Wednesday, March 10, 2021

Too Fun: The SLO County Administrative Office has a "Citizen Complaint Investigations Page"


[Note: Eric Dobroth is a Deputy District Attorney for the SLO County DA's office.]

Hello Eric,
Howya been? Hey, right off the top, I just wanted to let you know that I've already posted this email on my blog. It's at this link:


The reason I'm sending you this email is because I was getting ready to submit a "Citizen Complaint" with the county's Administrative Office, however, I noticed on their Citizen Complaint Investigations page, at this link:

... that it reads, "Before you submit a citizen complaint, please contact the appropriate department to resolve the issue."
And that's why I'm contacting you with this email, because my Citizen Complaint involves the District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit, and, according to the County's Administrative office, "The Administrative Office investigates complaints asserting that a County department or employee is acting in a manner that is unfair, arbitrary, inconsistent, or contrary to law."

Now, if you remember, last October, I filed a Public Integrity Unit review request asking that the District Attorney office's PIU "review" how, starting in 2014, then-District Attorney candidate, Dan Dow, accepted disgusting fraud money from known Los Osos fraudsters, Gary Karner and Pandora Nash-Karner, to help him get elected, and then I ask, "Did SLO County District Attorney, Dan Dow, KNOWINGLY accept the Karners' fraud money, or, was he unaware of the Karners' disgusting fraud when he accepted their fraud money?"

My PIU review request is published on my blog at this link:


So, here's the dealio today, in March 2021: I haven't heard a peep from your office regarding my PIU review request. No statements from the DA's office. No emails to me. Nothing, well, OTHER than you writing to me on October 9, 2020, "I did receive it."

And that's it. That was the last thing I've read/heard/seen regarding my PIU review request since last October.

Which gets directly to my Citizen's Complaint involving the DA's Public Integrity Unit.

As I showed the PIU last October, the Karners' fraud STILL involves thousands of victims, as they continue to fund the Karners' fraud until the year 2034 in the form of the fraud-based "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" property tax assessment that shows up on about 4,000 Los Osos prohibition zone property owners' tax bills, including, and especially, the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, that is on pace to be fleeced out of about a half million bucks by the Karners/LOCSD's fraud when the fleecing finally resolves in 2034 (the fraud-based "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" property tax assessment is a 30-year assessment that started FY 2003/04).

Welp, here's what happened in the nearly six months since I filed my PIU review request: Those 4,000 victims were RE-victimized TWICE in that time, as they were fleeced again and again by paying their two installments on their property taxes, with the fraud-based "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" property tax assessment paid both times.

The 2nd installment became due on February 1, 2021, and all of the Karners' victims were fleeced AGAIN, with full knowledge from the DA's PIU (thanks to my time-stamped PIU review request) that all of those victims WERE going to be re-victimized again, and, so far as I know, the PIU didn't lift a finger to help those victims, and, to my eye, that REEEEELLY looks like this:

"(A) County department or employee is acting in a manner that is unfair, arbitrary, inconsistent, or contrary to law," which is exactly what "The Administrative Office investigates" with their Citizen Complaint process.

So, with all of that in mind, they way I want to "resolve (this) issue," "before (I) submit a citizen complaint," is that ALL of the Karners' victims must immediately stop being victimized, which means that the fraud-based "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" property tax assessment -- which is paying for nothing OTHER than the Karners' fraud -- needs to disappear from those victims' property tax bill, never to be paid again.

How that happens, I have no idea, but I'm sure the talented staff of SLO County government can figure it out.

Finally, to fully "resolve this issue," to where I don't have to file my Citizen's Complaint, all of those victims need to be made whole. For example, a typical single family household in the LOPZ has been funding the Karners' fraud at about $200 - $250 per year since 2003. So, I'm going to ballpark that figure at roughly $200 - $250/year, for the past 17 years, for about $4,000. And that's just for a typical LOPZ property owner, the taxpayers in the SLCUSD boundaries are being fleeced at a MUCH higher rate, as I've exposed over and over again on my blog, including at this link:


So, some sort of system needs to be created that repays all of those victims that $4,000, and the roughly $200,000 that SLCUSD taxpayers have been fleeced out of (so far). Again, how THAT happens, I have no idea, but it has to happen.

Please take note how I'm NOT asking to "resolve this issue" by demanding that both Pandora Nash-Karner, who is a current, and longtime, SLO County Parks Commissioner, and, District Attorney, Dan Dow, immediately resign.

That will never happen. I mean, I first exposed Pandora Nash-Karner's massive fraud/government corruption over a decade ago, and she is still an official SLO County official, on a first-name basis with every County Supervisor, and who is a "friend" and "endorser" of the District Attorney. [For Pete's sake, the SLO County DA goes over to Nash-Karner's home to raise campaign money from her disgusting fraud funds, so, obviously she got away with her massive fraud/government corruption. Nothing will ever happen to her... obviously.]

All I'm concerned about these days is that her victims -- many of them, financially strapped senior citizens -- stop being victimized every time they pay their property taxes over the next 13 years, and that they are made whole. That's it. That "resolves this issue" for me, and, IF that happens, I won't be forced to file my Citizen's Complaint.

I'll give the PIU a week to make a statement on this issue. If I don't hear/see anything from your office by March 18, I'll just go ahead and file my Citizen's Complaint, because I will have done this:

"Before you submit a citizen complaint, please contact the appropriate department to resolve the issue."

... to no avail, which means that the District Attorney's Public "Integrity" Unit [finger quotes on the "Integrity"] has no integrity. And that will be at the heart of this citizen's complaint.

