Redlands Community News photo by Siw Heede

The No on G presentation was held in Gregory Hall at the University of Redlands.

Opponents of Measure G, which would lift growth restrictions in Redlands’ three transit villages, expressed concern that it could reduce Redlands’ natural beauty and character, and lead to higher taxes.

No on G campaign — led by Lane Schneider, Tom Atchley, Andy Hoder and Bill Cunningham — filled Gregory Hall at the University of Redlands on Saturday, the same venue where the Informational Summit was held three weeks earlier. The room seats about 80 people.

Schneider, treasurer and principal officer of “Save Redlands — No on G, said, “There are many ways to spend your Saturday, so thank you for being here.”

The four panelists took turns explaining their concerns about Measure G, which ranged from worries about city services to the impact on Redlands’ unique character and natural beauty. The group anticipates higher taxes or reduction in services for the city to accommodate the many new apartment complexes they expect will be built by out-of-town developers if Measure G gets approved. They also fear how those buildings will obstruct the mountain views, which is part of the beauty of Redlands. They questioned what they described as the big investments these developers are making to get Measure G approved.

“If Measure G is supposed to be so good for Redlands, then why would it be necessary to spend such a huge sum of money on fancy advertising to convince us?” Holder asked. “By contrast the ‘No on G’ movement is funded by ordinary citizens like those you see before you today with obviously a much smaller budget. No public sponsors, no political parties to supporting us.

:And why would we do this? Because Measure G dismantles everything that’s been approved by voters in the past to preserve the character of our city while at the same time have a coordinated logical approach to development.”

He described his belief in how the earlier Proposition R and measures N and U are “sensible growth instruments” that would be wiped out by Measure G.

The panelists also shared their concerns whether the downtown area would have enough parking spaces for passengers needing to take the train, new residents and visitors, and whether there will be flood control in place, but mostly whether the character of historic Redlands would be at stake.

Tom Atchley, Redlands historian, spoke about the existing Packinghouse District project and how it was able to work within the existing confines.

“The architects chosen by Jack Dangermond for this project was to make the Packinghouse District look like packinghouses. And they do.” said Atchley.

He continued by showing pictures of how the second part of the Packinghouse District is under construction and all follow the current measures and restrictions. By circumventing the measures already in place, Atchley feared the city would go back to the mistakes made in previous decades, such as when the mall was built in 1978.

Former Mayor Bill Cunningham explained his role in measures N and U and how one of his main concerns were whether there will be schools and parks available for new residents.

After the panelists finished their presentation, several audience members asked questions on topics ranging from how to support the “No on G” campaign, concerns about future traffic impact, worries about noise pollution, the future availability of parking space and After 90 minutes presentations, the panelists answered questions for another 30 minutes.

Measure G is on the citywide ballot on March 3.

One of the strongest arguments in support of Measure G is local control. The city of Redland…