Letters to the Editor
June 24, 2010

To the Editor:
A Response to Roy L. Payne; A Consultant to KDF:
As former President Ronald Reagan would eloquently say: "There you go again". In this case, Roy Payne is at it again, twisting facts and floating mistruths about my positions.
The comments he is referring to were made at the April 13th Council meeting. My point in those comments was that the business park developers should be getting their own financing rather than having the City secure I-bank loans using the City’s General Fund as collateral. Especially since we recently learned we have over a $1 million deficit along with the State of California thrusting its hands into our Redevelopment Fund. Again, for clarity, I steadfastly support the business park. As a co-owner of a small business here in Fillmore, I know first hand the need for more tax revenue and yes, more jobs for Fillmore. Economic growth and a fiscal responsible government for Fillmore is of importance to me.
In light of Roy Payne's assertions that I don't understand zoning, first and foremost, I am a real estate finance professional and I fully comprehend all classifications of zoning. The vacancy factor (all classifications) in Fillmore is relevant and paramount to the discussion.
Fillmore, Santa Paula, Ventura, Camarillo, Valencia and Moorpark currently have a combined 196 vacant available industrial only properties for lease. It’s easy to make promises about future jobs since there will always be the opportunity to say that at “build out” there will be so many jobs. Well, what if “build out” never comes, as in the case of the failed North Fillmore Industrial Park?
These factors should remain true to the equation for all City Council members, especially when our elected officials are subjected to making decisions of how our tax dollars are used.
Lastly, no one in the city is stopping the business park from moving forward. Roy Payne’s employer, KDF, stated that that there is nothing more they needed from the City and taxpayers. If it is viable and economic, start building and produce those jobs.
Brian N. Sipes,


To the Editor:
Here’s what Fillmore Unified School District has planned for Piru School this summer and next school year:
-No free breakfast or lunch this summer at Piru School
-No summer school program this year at Piru School
-No new running path at Piru School
-No GATE program for gifted students at Piru School
-No more Newhall Grant-funded Art program for all students at Piru School
-No science class for upper graders at Piru School
-No Mr. Schaper, no Mr. Pavik, no Ms. Kelley, no Ms. Jolley, no Ms. Elliott at Piru School – a loss of over 100 years of combined teaching experience because the District involuntarily transferred them by declaring an ‘emergency’
-No full-time librarian at Piru School
-No full-time computer lab aide at Piru School
-Five fewer school days at Piru School
-Larger class sizes at Piru School
-No opportunity to transfer to Piru School if you live in Fillmore or Bardsdale-current Piru School students living in Fillmore and Bardsdale have been ordered by the District to attend other schools next year
What does all this add up to? Why are Piru School students losing so much?
A message from supporters of Piru Charter School