| Thank you for your interest in writing a Letter to the Editor. We welcome letters on any subject and responses to articles printed in our Editorial and Opinion pages. Please read the requirements listed below to ensure your letter will NOT BE REJECTED.
Requirements LETTERS SUBMITTED IN ALL CAPS WILL BE REJECTED. Letters containing more than 250 words MAY BE PUBLISHED ONLINE ONLY due to space limitations. Letters containing handwriting that is not legible WILL BE REJECTED. Letters containing defamation, slander, profanity, or unverifiable facts WILL BE REJECTED. Types of Submissions 1.) BY MAIL: Simply mail us your letter to the editor with your phone number so we can verify your identity. 2.) BY E-MAIL: Simply e-mail us your letter to the editor with your phone number so we can verify your identity. 3.) IN PERSON: Please stop by the office during business hours with your Letter to the Editor. Electronic Submissions Please e-mail your Letters to the Editor or inquiries about Letters to the Editor to the following email address: |
October 2nd, 2008
To the Editor:
The revelations about City Hall staff and elected officials are serious and are getting worse. Our leaders are apparently guilty of negligence, ineptitude, bribes, kickbacks, contract rigging, criminal activity, debauchery, fraud and animal abuse. Then there is the secret basement below city hall and the tunnel to “out of town”. These transgressions are inexcusable.
So why haven’t the outspoken concerned citizens petitioned the Grand Jury, or at least the District Attorney to investigate this bunch of scurrilous carpetbaggers? There isn’t going to be any investigation because these accusations lack any supporting evidence, in other words, they are false, red herrings.
By carefully selecting snippets of “facts” or simply creating them, these dedicated conspiracy theorists spin stories to destroy public confidence in our city’s leadership. But the record stands – our leadership is doing a good job. The recent creative campaign of destruction of our leader’s credibility has gone on too long.
Bob Stroh’s recent letter is a typical example of this campaign. One of his points claims Roy Payne stands to profit from North Fillmore development. He missed a key element, where’s the evidence? In other words Bob: “show me the money!”
Ken Smedley,
Fillmore
To the Editor:
Re: North Fillmore Initiative
After working hard to get the North Fillmore Initiative on the ballot I was astonished to hear from Council Member Cicilia Cuevas some entity was threatening to sue the city because the citizens were exercising their constitutional rights. Yes, we understand that there is a state law regarding the planning a quantity of low-income homes. We never objected to that law and our initiative does not preclude low-income or any income homes.
So who might want to sue Fillmore? I found out that it is an outfit called the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). They say that they strive for economic justice and human rights for the rural poor (farm workers). They have an office in Oxnard and have had people at our city council meetings.
They are enamored with the North Fillmore Specific Plan because in their thinking the dense development in North Fillmore (the very feature that we object to) would lead to the possibility of very low cost homes for farm workers. They have admitted publicly that if the initiative passes Fillmore can meet its requirements for low-income homes in other parts of Fillmore.
According to the city’s report, on the initiative, passing the Initiative will require the planning for 52 affordable homes in areas other than North Fillmore. Big Deal. I can drive around town this morning and find locations to plan for 52 low-income homes.
Clay Westling,
Fillmore
To the Editor,
Re: costly flood insurance
I have seen the proposed maps that FEMA gave out at a meeting in May. Every property west of A Street was proposed to be in a floodway (river bed) or would be flooded in a 100 year storm. Mayor Conaway and Mayor Pro Tem Cuevas have done a great service to all of Fillmore by getting the FEMA representative to agree that the “stop logs” that fill the hole where the railroad tracks go through the levee meet their requirements. That alone takes a major portion of our town out of the flood areas there by saving everyone in the area from having to pay for costly flood insurance. This also allows for owners to sell or refinance their homes.
It is great that Fillmore has council members that look out for the overall good of the community and work hard to do what is best for our city. Both Mayor Conaway and Mayor Pro Tem deserve our vote on November 4th.
Regards,
Roger Campbell,
Retired Mayor
To the Editor:
Re: Roy Payne letter 9/25/2008
Any City and Redevelopment Agency losses are overstated due to the fact that projections were based on property taxes from homes selling at an average of $576,000. The negative losses are speculative and not based on current market conditions.
