And just because of this Letter I am voting so my voice will be heard.

Yes!!! on "H" & "I"

I'd hope that you cast your vote based upon merit and conscience, not because of a letter. To each their own though.

Steve Conaway

RESPONSE to Roy Payne Letter to the editor; 1)Roy states ” it appears her (Ms. Washburn) "potential" track record will not be much better than the City’s". I have tried repeatedly to interpret that (favoring Roy) and I keep arriving at the same conclusion that "will not be much better" actually implies BETTERMENT. I think Roy has inadvertently endorsed Ms. Washburn. 2) Roy's constant conjectures are repeatedly put forth as facts, as in WARNINGS of certainty. 3) RE:Ameron. What is an Industrial Company doing in the middle of a proposed residential housing area? Will that increase home buyer appeal ? I thought there was a new business park in the near future. Why isn't Ameron moved to the business park, thus freeing up property resulting in reduced DENSITY ? 4)Roy's comment regarding Gary Creagle's "ENGLISH ONLY": That made National News, if I recall correctly. No doubt would have saved $BILLIONS of Tax Dollars. Unfortunately, Mr. Creagle probably didn't consider the implications of EVERY level of Government and in addition, the ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM would have ALL been required, at some point, to "SPEAK ENGLISH". WE certainly can't have that because that scenario, would have alleviated the need for "legal translators" and granted the Citizens EQUAL ACCESS to their legal rights, which have now become dependent upon "how much money you have to BUY them by way of a "COMBINATION INTERPRETER-LEGAL MIDDLEMAN-BROKER". ($TRILLIONS and $TRILLIONS saved) Also, it's kind of RIDICULOUS to make comments about "producing public documents" or didn't Roy hear that "DOCUMENTS WERE DISPOSED OF".
Thanks to Roy (and others who don't live here), I'm voting YES on MEASURES H & I. My YES vote will allow me to show I care about the quality and the well being of the people subject to the existing North Fillmore Plan. Also, I don't live in that area so MY beliefs are not influenced by "NOT IN MY BACK YARD". I have also heard Roy Payne used to live in one of the anticipated "negative impact zones". Lucky and Timely move ? Or more a matter of "insider trading". I also don't like Roy's constant conjectures using the word "risk".
I'm also voting "NO INCUMBENTS". Get them out and get them out NOW. Locally and Nationally !

misspellchkr I ask this in all sincerity, with no intent to flame.

You support Measure H & I. Assume it passes. How will you show your support for the H & I if the city is challenged in the courts? Will you accept the outpouring money to defend ourselves against what some believe are illegal measures to begin with? Will you be willing to pay higher sewer fees to minimize traffic and keep Fillmore small as Brooks says he's willing to do? How far does your support go? Voters need to understand that their vote has consequences regardless of how they vote on this issue. In this case the consequences far outweigh the intent of the measures.

Steve Conaway

How am I "NOW" supporting the Tax Scheme challenge ? How am I "NOW" accepting the outpouring of money going to "eminent domain" proceedings ?
Are you willing to continue sacrificing your North Fillmore neighborhoods,(assuming this is not in your back yard) your children and their children to "PAD" your own pocket book NOW ?
Don't kid yourself or the public about sewer rates. Those rates aren't going down until the final cost of the plant is determined, and that will be AFTER every penny is "squeezed" from the budget. Give them the money and they'll spend it.
This City and this Country, better get out of their "executive session" bunkers and have a good look at the destruction they have caused.
I can tell you with no uncertainty that there is more than one "wolf" with eyes on the City's aquifer. Very soon, that will be all this City will have to offer as "DEBT REPAYMENT".
YES on MEASURES H & I, the "MORAL CHOICE". ABSOLUTELY NO INCUMBENTS, LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL. GET THEM OUT AND GET THEM OUT NOW !

I found this at the Ventura County Star.
This speaks volums.
Quote:
______________________________________

Posted by h2odog on October 9, 2008 at 8:11 p.m.

I don't live in Fillmore anymore, but keep up with the local politics. I have been reading and doing research on measure I. I still don't understand why the former city manager and certain council members keep on writing letters in the local paper to warm people about potential lawsuits should the high density housing plan not go into place. Why don't these elected officials listen to the people of this small town? NO means No.
Many valid signatures have been obtained, but they still can't/won’t see the writing on the wall!!
Typical of incumbents or special interests to push their own agenda down the throat of the people. Does this sound familiar to what our Washington politicians are doing to us all over America? Hopefully the people of Fillmore can see through the haze and vote accordingly!
So, Mr. x-city manager and certain Council Members,just STOP already!!!

Spell checker your forgot. Roy Payne gets $20,000 a year for 20 years because of that Waste water special project. Thanks to Conaway, Cuevas, Smedley, Dreseller and Villegas ( who signed the contract right after Bert Rapp said it wasn't going to be signed, they were going to delay it and they didn't)

It's clear to me misspellchkr and LOL are bitter, complain about anything, make up random lies type people that must be working for candidates Washburn and Brooks. Nice smear campaign. But it won't work. Fillmore doesn't want this type of politics. Please stop.

Like I have said before, "I do not know Wasburn (I assume that is Gayle), I have absolutely no knowledge who "Brooks" is. And "LOL" ? Who is that ?
If you wear glasses, put them on. If you don't, you probably need to and be sure to apply anti-fog solution.
Your statement is INDISPUTABLE PROOF that you do not know what you are talking about.
You certainly do fit the "Cheerleader" description. Did you find your POM-POMS ?

Like I said," Roy Payne gets $20,000 a year for 20 years ".
That is Facts and go to City Hall and see for yourself. It is easy to say something,but there is a contract and cashed checks to prove it. So Condor before you cast aside anything because of your agenda, you the public go see for yourself. Lets add talk to Iwasiuk and Steiger they will tell you all that Payne cashed checks that they directly gave him. Of course Payne will cast this to as he has done. Ask for yourselves, don't rely on me or Condor. Rely on your findings.
Ask this one question, " Why is Payne so adamant to get "H" &"I" voted down? Could it be the monies he won't get?"

