Wednesday, April 03, 2019

Property Owners Within San Luis Coastal Unified School District Boundaries that DON'T Own Property in Los Osos. . . Welcome to Los Osos!


[Note: I sent the email below to State Assemblyman, Jordan Cunningham, on April, 3, 2019]

Hello Assemblyman Cunningham,

I'm a blogger in SLO County, and I'm researching a story involving a property tax assessment in Los Osos, a community in your District.

First, a few things off the top:

1) I'm really lazy, so, the way I do my blogging these days is that I make the emails that I use in my reporting process the blog post. In other words, this email IS the story.

You can actually go to my blog right now, and read this email at this link:

https://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

I published it right before I sent this. See how that makes things so much easier? That way, I don't have to redundantly write another story just to report everything that I'm going to contain in this email. Cool, efficient process, huh?

And, 2) because this email IS the blog post/story, it's going to be fairly lengthy and packed with details.

Now, to the meat.

This email/blog post/story is actually a follow-up to a series of emails that I sent to you (and your friendly and helpful staff) back in October of 2017.

One of those emails is archived on my blog at this link:


Re-reading that email might help make this email make more sense.

Now, what you'll see if go back and read that email, is that I show you how my reporting on Los Osos over the past 20 years (including numerous published newspaper stories, and two New Times cover stories (freelance, which makes those two even more impressive, if you ask me), eventually exposed how about 4,000 property owners in Los Osos are being fleeced every time they make a payment on their property taxes because they are funding (until the year 2034) a fraudulent assessment that appears on their property tax bills, and that fraudulent assessment stems from the early Los Osos CSD's clear municipal bond fraud involving their fake "sewer project," as supported by a gigantic stack of primary source evidence (that I have linked-up all over my blog... since 2005... 05!)

Also, in that same email from a couple of years ago, I write:

"Considering that you refer to the 'Fire Tax' as an 'unfair burden on homeowners,' what is your take on the fraudulent "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment?"

Additionally, on your official web site, it reads, "Jordan previously served as a trustee on the Board of the Templeton Unified School District and is also the former President of the Central Coast Taxpayers Association, a nonprofit group dedicated to taxpayer education and advocacy for fiscal responsibility in government."

Well, I never received an answer from you from the October, 2017 email (although your helpful staff responded promptly), and here we are, in March, 2019, and, so far as I know, you still haven't lifted a finger to help those thousands of property owners in Los Osos, many of whom are low/fixed-income seniors.

So, I'm sure, you can see how your stance on this super-important story has me scratching my head regarding your eyebrow-lifting hypocrisy. I mean, on one hand you write things like, "Californians pay too much in taxes. I'm proud to have worked to repeal the unfair Fire Tax on homeowners," and, "Jordan... (is) dedicated to taxpayer education and advocacy for fiscal responsibility in government." However, when it's shown to you that thousands of property owners in your own district are being fleeced by their local government through a fraudulent (read: waaaay worse than just "unfair") property tax assessment, crickets. No reply. No press release. No action. Nothing.

[By the way, that reminds me: Another reason why I love to do my blog posts/reporting like this -- where the email I use in the process of reporting the story IS the story -- is that it shows that I did send the email. The ball is now in the recipient's court. A fun journalism dynamic AND the story still gets out there, at least a little bit. If I were to simply send an email to a source seeking an answer to a question, and NOT publish that email on my blog, and then the source simply just never replied (which happens often, including with you), well, then I don't have a story at all, and the entire thing just fizzes out.

So, when I publish a reporting-process email on my blog, like this one (and my previous email to you), it shows that 1) I DID send the email (which is huge, trust me), 2) the source just never replied, and 3) now, because I can show that the time-stamped email was sent, and there was zero reply, a NEW, excellent angle to the story is created. In this particular case, that angle is that our local state assemblyman was fully aware, for nearly two years, of an air-tight municipal bond fraud case involving a local SLO County government agency, with thousands of his constituents as victims, and that assemblyman did absolutely nothing to help those victims/constituents that are being directly fleeced by the fraud. Journalistically speaking, that angle is, frankly, AWESOME.

So, yeah, a lot is packed into my beautiful, personal editorial policy of publishing my emails to (certain) sources on my blog, which is also why these emails have to be so detailed and lengthy -- so they'll make sense to not only the source, but also to any readers that happen to stop by my public blog. I call it "open source journalism." Thank you for understanding.]

Well, I have excellent news for you!

I have recently exposed ANOTHER amazing angle to this (already) spectacular story, and I have a journalistic hunch that this intensely great angle will actually spur you into helping your constituents... uh... this time.

After some additional research (since my 2017 email to you), it turns out, that, by far, the #1 property owner that is being fleeced by the LOCSD's municipal bond fraud is [drum roll please... pddddddddd] the San Luis Coastal Unified School District! [cymbal crash!]

This. Is. Awesome!

