Obamanation - Nobel Award

Kenyan born Barak Hussein Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for his beauty queen like retoric and for being less forceful and persuasive than the Presidents of the United States were.

Any references to the products that lead to the vast wealth of Alfred Nobel are being used as an excuse to censure critics of both Obama and the prize committee.

Supporters of Obama were stunned by the fact they now had to come up with excuses for the award, knowing the entire farce would emphasize this administrations failings.

Obamanation

I am searching for the words taht lead to the censorship.

Editorial denied

Attempts to publish an editorial about the peace prize have been blocked by the owners of this blog today. This is an attempt to notify the public of the censorship.

People Prefered

Preferred stocks, first mortgages, senior debentures, and other instruments are used to give certain owners of an asset prior claim over other interested parties.

It is time that retirement investors be given Preferred status over other investors such as insurance companies, banks, and foreign governments.

Companies issuing senior preferred stock to individual investors would have to subordinate all other claims to assets to the good Americans who work hard and are saving for their retirements.

The reason there is so much resistance to defined contribution benefit plans is because the small investor assumes far more risk than institutional investors.

We the People should be the last to loose when houses of cards come crashing down.

-RJM

Why Complication?

Why is the savings system in America so complicated.

Banks and investment houses use the complicated tax code to create "investment vehicles" like Roth IRA'S or Keogh plans. This is done by supporting politicians.

Politicians have a thousand different ways you can become their friend. Campaign contributions, jobs for relatives, donations to their favorite think tank, hire them to give a speech, buy their book (tens of thousands of copies at a time), put them in a movie, etc.. , etc... , etc... !

With a new and complicated vehicle of your devising in the tax code, you can charge people to show them how to use it properly. If someone else tries, make sure you point out to the IRS exactly where they failed to dot an i or cross a T.

Savings Simplication would let you save without sending everyone else's kids to college, and without the worry of the IRS sending you to prison as part of some investment banks business plan.

-RJM

Its about the Retirement Stupid - Savings Simplification

Americans don't care about investments. What they care about is retirement.

After all we have let the whole investment system evolve into a way to lessen taxes on our retirement nest egg. We don't invest so that we can buy our next car, nor do we invest to have money for medical emergencies, nor do we invest to save for a down payment on a home.

No, we invest to support ourselves when we retire.

Unfortunately the whole system has become way too complicated. IRA's, Roth IRA,s, Keogh Accounts, Family Banks, LLC's, Trusts, the list goes on and on.

Do we have this complexity because our needs are so different, or is it designed to support the army of investment consultants, tax specialists, accountants, and lawyers we have to consult, and pay, to avoid having the government strip us of our hard earned dollars.

DNN will be exploring this subject - Savings Simplification - and would like to here your ideas on the subject.

-RJM

Behind The Green Door

Want to see that the tyranny Del Norte people face is universal in America? Watch this great video on Google.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7934453684194357754

You may need to "cut" the whole link and "paste" it into your browser to make it work.

Team Time!

Your Participation is Critical!

Liberty and Freedom are under constant erosion from the simple weight of government and the tendency of our government employees to narrow their focus. Preserving and strengthening Liberty and Freedom are the rightful role of citizens in a pluralistic republic.

To be effective, in the honorable business of husbanding Liberty and Freedom, concerned citizens must organize and form coalitions with good people who share the same concern you have for the culture, traditions, values, and heritage, of free women and men.

Just a few years ago Project 20/20 was initiated by Del Norte residents who united as the Friends of the Lakes. By forming coalitions with PFUSA, Lake Earl Grange, Stewards of the Range, PSHOA, Frontiers of Freedom, and The California State Grange Environmental Affairs Committee, they have educated the community, prevented government agencies from acting without understanding, and prevented some erosion of freedom and liberty in Del Norte County.

But, it is time to make the effort to really become effective, by educating as many interested people as we can find in more effective ways to work as a team on common goals.

Project 20/20 managed to enact County Empowerment in Del Norte County. It is time that we used this tool more effectively. One step in using our power is to learn what others are doing also.

The Stewards of the Range are offering us an opportunity to meet and learn from Fred Kelly Grant in a seminar in Yreka, California on February 16-17, 2007. For al the information see their website at: http://www.stewards.us/emailings/StewardsemailYrekawebview.html

Attendance is highly recommended.

