Possible security changes discussed by RMA BOD

[joaquinmurieta]

Question - since there is no statistical data to indicate that gated communities are any safer than non-gated, how do you determine what is a worthy price for the 'perception' of additional safety? Not only are we paying for the 'gate' but also human control of the gate. If I look at surrounding areas crime statistics (Wilton, Sloughhouse, Plymouth, etc) they actually seem to be less than RM. I'm fairly certain individuals will ask if I want to live in Folsom or Elk Grove, but since those populations are approx 70,000 and 130,000 respectively I doubt these are fair comparisons. Let me ask the unpopular question...are we paying for security (manned gates and patrol) we really don't need? Is a gate with phone-in access for visitors and vendors not a better option? In tough economic times aren't these the types of things that need extra scrutiny? Currently, we are paying for the most expensive and ever increasingly costly resource...'human' resource. Not a knock at all on the individuals, but if I paid everyone I liked, I'd go broke in a minute.

[joaquinmurieta]

so, why wouldn't an unmanned gate resolve this?

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by joaquinmurieta

so, why wouldn't an unmanned gate resolve this?

I like the "feeling" of having someone at the gates.

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by steven mobley

I think it's much simpler than what is being posted. Some can't see the forrest for all the trees. First off, there are no other HOA's to bargain with at the table. Perhaps in the future there may be. Let's cross that bridge when we get there. To engage in a chess exercise to try and out-maneuver ghosts seems like a waste of time and efforts. Didn't a handful of people already tie our hands with the MBA? I thought that wonderful piece of stink answered all of those questions, didn't it? Isn't there wording that they must pay their fair share for use of our infrastructure etc....?

Another thing, since when does a public agency control "access points" to a private community without their permission? This could handily be beaten down either in court or at the ballot box. Think majority of distirct (RMA) voting to disolve section of Government Code authorizing CSD to provide "security, police, or other police services. So, we might have to compensate the CSD for "our" gatehouse? Geeeesh. I've learned over the years that nothing is written in stone.

Steve

A handful of people tied the RMA's hands via the MBA. The Villas is an HOA. The MTI is an HOA. The Geyer Ranch is privately owned, and is not part of the RMA. The PTF owns a significant chunk of land behind the gates and that land isn't tied to the RMA, and does not have to be annexed. The Country Club is not part of the RMA. With the possible exception of the MTI, they all can have their own access policies that RMA can not modify. When development happens, there's likely to be another large HOA out here. Unlike Serrano, their manned gates have only ONE HOA group behind those gates, Rancho Murieta already has several HOAs behind the gates. It makes good sense to maintain the CSD running the gates as a neutral third party for reasons that have already been posted.

Steve, you're quoting (badly, might I add) a section of Government Code that no longer exists. You're looking at 61600 (h) I believe. Notice that 'other police protection' in there? Along with that phrase was "to protect life and property". What do you think "other police protection" meant? Under the new Government Code, that phrase no longer exists. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the new code is why the CSD is doing its investigating... and not just paying "lip service" to the matter.

jm: with an unmanned gate, there would have to be some alternate method for allowing people in, like if your barcode failed. This means some kind of keypad. If someone's keycode is given out, by whomever in a given household that knows the code, then anyone can literally be allowed in and there'd be little to no control over the gates. It would also be easier to piggy-back behind someone and get in that way too. Removing the gates altogether means that all the parks and other amenities become effectively public, as would the roads. People could come out here anytime day, night, weekend, whatever, and use, for free, our roads and facilities and amenities that we pay for, without asking.

[joaquinmurieta]

Originally Posted by Matthew

I like the "feeling" of having someone at the gates.

I can't really argue with that. It's an emotional response which needs no defense and cannot be dis-proven. Not that I necessarily agree. In a smaller unrelated comparison, I feel like I am paying for premium gasoline when regular is cheaper and works just as well for my purposes.

So, I guess in essence here folks here are arguing the relative cost of that 'feeling'. Economists call those utils and they are difficult to define since there is no direct cost benefit measurement. There will most likely not be a right or wrong answer to this discussion. Have at it.

[joaquinmurieta]

Originally Posted by akulasquirrel

jm: with an unmanned gate, there would have to be some alternate method for allowing people in, like if your barcode failed. This means some kind of keypad. If someone's keycode is given out, by whomever in a given household that knows the code, then anyone can literally be allowed in and there'd be little to no control over the gates. It would also be easier to piggy-back behind someone and get in that way too. Removing the gates altogether means that all the parks and other amenities become effectively public, as would the roads. People could come out here anytime day, night, weekend, whatever, and use, for free, our roads and facilities and amenities that we pay for, without asking.