If you remember, in my original email to you from about two years ago, I show how the bulk of those roughly 4,100 property owners in the so-called "Los Osos Prohibition Zone" are being fleeced about $250 per year by the fraudulent "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment. According to sources, that's because a huge percentage of those properties are for single-family homes, and the amount of fleecing, according to documents, is based on the number of "units" (I'm assuming that's some sort of planning euphemism for toilets) on the property, and, well, think about it: What properties in the LOPZ have THE most toilets? Yep: Schools.

Which means that when a typical single-family home in the LOPZ is getting burned to the tune of about $250/year for the LOCSD's municipal bond fraud, the SLCUSD, with THREE schools/properties and hundreds of toilets in the PZ, is shelling out a whopping $13,000/year, or some $400,000 over the 30 year span of the LOCSD's municipal bond fleecing -- $400,000 that could be going to other things, like teachers' salaries and students' supplies.

Now, because I'm very, very lazy, instead of rehashing my reporting that first exposed the SLCUSD fleecing (which really gets down in the legal/evidentiary weeds), I'm just going to reprint below an email that I sent to, Assistant Supt./Business Services of San Luis Coastal Unified School District, Ryan Pinkerton, in June of 2018 (almost a year ago), with cc's of that email going to (among others):

Eric Prater <EPrater@slcusd.org>, Straith Zanartu <szanartu@co.slo.ca.us>, rpiza@co.slo.ca.us, shredder@newtimesslo.com, "Fountain, Matt" <mfountain@thetribunenews.com>, jtarica@thetribunenews.com, dave@920kvec.com, news@ksby.com, ktanner@thetribunenews.com, jbrescia@slocoe.org [Note: I also cc'd those same people on this email.]

... and then I'm hoping to get your response to my email to Mr. Pinkerton.

Here's the email, sent 6/29/2018:

Hello Ryan,

I've yet to receive a response to my email to you from 6/14/18, but that's o.k., because I actually have some very important additional information that I just dug up, new information that will likely affect your response, and the information is very, VERY bad news for SLCUSD, especially its taxpayers.

Remember this figure?: "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT...  $5,719.62," and how I show that the SLCUSD is being fleeced every time they pay that fraudulent assessment on their property tax bill, and how that fraud lasts until FY 2033/34, which means that SLCUSD taxpayers will be fleeced out of some $180,000 over the 30-year course of that fraudulent assessment?

Remember all that?

Welp, here's the VERY bad news for your office: Turns out, that "$5,719.62" yearly fleecing isn't the only SLCUSD-owned property that's being fleeced.

If you stop by this link:


... like I did, and type things like "Coastal" in the search box, and then bounce around a bunch of property tax bills for awhile, what you'll discover is that there are TWO other SLCUSD properties that are ALSO being fleeced by that exact same fraudulent assessment.

Check it out (it's SO interesting):

Now, as you might remember, the first one that I uncovered was the "5,719.62" "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" fleecing on parcel number, "038-221-001," with "Assessed Owner As of January 1, 2017 SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST."

But, just recently, I also discovered "074-052-075," with "Assessed Owner As of January 1, 2017 SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST," with "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT 4,543.30."

AND, "074-331-001," with "Assessed Owner As of January 1, 2017 SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST," with "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT  2,780.74."

That more than doubles my previous estimate on how much the SLCUSD taxpayers are being fleeced on the early LOCSD's municipal bond fraud.

That figure WAS about $180,000 over the 30-year fleecing (about $6,000/year for 30 years), but with those other two properties tossed in, that figure NOW explodes to about $400,000! [about $6,000 + about $4,500 + about $2,500 = about $13,000/year, over 30 years of funding the LOCSD's municipal bond fraud = about $400,000!... Worth. Of. Fleecing.

Absolutely stunning. [However, I do need to point out here how I had to dig up those two other properties, independently, without anyone at SLCUSD ever revealing them to me, especially in light of the subject matter of our previous correspondence. That is very disappointing, and will eventually need to be explained on your end. I mean, did you simply not know of those two other properties with the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" fleecing, OR, were you aware of them, and just simply decided not make me aware of them because that would be bad for SLCUSD officials? So, yeah, I'm really disappointed on how that played out. That's a very bad look for the SLCUSD. It kinda makes it look like you SUPPORT the fraud. That SLCUSD officials don't care if their taxpayers are being fleeced out of nearly a half million bucks. Baaaad look.]

So, that's the point of this email: Now that I've shown that the LOCSD's municipal bond fraud fleecing of the SLCUSD taxpayers is actually closer to a half million bucks, instead of 'just' $180,000, NOW what is your response? Still nothing?

Again, if you have any questions, please just ask.

Thanks again,
Ron
- - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com


Of course, SLCUSD officials also never replied to that email... of course... and, in the convening year, also never lifted a finger to address the fleecing, which they have now paid twice since I first exposed the fleecing to them ($26,000 MORE of fleecing WHEN they were fully aware OF the fleecing, uhg) so, obviously they also don't care if their taxpayers get fleeced. They have made that very clear. Which is why I'm now sending this email to you, to see if you, unlike SLCUSD officials, actually DO care that SLCUSD taxpayers are being scammed out of about a half million bucks due to the LOCSD's municipal bond fraud.