City government is responsible for millions in attorney fees already. The Becerra eminent domain action has been in litigation for over two years – instigated by the City.
The Sales Tax Agreements have much more of a potential litigation impact than Measure I.
Lawsuits against and by the City are a common event. To fear a possible lawsuit against Measure I is hypocritical since we have been engaged in dozens of lawsuits in the last 15 years.
As I have previously pointed out to the Council, the Housing Element (Section 4-7) states that North Fillmore would yield 626 low and very low income homes. So, there has always been a conflict open to lawsuit since the North Fillmore Specific Plan was adopted in 2006. Why was there no lawsuit brought at that time when 521 low and very low homes were eliminated?
Measure I may not be perfect but it will have less of an impact than the existing plan, which is too crowded, creates too much traffic, will impinge on Ameron’s operations, and require eminent domain and additional expense for public services.
In addition, until FEMA has rendered a final opinion on the Sespe floodway, that area of North Fillmore is potentially under water in a 100 year storm putting thousands at risk – even if they could afford flood insurance.
Gayle Washburn,
Fillmore
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to Mr. Payne’s letter of 9/25, a 550 word, and three columns wide article with bold print basically saying, “facts are facts” and “ignore them at your own risk”. Well, here are some facts I do know. I write using the first person addressing Mr. Payne who seems to be the spokesman for opposition to Measures I & H.
It’s a FACT, that you are a very well paid consultant and the added homes you want to see built in North Fillmore will, in all probability, increase your scope of being the Special Projects Manager of Fillmore. It’s called job security.
It’s a FACT, that telling the City Council Measure I and H will cause terrible things to happen to Fillmore is EXACTLY what most of them wanted to hear. It’s called ‘tell your Boss what he wants to hear.’
And it’s a FACT, by not living in Fillmore; you personally will not suffer the consequences of the increased traffic, crime, potential loss of jobs (Ameron), etc. caused by the VERY DENSE housing in North Fillmore that Measures I & H would stop. It’s called “that isn’t my problem”.
But Mr. Payne, here’s a FACT I can’t explain. Maybe you can help? It’s a FACT our more affluent neighbors (Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, etc) don’t seem to suffer from the terrible things you say will happen to us. WHY NOT?? Could it be the only reason Fillmore has a 15% affordable home quota is because our City Council CREATED that requirement without public input and are now telling us we must live to these requirements or the wolf is going to eat us? Could it be they want Fillmore to be the Affordable Housing Capital of Ventura County? And assuming you are correct, and we must build more affordable homes do they ALL have to be in North Fillmore? Can’t they be distributed thru out the City?
I respectively suggest you, the City Staff and the City Council do more homework and resolve to listen more and be more responsive to the citizens of Fillmore regarding Measures I & H.
Dorsey B. Smith,
Fillmore
To the Editor:
Hi fellow Fillmorons. It's time for me to sing the praises of our wise Mayor Pro-tem. My dear Cecelia has found a magic mirror, as only she deserves to possess. Looking through HER mirror reveals an amazing feat! Somehow, the 2% increase that non management employees get from the union, mirrors to become 8% for top management. Amazing! A 2 doesn't even look like an 8. Only an experienced City Council person could possess such a mirror. The rest of us can only envy the powers Cecelia has. Let's give her a hand!
$100 million in capitol improvements takes special management to spend so much of our money in such a short period of time. No wonder Cecelia is in awe of them. That's $6,666.67 for every man woman or child that lives in Fillmore! Are the numbers a coincidence? Where else can we give so much to benefit each other and many outside consultants, and contractors up the ying - yang. Imagine what it's doing for the local economy (in other cities). We should be proud to be able to share so much of our money and we should be known statewide for our generosity. What better way to put us on the map. Outsiders must think we are a very wealthy city and will flock here to take part in our generosity. Especially businesses who want tax kickbacks. We love to give other cities tax money to businesses, it grows their companies. Why should our city take more than 15% of those taxes, it isn't ours anyway. It has put $1.5 million in our coffers for doing almost nothing. We need to show management our gratitude for their amazing work. Heck, I think we should pay a limo to take them back and forth to work, there's a lot of car expense they have to pay to get to Fillmore and back home.