Like I said," Roy Payne gets $20,000 a year for 20 years ".
That is Facts and go to City Hall and see for yourself. It is easy to say something,but there is a contract and cashed checks to prove it. So Condor before you cast aside anything because of your agenda, you the public go see for yourself. Lets add talk to Iwasiuk and Steiger they will tell you all that Payne cashed checks that they directly gave him. Of course Payne will cast this to as he has done. Ask for yourselves, don't rely on me or Condor. Rely on your findings.
Ask this one question, " Why is Payne so adamant to get "H" &"I" voted down? Could it be the monies he won't get?"

LOL (or is it Gloria) who are you trying to deceive, yourself or the voters, or both? My letter did not sway your vote, you have been a supporter of Measure I from the start. The supporters of Measure I have continuously misled the voters by trying to imply that the current plan for North Fillmore is for all high density, low-income housing. For example, at the September 23, 2008 City Council meeting the Fillmore Gazette reports "Gloria Hansen spoke in favor of Measure I. She said that North Fillmore residents have been telling the Council for three years that they do not want 700 units on 60 acres". 700 units on 60 acres equals 11.67 units per acre. The fact is that the City's plan calls for 700 units on 100 acres which equals 7 units per acre. Not quite the high-density that Gloria Hansen and the supporters of Measure I would like you to believe. LOL (or Gloria), you have continually alleged that I was paid directly by a developer in the North Fillmore area. I have said that is not true. I suggested you set-up a meeting with you, myself and the developer. You declined to do so. I guess you were not and are not interested in the truth.

By the way, are you going to vote anonymously as LOL, or use your real name?

missplechkr, thank you for your response to my letter. However, don't feel the need to try and interpret what I have said, just ask me. My statement regarding Ms. Washburn's potential for getting the City into lawsuits still stands. According to the City Attorney, if Measure I passes it will more than likely end up in a lawsuit. Ms. Washburn has been a vocal advocate and initiator of Measure I. Ms. Washburn advocated for PERC to build the new sewer plant in both Fillmore and Santa Paula, PERC is now in a lawsuit. Her actions, lead to lawsuits. I don't know what "constant conjectures" of mine you are referring to, but if you are referring to the financial and legal risks that Measure I exposes the City to, you need to be advised that the financial and legal risks were identified by the City Attorney and by an independent consultant, not by me. To date, no one, including yourself as come up with any specific information to dispute those facts. Certainly, you can choose to believe or not believe those facts, but to characterize it as conjecture is sticking your head in the sand. Regarding Gary Creagle's support and leadership in persuading the Fillmore City Council to adopt an "English Only" resolution in Fillmore, that is a fact. The fact that a subsequent City Council had to repeal that resolution because of the controversy and upheaval in caused in the community is also a fact. I agree with you that it is kind of ridiculous to talk about "producing public documents", but that is what Gary Creagle did in one instance, so why shouldn't he apply the same fact gathering standard for his own actions? You capitalize "DOCUMENTS WERE DISPOSED OF" I guess to imply that some illegal, underhanded activity was undertaken to get rid of incriminating evidence. The fact is that all City's dispose of documents on a regularly scheduled basis in accordance with public document disposal rules set forth by the State. You state that you "have also heard Roy Payne used to live in one of the anticipated "negative impact zones". Lucky and Timely move? Or more a matter of insider trading". I lived in Fillmore for 12 years from 1989 to 2001 and lived at 746 Galvin Lane and 509 Mockingbird Lane. I don't know if those locations are in your "negative impact zones", but that is where I lived. Please explain what you mean by "insider trading" and what information you think I had that caused me to move. And you accuse me of "conjecture"?

misspellchkr, you have said in other posts that you are going to vote for Measure I and to vote out all the incumbents. You have also stated that you do not know "Wasburn" (you misspelled it, it is "Washburn") and you have "absolutely no knowledge who Brooks is". What a surprise! You know nothing about the candidates who are running for City Council and you refuse to acknowledge or dispute the facts about the financial and legal risks associated with Measure I, but you are going to vote. How comforting for the people in Fillmore do have an anonymous uninformed voter deciding thier fate!

LOL, please provide a written, notarized statement from Dr. Iwasuik and Bill Steiger and also copies of cashed checks made out to me from Dr. Iwasuik and Bill Steiger to back up your slanderous statment that they paid me. It never happened and it a lie and is slanderous. I offered to meet with you and Dr. Iwasuik and Bill Steiger face to face to resolve this and you declined. Why?

Regarding the "$20,000 per year for 20 years", I wish that were true, but it is not. I do have a contract with the City, but it is year to year and can be terminated at any time with 30-days notice by either myself or the City Council at a regularly scheduled and noticed public meeting. The $20,000 per year that LOL (or is it Gloria) refers to is I assume the line item in the Sewer Pro Forma that was used to project future costs for the operation of the Sewer Enterprise Fund. Their is a line item in the pro forma for "Contract Services" and a foot note 12 to that line item states in part "Special Project Manager @ $20,000". It is a future budget projection and is not a contractual agreement for me to demand payment from. I have assisted the City in reviewing and setting the sewer rates for the City as I have for the past 20-years and for 2008-09 I was successful in reducing the projected sewer rate from $85 down to $72 per month. This reduction saved each rate payer $13 per month or $156 per year. There are approximately 4,000 sewer customers, so this $13 per month reduction resulted in a savings of over $600,000 per year to Fillmore sewer customers.

Proof your facts and tell the truth!