I've already confirmed that you don't care if 'only' about 4,000 LOPZ property owners get fleeced out of about $250 per year... each (for a grand total of about $1.1 million per year), but this is different. This fleecing involves all property owners within the SLCUSD boundary, NOT just the Los Osos Prohibition Zone boundary, and that is thousands more of your constituents, burned for a whopping total of about a half million bucks of municipal bond fleecing. (By the way, and this is a great detail: I call what's happening to the LOPZ property owners a "Double Fleecing." They are ALREADY being directly fleeced every year on their own property tax bills by the fraudulent "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment, but then they ALSO pay big bucks into the SLCUSD's real/legal property tax assessments, like Measure J and the General Obligation Bond of 2014, and then THAT tax money is also being fleeced by the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" municipal bond fraud. Soooo, yeah, PZers: Double fleecing. How's that taste? Ouch!]

If it'll help, in a nutshell, the early LOCSD municipal bond fraud worked like this: They lied to Los Osos voters, through an elaborate marketing scam (easily documentable today, by the way [A good start? Just Google: sewerwatch "summer 2000"), that they had developed a "better, cheaper, faster" sewer system for the town, however, for their "better, cheaper, faster" fake so-called "project" to move forward, property owners needed to pass a Prop. 218 property tax assessment vote to fund it.

The CSD's completely fraudulent marketing scam worked, the assessment passed, and that allowed the CSD to sell nearly $18 million in municipal bonds to investors. That $18 million quickly vanished straight back into the pockets of the people that ran the "better, cheaper, faster" scam, of course, because the people that ran the scam were ALSO the consultants that the CSD hired to design their fake project (including the spouse of a then-LOCSD Director), as their own documents clearly show. Additionally, as their own documents also show, the people that ran the scam were fully aware, waaaay before the Prop. 218 vote, that their fake "better, cheaper, faster" scam was never going to work. And, of course, it never worked. Not even close... because it was fake to begin with. (I mean, a GREAT piece of evidence in this case is that, today, you can go to Los Osos and NOT see a "70-acre," "better, cheaper, faster" series of wastewater ponds in the middle of town. Prima facie, amirite? I even caught two of them confessing to their scam, IF you're interested.)

However, that $18 million worth of municipal bond funding, that Los Osos property owners (including SLCUSD) were scammed into approving, is secured by the fraudulent "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment which will continue to appear on LOPZ property tax bills until FY 2033/2034, as I first exposed years ago, and it's paying for absolutely nothing, well, OTHER than the CSD's obvious municipal bond fraud, and a return on the bond buyers' terrible investment.

So that's what happened: Starting in about 1997, a small group of people realized they could make a lot of money off scamming Los Osos property owners on a known-to-them-to-be-fake "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project, which is exactly what happened, and that led to not only 30 years of municipal bond fleecing (until the year 2034), including (and especially) to SLCUSD, but also a massive environmental disaster as well, and those people behind the fraud are still around today, in local government circles, still doing really terrible things, of course. (I must admit, it gets a little weird on that level. I mean, I first exposed the fraud YEARS ago. Totally busted them, dead to rights, yet, absolutely nothing happened to them, which allowed them to continue to run public-money-scam after public-money-scam, for, like, another decade and counting. Leaves me shaking my head.)

Finally, one more point: Apparently, this situation, where a government agency committed municipal bond fraud involving a 30-year assessment, however, they didn't get busted on the fraud until about 15 years into the fraud-based assessment, leaving thousands of victims to continue to fund the fraud for ANOTHER 15 years, is unprecedented (I've looked everywhere, and I can't find another case like this one), which means, I don't know if there's even anything you CAN do. Maybe get the assessment cancelled? I don't know. I'll leave that point up to you. Although, I find it hard to believe that thousands of innocent victims will be forced to knowingly fund a fraud for the next 15 years. Please tell me that's NOT the only outcome here. Our justice system HAS to be better than that, right?

Now, with all of that in mind, here's my question for you today: Do you, someone who is "dedicated to taxpayer education and advocacy for fiscal responsibility in government," STILL not care?

I mean, not caring that low-income seniors in your district are being fleeced about $250/year by their local government is one thing, not caring that a school district in your district is being fleeced about $400,000 for the same scam is quite another... uh... I guess. (What I mean by that is, personally, I'm not sure which one's worse. They both seem equally horrible to me, but that's just me.)

If you have ANY questions involving the overwhelming amount of primary-source evidence I've exposed (and published) that clearly shows the fraud, please just ask. I have it at the ready, and I can easily put it all in context for you -- a process that'd take about a half hour. Again, IF you're interested.

So, uh, do you care?

Ball's in your court. ;-)

Thank you, again, for your time,
Ron
- - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

P.S. Here's the link to the SLCUSD boundaries:


###

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Dan Dow's "Disgusting" (and highly paid) Political "Consultant" [finger quotes] Question for SLO County District Attorney Candidate, Judge Mike Cummins

Hello Judge Mike,

I'm a SLO County based blogger, and I'm researching a story involving "slimy" "political consultants," like, locally, Tom Fulks and Pandora Nash-Karner, that get paid big bucks to sneak around behind-the-scenes during election season to (or, at least attempt to) destroy the lives of anyone that is not on their clients' side.