Dave Roegner,
Fillmore
To the Editor:
Regarding the Sales Tax Issue
I have been following the City of Fillmore’s attempts to gain sales tax revenue through the phony transfer of various companies’ point of sale to our city with interest.
The claim for damages by the City of Livermore & the City of Industry that is on file at the Fillmore City hall is quite damming. It states that: a) sales tax diversion by “creation” of sham sales office in Fillmore, which allowed Fillmore to fraudulently collect the sales tax, then kickback 85% of the tax to consulting companies. And b) that the California Board of Equalization has determined that this scheme is improper and has reallocated $6.5 million in 4th Quarter 2007 sales taxes from Fillmore to the proper cities.
I think that convincing companies to legitimately relocate their point of sale to Fillmore so that we could gain the sales tax revenue is great. However, according to this claim, these agreements were operated to illicitly divert sales taxes from other cities and are obviously wrong.
A review of the minutes of the City Council meeting that approved this arrangement shows that the City Manager told the City Council that these agreements would not go forward until the City Attorney had reviewed and approved them.
A public records request for the results of the attorney review was answered by the city on Friday (9/26/08) that no such City Attorney work product exists. Apparently, the City Manager entered into these agreements without fulfilling the requirements as requested by the Fillmore City Council, or again, we are not being allowed to have access to city records as required by the California Public Records Act.
Gary Creagle,
Fillmore
To The Editor:
Why is Mr. Payne so adamant in forcing a large number of housing units on the citizens of Fillmore? A significant number of citizens don't want Fillmore to become another ho-hum suburb of Los Angeles. We like our small town and want it to stay that way. We live here on purpose.
When I came through school a number of years ago, our social studies teachers told us about a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What we seem to have here is a government by overpaid people who don't even bother to live here and aren't subject to the policies they force on others.
When the local citizens express their displeasure -with something that is being forced on them, they are threatened with a lawsuit.
Seems like Mr. Payne isn't paying attention to, or is ignoring the people he is supposed to be working for.
Many more houses, people, cars, congestion, only decreases the quality of life here in Fillmore.
There is more to life than more money for government agencies to spend.
Larry Jennings,
Fillmore
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Larry, This is a great
Larry,
This is a great letter that shares the feelings of so many citizens. You expressed those feelings and the facts better than I have seen. I can't wait to see what you write next!
Dave Roegner
Fillmore City Council
Fillmore City Council Members are paid $150.00 per month. Staff is tasked with carrying out the policies of the city and desires of the majority of the Council Members. All citizens, regardless of voter registration status, are provided opportunity to provide input at meetings. Council Members have the delicate balance of making decisions based upon the needs of the community. Council Members serve all the citizens of Fillmore, but only registered voters living within the city limits elect us.
Any housing built within a Redevelopment Agency must contain 15% affordable housing. Wishing it away or saying "I don't like it" doesn't alter the fact it's required by law. Roughly 95% of Fillmore falls within a Redevelopment Agency. Yes, Affordable housing can be built anywhere in the city. Normally a builder builds their 15% within their development. They can choose to build it in other neighborhoods and perhaps in the future they will. Wouldn't that lead to more infill projects? No builder in North Fillmore is required to dedicate more than 15% as affordable housing.
The growth rate of Fillmore has historically hovered around 2%. Personally I don't see Fillmore expanding beyond our natural boundaries. Given that desire, Fillmore will always remain a small town. Residents want to dine out, we want new businesses to support our needs, we want parks to enjoy, we want services to improve our quality of life and we want them to be affordable.
Steve Conaway
I cannot get into the
I cannot get into the discussions concerning the "affordable" or "low-income" housing plans established by either (or both) the United States government or/and the State of California, but there are programs, per se, that allow cities to build these "low-income" housing sites. You will have to look into the laws concerning this program, and I think there are "returns" on taxes or other costs the city, or the developers, or the ownerships of these projects get as a result. I personally know of one "low-income housing" project. A "group" of well-placed city boys got together, decided to take an old historical site by a river, turn it into a low-income housing area, had complete reconstruction done on this place, and put in 30 apartments there. It is beautiful...as an historical site...but in a year, it is said, there will be destruction of unkempt apartments and outside areas. Tax breaks, kickbacks, high-profits to the owners of the development because of the nature of the project in itself, and more little "tid-bits", are in favor of the "insiders". Now, this site had been considered for almost the same type of use...apartments...but not low-income ones. Individual home sites also come under this generated program. There is a varied difference in "low-income" programs and the exact same home plan on sites designated as "non-low-income". Better do more checking. However, although there is a 15% allocation for "low-income" living, those sites must be duly registered.
