Community Retrospective and Measure H

By Nancy Knight

Private control of the Murrieta Town Hall was a sustained, morally wrong action against the people of our community. Two grand jury investigations and numerous resident complaints resulted in an initiative and petition drive for the city to acquire the property. A controversial purchase agreement was completed by the City Council in 2001. Revokation of the MVTHA non-profit status and acquisition by order of the Attorney General was an option that was not pursued.

Imagine you lived here in the 70s. Life was so simple all we had to worry about were County and Temecula developers who thought Murrieta was ripe pickin's for cheap land that could provide infrastructure, cement batch plants, and an airport to serve Temecula'a economic development needs. After all, no one of any consequence would actually want to live in Murrieta.

But we had Dorothy Renon, a crusader who was bent on keeping Temecula at bay and protecting Murrieta's interests. One of the really big rally's Dottie instigated was in opposition to the County and Temecula developer's desire for an airport to serve the needs of Temecula's industrial development. The County was ready and willing to allow the airport on the western plateau known as "Mesa de Burro". The flight pattern was directly over the only elementary school in town and we knew too well how the wind currents in our valley would affect aircraft flying in and out of this site. Then of course, a road through Murrieta and up the mountain would be needed for transporting Temecula goods to and from the airport. Hence, our first vivid vision, of our long battle to restrain the County and Temecula from making Murrieta its dumping ground. That is how it was in the late 70s.

Many are surprised that I would remember Dottie in somewhat of a fond light when today so many adamantly condemn her for taking control of our Town Hall in the early part of 1980. But remember, Dottie was a protector. I am sure that in her mind, control of the Town Hall was her way of assuring it would be protected from abuse.

During the 80s, Murrieta enjoyed a growth spurt. The little township grew from a population of 2,200 to over 20,000 in ten years. With population growth came commercial growth and the town had a growing tax base that would allow it to pull away from County control. We'd had enough of the Cinderella treatment. Then in 1988, Temecula began its cityhood efforts and we learned that the Temecula city plan outlined a 79-square-mile area including Murrieta. Through numerous fundraising events, the people raised $150,000 for Murrieta's cityhood. We voted in Cityhood in 1991 and turned down the County contract for Sheriff services in favor of local control of our own police department, another stark contrast to the Temecula government profile.

Then in 1997, Dottie Renon had a new crusade and a citizen's movement began to get our share of tax money from the county for our own public library. Of course, Temecula officials were adamantly opposed to such an idea. They had the prestige and benefits of the big County Library in their city and competition is the name of the game.

Our decision to get our $320,000 in Library funds out of The Riverside County Library System made big news. I remember well the article in The Californian citing Temecula council member Jeff Stone's sentiments that Murrieta's decision to withdraw their money from the Temecula based facility would only serve to damage the two cities' efforts to build a comprehensive full-service library. Jeff Stone was quoted as saying, "They [Murrieta] will end up with a storefront operation and a limited collection". Time proved that The Murrieta Public Library would become a place of pride with tremendous community support. We enjoyed the development of a light, bright, beautiful, award-winning library. We had a need and the need was here, not in Temecula. In 2003, the citizens look forward to expansion of our library system and relocation to the developing civic center at Jefferson and Kalmia.

As you can see our relationship with the city to the south is one of rivalry. How long it will last or how long it's been going on is anyone's guess. When I am asked how we could build better relationships with Temecula, my answer is "With the historically proven method for getting along with your neighbors. Build good fences and don't let your dog poop in your neighbor's yard". Don't get me wrong, I do believe that someday, we will live without the rivalry that exists between the two cities. But our city council's first priority is not relationship building with our competitor. It is to build our own economic base while protecting our city's quality of life.

We do not march to the beat of someone else's drum. We do not settle for second best. We strive for excellence. Our goal was to be "The Gem of the Valley".

Now for the moral dilemma and the Town Hall purchase. After the death of Dottie Renon, the matriarch of the Town Hall Association, it became apparent to most that usage and maintenance dropped off considerably. Probably no one, other than Dottie, would ever have the same degree of interest, power and control over that edifice. And so the dilemma that was presented before our city council was "buy the property or risk the threat of sale to someone else". What would you have done in their shoes? Ask for a vote of the people? Let them sell it to someone else? Negotiate a deal? Report the MVTHA to the Attorney General and take control?