Now, I was recently going over your opponent's campaign finance disclosures, and those documents show that the "Dan Dow for District Attorney 2018" committee pays a political consulting firm, "Axiom Strategies LLC," tens of thousands of dollars for "consulting" [finger quotes] work.

And if you do a quick Google search, you will find that Axiom is headed-up by someone named Jeff Roe.

And, in that same quick Google search, you will also discover that Jeff Roe, apparently, is a very "disgusting human being."

For example, at this link:


... it reads:

"Today, Broomfield (an opponent of one of Roe's clients) says he regrets not pressing charges against (Axiom). 'They’ll do anything,' Broomfield says of Roe and his associates. 'There's no limit.'"

and;

"In the 2006 election, (Roe's client's) Democratic challenger was 62-year-old Sara Jo Shettles, who once held a job selling ads for a science magazine owned by the parent company of Penthouse. The (Roe) camp accused her of having a 'Pornographic Connection,' and ran a TV ad that displayed a large 'XXX' beside her picture, as an announcer warned that she had 'outrageous values.' Roe defended the attack."

and;

"Roe didn't only target Democrats. During a 2006 state Senate race, he dug up a painful episode from the past of Joe Brazil, a fellow Republican running against Roe’s preferred candidate... In March 2007, Brazil sued Roe for defamation... 'Jeff Roe is a disgusting human being,' he says. 'He leaves a path of destruction.'"

And, at this link:


... it reads:

"Days after the (Axiom produced) spot aired, Schweich took his own life. Some of Schweich's friends quickly concluded the ad played a role in the suicide and accused Roe of bullying the candidate. Former U.S. Sen. Jack Danforth urged Republicans to walk away from Roe, a request he repeated last week. 'We should disassociate ourselves from anyone who conducts this sort of campaign,' he said in an email."

and;

"(Roe has) hired operatives to track opponents with video cameras, leading some to complain of unnecessary provocation and to file complaints with police. His deep research into his opponents’ personal records is legendary. He’s been accused of orchestrating a lawsuit to gain access to a candidate’s personal papers."

and;

"Missouri state Sen. Mike Parson... repeated his sharp criticism of Roe's tactics last week. 'For some reason, we say it’s OK to win at all costs... But it's not OK to win at all costs when you've got to destroy somebody's lives… This has been going on for way too long, and it needs to stop.'"

And, at the following link, headlined: "Jeff Roe was the biggest loser in Kansas City's primaries":


... it reads:

"Four candidates for the Kansas City Council say they hired Jeff Roe's Axiom Strategies to help them win in Tuesday night's primaries... Roe, the badly tarnished Kansas City area political consultant who often uses slimy tactics to try to win elections, couldn’t help pull any of the candidates through to victory."

and:

"(Roe's client) Wright's loss was the most satisfying for people who are thoroughly disgusted by Roe and all he stands for in his often-shady way of running campaigns."

and;

"... in reference to Roe, Davis said people 'need to run that guy out of town.'"

and;

"Greitens (a Roe client opponent) wrote a letter to supporters calling out Roe and his allies specifically. He called them snakes. He said they were shameful and disgusting. 'Liars, cowards, sociopaths,' he wrote. 'They are often deeply broken and disturbed people, who — like criminals who prey on the innocent — take their pleasure and make their living by victimizing honest people.'"

And, at this link:


... it reads:

"They ('slimy' political 'consultants,' like Roe [and, I'll go-ahead in toss in, locally, Fulks and Nash-Karner]) are drawn to politics as vultures flock to rotting meat—and they feed off the carcasses of vice. Every lie makes them money. Every fake website, fake Facebook account that spouts falsehoods makes them cash. They pay kids to follow you (and your spouse) around with a camera, and they often pay those same kids to shout questions at you—and in this they profit. They engage in the lowest of tactics, the most slanderous lies—and all the while their bank balances rise."

and;

"They stand in such stark contrast to the honest people who make up most of Missouri, that it takes a leap of imagination for normal people to even understand how crooked many people in the business of politics are. They are corrupt in ways that I didn’t know people could be corrupt."

Now, with all of that in mind, I'm just curious: Have you, during this campaign season, experienced any of that?

Have you, as an opponent of one of Roe's clients (Dan Dow), experienced any of the "disgusting," slimy," "crooked," "corrupt," "deeply disturbed," campaign "tactics," by Dow's highly paid, "broken and disturbed," "liars, cowards, sociopath(s)," and "badly tarnished" "consultants" [finger quotes] that, "to win at all costs," are highly paid to "destroy lives?"

Have you experienced any of that during this campaign season?

I (and, I'm sure, the K.C. Star, that I've cc'd on this email) would be very interested in hearing your takes, if any, involving Dan Dow's highly paid, "disgusting" "consultant" [finger quotes] (and, notice no "finger quotes" on the word "disgusting") Jeff Roe, and his Axiom "Strategies" [finger quotes].

If you have any questions, please just ask.