Gayle, RE: "Becerra eminent
Gayle, RE: "Becerra eminent domain action"....Would you please give a brief overview of this ?
I have read the letters from
I have read the letters from Gayle Washburn, Dorsey Smith, Gary Creagle and Larry Jennings that address some of my previous comments on the subject of Measure I. I am preparing a response that I hope will run as a Letter to the Editor in next weeks Fillmore Gazette. Needless to say, I believe some of the facts are wrong andthe allegations against me are unfounded and unsubtantiated.
Roy Payne
Listen folks, I do not want
Listen folks, I do not want to act as any mediator in the circumstances of the "Measure I" issue, however I just want to say one thing. As an federal attorney for nearly 15 years involved with international US affairs, and before that, an investigator for the government for almost 14 years investigating companies, I need to say that we must give a fair chance and a fair opportunity to allow people to give their side of the story as they perceive it. Somehow, I believe Mr. Roy Payne's opinion, and I also understand the others stance, but without true and honest facts, situations do become cloudy and confusion starts to set in. Then, the issue becomes a total train wreck before it gets straightened out and lots of people are mad as heck at the guy they think is the center of attention. If Mr. Payne is willing to make a public, written statement, which is appearing as an official legal document in itself in this case, then cool off and wait for his statements.
misspellchker: In late 2006
misspellchker: In late 2006 the Council gave approval to proceed with condmenation of Becerra property east of El Dorado Mobilehome Park to enable access for Heritage Valley Park residents. I was at that meeting and the Becerra Family attorney asked the Council to enter negotations so that they would still be able to use the road or another alternative to provide access to their property and watercress operation. It sounded like a reasonable request so I was surprised when they refused.
The result has been two years of legal fees. (12/19/2006: Complaint (Unlimited) filed Filed by: CITY OF FILLMORE(Plaintiff)
While I do not know any details of the lawsuit, according to the Ventura County Superior Court website, it is still ongoing and is scheduled for trial on October 6th.
We discussed it two years ago on my blog. Use the link and scroll down to the November 19, 2006 post for more info.
http://www.fillmoreblog.com/2006_11_01_archive.html
Roy, I have reviewed the
Roy, I have reviewed the letters that you refer to(Gayle, Dorsey, Gary and Larry) and what "allegations", etc. are you talking about?
Why are you against citizens expressing opinions? That's what the letters to the editor is for. All one can do is "agree to disagree" and let it go at that.
Thank you Gayle. Quite a lot
Thank you Gayle. Quite a lot of activity on your blog. I didn't know that existed. I remember hearing the lawsuit has something to do with the City NOT having the power of Eminent Domain and they didn't know it.(can you imagine ?) If I recall correctly, the issue was a CCRL s33000 declaration "blunder". Maybe someone would like to shed some light on this. Then again, those in the know are probably "gagging" on some executive session order.
I'm beginning to see who I WILL NOT be voting for. Additionally, those pushing for a NO on Measures H & I (Roy Payne and his "CABOWL of CABAWLING conspiracy theorists") lack credibility in my opinion.
Also, does the Fillmore City Council consist of 1 Mayor and 3 Council members ? I thought Fillmore had 5 council persons but I never hear of, or about, more than 4.
Gayle, their you go again.
Gayle, their you go again. When have I ever said that I am against citizens expressing opinions? I am not and this is just one example of an assertion made with little or no proof, i.e. an allegation. I have said read the facts and dispute the facts, but don't use personal attacks on my character as a means of trying to counter the facts. Another example of an allegation is the on-going assertion that I stand to personally gain if Measure I and Measure H are defeated. I have repeatedly stated I have no financial interest in North Fillmore, I will not be involved in any development projects in North Fillmore and I am not being paid by anyone to discuss the Measure I financial and legal risks. Last, Mr. Creagle alleges that I never received City Attorney approval to enter into the Sales Tax Agreement that the City Council authorized by a unanimous 5-0 vote when it was approved. Just because nothing was found in Creagle's "public record" request, it does not mean that the City Attorney was not consulted. Many communications do not require public writings, sometimes just a phone call or a oral communication is sufficient.
