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.
###
posted by Ron at
12:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home