Thank you for your time,
Ron
- - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

P.S. I practice an exclusive editorial policy that I term, "Open Source Journalism," where I cc my reporting emails, like this one, to various media outlets and members of the public. I also post them on my blog, where I have already posted this email. It's at this link:


If you choose to reply, I'll also publish your response.

Thanks again! :-)

###

Tuesday, January 09, 2018

Assemblyman Cunningham/Los Osos CSD Municipal Bond Fraud Question, Take 3

Hello Assemblyman Cunningham,

I hope you're having a great New Year!

I apologize for bothering you, uh... again on this subject, but, as you can see from my emails below, it's been almost three months now since I first contacted you to get your response to the Los Osos CSD's (alleged) municipal bond fraud, that, as a mountain of primary source evidence clearly shows, has some 4,100 victims/your constituents in Los Osos (including numerous low-income seniors), funding (on their property tax bills) the District's (alleged) municipal bond fraud until the year 2033, and, frankly, beyond, however I've still yet to receive any response from you on this subject, which, I will admit, I find ironic and perplexing... you know, considering your alleged concern over "unfair" property taxes.

Additionally (and this is very, very important), those roughly 4,100 victims are scheduled to be fleeced... again, starting on February 1, when the 2nd installment of their annual property taxes becomes due.

So, again, I'm just curious: Do you have ANY take/response/input... uh, any comment whatsoever involving this (apparent) fraud-based property tax assessment:

LOCSD WASTE TREATMT

... a fraud-based property tax assessment that has some 4,100 victims in Los Osos funding the District's fraud until the year 2033, and beyond, AND is also at the center of an ongoing SEC investigation into municipal bond fraud by the 2000-2003 Los Osos CSD?

Finally, as you can see at the bottom of one of my earlier emails (reprinted below), I follow a personal editorial policy of "open source journalism," where I publish on my blog my emails to sources (including this email), and 'cc' them to a variety of media types, and others.

Well, with that in mind, I also follow another personal editorial policy where, if I ask a source three times for a comment, and the source never replies, I just go ahead and use those multiple non-responses as confirmation that the source simply doesn't care about the story's subject matter, and then I begin reporting that fact.

So, with THAT in mind... just a quick 'heads-up': This is my third email to you on this extremely important subject.

Interestingly/sadly? though, if you do choose to go that route -- the '3 strikes, you don't care' route (and I actually do have hope that you are NOT going to go that route) -- you will have plenty of company.

For example, local talk radio host, Dave Congalton, just last year, in response to this story's subject matter, wrote to me, "Let it go, sir. Nobody cares," when contacted about those 4,100 victims in Los Osos.

I then contacted New Times to verify if Dave was actually accurate on his take that "Nobody cares" about those 4,100 victims in Los Osos, and New Times never replied, so, clearly, they don't care either (which explains why they've never written a word on this story, despite being fully informed on it), and the Trib... well, they've never cared... for over a decade now.

So, for me, that's where this story starts to get even MORE interesting: See, if you also don't care, that will mean that none of the local media cares AND none of the local politicians care that some 4,100 victims in Los Osos (including numerous low-income seniors) are stuck funding the District's clear-cut (and, I do not hesitate to say, disgusting) case of municipal bond fraud, until the year 2033, and beyond (and, by "beyond," I mean, think about it: Property owners get 5 years to pay their delinquent taxes, and with continuances, and various financing arrangements, and whatnot, this fleecing could easily go on into the 2040s), and that, journalistically speaking, is a TERRIFIC angle, and an over-the-top interesting story.

All of a sudden, the story ISN'T that a bunch of low-income seniors are being fleeced by their local government through a fraudulent property tax assessment solely so those low-income seniors can continue to fund a bunch of rich investors' bond returns for a completely fraudulent public works fake-project that will never exist (which is an excellent story, by the way), it's that a bunch of low-income seniors are being fleeced by their local government through a fraudulent property tax assessment in order to fund a bunch of rich bond investors' absolutely horrible investment, and neither the local media AND those low-income seniors'/victims' own elected officials, like you, for example (and Bruce Gibson), don't "care."

That. Is. Awesome! (uh, journalistically speaking, of course).

Again, if you have ANY questions -- any questions whatsoever -- please just ask.

Thank you, again, for your time,
Ron
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

P.S. Again, due to my "open source journalism" editorial policy, I have cc'd this email to numerous media-types (and others), and have also published it on my blog, at this link:


Thanks again.


- - - - - -
Email below originally sent on Dec. 12, 2017
- - - - - -

Hello Assemblyman Cunningham,

I hope you're having a great holiday season. (I sure am :))

Sorry to bother you again, but, I just wanted to quickly follow-up on my 10/15/2017 email to you (reprinted below) for a story that I'm researching.

Again, I'm just wondering what your take is on this special assessment:

"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT"

I outlined the details surrounding that tax in my original email.

A quick email with your take(s) would be great, but a quick phone call, or even a 15-minute meeting (where I could not only show you the evidence of the LOCSD's municipal bond fraud (that now has some 4,100 victims in Los Osos funding the fraud until the year 2033, and beyond), but also personally explain the evidence [it does get complicated, but it IS clear cut] would be great.