LOL, there you go again. Why is it you criticize me for not living in the City and commenting on the issues, but you are more than eager to support some anonymous out of town blogger called h20dog? A little hypocritical isn't it?

Also, why do you LOL, misspellchkr, and the rest continue to hide behind anonymous blog names? I am upfront about who I am and what I think, but you folks are either ashamed of you are, or are to cowardly to let people know who you are. I know, your defense, you fear retaliation, but from whom? That defense is just another smoke screen to impy that you are being intimidated, when in fact, words of truth do not need to be hidden behind an anonymous cloak. Or maybe, it is easier to make slanderous, unsubstantianted allegations, when you know you can't be held accountable for your slanderous actions.

Here is the problem, you do not live here and are misrepresenting our Community. H & I are on the Ballot because the Council ignored the people.
You Mr Payne your in it for the money. We are involved because this is our town, not yours. The City Staff cannot get involved, because of Article 24, they can lose the jobs. So you are the spokes man. Bud OUT!!
This is our life here in Fillmore, not yours. Any lawsuits,I doubt. They will be brought on because of the lack of involvement with the Community. Not listening to the people of Fillmore.
For the allegations of falsehoods, that will proven right as time goes on.
The Election will let the People speak.
Vote Yes on "H" & "I"

I am not Gloria, but I am very interested in meeting this intelligent woman. I find it pathetic of name calling. and yes Fillmore is very known of retalition. I am LOL and that is all, God Bless.

LOL, was it something I said that upset you? I know you want to keep things simple and not debate the issues, because if you did debate the issues instead of trying to discredit me, then the legal and financial risks of Measure I would need to be addressed. No one worried about whether or not it was "my town" (your words, not mine), after the 1994 earthquake when the City Council and city staff and I were working feverishly to put the town back together again. No one questioned my commitment to the community when I worked with the Veteran's Memorial District Board of Directors to keep the Memorial Building from closing its doors. No one questioned my commitment when I reduced management staff and took on additional job duties to allow the City to hire additional police officers to help make the community safer. No one questioned my commitment when I negotiated the purchase of the Towne Theater and obtained a $500,000 grant to help restore it after the earthquake. No one questioned my commitment when I obtained a $1.2 million grant to build a new city hall. No one questioned my commitment when I negotiated to bring the Fillmore and Western Railway to town. No one questioned my commitment when I obtained funds to build the bike paths through town. And lest I sound to self-serving, I could not have done any of this without the strong, dedicated and professional support of the management staff of the City who have proudly served this community for the past 15-20 years and who have taken great pride in what has taken place over the years to improve the community of Fillmore. Ask Gary Creagle about the $47,000 that the City granted to him to rebuild his buildings in downtown Fillmore, and ask the other property owners in the downtown about the monies the City to provided to help rebuild our downtown. Ask them if the City was committed to help "your town" (your term not mine). I am proud of what I and the city staff accomplished in the community and I will continue to argue for what I think is right. So in response to your demand that I "Bud OUT" (your words, not mine), my answer is....uh, no thanks.

Roy, save your breath. LOL can't think beyond the next issue of the National Enquirer. You did everything that you list for this town and more. Reasonable people realize that, the screaming hyenas will never get it. The only part of your last response I don't fully agree with is your evaluation of city staff as a whole. Yes, most are what you say, strong, dedicated and professional, but there is one bad apple in the city barrel and she's rotten. But she's not your concern any longer, you're not the city manager. Thank you for your service to our city.

Thanks, I appreciate your comments.

I notice you did not dispute my contention that you actually "endorsed" Ms. Washburn ("betterment").
The rest of the comments, conjectures, speculations and utter non-sense by all sides started with slinging out the word "Neanderthal". That's when I got involved. As a newcomer to Fillmore, I just assumed that was the common vernacular.
Then, despite my absence of ANY affiliation to ANY backers or candidates, I quickly found that I was allegedly part of a grandiose conspiracy and cabal, hell bent on undermining the City. And I responded with the same mentality, theories, speculation and conjecture.
You are absolutely justified in your repeated requests for "evidence" supporting all the accusations directed at you. And to your credit, the accusers just don't seem to have what it takes to back it up. Other than some "good ole' election year mud slinging bantering", I'm not going to directly accuse anybody of anything without a factual basis. That's just wrong.
Obviously, you don't like my voting opinions. In shaping those opinions, I repeatedly ask myself, Would Roy Payne want that development in his back yard ? Would Roy Payne want to pay those sewer rates ? Would Roy Payne want to pay the upper management pay increases, legal fees and Consultant fees ? Would Roy want that eminent domain experience ?
At some point towards the end of your career, you, as well as City Council and Government members are going to want to remove that "stoic set of business and government morals" that have been the tools and standards of your trade. Unfortunately, the moral dichotomy you will face, from years of belief that you can simply "switch" your morals to suit the occasion, is going to consume you, as you find the "switch" has broken.
I have no choice when voting Yes on Measures H & I, because I only have ONE Moral Compass. I don't have that magic "Not in my back yard" duplicitous switch, that the current City Council and Management seem to enjoy. And that's why I am also voting for a "clean sweep" of the place. When We the People make mistakes in our lives, WE pay for them. When YOU people make mistakes, WE pay for your mistakes. One would almost think you are perfect. Is that the case ? The Government's perfect ?

Who would "most likely" bring about a lawsuit if Measure I passes? And why?

Mmmmm. Seems the facts and material evidence are being publically brought to the front in these issues. However, it seems, also, that some people making these postings are either at odds with this material evidence, or at odds with the terminologies being presented, or at some odds with the confusion these postings are opting for. Seems Roy is desperately trying his best to prove these facts that are ambiguous in these issues and nobody is attempting to satisfy the proof with conclusion. I would certainly hope that no lawsuit is brought, when if at any extreme, an organized public hearing is made and those principals making all these comments herein, are present as well. I think Mr. Payne already made this proposal. This is just going around and around in circles. Please, either accept what Mr. Payne is telling...and I believe his statements as he has too much to lose if his statements are false...and quit all this fuming like the mountain outside Fillmore...getting bald, dark and smoky, probably for much ado about nothing!