Another important ally in the struggle is PSPOA. Take the time to read their side of a story The Daily Triplicate manipulates and mangles on a weekly basis: http://www.pspoa.org/

And, of course, the backbone organization regaining ground through participation and private community action. The most dynamic place in Del Norte county for youth and family activities: The one and only Lake Earl Grange. See what is happening on the real frontiers of freedom: http://www.legrange.net/

With two new Supervisors now in office we have a great chance to stand up and be recognized. As simple an action as clicking on the LEG website gives us a number that can be used to show the depth of our audience and our supporter’s interest.

Be a team player for liberty and freedom in 2006, 2020, and forever, support the people who are working for all of us.

COVER UP

COVER UP – Del Norte County Sued:
Triplicate fails to report it!

The Daily Triplicate continues to shield public officials from scrutiny.

http://www.legrange.net/id104.html contains the text of the lawsuit charging Del Norte County with violating the California Constitution and withholding taxes collected for Pacific Shores.

Del Norte County, lead by radical environmentalists on the Board of Supervisors and in the County Planning Department, has attacked Pacific Shore’s families in a long battle intended to deprive them of their home sites.

The Triplicate consistently fails to report the situation accurately.

Today it used the term “platted” to describe Pacific Shores: implying it is a subdivision on paper only. This ignores the roads, utilities, homes, and associations that prove Pacific Shores is a legitimate entity.

The County of Del Norte, as an agent of The State of California, is engaging in terror as a policy. Flooding, prosecution, permit denial, deceit and half-truths have become business as normal in our little County, but you won’t hear about it in the Daily Triplicate.

Why 90 is Needed Here!

Del Norte County is withholding the funds used by Pacific Shores to work for the fair resolution of the issues at Pacific Shores. Prop 90 would allow the owners to get into court and get a fair settlement for their loss.

We are publishing the following letter to show the feelings most Pacific Shores owners have toward the Water District and the County.

This is not the view you are fed by the local newsgroup.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An open letter to the people of Del Norte County from the President of the Pacific Shores Property Owners Association.
PSPOA represents the property owners in Pacific Shores, especially their property rights.

On August 8, 2006 the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to withhold the payment to the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District in the amount of $225,000 in tax money due the District.

PSPOA is not the Water District, we pay our taxes to the District.


On October 10, 2006, the President of the Pacific Shores Subdivision California
Water District met with the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors to appeal the Boards decision of August 8, 2006 to withhold payment of funds in the amount of $225,000 owed to the Water District from Chapter 8 sales in their District that were sold to the State of CA. (These were tax defaulted lots in the subdivision and were withheld from public auction and sold to the state.)


The results of the Supervisors Meeting on October 10, 2006, we are not giving the District their $225,000. Instead they discussed some type of plan that would ask the 858 property owners to swap their deeds on their ½ acre lots for some type of timeshare on a 10 acre parcel (sounds like what they discussed, I haven’t seen the plans yet maybe just
an idea thought of on the toilet, who knows?).

First and foremost, let it be known to everyone, no discussions by PSPOA of any plan will be discussed until the $225,000 plus interest is in the bank account of the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District. PSPOA started the Water District in 1987 to help fund all the studies required by all the agencies and to this very day we support them 100 %.

PSPOA also wrote to the Board of Supervisors on October 9, 2006 appealing the decision
made at the August 8, 2006 Board meeting to withhold the Water District Funds.

Zero, notta, none of our appeal was written up in your local newspaper why?

So now, it can be read on your site: thank you
It reads in part:

It is the opinion of PSPOA that the Del Norte County Board of Supervisiors is reading
The CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13 TAXATION SEC.32 BACKWARDS

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13 TAXATION SEC.32.
Legal or equitable process to prevent prohibited.
No legal or equitable process shall issue in any proceeding in any court against this State
or any officer thereof to prevent or enjoin the collection of any tax. After payment of a
Tax claimed to be illegal, an action may be maintained to recover the tax paid, with interest, in such manner as may be provided by the legislature.

Conclusion: pay the amount due the PSSCWD (a state agency) now plus interest.
If the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors feels that the District tax claim is illegal feel free to pursue the second part of the Constitution. After payment of a tax claimed to be Illegal, an action may be maintained to recover the tax paid, with interest, in such manner as may be provided by the legislature.

One recommendation that was suggested at the August 8, 2006 meeting of the Del Norte
Board of Supervisors, was that the Supervisors should hold the Districts money until a
Court of law made a decision on the withheld chapter 8 money. The PSPOA agrees with
this recommendation and will demand that the PSSCWD go straight to the District Attorneys office if necessary.