It's been about two months since my original email, but I never received a response from you... well, other from your former (and friendly and helpful) assistant, Jocelyn, whom, apparently, does not work in your office anymore.

She seemed to be all over my request back in October [and that was MUCH appreciated], but now, apparently, she doesn't work for you anymore, so it looks like I'm back at square 1 on my research involving your take(s) on this: "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT"

So, if you have any questions about the evidence in this story, or anything else related to this story, please just ask.

Thanks... again,
Ron
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

- - - - - - - - - -

[Email below originally sent on: 10/15/2017]

Hello Assemblyman Cunningham,

I'm a blogger in SLO County, and I'm researching a story involving a property tax assessment in Los Osos, a community in your District.

Now, I noticed in your recent mailer, titled, "Fire Tax Flames Out," that you write, "For years Sacramento has unfairly targeted some residents with an annual $152 Fire Tax. The Legislature finally repealed the Fire Tax, starting next year."

and;

"This victory puts an end to the unfair burden on homeowners... "

And, on your Facebook page, at this link:


... you write:

"Californians pay too much in taxes. I'm proud to have worked to repeal the unfair Fire Tax on homeowners. Starting in 2018 we can all say good-bye to the Fire Tax."

With your focus of "unfair" property taxes, I'm now curious about your take involving a "special assessment" that appears on about 4,100 Los Osos property owners' tax bills as, "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT," for about $250/year.

First, a little background: The story that I am now researching involves a current SEC investigation into the Los Osos Community Services District for municipal bond fraud, and a key piece of evidence in the SEC's investigation is the LOCSD's "Summer 2000" newsletter, that I have made available for public download at this link:


Now, in that newsletter it describes (in detail) a sewer system that the LOCSD had been developing (for the previous two years -- since its inception in 1998) for the community of Los Osos -- a so-called "STEP/STEG" collection system with a "70-acre" treatment facility in the middle of Los Osos comprised of several large ponds.

Additionally, the "Summer 2000" newsletter goes on to describe the 70-acre ponding system as "on schedule."

The newsletter also states that for the District's "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project to move forward, that, "yes," a property tax assessment vote would have to be passed by Los Osos property owners, and then the newsletter went on to outline a series of dire consequences that would result if the assessment did not pass.

The newsletter, along with a lot of other LOCSD marketing material during the run-up to the 2001 assessment election, did the trick, and Los Osos property owners passed the assessment a few months later.

However, as my previous investigative stories (including two New Times cover stories) on this subject clearly show, including at this link:


... a March 7, 2001, LOCSD report shows that the 70-acre ponding system that the LOCSD told "the residents and property owners" of Los Osos was "on schedule" in "Summer 2000," had actually completely failed by early February 2000.

A few years back, I asked an attorney if the above-scenario -- where a government agency produces a newsletter that states that a public works project is "on schedule," when the agency's own documents show that the agency was fully aware that the project described in the newsletter (in detail) had completely failed some six months earlier (and, frankly, was never even close to being a feasible option in the first place) -- constitutes fraud, and he told me, "Yes."

Furthermore, that property tax assessment vote that the District's newsletter heavily promoted for a "yes" vote (an election violation, by the way [Stanson v. Mott]), and that was eventually passed back in 2001 to fund a known-to-the-LOCSD-to-be-fake "project" (that never even came close to being built) allowed the LOCSD, in 2003, to sell nearly $18 million in municipal bonds, and those bonds are (present tense) 30-year bonds, that are secured by the roughly $1.2 million per year that is collected (by SLO County government) from those roughly 4,100 Los Osos property owners (at about $250/year) due to the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment -- an assessment that doesn't expire until the year 2033, for a failed, fraud-based non-"project," that will never exist, of course.

In other words, the LOCSD's completely fraudulent "Summer 2000" newsletter -- and I mean, like, every word in that newsletter is a complete and easily documentable lie, and that was obviously produced by the District solely to trick Los Osos property owners into passing the assessment -- is STILL 100-percent relevant today, and will continue to be 100-percent relevant -- 100-percent in play -- until the year 2033, and, frankly, beyond.

So, with all of that in mind, my question is, considering that you call the "Fire Tax" an "unfair burden on homeowners," and that the community of Los Osos is in your District, what is your take on the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment?

I mean, I'm assuming that the Fire Tax, at $152/year, was actually being used for SOMETHING, unlike the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment, at about $250/year, which is funding nothing but a fraud for the next 16-plus years, so I'm very curious on what your take is on the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment.

Finally, I want to point out that there is a massive stack of primary source evidence that shows that at least one of the LOCSD Directors in 2000, would/did benefit financially from the passage of the LOCSD's 2001 wastewater assessment.

Again, my question is: Considering that you refer to the "Fire Tax" as an "unfair burden on homeowners," what is your take on the fraudulent "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment, that's paying for absolutely nothing except to pay dividends to municipal bonds investors, on the backs of more than four thousand victims in Los Osos, including numerous low-income seniors?

What's your take on THAT tax assessment, and will you now work to repeal it?