Mr. Payne says possible lawsuit, Ms. Washburn says rubbish. Again, why should we expect a lawsuit if Measure I passes? And from whom? If I knew the answers I wouldn't ask the questions.

Hi Roy,it's me the Neanderthal.I think part of the problem with now you are perceived in town is the way you retired only to be rehired by the Neophyte you selected to replace you.It always looked a little shady to me and I'm not alone.I've noticed you share the same traits with 2 city council incumbents that also have no people skills,and also have an abrasive personality with the attitude of "I'm smarter than you and know whats best and how dare you question me" I just hope come November you and your Bobble Heads will be gone so our town can start to heal and get back to NORMAL without the division among us.BTW If you have any evidence that indicates that my name isn't Joe Friday, I sure would like to know about it.lol

Joe Friday,

It's funny that you bring up the issue of division in Fillmore even after a Fillmore City Council candidate that you support, Jamey Brooks, made the following statement during the city council oral communications forum on June 3rd 2008:

"Last year at this time, the city manager had sharply criticized my motives for being up here so I just want to make my motives crystal clear tonight. I have not come for peace, I have come with a sword. I HAVE COME TO CREATE DIVISION, if it doesn't exist, but I think division already exists."

If this is not FACT please let me know. If this statement was in fact made by Mr. Brooks, I would appreciate an explanation as to what exactly he meant and why. I'm sure Mr. Brooks will read this and if so I would appreciate clarification from Mr. Brooks himself. I'm confused.

Brooks & Washburn Won...... my Vote. They are the Peoples Choice. They are true individuals who listen to US. Vote for Washburn & Brooks for City Council.They will represent

"YOU"!!!!

You certainly are confused 524,you assume I'm supporting Mr.Brooks when in fact I never said that to you or anyone else.I might add that my post was directed to Roy Payne not you.I'm happy you finally got to use something from your blog archives,but sorry it doesn't pertain to me.If you're Roy's Wingman,maybe he should use someone a little sharper than you that doesn't confuse easily. I hope Mr. Brooks responds to you so you can put your mind at ease.

Thank you Mr. Friday, I look forward to Mr. Brooks' response.

Who would "most likely" bring about a lawsuit if Measure I passes? And why?

You have asked who would "most likely" bring a lawsuit if Measure I passes. The City Attorney has advised that "the City may be required to expend resources in litigation brought by a developer or other interested party seeking to have the Initiative (Measure I) declared invalid". In my opinion, and I am not an attorney, property owners who have been granted development rights by the City may bring a lawsuit to declare Measure I invalid. Property owners who will have their development rights reduced as a result of Measure I may sue for inverse condemnation, because of the devaluation of their property and a taking away of their private property rights. Affordable housing advocacy groups may bring a lawsuit because of loss of affordable housing and the inconsistency between the City's State adopted Housing Element and Measure I. The State may bring a lawsuit because of the inconsistency with the State adopted Housing Element. As I stated, I am not an attorney, but I have been working for local governments for over 40-years and dealing with land use issues, so I have gained some insight into the legal issues. Also, remember it is the City Attorney who has reviewed Measure I and stated that the City should be prepared to incur attorneys’ fees if a legal action is commenced challenging the validity of the Initiative.

Hi Joe, you are incorrect in your statement that I was rehired by the new City Manager. The City Council hired me as a consultant on June 29, 2005 at a public city council meeting before the new City Manager was even selected. I did not select the new City Manager, the City Council did. Regarding my people skills, I have been hired through an open and competive hiring process as an Assistant City Manager and City Manager in four different cities over the past 30-years and during that 30-years I have never been fired from any of those positions. If you no anything about city management you know it takes pretty could people skills to get a city manager job and even better people skills to keep your job.

Regarding your name, I could not find you in the Fillmore telephone directory, but if you maintain that is your real name, then so be it.

misspellchkr I went back and reread several of your previous posts and find it hard to believe that you are as you characterized yourself a "newcomer" to Fillmore. Your posts include several historical references (i.e. the historical reference regarding the "English Only" resolution)and your pronouncements regarding who I am and what I have accomplished seem to indicate that you have followed my career for some time. Either that, or you just natuarlly assume that whatever allegations are made must be true.

Regarding how you shape your voting opinions, I am flattered that you use me as your "moral compass", but it seems a little hypocritical and/or facetious when you allege that my moral compass has switched. I would suggest you read the facts about the legal and financial risks that passage of Measure I will bring as the basis for your voting opinions and not what Roy Payne would want.

