Re: “Measure G would help Redlands maintain local control,” by Carole Beswick, Jan. 31.

In Carole Beswick’s commentary, she maintains that Measure G “will provide desirable redevelopment in our downtown transit village area.” This is the area from Alabama Street on the west to Judson Street on the east, Colton Avenue on the north to Citrus Avenue on the south. Refer to the Redlands city attorney’s impartial analysis in your voter pamphlet for proposed details on exemptions and dwelling units in this area.

It was stated “it’s only 5 percent of our total land,” but It will be a highly concentrated 5 percent with no discussion on how to deal with the congestion it will bring. It is envisioned that this area will be a small town walkable area with access for pedestrians and bikers. Where will all the cars go from people traveling here locally and from out of town?  

Measure G is backed by out-of-town developers who have paid over $64,000 promoting this proposed plan. It has been stated that our protective measures are out of date. However, if Measure G passes, we will no longer have any input on the transit area, and our local government could make changes without the input of residents.  

A no vote does not mean that we don’t want the city to evolve. It is the proposed execution of the plan, lack of information on how congestion will be alleviated, and how the impact will be supported. Exactly how does a projected increase of 8,000 residents in the area translate to a “small town walkable area?”

To say Redlands is not progressing, or cannot progress without Measure G is patently false. It is as false as claiming that the old Redlands Mall cannot be revitalized without its passage. This should give every resident pause before making a decision for fast, concentrated growth that will change the very fabric of what makes Redlands, Redlands.  

Too many unknowns for me to support Measure G.

Nicole Rinehardt-Redlands