Property owners in Del Norte County, don’t panic by what you read in the newspaper. If
I make a comment to the newspaper, after I read it, I think that the opposition wrote it.
When a paper says they have the right to edit, you are doomed.


Thank for your support


Thomas W. Resch
President, PSPOA

My Bio: I’m the person that breached the lake in 1994 when our properties were flooded, had five federal agents come to my house with guns and a search warrant for PSPOA records. Had to pay a $5000.00 fine for protecting the property of others and do 18 months probation. And your County wants to keep our tax money and cut us a deal. What do you think?

VOTE Yes on Prop 90!

Help Solve Del Norte County Citizens Biggest Problem: VOTE Yes on Prop 90!

Anyone can become an abused property owner in California. Del Norte County has at least two subdivisions with roads, power, and other services that are being destroyed by officials abusing their eminent domain powers.

Prop 90 scares the bejesus out of the corrupt officials who prey on home and landowners in order to line their own pockets either through corruption or the advancement of their careers.

Proposition 90 does not redress the losses people suffered in the past, but it does protect those of you who have not been through the pain of seeing your personal economic security lost through eminent domain abuse.

A vote for prop 90 is a vote to protect your home and your peace of mind.

http://www.90yes.com/

Lame Goose Supervisor Attacks Pacific Shores

HELP HELP HELP

I don't know why I didn't get this to you sooner BUT HERE IT IS
Best regards,
ALT
A JEM FOR YOU

-------Original Message-------

From: Armand L. Trinitapoli
Date: 08/30/06 22:18:01

Subject: URGENT & IMPORTANT PLS REVIEW & CONSIDER BEFORE TMWR's LAFCO Mtg / ALT


ALT

PACIFIC SHORES WATER DISTRICT

Partners With The Environment



Duane Bruce Smith, President

13220 Southport Lane 170-F, Leisure World, CA 90740

(562) 799-1134 e-mail: PSSCWD@netscape.com



Del Norte Local Agency Formation Commission August 26, 2006
Attention: Darren McElfresh, EO
508 H Street, Suite 2
Crescent City, CA 95531
(707) 465-0836 telephone
(707) 464-1881 fax

Via Email: darren@charterinternet.com



Re: August 28, 2006 Agenda Items A,B,C,D and All issues regarding the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD)



The California Water District, respectfully requests that any reorganization, dissolution, proposed change in the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District or boundaries or thereof be DENIED.



A. 1:The Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District has not received any of the proper notices from the Del Norte Board of Supervisors as required by law.



2:The Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District has not received any of the proper notices regarding the above agenda from LAFCO as required by law.



B. ISSUES RAISED In the Del Norte Board of Supervisors Resolution 6002-061



1. Sarah Samples claims that “the Pacific Shores Subdivision has been in existence for some 42 years and continues to be without a County-approved specific plan or use permit.” She apparently misses the point, that it is the responsibility of the Del Norte Board of Supervisors to prepare and approve that plan. It does show that the delays in developing the Pacific Shores Subdivision are caused by the Board of Supervisors not PSSCWD.



2. That “only one development permit has ever been issued,” however, there were four other residences built in the district prior to that. It is also the responsibility of the county, not the PSSCWD to handle planning and development issues.



3. That the only improvements are the streets and roads. That also is not true, there are also existing power and telephone services.



4. That the “subdivision lot owners have paid “substantial annual assessments

special taxes to the Water District.” The truth is that they paid substantially less than it would have cost them to drill a well – which they would have had to do if it were left to the county to provide water. When it comes to money, it should be noted that while the PSSCWD has been working to provide water and sewage facilities in order to facilitate development, Del Norte County has collected their regular taxes from the property owners in Pacific Shores since 1964 without providing any services or benefits to the property owners whatsoever.



5. That “the Pacific Shores Subdivision has not prepared a Local Coastal Plan for the Pacific Shores subdivision.” Once again, Samples is blaming the PSSCWD for something the Board of Supervisors should have been doing and again illustrating how the Board of Supervisors’ failure to perform their duties is holding up development in the PSSCWD.



6. Amazing! One thing is correct. The PSSCWD has spent virtually all its funds over the years on legal fees, and environmental studies. But again she gets it wrong. Progress has been made and environmental issues are being resolved. These issues often do take a long time. The new privately funded Indian Casino development has had similar problems and delays.