Regarding what I would want let me answer the questions you have posed. Would Roy Payne want the development in his backyard, the answer is I would not mind it. The area next to where I live has a higher-density three-story development adjacent to it and I sleep very well at night. Would Roy Payne want to pay those sewer rates, the answer is no one wants to pay those sewer rates, but I believe the City did the best job it could given the circumstances to provide the most cost-effective way to address the requirements imposed on the City by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board and all of the hand-wringing and arm-waving about alternative cheaper systems is just speculation. Look at Santa Paula, they ended up going with the same membrane system that Fillmore selected; they ended up not using State financing, the same as Fillmore did; they ended up using a design-build bidding process, the same as Fillmore's process; and Fillmore's project is coming in under budget and on schedule, whereas Santa Paula's contractor is now being sued and their is concern that they may not meet their deadline for completion which brings with it additional fines and penalties. Would Roy Payne want to pay the upper management pay increases, legal fees and Consultant fees, the answer is it does not matter where you live or what city you live in, City's pay their management a competitive wage, city's incur legal fees and City's use consultants to assist with various projects. I have worked in local government for over 40-years in five different cities and these issues are constants and do not change. I conducted several cost-comparison studies when I was City Manager in Fillmore and each and every time it was determined that the City of Fillmore had the lowest cost per capita for General Fund expenses of any City in Ventura County. Translation -- Fillmore city management employees are not over paid and Fillmore taxpayers are receiving city services at a cheaper cost than surrounding cities. I also recruited for several management positions while I was Fillmore City Manager and very few (if any) Fillmore residents chose to apply. This tells me, their either were not qualified persons for the jobs, or the folks who had the qualifications did not feel the pay was competive enough to apply for the job. I believe the latter to be true. Those who believe they can come in and replace the experienced and qualified management staff that the City now has will be in for a big surprise. Gary Creagle did this when he took office in the 1980's he fired the City Manager and replaced him with a City Manager that he hand-picked. That City Manager (Stan Greene) did not live in Fillmore and Mr. Greene had to be terminated after 9-months because of sexual harrassment charges filed by several female city employees. Mr. Creagle also provided Mr. Greene with a lucrative contract that cost the City over $95,000 to buy him out after only 9-months of service.

Contrary to your assumption, my moral compass has not changed and I will continue to argue for the same things I have been arguing for over the last 20-years and that is to keep Fillmore as the "last best small-town in southern California. Neither you nor I can control the changes in the economic circumstances that the City has to address; the changes in environmental requlations that are imposed by government and advocacy groups; nor can we can control the increasing number of mandates that the State and Federal government continue to impose on small communities like Fillmore that do not have the financial resources to implement those mandates.

My experience with clean sweeps, is that they are costly, time consuming and all you get in the end is what you had in the first place, it just takes you longer and costs you more to get there.

Mr. Payne, thank you for answering my question. May I ask who owns the property in question, if you know? It seems the proponents of Measure I, which may reduce owners development rights, are a little like the Eminent Domain folks they criticize, who also "tell" owners what they are going to do with their property.

The properties with development entitlements belong to SunCal and John Reider. There are 100 acres in the North Fillmore Specific Plan belonging to twelve different property owners. I believe all of the property owners in the area are having their property rights tampered with by Measure I.

Thank you Roy Payne for this very enlightening information, I enjoyed reading every word of it. Fillmore is so blessed to have you. God Bless you.

Roy, you first brought up the "English Only Resolution". I typed into Google search "City of Fillmore English Only Resolution" and read an article form LA Times Sept. 4, 1999. From there it was just a simple matter of research. Also, I did a little more research on that "Creagle" guy. Wow! Talk about a close call... I was going to vote for that character !
As for "following your career", geeez Roy, 80% (my "projected" estimate anticipating more to come) of your posts are about Roy Payne's Career. Almost as if by a third person. Do you see the "dichotomy" concerns ? Also,you're reeeally out there on that statement "who I am and what I have accomplished seem to indicate that you have followed my career for some time". Are you suggesting a "stalking situation" ? Book writing deal ? ( Roy, you're not falling back into that "Smedley conspiracy paranoia" are you ?)
As for your statement , you "find it hard to believe that you are as you characterized yourself a "newcomer" to Fillmore", well I guess I should have stated that we did live here for a couple of years back in the early 80's. I also have a few acquaintances here. Other than that, and simply stated, it's called a COMPUTER/Search/City Council Minutes. (the "Official Version" of course. I can't seem to find or figure out why there aren't any Executive Session Minutes in there.) Also, are you implying that I am actually someone else ? What if I changed my name to...ummm...(thinking)..ummm... Alice! How about Alice ? Would you like that better ?
In all of your posts where, you repeatedly proclaim your achievements, it would appear as if you didn't get paid. Also, it appears as though you never made any mistakes. As for all that money you got for this and that, were those not taxpayers dollars ? Roy...That's called work.
In view of your seemingly perfect record and commitment to the current North Fillmore Plan, can you tell me one (1) bad, or maybe not so good part of that plan ? Just one single element of the plan. (as in the example given; "is it perfect"?)
Roy you state "Neither you nor I can control the changes in the economic circumstances that the City has to address; the changes in environmental regulations that are imposed by government and advocacy groups; nor can we can control the increasing number of mandates that the State and Federal government continue to impose on small communities like Fillmore that do not have the financial resources to implement those mandates."
I'll leave you now and you can quote me on this; "THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN "NOT" BE CHANGED, EXCEPT "THOSE" WHO REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT CAN NOT."

misspellchkr, I'm sorry but your rebuttal was weak, confusing, and raises concerns in the community about your own possible personal deep-seated aggression against the city of Fillmore and those whom have worked so hard and diligently for decades now not only to see to it that Fillmore remains Fillmore but to make sure we do not fail ecomically. Who are you really? Why are you hiding your real name in the first place? Coming clean with the public would certainly be appreciated and respected if you stopped hiding behind an anonymous name tag. Thank you.

misspellchkr, I am glad to see that you state you have been searching the City Council minutes to verify my information. That is what I suggested in my first blog response that you said first got you started on this issue. On my first blog response regarding Measure I, I said "Check out the facts yourself on the City of Fillmore website". Have you done so? Measure I is on the ballot, Measure I is the document that raises the concerns of legal and financial risk, not the current North Fillmore Plan. So since you support Measure I, can you tell how the facts cited on the City's website that clearly conclude that Measure I puts the City at legal and financial risk are in error? Or as you state, nothing is perfect, so can you tell me one (1) bad, or maybe not so good part of Measure I? Just one single element of Measure I? I have never said I am perfect, but I do stand behind my record of what I accomplished as City Manager and if I am in error about the accomplishments I have cited, please let me know.