I hope you are not trying to tell me the 'manned' system we have today is without flaws. How many times do you hear stories of people getting through the gates without so much as a nod. I'm certain it's not a regular thing, but I do not think it will be any worse than a manned gate. I do recognize that people have a hard time giving this up. Also, your latter comments have me intrigued...why not 'charge' a fee for use of the facilities for non-residents (that seem to be rather under-utilized, not that it's a bad thing) but then the fees could help pay for the 'manned' security and if these parks and lakes are so desired they could become income generators.

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by joaquinmurieta

I hope you are not trying to tell me the 'manned' system we have today is without flaws. Also, you latter comments have me intrigued...why not 'charge' a fee for use of the facilities for non-residents (that seem to be rather under-utilized, not that it's a bad thing) but then the fees could help pay for the 'manned' security and if these parks and lakes are so desired they could become income generators.

With a manned gate, you have eyes right there to be able to react to and be aware of someone who's unauthorized trying to get in. It's still not pefect, but it'd be better than open streets or unmanned gates. To really ratchet up the security out here, we'd have to go to a military base type gate system. I don't think we need to become "Fort Murieta".

As for having non-resident users of our amenities and facilities pay for use of those facilities, I think that is a pretty good idea. Now, how do we accomplish that? The basic stuff is already in place... so, where do we sell the tickets/passes? Doing it at the gates would be a bad idea because they're so busy... Perhaps have a small shop in the Plaza sell the tickets/passes?

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Matthew

I like the "feeling" of having someone at the gates.

And I think that "feeling" is reflected in real estate values. Although somewhat illusory, that feeling of security is a reason why some people want to live here. When we came to shop houses here while living in a neighborhood in the City which was beginning to slide, that gate - the fact that bad guys had to get past a set of eyes - was a big plus. An automated gate gives a fraction of that "feeling" of security, but only a fraction. And the automated gates in other developments I've passed through are slower than molasses. How could we move rush hour traffic through an automated gate unless it just opened and stayed open, in which case how does it preclude someone from just slipping through the line? They don't close quickly enough; I've slipped through them before elsewhere just by following the car in front of me.

[joaquinmurieta]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

And I think that "feeling" is reflected in real estate values. Although somewhat illusory, that feeling of security is a reason why some people want to live here. When we came to shop houses here while living in a neighborhood in the City which was beginning to slide, that gate - the fact that bad guys had to get past a set of eyes - was a big plus. An automated gate gives a fraction of that "feeling" of security, but only a fraction. And the automated gates in other developments I've passed through are slower than molasses. How could we move rush hour traffic through an automated gate unless it just opened and stayed open, in which case how does it preclude someone from just slipping through the line? They don't close quickly enough; I've slipped through them before elsewhere just by following the car in front of me.

Again, I recognize that these are emotional responses ( I think, I feel, etc) as they cannot be argued with factual data. If you disagree, check out real estate values based on comparable sale prices in neighboring communities as well as comparable crime statistics. There is no data to support. I am not requesting you to go out and prove me wrong. I've done the research and the data does not support the argument for the premium security (real estate values or crime reduction). We have anecdotal situations, certainly but nothing more. Again, if it's your 'perception' then that is really all that is necessary anyway to justify the cost. All I am saying is that you will never win or lose the arguments being made here.

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by steven mobley

AKSquirrel,

The reason I listed that particular section is because some think we're operating under the "old" section and that portions were somehow grandfathered in, and therefore not encumbered by the SB135. If we had section (h) prior to SB135, doesn't it make sense that to remove it we would have to follow the same guidelines used to create it? No. It wouldn't work that way. Reason given below. Or are you of the belief that it did not and does not exist as a present power? It's a little more complex than you think.

Steve

I think the point that I was trying to make is that 61600 (h) allowed a lot more flexibility in operations than the present code. I also think that operations continued under what was established under 61600, even after the GC revision, possibly under some notion that those operations were somehow "grandfathered". SB 135 changed the authorized powers AND the rules about adopting and divesting of powers. Because of this, the CSD (and everyone else) would have to follow the new rules, not the old ones, to change powers.

Most of 61600 (h) survived the revision and is now known as 61100 (i) and 61100 (j). That stuff has been in force now for about 30 months.

It's not that complex. If you are maintaining that the CSD would have to follow the pre-SB 135 rules to divest itself of a power that existed prior to SB 135, then you're also saying that powers that existed pre-SB 135 still exist and are in force as if they still exist. That notion and some other statements (effectively to the contrary) are, at best, incongruent.