7. Samples further claims “the County of Del Norte has received many dozens if not hundreds of complaints about Water District special taxes from Pacific Shores lot owners.” This is pretty ridicules considering that the lot owners implemented and approved those assessments themselves. We request from the Board of Supervisors a list of those lot owners who have complained so we might address their issues. There has never been a complaint from a lot owner forwarded to the PSSCWD from the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors.



8. That “literally hundreds of lots have gone into tax-default, causing the owners to lose their equity.” There is no evidence or anything else to suggest that any of the tax-defaults resulted from the Water District special tax rather then that the owners simply passed on intestate.



9. That “the draft LAFCO Municipal Services Review has been available for the Water District to comment upon or supplement since May 2005, and the district has not done so.” The person who was apparently contacted by LAFCO is no longer on the Board of Directors. We will investigate this matter.





C. The Exhibit B “Plan for Provision of Services within the Territory Currently Within the Boundaries of the Pacific Shores Subdivision Water District”



This plan provided by the Del Norte Board of Supervisors does not offer a better plan to the lot owners. The only thing it does, is to ensure that the property owners will never be able to build on their lots.



D. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS


The Del Norte county Board of Supervisors have withheld entitlements that should have been distributed to the PSSCWD. They are holding the funds hostage asking LAFCO to determine the disposition of those funds.



The Board of Supervisors does not have the authority to withhold the entitlements and LAFCO does not have any jurisdiction over them.



We request a statement from LAFCO directing the Board of Supervisors to immediately transfer the funds to the PSSCWD.



Respectfully yours,





Bruce Smith, President

By



Antoinette B. Seydoux, Secretary



Pacific Shores Property Owners Association
16026 Wyandotte Street, Van Nuys, CA 91406

Phone: (818) 780-0200 Fax: (818) 997-1771

Thomas W. Resch, President



Del Norte Local Agency Formation Commission August 26, 2006
Attention: Darren McElfresh, EO
508 H Street, Suite 2
Crescent City, CA 95531
(707) 465-0836 telephone
(707) 464-1881 fax

Via Email: darren@charterinternet.com



Re: August 28, 2006 Agenda Items A,B,C,D and All issues regarding the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD)





As a property owner and representative of the other property owners within the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District, I respectfully request that any reorganization, dissolution, proposed change in the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD) or boundaries thereof be DENIED.



The Pacific Shores Subdivision was officially formed and zoned a “Planned Community” around 1964. Many of the present lot owners purchased their lots at that time for a considerable amount of money.



If fully developed, the Pacific Shores Subdivision would generate about $6,000,000.00 in annual property tax revenues for Del Norte County.



The Del Norte County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) continuously refused to do anything to assist the property owners in the development of their properties. It was because of this lack of action by the Board of Supervisors, that eventually the property owners themselves created the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District in order to pay for the costs of the required studies before any water or sewer system would be approved in the Pacific Shores Subdivision.



The Pacific shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD) is the only agency that has made any efforts to assist the property owners in the development of their properties.



As for the prospect of the Del Norte Board of Supervisors controlling the development of the properties, it is interesting that the very people who have been creating roadblocks and withheld assessments and entitlements that should have been distributed to the PSSCWD would claim to be interested in providing utility services or the development of the district. Particularly when several of the originators are personally involved with groups pressuring property owners to sell their properties for a great deal less than the property would be worth without them creating those obstacles to the development of the properties. Through their activities they have persuaded many PSSCWD property owners to sell their lots at $50,000.00 to $150,000.00 less than they should have received for them. They are

described as Willing Sellers by the County and State Agencies.



I. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED NOTICE


The Del Norte Board of Supervisors have failed to provide any of the notifications required by the California Government Code including, but not limited to:

1. The Executive Officer, at least 21 calendar days prior to the date set for hearing, gives notice by (56150-56157, 56300f, 56600, 56661):

A. Publication in a newspaper of general circulation;

B. Posting on the LAFCO Web Site and near the door of the hearing room (56300f, 56661); and

C. Mailing to each affected agency which contains territory or whose sphere of influence contains territory within the proposal, chief petitioner(s), persons requesting notice, each city within three miles, and the county in the case of incorporation or formation.

D. Mailing to the proponents, each person requesting special notice, the county clerk (for incorporations), and each affected local agency (by giving notice to each elected local official, each member of the governing body, and the executive officer of the agency) (56661a).

E. Mailing to the Director of Forestry (for annexations to or formation of a fire protection district in a state responsibility area), the Director of Conservation (for annexation of agricultural preserves to a city), and the Executive Officer and LAFCO members of adjoining counties (for changes of organization in more than 1 county) (56661f).