Regarding your quote, I am not sure how it applies to my statement that "Neither you nor I can control the changes in the economic circumstances that the City has to address; the changes in environmental regulations that are imposed by government and advocacy groups; nor can we can control the increasing number of mandates that the State and Federal government continue to impose on small communities like Fillmore that do not have the financial resources to implement those mandates." My point was and is that the City has had to address a lot of issues they had no control over, such as state and federal regulations requiring planning for affordable housing, clean-water requirements requiring construction of a new sewer plant, etc. How would you suggest those requirements could have been changed by the City of Fillmore to eliminate those obligations. Change happens and changing change is not as simple as saying we can change anything if we believe. It takes hard work, dedication and more than just arm waving, finger pointing, fancy slogans, etc.

I will leave you with this quote "MEASURE I IF PASSED WILL PUT THE CITY AT RISK LEGALLY AND FINANCIALLY".

Mr. Payne, again, thanks for answering my question.

Five Two Four;... Honey, I know you are confused. Maybe you can answer this for me: "Who are you really? Why are you hiding your real name in the first place? Coming clean with the public would certainly be appreciated and respected if you stopped hiding behind an anonymous name tag." And yes, there will be a bonus and extra credit points for you, if you can correctly identify the person who said that.

Good grief! 42 comments on this letter. There's no way to respond to every issue covered in all of these comments, so I will just respond to the basic issues.

Lawsuits...as I’ve stated before, the lawsuit scare tactics are so hypocritical. I was given a document showing that the City has been engaged in 46 lawsuits while Mr. Payne was City Manager. Six of them are eminent domain actions.

I’m not an attorney but it is my understanding that the issues would be number of affordable homes not built in North Fillmore. That could be resolved by planning 52 more affordable homes elsewhere in Fillmore. The other issues would be inconsistency with the General Plan and Housing Element. It seems to me that those documents could be updated and amended. The City actually amends the General Plan with almost every development approval.

Then the developers with current entitlements: while I am not a lawyer, it is my understandig that to prove a "takings" that a reduction in density would cause, there has to be proof that another plan that is in compliance with the Initiative would not work. ["Diminished property values are considered incidents of ownership, and as long as there are some profitable uses remaining, the loss of a property's best use is not sufficient grounds to find a taking has occurred. (See Lingle, 544 U.S. at p. 538; Del Oro, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1080- 81.)]"

The project was never feasible at 700 homes anyway due to the high cost of the infrastructure.

What also concerns me is that there have been many anonymous postings on my blog (www.fillmoreblog.com) over the last couple of years using the exact same language and scare tactics about how Patti Walker’s actions “lead to lawsuits”. This may be a stretch but is Mr. Payne at the heart of the Friends of Fillmore or has he been politicking behind the scenes all these years against Patti? I believe that it is against Government Code for City staff or officials to engage in that behavior. And yes, Roy, you are still on the payroll via your retainer(and I hope you are not using that retainer time to campaign against H&I and myself and campaigning for Conaway and Cuevas). It certainly looks that way.

If you want to fear a lawsuit, fear the Sales Tax Agreement issue. While, at this moment, it may still be legal, the legislature and the affected cities consider it highly unethical. The complaint reads..."In August, 2008 the BOE determined that several of these sham offices were improper, reallocating almost $6.5 million in 4th Quarter 2007 sales taxes from Fillmore to the proper cities." Is "improper" the same as illegal? If it's not then maybe we can get that money back.

As far as PERC in a lawsuit, I can find no such article in the Star. Nor could I find any such filing in Ventura County Court records. So I need to see some proof of that allegation. In any event, Mr. Payne was not concerned about the many more lawsuits that American Water was involved in, which we brought to the City Council’s attention in 2006. If you Google “American Water” and “lawsuits” you get about 58,000 hits.

Gayle

Gayle, since you want to keep it brief, please document the 46 lawsuits including the 6 eminent domain actions that occurred while I was City Manager. It did not happen. After we clear that up, we will discuss how you came to the conclusion that the North Fillmore project was "never feasible at 700 homes" and how you made it feasible by reducing it to 350 homes.

I'll be waiting to see the response, as will everyone else reading this exchange. Washburn wrote, "I was given a document showing that the City has been engaged in 46 lawsuits while Mr. Payne was City Manager. Six of them are eminent domain actions". Such a firmly worded statement should be able to be supported with verifiable facts. And for the record one lawsuit mentioned 46 times is still ONE lawsuit, not 46 separate suits as your statement would lead reasonable people to believe. Same holds true for 6 eminent domain lawsuits. We've all seen the big expensive signs, yes it's an election year, and the E.D. card may play well to those that are not informed. Talk about playing to someone's fear!

I think I'll go water may lawn.

Steve Conaway

Mr. Payne,

As a concerned citizen and taxpayer,it's my hope the City of Fillmore is not footing the bill so you can play cyber blogger. you

Mr. Payne, you have repeatedly stated you have nothing to gain monetarily, which I do believe you, so why not let the voter's decide using their own judgment without the spin machine confusing facts and speculation.
I trust that the voters will make the right decision when it comes to Measure's H & I. I personally don't feel the voter need a 24/7 tutorial on Measures H and I with scare tactics as you and others in the community have been invoking.

Mayor Conaway and Cecilia Cuevas have adamantly stirred dire emotions when "lawsuits" were entered into discussion at previous meetings toward these measures. The city council did the right thing by send this to an election, but did the wrong thing by encouraging lawsuits.
a
It's my thought that elected officials (ie: Conaway and Cuevas) who encouraged their city government and perspective developers to sue the authors of Measure H and I,which are normal average citizens concerned about their community is not a democratic government, it's a form of dictatorship with massive repercussions.

My reservations towards 700 homes in N.Fillmore

- Traffic Congestion
- Air Pollution
- Noise Pollution
- High Density/Back Alley's
- The 700 home vision for N.Fillmore does nothing to address blight and crime.