What happened to the
What happened to the previous City attorney ? (I think his last name was Meyers ?)
Gayle, you still haven't
Gayle, you still haven't answered the simple question that I posed to you on a previous debate. My question to you was if whether or not there was ever an environmental, fiscal, feasibility or legal analysis done by you or your group prior to soliciting for signatures in support of Measure I? If the answer is NO, why not? I would appreciate an answer as should all persons that signed your petition, thanks.
FACTS (and FAQs): 1)Legal
FACTS (and FAQs): 1)Legal Council Myers, former City Manager Roy Payne and ALL the City Council members, approve a tax scheme and the City has lost $6.5 million to date ( using MAYOR Conway's "all the credit and no blame", "back slapping accounting principles", 2)resulting in a LAWSUIT over the alleged "TAX SCAM", and, 3) for 2 years, the City has been EMROILED in a LAWSUIT against the Becerra Family over a "taking of property" EMINENT DOMAIN issue, and,4) Roy Payne and the City create a "Special Projects Manager" position, Roy "changes hats" and quickly fills that job, then the CITY (and Roy ??)award Roy Payne a very LUCRATIVE Private Consultant contract, (created while Roy Payne is employed by the City ???), 5) Roy Payne vacates the City Manager Job, 6) City Legal Council Myers vacates His post, 7) purely by COINCIDENCE, the City suddenly needs to "DISPOSE of PUBLIC RECORDS", and 8) the City Fire Chief is under investigation and on PAID LEAVE @ $75,000 yr. (est.).
Mr. Ken Smedley, former COUNCILMAN who approved some of those questionable practices, have you received ANY type of subpoena or have you been DEPOSED regarding any those aforementioned FACTS ?
In my opinion, just briefly skimming the surface, this "LOOKS LIKE, SOUNDS LIKE and WALKS LIKE"...."a vendre un canard à moitié", as in SWINDLE.
SELF to misspellchkr:
SELF to misspellchkr: "emroiled" ?? What's that supposed to mean. "Preview Before Posting"....I can't stress that enough. Did you mean "EMBROILED" ??? Geeeezz...!
1. Please explain how and
1. Please explain how and where you gleaned $6.5 million was lost? I was not on the council when these agreements were approved. I will "slap the back" of those that did approve them, as I agree with them.
2. A Claim has been filed, which is usually a precursor to a lawsuit. "Tax Scam" is a clever election year name for a legitimate activity which provided revenue to the city. I hope that you won't be disappointed when the city is vindicated.
3. Eminent Domain is a tool which should be very limited in use. It allows public improvements and compensates the owner at fair market prices.
4. Mr. Payne retired from the City after many years of service. After which he was hired to do some special project management for the city to advance key projects.
6. The City contract for legal services is with the Firm. Within that contract the city has a primary counsel identified.
7. The City retains documents by law. It also deposes of them according to law.
8. The issue is a Personnel matter, and as such it is not appropriate for public comment. I understand the publics desire to know and respect it.
Steve Conaway
Well, thanks very much.
Well, thanks very much. How.. uh...uh...informative!(?) I used a projected model of anticipated revenues and EBDITA in a manner somewhat similar to your creative "savings and taking the credit" model we had previously discussed. Quite frankly, both methods are merely figments. Essentially, nonsense. I simply thought my method was in line with Fillmore Council methods of accounting. Also, I most certainly do hope the City gets that money. Who wouldn't ? (although, I would hold off on those party hats). It could be quite a relief to the taxpayer. My goodness, the Council could then give 10% Pay Raises! I just hope the taxpayers don't get stuck with a legal bill and nothing to show for it. I'm also just a wee bit skeptical that out of 50 (approx.) incorporated cities in the entire State of CA, Fillmore is the only one to use this type of ...well...lets just call it creative financing. If indeed this is legit, has anyone considered any type of proprietary patent on this genius idea ? (As usual, probably too late now.) Oh, and you don't have to give me credit for being clever for using "scam". I actually meant to use the word "scheme". I'm just a "little bit" rattled today watching our genius "Leaders" out there in DC "pour gasoline on a fire." (Say, did you happen to be out there today ?)Additionally, you stated that my use of Tax Scam "is a clever election year name for a legitimate activity" ? I'll have to give that some more thought, although, I'm fairly certain the word "scam" actually refers to "illegitimate" activity, notwithstanding an election year.