Mailing to all registered voters and property owners, as shown on the most recent assessment roll, within the affected area and 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the proposal.



56661. To the extent that the commission maintains an Internet Web site, notice of all public hearings shall be made available in electronic format on that site. The executive officer shall also give mailed notice of any hearing by the commission, as provided in Sections 56155 to 56157, inclusive, by mailing notice of the hearing or transmitting by electronic mail, if available to the recipient, to all of the following persons and entities:

(a)To each affected local agency by giving notice to the legislative body and the executive officer of the agency.

(d)If the proposal is for any annexation or detachment, or for a reorganization providing for the formation of a new district, to each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed, detached, or formed into a new district.

(g)If the proposal would result in the annexation to a city of land that is subject to a contract executed pursuant to the Williamson Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 51200) of Division 1), to the Director of Conservation.

(h)To all landowners within the affected territory pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (d) of Section 56157.

(i)To all registered voters within the affected territory pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (f) of Section 56157.



56658. (a) Any petitioner or legislative body desiring to initiate proceedings shall submit an application to the executive officer of the principal county. (b) (1) Immediately after receiving an application and before issuing a certificate of filing, the executive officer shall give mailed notice that the application has been received to each interested agency and each subject agency, the county committee on school district organization, and each school superintendent whose school district overlies the subject area. The notice shall generally describe the proposal and the affected territory.



56628 (2) (e) The executive officer shall not accept an application for filing and issue a certificate of filing for at least 20 days after giving the mailed notice required by subdivision



56660. The executive officer shall give notice of any hearing by the commission by publication, as provided in Sections 56153 and 56154, and by posting, as provided in Sections 56158 and 56159.

II. LACK OF JURISDICTION


According to The California Association of LAFCOs, or CALAFCO:



“LAFCOs do not regulate boundaries for counties and the following local governments:

· Community facilities districts (Mello-Roos districts)

· Improvement districts

· Metropolitan water districts

Special assessment districts”


III. FAILURE TO PAY FEES


The Del Norte Board of Supervisors apparently failed to provide any funds in their resolution for the payment of fees. The proposal lacks processing deposit and cost reimbursement acknowledgment. Who paid the LAFCO processing fees?



IV. DEFECTS IN APPLICAT’S PLAN (EXHIBIT B)


An agency originating a reorganization is required to provide a plan as specified in the Government Code §56653 (attached).



A. The “Plan” proposed by the Del Norte Board of Supervisors as “Exhibit B” in Resolution 2006-061 (attached) is severely defective and fails to meet the requirements of GC §56063. The Plan states that the Board of Supervisors:


1. Does NOT have ANY “feasible plan for providing potable water and wastewater treatment services critical to the development of the individual lots in the Pacific Shores Subdivision.”
2. It fails to provide any detailed plans for construction or engineering or environmental reports necessary to construct a water system.
3. The Board of Supervisors have not provided any money or financing for implementing improvements within the PSSCWD.
4. Del Norte County lacks any experience providing or managing a water system. It was necessary for the Crescent City Municipal Water System to provide water service in the county to the Bertsch-Ocean View, Meadow Brook and Church Tree Districts of the county as well as the Pelican Bay State Prison, because the county lacked funds and the ability to do so.
5. Fails to provide the timely availability of an adequate water supply.


In other words, the Board of Supervisors plan is no plan at all, other than to dissolve the PSSCWD.


There are actually quite a few methods of providing water and waste disposal for the PSSCWD. However, the Board of Supervisors has never investigated them because their only interest is dissolving the PSSCWD so they can prevent property owners from using the new technology to develop their lots.


B. Regarding the Tax Default properties, I personally researched many of the tax-defaulted properties in the Pacific Shores Subdivision. The majority of them ended up defaulted because the owners died (without heirs) waiting for Del Norte County to provide the infrastructure necessary for them to develop their retirement homes. Many of those lots were defaulted prior to the creation of the PSSCWD. To make matters worse, Sarah Samples, as Tax Collector, held them hostage for five years and then refused to allow them to be sold at a tax auction at which there were many people from as far away as Los Angeles specifically to purchase those lots.


C. The Board of Supervisors mistakenly refers to the puddles formed within the PSSCWD during the rainy season as “wetlands”. They do not meet the new definition of “Wetlands” Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006), which represents some of the most highly anticipated changes in the Clean Water Act. Obviously, the Board of Supervisors was not interested in legal decisions that might help develop these properties.