- On the real estate side of the issue,we have sour Economy/ economic recession. High unemployment rate in Ventura County means there are few buyers/borrowers.

- Fillmore has a record number of foreclosures and REO's which have effected most neighborhoods in Fillmore. This all leads to blight which then tends to bring more crime and graffiti.This is not what Fillmore wants or needs.
The council in opinion should be addressing the blight problem instead of taking on a liberal approach to extreme growth.

Area's effected by foreclosures and REO's - Hometown- N.Fillmore
Traditions
River Oaks
River Walk
Surrey Way- Carriage Place

The sole intent of Measure H and I is to activate a vision of monitored, well planned growth.

The facts are really black and white when one seriously delves into the facts.

OPPONENTS of Measure's H and I are for EXTREME - STEROID GROWTH, 700 UNITS

PROPONENTS of Measure's H and I are for MONITORED,WELL PLANNED GROWTH, 350 UNITS

Please support Measure's H and I.

Brian N.Sipes
Small business owner/ Mortgage lender in Fillmore.

Question #1. Simply stated, and in "layperson" language, can a voter depend on a definition of the following, otherwise known as "Measure H", to wit;

"Shall Resolutions Nos. 08-3111: ‘Approving TTR 5679, Subject To Conditions Of Approval And Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program’, and 08-3112: ‘Approving DP 06-03, Subject To Conditions Of Approval And Mitigation And Monitoring And Reporting Program’ be repealed in their entirety?", As having the same meaning as, or roughly defined or construed within the constraints of, and with a hereby implied consent to waiver the need for waiver.....North Fillmore Plan ?
Question #2: What would be the result, product, or byproduct(s), of a "YES on Measure H" accompanied by a "NO on Measure I" ?

Roy,Are you telling me that Tom Ristau became our City Manager through an open and competitive hiring process? And you had nothing to do with giving the council your input? If I recall,you promoted Tom to a grant writing assistant Deputy City Manager (or whatever hat you weren't wearing at the time) after his failed efforts as Parks and Recreation Director(remember the DOOBIE BROTHER$ ? !) Parsing words and using semantics is what make Politicians seem shady and untrustworthy,is that what you're paid for? Do you charge billable hours for blogging? I will have to admit you had excellent people skills when you were Manager.It's only after you retired you reverted to name calling and acting smug. Disrespectful and ungrateful also comes to mind.Don't forget this town pays you dearly.

If someone wanted to spin, they'd print signs stating "stop eminent domain to stop hillside drive".

The Council did ask the right questions when the measures were being discussed in an open meeting concerning the legality of the measures and what risks, if any, the city may be required to face regardless of the outcome of the election. When legal counsel says that the city should expect to face legal challenges, that's a strong statement that Fillmore could be in for trouble. That should scare us all.

Speaking of "steriod growth", by limiting the number of homes to 350 in the area, another "gold rush" effect could be created. First landowners to pull permits for building stand to win out while other owners will be locked out. First come first served mentality. These growth limiting measures could create a faster buildout of the area. What about the landowners who are not part of the great "Sprint to 350"? What do you suggest they do with their land? How will your plan embrace change for them years down the road? What's your long range vision of them?

Steve Conaway

Hi Steve,

I beg to differ with you on your assumption that 350 units would bring a "Gold Rush" effect.

You previously stated;"These growth limiting measures could create a faster buildout of the area."

How in world did you come up with that? The number of units speak for themselves.

The decision we all must make is,do we desire 350 units or 700 units for N.Fillmore? Again, it's real simple to break down the rhetoric, 350 units is a balanced approach to development that could easily mesh well for N.Fillmore if it is properly planned and designed.It's easy to say what N.Fillmore residents want,let's put words into actions.This is why these measures are on the ballot in the first place.I grew up in N.Fillmore and know a lot of people who still reside there.These residents are firmly against this quandary of EXTREME-STEROID GROWTH that you and Cecilia Cuevas envision.
I believe their concerns are legit and since I grew up in N.Fillmore, I can relate on where they are coming from.

In my opinion I think "700 units" are basic code terms for EXTREME-STEROID GROWTH.

The voters are smarter than you might imagine Steve.

Brian,
The Measure states 1 to 5 per acre, 350 max. The land area is 100 acres. Up to 500 homes could be built if the first criteria is used, but the second restriction of 350 max overrides the measure. With 14 landowners don't you believe that the first landowners to pull permits and build the maximum under the measure stand to gain over the owners who wait to develop their property? Hence the "Sprint to 350".
Please explain what planning process the Measure supporters went through which points to the measure being "properly planned and designed"? Proper planning includes posted meetings open to the public. I do not believe the measure supporters held any such meetings. Do the measure supporters have a plan which clearly lays out building setbacks, building styles, road layout, parks, financing for common areas, utilities layout, infrastructure (drainage pipes) plans etc? It is clear to me that the effect is to limit growth verses "properly planned and designed" development.
Where in town do you support the construction of affordable units? Supporters of the Measures have said they can find other areas in Fillmore where Affordable units could be built. Where do you support building them?

Ultimately the voters will decide and elected officials will continue to do the work of the people.