If you have any questions regarding this email, please just ask.

Thanks,
Ron
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com


P.S. In my own beautiful editorial policy of (what I like to term) "open source journalism," I have cc'd this email to numerous media-types (and others), and have also published it on my blog, at this link:


Thanks again.

###

Tuesday, November 07, 2017

Los Osos CSD Municipal Bond Fraud Question for the Des Moines Register

Representative Gustafson story question, please
TO: Carol Hunter, Executive Editor, Des Moines Register

Hello Carol,

I'm a blogger/reporter in San Luis Obispo County, California, and I'm researching a story that involves Iowa State Representative, Stan Gustafson (District 25).

Now, on August 8, 2017, I cc'd you, and several of your editorial staff, on an email I sent Representative Gustafson, and that I also published on my blog, at this link:


... where I show how his name is attached to a critical piece of evidence in an ongoing SEC municipal bond fraud investigation involving Representative Gustafson's previous elected position with the Los Osos Community Services District.

In my email I also show how an attorney has told me that "Yes," the LOCSD's "Summer 2000" newsletter -- the critical piece of evidence that has Gustafson's name all over it (and in REALLY bad places) -- constitutes fraud, and how that fraud now has about 4,200 Los Osos property owners (including many low-income seniors) funding the LOCSD's municipal bond fraud until the year 2033, and frankly, beyond.

In my email, I also asked Representative Gustafson if he signed off on the wording in that fraudulent newsletter before it went out, or, did his jaw hit his desk when, AFTER it was mailed out to "every property owner and resident of Los Osos," he discovered that one of his fellow Board members actually created, and then mailed out the fraudulent newsletter without his knowledge.

In other words, I gave Representative Gustafson a golden opportunity to distance himself from the municipal bond fraud.

Well, I have an update to my reporting that I'd like to share with you and the editorial staff at the Des Moines Register.

After several weeks from the date of my original email, Representative Gustafson finally did respond.

Here is his response, in its entirety:

"I have reviewed the newsletter you linked me to. The CSD was established in order to complete a sewer project for Los Osos. The Board worked diligently with the necessary agencies and experts in order to do so. The County had to take it back over again. "

And that's it.

So, to repeat (for emphasis), I recently asked Iowa State Representative, Stan Gustafson, these questions (quoting from my original email):

"1)  Did you, like the Karners, benefit financially from the passage of the LOCSD's wastewater assessment, and therefore signed-off on that fraudulent newsletter BEFORE it went out?

or;

2) Were you even aware that your fellow LOCSD Board member, Pandora Nash-Karner, was producing/mailing that "Summer 2000" newsletter, and when you first saw it -- AFTER it was mailed out -- your jaw hit your desk?"

And his answer to those intensely important questions was:

"I have reviewed the newsletter you linked me to. The CSD was established in order to complete a sewer project for Los Osos. The Board worked diligently with the necessary agencies and experts in order to do so. The County had to take it back over again."

So, again, because I am a very cool/fair reporter, I actually gave him the opportunity to distance himself from the LOCSD's municipal bond fraud, and he chose not to go that route. [I'm assuming that he doesn't have access to counsel, because that is absolutely terrible advice.]

Now, I noticed how the Des Moines Register, back in 2014, did a nice report at this link:


... that shows how Gustafson actually lied to the "Record Herald and Indianola Tribune," AND to the People of Iowa, when he failed to disclose his previous elected position with the LOCSD.

Additionally, in another stunning piece of evidence from... uh, 2016-ish(?), at this link:


... Representative Gustafson actually confesses to "helping to bankrupt (the) Los Osos (CSD)."

So, this all falls into place, perfectly: Gustafson's name shows up all over the the evidence (and, again, in really, REALLY bad places) in a current, on-going SEC investigation into municipal bond fraud by Gustafson's LOCSD -- municipal bond fraud that has some 4,200 Los Osos property owners funding the fraud until the year 2033 -- and that municipal bond fraud led directly to the LOCSD's bankruptcy starting around the mid-2000s (as Gustafson NOW confesses to), and that's WHY he lied to "Record Herald and Indianola Tribune," and to the People of Iowa regarding his previous elected experience, back in 2014.

Now, here's why I am emailing you today:

When I Google: Des Moines Register Gustafson

... I'm not seeing any reporting from Iowa on the super-important Gustafson/LOCSD municipal bond fraud/SEC Investigation/deliberately lying to the People of Iowa story.

The only Des Moines Register story my Google search turns up is the previously mentioned, "Gustafson admits recall from California board in '05," story from 2014.

So, now I'm just wondering if the Des Moines Register is planning on covering the story on WHY Representative Gustafson lied to the People of Iowa in 2014, when he deliberately omitted his disastrous, and fraud-filled (errrr... "allegedly" [finger quotes]) term as a Los Osos CSD Director.

If you (or anyone on your staff) have any questions about the SEC investigation, or any of the municipal bond fraud evidence against the LOCSD, or how some 4,200 property owners in Los Osos (including numerous low-income seniors) are now stuck funding that fraud until the year 2033 (and beyond), please just ask.