As a 27 year resident of this community, I understand that this is an issue that is felt more strongly for those in the community who volunteered many hours of time, money and hard labor to support the Town Hall in the pre-80s. Elected officials, who are new to our community, do not have that emotional attachment. We worked for the Town Hall and looked forward to our children's wedding receptions there, our children's graduations and theatrical performances, and the family oriented activities that served to raise funds to support the Town Hall and adjoining Little League field. After private control, the price to rent the Town Hall had risen beyond our means and Bingo became the primary activity at the center. We remember our former Superintendent of Schools signing documents that were needed to secure HUD funding for the Town Hall building, citing need for a site to serve Senior Citizen meals and for graduation ceremonies. What the community worked for and envisioned was a place for our senior citizens to have regular meals. What our seniors got was an occasional holiday meal thanks to The Murrieta Garden Club. What we got for youth performances was not for our elementary school children's plays as we had expected. The Town Hall fulfilled that obligation with the help of Christian Youth Theater ticket sales. And we remember well the eighth grade graduation class whose festivities were abruptly brought to a halt when one child sat on the stage and rested his foot upon the edge of a table. Everybody was immediately thrown out by MVTHA representatives.

Yes, there were two grand jury investigations but remember these are County Grand Juries and the decision rested with County officials. In a grand jury summary dated March 1992, it was reported that the Murrieta Town Hall Association was founded in March 1956. It was established to provide "a meeting place for the residents of the Murrieta Valley and to encourage educational, charitable and literary activities". On August 22, 1956 MVTHA was duly organized as a non-profit corporation and approximately one month later Inez M. Hunt granted a five-acre parcel of land to the MVTHA.

In the first twenty years of existence, the township operated its Town Hall just as specified. We used the small home on the property for our meeting place and we held an annual auction and pancake breakfast for our major fund-raiser event that supported the Little League field and property maintenance. Then came the opportunity for HUD funding to create a fully functional Town Hall facility. It was designed with a full kitchen, a revolving stage (well it was supposed to revolve), and high ceilings for youth sports.

The original management plan of the MVTHA as reported in the Grand Jury summary stated, "The MVTHA proposes to construct a multi-purpose community center on approximately five acres of land. The building will be 5,000 to 7,200 square feet and will be used by the entire community. We are projecting the center will have the following specific purposes: Vocational training (adult education and job training day and evening), Youth activities (Summer recreation, job referral, hot lunch school program, graduation exercises), Senior citizen activities (senior job rehabilitation referral and senior meals program), Child care project (pre-school activities and day care program), Health care (medical clinic care)".

The township envisioned a fully functioning community center much like other Riverside County community facilities. To this end, the community stood in support of this endeavor just as many members of our community support other non-profit clubs and organizations today and work hard on the community's behalf. We trust the officers and volunteer directors and give them praise and recognition. But this one went awry. This one never accomplished its community oriented goals. This one became a closed society that profited from the generous donations of community members and Bingo.

Nearly 20 years passed with the MVTHA in total control of the citizens Community Center. It was a festering thorn in people's side for all those years. Each grand jury investigation brought new hope for residents but the county failed them each time. An initiative measure was written and a petition was circulated that would finally bring the matter to a vote of the people. If successful the city was to immediately acquire the Town Hall/Community Center and contiguous property [Little League field] together with appropriate rezoning from residential to public/civic/institutional. Also included in the initiative was a zoning change from residential to public/civic/institutional for the historic site bounded by Kalmia, New Clay, B Street and 2nd where Murrieta's train depot and first schoolhouse once stood.

It took time to get on our ballot. And so between the success of the petition drive and the vote, the moral dilemma was presented to the City Council and someone provided an appraisal of one million dollars for the Town Hall property. The negotiated purchase price was set at $750,000 (adjusted downward to compensate for the HUD funding of the Town Hall building). $500,000 to be held in benevolent trust accounts for which only the interest can be drawn for scholarships and library goods. $250,000 was to be paid to the MVTHA for ongoing activities. For many, this purchase by our city council sent a message that immoral behavior is acceptable. When the small group of residents took private control of the Town Hall, it was a sustained, morally wrong action against the people of our community. The council's decision to negotiate the purchase, not only contributed to the financial benefit of these individuals with our tax dollars but sent a message that our elected officials can be influenced by exercising fear tactics and political pressure regardless of the immoral behavior connected to their special interests.

On November 4, 2003, the people will have an opportunity to protect the colorful historic sites of our past. Mrs. Inez Hunt's benvolent intent for the citizens of Murrieta can be protected from sale or rezoning. The historic site where the train depot once stood can be protected from residential development. A Yes vote on Measure H is a yes vote for historic preservation and voice of the people.