Steve Conaway

Gayle, you asked for proof of the PERC lawsuit in Santa Paula, here it is:

Ventura County Star - October 1, 2008
Contractor sued over labor practices
Lawyer says Santa Paula water plant site 'like a slave labor camp'
By Carolyn Quinn
cquinn@VenturaCountyStar.com
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
A lawsuit alleging labor law violations was filed Tuesday in Ventura County Superior Court against the company building Santa Paula's water treatment plant.
The suit, which may be certified as a class action suit, was brought by an Arizona cement mason against Santa Paula Water Co.; Pacific Environmental Resources Corp.; the plant's primary contractor, Layton Construction; and a subcontractor, Advantage Concrete Placement.
The suit comes as the builders of the project, local labor unions and city officials are debating Pacific Environmental Resources' use of some out-of-state contractors, including Layton, a Utah corporation, and Phoenix-based Advantage, instead of local contractors. Pacific Environmental Resources is an Arizona corporation with offices in Arizona and California.
A protest by members of the Laborers' International Union Local 585 occurred Friday. More protests are expected at the project site all week, said City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz. "We're sad and concerned that what was meant to be a positive for the community has had these negative overtones having to do with labor," Bobkiewicz said. He said that because some tradesmen won't cross a picket line, protests could delay work on the plant, which must be running and meeting pollution standards by the end of 2010 for the city to avoid fines.
Former Advantage cement mason Andrew David Creel alleges he and others were paid the incorrect minimum prevailing wage, were not paid overtime and were made to alter timecards to get their paychecks. Creel was fired Friday after voicing opposition to Advantage's practices, said his lawyer, Ellyn Moscowitz.
"It's like a slave labor camp over there," Moscowitz said. "None of the workers got rest periods. None of the workers got paid overtime."
Moscowitz said out-of-state contractors' lack of knowledge of California state labor laws could have played a role. She said she believed local contractors submitted higher bids than Pacific Environmental Resources because they incorporated the greater labor costs the laws require. "Local contractors couldn't even fairly compete for this contract without breaking the law," she said. "It really is a case of fair competition for businesses."
The lawsuit seeks an award of all unpaid compensation, plus an unspecified amount of restitution and other damages.
Pacific Environmental Resources and Advantage officials could not be reached for comment late Tuesday. A Layton representative had no knowledge of the lawsuit.

Gayle, do you have any knowledge of any lawsuits being filed against American Water for the Fillmore WRP? Gayle do you have any explanation as to why Santa Paula decided to use an MBR system the same as Fillmore's? Gayle do you have any explanation as to why Santa Paula decided to use a design build bidding process the same as Fillmore's? Gayle do you have any explanation as to why Santa Paula decided to pass on the State Revolving Fund Loan program the same decision that Fillmore made?

It appears there are not many differences between the decisions made by the Fillmore City Council and the Santa Paula City Council on the design, bid process and financing mechanism for each cities new Sewer Plant, except that the contractor you advocated for (PERC) is involved in a lawsuit in Santa Paula. So maybe the Fillmore City Council made a good decision?

Does Mr. Sipes live in Fillmore? Brian?

Here you go...

www.fillmoreca.org/downloads/lawsuits.pdf

Geez, you guys have way too much time on your hands.

While the PERC diversion is entertaining, and I'll be happy to write further comments, it is still irrelevant to this discussion of Measures H & I.

I'll drink to that.

The Kool Aid that is Gayle, don't get any ideas.

Stop the dirty politics and tell me how you will make Fillmore better? All the cities around have an advantage over us in terms of sales tax revenues, shopping amenities, higher home values, job opportunities...? and the list goes on and on and on. Gayle, welcome to the real world. Measure I is a disaster and a disgrace for Fillmore. It will cost all the taxpayers in Fillmore dearly. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!!. Gayle, you mean good, but your ideas are going to bankrupt not only me and my family but our entire volatile town. Show some common sense and compassion for God's sake and just don't speak. Thanks.

Two things that concern me about what I've read here:

* Gayle, you suggest building low income housing somewhere else in Fillmore. If you had any experience at all about this sort of thing, you would know that NOBODY wants somebody else's low income stuff built in their neighborhood...it's the classic battle that occurs when this strategy is undertaken.

If you don't believe me, just ask your pal, Patty Walker...Some years ago, her own neighborhood's builder was required to build affordable housing...you shoulda seen her cry about how building them was gonna bring down the neighborhood! And that was affordable housing built in the development that required the housing be built...can you imagine trying to build somebody else's requirement in YOUR neighborhood! Think first, Gayle...there are no new battles here...

* Brian, you proudly claim that you are a citizen and a taxpayer... as I understand it, you are a citizen and taxpayer in OXNARD, are you not? Hey, I don't have a problem with you participating in discussions, but let's just keep it real here, eh? This question has been brought up a LOT, and to my knowledge, you have NEVER answered it...how about now?

Mr. Sipes:

Your suggestion that Mr. Payne is paid for his efforts to present factual data is pure fantasy. To accuse Councilmember’s Conaway and Cuevas of using scare tactics and encouraging affected parties to exercise their legal rights to sue for damages resulting from passage of Measures H & I is simply more of the same.

About scare tactics – what about yours:

-Traffic Congestion
- Air Pollution
- Noise Pollution
- High Density/Back Alley's
- The 700 home vision for N. Fillmore does nothing to address blight

Mr. Sipes, would you kindly explain why using “Traffic, Air, Noise, etc” are not scare tactics but the reality of lawsuits are?

The city has accurately presented the impact of Measures H & I: the likelihood of lawsuits against the city is high. Close to a million dollars of private money is invested in North Fillmore. To assume there will be no legal challenges goes beyond foolhardy. Are you and your concerned citizens going to pay the bill for defending your measures?

The long term (30 years?) N. Fillmore plan was well discussed – in public – for years and approved by your favorite councilperson: Patti Walker. Does she agree Conaway and Cuevas are using scare tactics by reporting the likelihood of lawsuits?

As a former councilman, I must point out the Council is obligated, I stress the word “obligated”, to inform the public of issues that could impact them. Some issues are “scary” but facts are what they are. Why do you insist facts are “scare tactics”?

What exactly does foreclosed and REO properties have to do with Measures H & I? Are you concerned because you don’t make money on new development but can on distressed properties?

Ken Smedley – average citizen actually living in Fillmore supporting common sense.

Roy, Your silence on Tom Ristau speaks volumes.

Sincerely,Joe