

No one ever suggested, let alone stated, that 48 signatures accompanying our initiative qualified it for the ballot. Those signatures were gathered in order to ascertain if there was still interest in growth control in Monterey Park. The answer is an overwhelming yes!

As was pointed out in your article (Times, Jan. 11), the City Council can place an initiative on the ballot if it so chooses. That is the law. Houseman’s shrieks of political chicanery are merely a harbinger of another election.

The original Proposition K stood up in court not on its merit, but on a technicality. During the 47-day trial, the judge raised a great many questions, prompting a Proposition K that has been rewritten to make it more defensible in court. For the first time, the number of condominiums that can be built each year is tied directly to the city’s General Plan. It also allows for affordable and senior citizen housing, as well as limiting the number of condominium units that can be carried over from year to year.

There are other features, too, but without a doubt the absence of Proposition K in Monterey Park would subject our city to an onslaught of up to 1,300 condos as fast as they could be built.

Our community is now protected from runaway development by a blanket of building standards and ordinances. Proposition K is woven into and is an important part of that blanket. We will now have the opportunity to reaffirm the need for Proposition K at the ballot box. Is that a terrible thing?

IRV GILMAN, Monterey Park