D. The Board goes on to suggest there are sensitive species and habitats within the district. They fail to provide any supporting documentation. They fail to mention that the Board of supervisors annihilated what little there may have been, by raising the breach level thereby flooding their habitat and killing them.



E. Developing a “consolidated area”. Yea, I heard this one before. They have promised for years to provide a land exchange, but never came up with a viable plan to do so. Show us the detailed approved plans first!



F. Campgrounds. Many of the current owners of lots within the PSSCWD have purchased them to be used as recreational sites until they can be developed. I see no reason why they would want to exchange their nearly one acre lots for a crowded, tiny time share facility they have no intentions of building.



G. The Board of Supervisors further want the owners of property within the PSSCWD to only “explore” the development of a campground. Again, the Board of Supervisors provides no studies or other data in support of this whimsical proposal. There are no studies or detailed plans EIRs or CEQA reports.



H. The Board of Supervisors and County of Del Norte have no experience in developing or operating a beachfront campground.



I. The Board of Supervisors claim that “Del Norte County has no other RV-friendly, beachfront campground.” Apparently they are ignorant of the Harbor RV Anchorage on Starfish Way, or the facility on Sunset Circle in Crescent City. Or perhaps they do not realize Crescent City is within the county of Del Norte.



J. It is pretty obvious from their proposal that the only plan the Board of Supervisors has is to destroy the only agency that is working toward the development of the PSSCWD properties so they can force the property owners to sell their land for practically nothing. Again they use the term Willing Sellers!



K. Maps of the proposed change of organization provided fails to meet the current requirements of the Del Norte LAFCO or the State Board of Equalization.


L. CEQA – There is none of the required CEQA information provided.



M. EIR – There is none of the required EIR information provided.



N. CCC – There is no approval by the California Coastal Commission for plan.



O. The Board of Supervisors fails to State whether the proposal is consistent with or within the spheres of influence for any affected city or district and include evidence which addresses the factors that LAFCO considers in reviewing changes of organization; and



P. The Board of Supervisors Ordinance 2006-061 and the included Plan “Exhibit B” propose two different and mutually exclusive objectives. One being the creation of a new development district and another that is only the elimination of the current water district. Which are they really proposing???



V. CONSIDERATIONS

DEL NORTE COUNTY LACKS THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP PSSCWD


Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: (GC§56668. attached).



1. The County of Del Norte has been having financial problems and has even been forced to close the County offices on Fridays because of lack of funds.



2. It should further be noted that the petitioner (Board of Supervisors of the County of Del Norte) have continuously failed to provide required county services to the properties in PSSCWD for over 60 years.



3. The Board of Supervisors has failed to maintain the public roads within the PSSCWD.



4. The County of Del Norte, under the direction of the Board of Supervisors has applied for and collected state funds for the maintenance of 27 miles of roads within the Pacific Shores Subdivision. The maintenance work was not done and the roads have been allowed to deteriorate to a nearly unusable condition.



5. The Board of Supervisors has failed to provide maintenance for the roadway drainage system within the PSSCWD causing flooding that endangered the lives of those living within the Pacific Shores Subdivision.



6. The Board of Supervisors has failed to provide tree and vegetation trimming along the roadways within the PSSCWD allowing trees and brush to grow onto the roadways making many of the public roads impassable.



7. The Board of Supervisors has failed to provide protection from flooding within the PSSCWD that they themselves created by raising the level of Lake Earl and Lake Talawa.



8. The Board of Supervisors has failed to take any action to prevent flooding in the Pacific Shores Subdivision Planned Community.



9. The Board of Supervisors has failed to comply with Government Code §65580-65581 by not working with the PSSCWD to promote development of the properties.



VI. HOUSING ASSESSMENT


There is no provision for creating accommodations for replacing the homes that would have been built in the Pacific Shores Subdivision. On the contrary, the proposed “Plan” (attached) of the Del Norte Board of Supervisors is solely to eliminate a 1,200 unit subdivision contrary to the purpose of developing housing.



The elimination of housing in one area only forces it into another. The long term effect of eliminating the Pacific Shores Subdivision will ultimately be the development of other agricultural or open space lands.



Government Code

56001. The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state to encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well-being of the state.



65580. The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.



65580. (d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.



VII. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST



There is a significant conflict of interest when Sarah Samples, Leslie McNamer and Martha McClure (Alternate) County Members of the LAFCO Board and the Board of Supervisors, who are directly involved with those attempting to purchase the properties for substantially less than they would be worth without their interference.