Now moving on, did the City (or RDA) LEGALLY possess the power of eminent domain in regard to the Becerra Property ? How did that result in 2 years of litigation ? Please, tell me Roy Payne wasn't involved in that and I'll at least have some hope the taxpayers will prevail.
I've openly communicated
I've openly communicated with you on this site. In return you insult and demean. Enough said.
Steve Conaway
Well that's typical. This is
Well that's typical. This is exactly what I was told about Fillmore Politics before I moved here. " Side skirt, dodge or they just completely ignore or refuse to respond to people when they ask a question."
I apologize for hurting your feelings. In the future maybe you should just not respond. I didn't address my inquiries to anyone specific. You took it upon yourself to respond. Obviously, you choose to be as vague as possible.
Was my response not what you wanted ? So you can cry "insult" and "demean".
What a coincidence. That's exactly how I feel. Insulted and demeaned. A feeling no doubt shared by many others in Fillmore.
Who has side skirted or
Who has side skirted or dodged an issue? Not me. I responded, point by point, to your inquiry. To whom do you refer when you state "completely ignore or refuse to respond to people when they ask a question"? You asked, I responded. You just didn't like my response, fair enough.
You have the right to not feel insulted or demeaned also, it's your choice to choose.
Steve Conaway
misspellchkr continues her
misspellchkr continues her downward spiral towards absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Unfortunately there's no IQ test when you sign up for this blog.
"Holy mackerel,
"Holy mackerel, Batman...something smells like fish!" Maybe, just maybe, this issue will get ironed out someday soon. As an "outsider looking in", so to speak, I sit here at 8:45 Tuesday morning and not even 1/3rd of the way into these postings, I went for a glass of Chivas Regal on the rocks. It is good I did that. See, I'am a dull person by nature. I was not dull before I retired, due to my job and lifestyle. My wife was the dull one. Now, it is my turn to be dull. She is un-dull. The dullness in my life just rose into medicore-dull after two good "swigs"...but not to the point of being elated. That may never happen to dull people such as I. Fillmore Politics is not dull. I would like to see what the issues to people really are that are making (not only in this website) public comments and private convictions concerning the issues in Fillmore. Maybe some forum can be created in an orderly method, a legal method, with statements set up individually, and responses could be made in kind. Seems there are so many comments going around in accusations, rather than to solve or proving anything. Maybe once things in Fillmore settle down, things will be dull, again.
Did the City (or RDA)
Did the City (or RDA) LEGALLY possess the power of eminent domain in regard to the Becerra Property ? How did that result in 2 years of litigation ?
To Conway, Where is the ANSWER ?
To Condor, again, Where is the ANSWER ?
Condor- I think you dropped
Condor- I think you dropped your POM-POM.
misspellchkr: The correct
misspellchkr: The correct spelling is CONAWAY. Please allow me the correction, this may be the only time I'm correct in the proper spelling of anything. Mr. Emrich would be proud.
Once again, the City of Fillmore has Eminent Domain authority.
Steve Conaway
The Question was; "Did the
The Question was; "Did the City (or RDA) LEGALLY possess the power of eminent domain in regard to the Becerra Property ? How did that result in 2 years of litigation ?"
Mr. CONAWAY'S Answer; "3. Eminent Domain is a tool which should be very limited in use. It allows public improvements and compensates the owner at fair market prices."
This is a very good example of "dodging and side skirting".
I am trying to form educated opinions for the upcoming elections.
In the future, I will try to simplify and structure my questions in such a manner to illicit a simple "YES or NO" response.