Thank you for your time,
Ron
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com


P.S. In my personal editorial policy of (what I like to term) "open source journalism," I have cc'd this email to numerous media-types (and others), and have also published it on my blog, at this link:


Thanks again.

###

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Los Osos CSD municipal bond fraud question for SLO County Assemblyman, Jordan Cunningham

Hello Assemblyman Cunningham,

I'm a blogger in SLO County, and I'm researching a story involving a property tax assessment in Los Osos, a community in your District.

Now, I noticed in your recent mailer, titled, "Fire Tax Flames Out," that you write, "For years Sacramento has unfairly targeted some residents with an annual $152 Fire Tax. The Legislature finally repealed the Fire Tax, starting next year."

and;

"This victory puts an end to the unfair burden on homeowners... "

And, on your Facebook page, at this link:


... you write:

"Californians pay too much in taxes. I'm proud to have worked to repeal the unfair Fire Tax on homeowners. Starting in 2018 we can all say good-bye to the Fire Tax."

With your focus of "unfair" property taxes, I'm now curious about your take involving a "special assessment" that appears on about 4,100 Los Osos property owners' tax bills as, "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT," for about $250/year.

First, a little background: The story that I am now researching involves a current SEC investigation into the Los Osos Community Services District for municipal bond fraud, and a key piece of evidence in the SEC's investigation is the LOCSD's "Summer 2000" newsletter, that I have made available for public download at this link:


Now, in that newsletter it describes (in detail) a sewer system that the LOCSD had been developing (for the previous two years -- since its inception in 1998) for the community of Los Osos -- a so-called "STEP/STEG" collection system with a "70-acre" treatment facility in the middle of Los Osos, comprised of several large ponds.

Additionally, the "Summer 2000" newsletter goes on to describe the 70-acre ponding system as "on schedule."

The newsletter also states that for the District's "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project to move forward, that, "yes," a property tax assessment vote would have to be passed by Los Osos property owners, and then the newsletter went on to outline a series of dire consequences that would result if the assessment did not pass.

The newsletter, along with a lot of other LOCSD marketing material during the run-up to the 2001 assessment election, did the trick, and Los Osos property owners passed the assessment a few months later.

However, as my previous investigative stories (including two New Times cover stories) on this subject clearly show, including at this link:


... a March 7, 2001, LOCSD report shows that the 70-acre ponding system that the LOCSD told "the residents and property owners" of Los Osos was "on schedule" in "Summer 2000," had actually completely failed by early February 2000.

A few years back, I asked an attorney if the above-scenario -- where a government agency produces a newsletter that states that a public works project is "on schedule," when the agency's own documents show that the agency was fully aware that the project described in the newsletter (in detail) had completely failed some six months earlier (and, frankly, was never even close to being a feasible option in the first place) -- constitutes fraud, and he told me, "Yes."

Furthermore, that property tax assessment vote that the District's newsletter heavily promoted for a "yes" vote (an election violation, by the way [Stanson v. Mott]), and that was eventually passed back in 2001 to fund a known-to-the-LOCSD-to-be-fake "project" (that never even came close to being built) allowed the LOCSD, in 2003, to sell nearly $18 million in municipal bonds, and those bonds are (present tense) 30-year bonds, that are secured by the roughly $1.2 million per year that is collected (by SLO County government) from those roughly 4,100 Los Osos property owners (at about $250/year) due to the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment -- an assessment that doesn't expire until the year 2033, for a failed, fraud-based non-"project," that will never exist, of course.

In other words, the LOCSD's completely fraudulent "Summer 2000" newsletter -- and I mean, like, every word in that newsletter is a complete and easily documentable lie, and that was obviously produced by the District solely to trick Los Osos property owners into passing the assessment -- is STILL 100-percent relevant today, and will continue to be 100-percent relevant -- 100-percent in play -- until the year 2033, and, frankly, beyond.

So, with all of that in mind, my question is, considering that you call the "Fire Tax" an "unfair burden on homeowners," and that the community of Los Osos is in your District, what is your take on the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment?

I mean, I'm assuming that the Fire Tax, at $152/year, was actually being used for SOMETHING, unlike the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment, at about $250/year, which is funding nothing but a fraud for the next 16-plus years, so I'm very curious on what your take is on the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment.

Finally, I want to point out that there is a massive stack of primary source evidence that shows that at least one of the LOCSD Directors in 2000, would/did benefit financially from the passage of the LOCSD's 2001 wastewater assessment.

Again, my question is: Considering that you refer to the "Fire Tax" as an "unfair burden on homeowners," what is your take on the fraudulent "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment, that's paying for absolutely nothing except to pay dividends to municipal bonds investors, on the backs of more than four thousand victims in Los Osos, including numerous low-income seniors?

What's your take on THAT tax assessment, and will you now work to repeal it?

If you have any questions regarding this email, please just ask.

Thanks,
Ron
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com


P.S. In my own beautiful editorial policy of (what I like to term) "open source journalism," I have cc'd this email to numerous media-types (and others), and have also published it on my blog, at this link:


Thanks again.

###