A. Leslie McNamer – LAFCO County Member & Member of the Board of Supervisors should be recused because she is related by marriage to the petitioner Carolyn Tweed who is her sister-in-law. This also casts doubt on the validity of the proceedings of the Del Norte Board of Supervisors, on which she sat and voted for this matter in total disregard of the impropriety.

B. Sarah Samples – LAFCO County Member & Member of the Board of Supervisors, as Tax Collector, withheld properties within the PSSCWD from being offered for sale at public tax auction for more than the five year period permitted by law (R&T 3691). She also removed tax-defaulted properties within the PSSCWD from being offered for sale at a public tax auction that would have put them back on the tax rolls so that she could sell them to her friends in the Smith River Alliance. This also delayed collecting assessments and eventually eliminated the assessment revenues that should have been generated by those properties thereby diminishing the financial base for the development of the area and depriving the county of future tax revenues that would have been generated by the fully developed properties.

C. One person listed their Assessors Parcel Number on their petition. We are not sure if they own property in Pacific Shores or not. All names must be certified by the county’s assessors office before any action can be taken. None of the plaintiffs listed by the Board of Supervisors have been certified to be property owners as required by GC §56710. They should also be required to disclose their relationship to any of the proponents as in GC §56700.1.



D. All of the proponents, members of LAFCO or members of the Board of Supervisor should be required to disclose all expenditures for political purposes related to a change of organization or reorganization proposal that has been submitted to the commission, and contributions in support of or in opposition to those measures reported to the same extent and subject to the same requirements as provided for local initiative measures to be presented to the electorate. GC §56700.1.



Very truly yours,

Thomas W. Resch
Thomas W. Resch

President, PSPOA



TWR:jm



CC: PSSCWD
PLAN REQUIREMENTS

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

56653. (a) Whenever a local agency or school district submits a resolution of application for a change of organization or reorganization pursuant to this part, the local agency shall submit with the resolution of application a plan for providing services within the affected territory. (b) The plan for providing services shall include all of the following information and any additional information required by the commission or the executive officer:

(1) An enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the affected territory.

(2) The level and range of those services.

(3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory.

(4) An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed.

(5) Information with respect to how those services will be financed.



STANDARDS OF REVIEW

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE

56668. Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

(a) Population and population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years.

(b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; probable effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas. "Services," as used in this subdivision, refers to governmental services whether or not the services are services which would be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and includes the public facilities necessary to provide those services.

(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county.

(d) The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development, and the policies and priorities set forth in Section 56377.

(e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Section 56016.

(f) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.

(g) Consistency with city or county general and specific plans.

(h) The sphere of influence of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal being reviewed.

(I) The comments of any affected local agency.

(j) The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services which are the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for those services following the proposed boundary change.

(k)Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in Section 65352.5 (as required by GC §56668S).

(l) The extent to which the proposal will affect a city or cities and the county in achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing needs as determined by the appropriate council of governments consistent with Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7.

(m) Any information or comments from the landowner or owners.

(n) Any information relating to existing land use designations.





Del Norte Board of Supervisors - Exhibit B



PLAN FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES WITHIN THE TERRITORY CURRENTLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PACIFIC SHORES SUBDIVISION CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT



This plan is attached to and made a part of the Board of Supervisors’ Resolution adopted pursuant to Government Code section 56654, applying to the Del Norte County Local Agency Formation Commission for a change of organization dissolving the Water District.



The Board of Supervisor accepts that there does not appear to be a feasible plan for providing potable water and wastewater treatment services critical to the development of the individual lots in the Pacific Shores Subdivision. As evidence for this, it appears that the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District has acquired and expended millions of dollars and initiated a variety of technical studies, none of which have ever reached a positive conclusion. Nor have these studies even been finalized. Hundreds of lot owners have lost their property due to tax-default and hundreds of others have elected to sell their lots to the State of California.



The Board aspires to a positive vision, tempered with realism, for the Pacific Shores Property. In addition to the infrastructure limitation described above, the subdivision is a mosaic of wetlands in the wet winter months and contains a number of sensitive species and habitats. However, we believe that it may be productive to explore the possibility of development concentrated in on consolidated area of the property. This development may be seasonal or year-round and might consist of a time-shared recreational vehicle park or dry season campground. Potable water may be brought to the site and sewage waste would likely have to be contained and hauled to proper disposal site.



Because National and State Park campgrounds are generally full during the summer, we anticipate that this venture could provide willing lot owners in Pacific Shores the opportunity to trade their lots for an interest in the facility. Additionally, the County would be in a position to seek the funding from outside sources to conduct necessary feasibility and technical studies.