I apologize for misspelling CONAWAY. I assume the correct pronunciation is 2 syllables, as in "CON-AWAY". Thanks for pointing that out.
Yes, the City has the
Yes, the City has the authority.
Yes it exercised that authority.
Steve Conaway
Then I'll assume "something"
Then I'll assume "something" has changed since; May 22, 2007 Agenda Item # 8E and June 12, 2007 Agenda Item # 5E with Exhibit "A" Resolution 07-230. Specifically, Res. 07-230 Sec. 1.
Pertaining to Resolution NO. 07-230 June 12, 2007, Quotes; "Whereas, the Agency is not authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain as described on Exhibit A as required by Section 33342.7 of the Health and Safety Code.." and RESOLUTION NO. 07-230 Section 1. "NO EMINENT DOMAIN PROGRAM-The Agency is not authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain as set forth in the Eminent Domain Program attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit A. The Eminent Domain Program may only be amended only by amending the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project pursuant to Article 12 of the Community Redevelopment Law (commencing with Health and Safety Code Sec. 33450)." (Disclaimer: Some of this is taken out of context and no, the purpose of doing so is not for the furtherance of any conspiracies.)
WOW ! Do the City Council Members know all these Codes and Laws ? The terminology alone must require an enormous amount of learning and commitment.
Obviously, I lack the experience and time to master and comprehend these laws.
Is experience with and knowledge of the various Laws a requirement of potential Council candidates ? I sure hope so !
You did miss something. The
You did miss something. The City not the RDA exercised the power of eminent domain.
The Constitution of the State of California establishes two types of cities: Charter and General Law. The City of Fillmore is a General Law city. Fillmore was incorporated as a General Law city in 1914. A General Law City may exercise only those powers expressly given under State law.
As a General Law city, Fillmore is authorized and entitled to exercise the power of eminent domain for public purposes pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1240.050 and 1240.120, Government Code §40404, Public Resources Code §§ 5301, 5302 and 5303, Streets and Highways Code §26002 and City of Carlsbad v. Wight (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 756 and its progeny, in the acquisition of the Subject Property.
The State and local governments may only exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for a public work or improvement.
"Public work or improvement" means facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services such as education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports and seaports; utility, common carrier or other similar projects such as energy-related, communication-related, water-related and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure; projects identified by a State or local government for recovery from natural disasters; and private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public work or improvement.
The City of Fillmore Redevelopment Agency (RDA) is authorized by the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), contained in the California Health and Safety Code beginning with Section 33000 et seq., provides the authority and implementation provisions for a redevelopment program. California voters adopted Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution in 1952, providing for tax increment financing.
The City of Fillmore RDA was formed in 1979 and when it was formed the City determined that the RDA would not have eminent domain powers. The eminent domain powers of an RDA are far more reaching than those of a General Law City.
The Fillmore RDA reaffirmed that decision when it adopted Resolution 07-230.
Thanks, Roy Payne...this is
Thanks, Roy Payne...this is part of the example I was mentioning of the legal layout to be put forth in "legal" terms to show what authority the City of Fillmore had in this issue. That the person in charge may not have overstepped their job descriptions, etc. If all the questions and answers could be this clear, it makes for a simple end to the anticipations. Missspellchkr is clear with her question, also.
I really appreciate that
I really appreciate that detailed answer. There is certainly NO disputing your experience and knowledge base and the value of that to the community. So what is the problem with the Becerra property, "Just Compensation" ?
Their is no problem with the
Their is no problem with the Becerra property. As in any property acquisition, "just compensation" requires a meeting of the minds. This can either be accomplished through negotiations or if negotiations fail, then through a legal process under the procedures set forth for eminent domain. I think the best answer to the question right now, is let's wait and see the outcome of the legal process and then we can discuss whether or not "just compensation" was provided and how it was provided and paid. By the way, I have not been involved in the negotiations, but I may be called upon to testify if the matter goes to trial because of my former City Manager position. I am hoping it will not go to trial.
So should I assume the "2
So should I assume the "2 years of litigation" (per a prior post) is more accurately described as a "Price and Terms" negotiation ? Is that a more accurate description ?
As I said, I have not been
As I said, I have not been involved so I do not know what you should assume.