Is this a "special project"?

There is a lively discussion going on at http://www.fillmoregazette.com/

One of our readers left this comment recently...

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The fleecing continues...": from fillmoregazette---"missplechkr, thank you forSubmitted by Roy Payne on Fri, 10/10/2008 - 11:10am.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---"

what say you?"

and here is my response...

"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 (http://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 so, maybe we can get that money back. But we'll probably have to have a lawsuit to get it 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