This idea would need to be explored with all stakeholders and permitting agencies. The County would be willing to facilitate the exploration of this idea, which we see as the most positive and mutually beneficial alternative to the mirage of subdivision consisting of individually developed lots.

Defeatism - by Oliver North

As Published on SOLDIER OF FORTUNE's website

www.sofmag.com

Printable version

"DEFEATISM"

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." -- Winston S. Churchill

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sir Winston delivered that line in the House of Commons on May 13 1940, in his first address as Prime Minister. As he was speaking, the French and British armies were reeling from Hitler's onslaught through neutral Belgium. It's a good thing Churchill didn't have "war heroes" like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., in Parliament. Otherwise Great Britain might have been compelled to surrender at Dunkirk.

Regrettably, Messer's Kerry and Murtha are but the most visible and strident members of an increasingly ambitious cult of catastrophe. Though they claim to "support the troops," this is no "loyal opposition." Instead, their party -- and a pliant press corps -- has pushed this dynamic duo to the fore in demanding that the United States abandon Iraq and forego any hope for success in the Global war on Terror. To them, and the broader capitulationist cabal to which they belong, there shall be no "good news" from the battlefield, every American casualty is regarded as a campaign issue, and only critics of the war have credibility.

It's apparent from last week's acrimonious debate in the House of Representatives and this week's raucous ranting in the Senate that their party's leadership believes that a steady drumbeat of dismal defeatism is the best way to return Democrats to power in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen -- but the "surrender now crowd" has unquestionably emboldened our adversaries and disheartened our allies overseas. A few recent examples:

Tokyo, alarmed over North Korean willingness to flight test its multi-stage, nuclear-capable Taepo-dong II intercontinental missile has decided to withdraw its 600 troops from Iraq and bring them home in the event that an emboldened Pyongyang becomes more aggressive.

From Caracas, Venezuelan strong-man Hugo Chavez, awash in petro-dollars, is actively intervening in the upcoming Nicaraguan elections. With overt and covert help from self-described "Bolivarian Socialist" Chavez, Daniel Ortega and his Sandinistas are poised to reassert control over Nicaragua.

In Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, perceiving weakened American resolve, is slow-rolling a U.S.-European proposal offering incentives for Iran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program. Meanwhile, the Iranians continue their crash program to install and "spin-up" more centrifuge arrays -- essential to manufacturing weapons-grade nuclear material.

In Mogadishu, Somalia, a coalition of radical Islamic groups, calling itself the Islamic Courts Union, has proclaimed that it now administers the Somali capital under "religious law." Though U.S. and allied forces are in neighboring Djibouti, the clerics and Islamic radicals appear confident that political discord in Washington will prevent any interference with their plans for establishing a Taliban-like regime.

And to prove once again that "good news" in Iraq is "no news" back home, the leaders of the "Get Out Now" movement either ignored or derided the announcement this week by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, that "more than 500 artillery rounds containing Sarin and Mustard gases have been found in Iraq." Rather than congratulating U.S. troops for locating and destroying these weapons that would be lethal in the hands of terrorists, the "Blame America First" crowd denounced the find as "nothing but old ammunition dating to before the first Gulf War."

Until now troops fighting the war have shrugged off the critiques. Because they understand the consequences better than most, they have largely ignored calls from the Kerry-Murtha Axis to set a "hard and fast deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces." To an extraordinary extent they have continued to re-enlist and volunteer for repeat tours of duty in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones. And while all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines I have talked to in the last few weeks understand being held accountable for their actions -- they do not comprehend the politico-media fascination with negative news. Getting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a one-day story. American "atrocities" are news forever.

Earlier this week, shortly before the Pentagon announced that seven Marines and a U.S. Navy Corpsman would be court-martialed for crimes in Iraq, Sen. Richard "Dick" Durbin, D-Ill., stood in the well of the Senate to complain that we were fighting a war "that has gone on for more than three years -- with no end in sight." The next day a recently returned soldier I had covered in Iraq for FOX News called me up and said, "If we pull out now, the terrorists win." He then asked, "Where will we fight them next -- here?" It's a question the defeatists dare not answer.

To find out more about Oliver North, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at (www.creators.com)

COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC

Oliver North is host of “War Stories” on the Fox News Channel. The opinions expressed above are his own and do not represent the views of Fox News and/or Soldier Of Fortune.