If you have ANY questions involving my PIU review request, or the mountain of primary source evidence I've exclusively exposed over the years that clearly shows the Karners' fraud (including a confession by them, by the way), please... please just ask.

You have a week.

As always, much thanks,
Ron
- - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com
- - - - -

posted by Ron at 12:05 PM

Wednesday, January 27, 2021

A Fun Exercise in Local Journalism: Putting KCBX News's Ethics to the Test

[Note: Greta Mart is the news director at KCBX.]

Hello Greta,

Howya been? I hope all is well.

Hey, I'm just contacting you with this email because I think you're about to have as much fun with it as I am. It's a great exercise in journalism, so great, in fact, that I've decided to publish this email on my blog, at this link:


Check it out. This email is already posted on my blog, even before I hit the "send" button. Cool, huh?

This GREAT exercise in local journalism starts with a quote from an email that you sent me about a month ago, where you write:

"...  there is unambiguous separation between the news and management departments at KCBX, our Central Coast coverage is solely determined by myself and reported using professional and ethical journalistic standards."

Here's where this gets fun: I'd like to put that take to the test, and the reason I'd like to put that take to the test now, is because I'm seeing some excellent local stories that KCBX News isn't covering, and some of those stories involve KCBX itself, and not in a good way, so, now I'm not so sure that this, "unambiguous separation between the news and management departments at KCBX," is accurate, so, let's have some fun, and put that to the test.

Here's how:

About eight years ago, I exposed how KCBX host, and then-SLO County Parks Commissioner, Rick Mathews, was using his then-Saturday morning show, Freedom Jazz Dance, on KCBX to promote political fundraisers for then-SLO County Supervisor, Jim Patterson, the exact same person that appointed Rick to the SLO County Parks Commission, where Rick then used that position to help funnel hundreds of thousands of public dollars to the SLO County Botanical Garden, where he has professional ties through his business, Madrone Landscapes, which is also a sponsor of KCBX.

Those excellent posts are archived at these links:



Highly recommended reading.

[I've always loved that story, and, eight years out, it's still a super-interesting, meaty, fun story. I'm enjoying re-visiting it. (By the way, Debbie won that election, which meant, come January 2013, no more Rick on the SLO County Parks Commission, which meant he REEEELLY wanted Patterson to win that election.)]

But, here's where this already-great-story gets even better.

Shortly after I exposed that story, I made KCBX General Manager, Frank Lanzone, aware of my initial post on the subject, and he wrote to me that Rick had "broke an FCC rule" when he promoted those fundraisers over the KCBX public air waves.

In fact, so egregious was Rick's FCC rules violation, that, immediately after I exposed that great story, Rick was actually forced -- repeat: forced! -- to announce on his next show a fundraiser for Jim Patterson's challenger in the 2012 election, Debbie Arnold.

Greta, think about this question for a moment. It's flat-out great: Why did SLO County Supervisor, Jim Patterson's, appointed Parks Commissioner, Rick Mathews, announce, on KCBX public radio, a fundraising event for the candidate that is opposing the county supervisor that appoints Rick to his Parks Commission seat?

I mean, huh?! On the face of it, that doesn't doesn't make any sense.

Well, turns out, the answer to that great question is... uh, well, great: He was forced to! By KCBX management!

And, not only was he forced to make that announcement, but there's also this delicious detail: Rick was ALSO forbidden -- repeat: forbidden! -- from announcing any more fundraising events for his public office appointer, Jim Patterson.

Absolutely hilarious.

Now, I'm assuming that ALL of that direction -- where Rick was forced to announce a fundraiser for Debbie Arnold, and forbidden from announcing any more events for Jim Patterson -- came from Frank. After all, he's the one that told me:

"The bottom line is Rick and KCBX made a mistake. We broke an FCC rule. We will announce a fundraiser for Debbie's campaign on one of Rick's upcoming shows. We owe her that air time. By law."

So, Greta, here's where this excellent exercise in journalism gets back to your quote, where you write:

"...  there is unambiguous separation between the news and management departments at KCBX, our Central Coast coverage is solely determined by myself and reported using professional and ethical journalistic standards."

I see that KCBX has a Board of Directors:


I have had this question for the past eight years: Did Frank Lanzone ever make the KCBX Board of Directors aware of Rick's egregious FCC violation, from March 2012?

I have a slight-journalistic-hunch that he didn't, and I would LOVE to resolve that slight hunch.

So, let's put that "unambiguous separation" to the test: Please show me a document (some sort of KCBX BOD meeting minutes, or something like that would be great) that shows that Frank actually DID make the KCBX Board of Directors aware of Rick's FCC violation.

If you email me a pdf file that shows that document -- knowing that I'm going to publish it on my blog, AND put it in its excellent context -- then I'll report that this:

"... there is unambiguous separation between the news and management departments at KCBX..."

... is solid.

I will also support your take if you notify me that KCBX does not posses that document, which would actually support my "slight-journalistic-hunch."

However, here's the dealio: If you don't (or can't) pull off either one of those options, and just completely ignore this email, I am going to report that this:

"... there is unambiguous separation between the news and management departments at KCBX..."

... is not accurate.

See? Toldja this was gonna be a fun exercise in journalism.

So, again, here's the test (and it's a simple request): You send me a simple, time-stamped, 1-page document that shows that Frank actually DID make the KCBX BOD aware of Rick's egregious FCC violation from March 2012, and I'll believe this:

"... there is unambiguous separation between the news and management departments at KCBX... ."

I will also, on my blog, give KCBX News BIG credit for doing either one of those two options that I've outlined above.

If not? Well, that's a different story entirely, isn't it?

If you have any questions -- and questions whatsoever involving this email -- please just ask.

As always, much thanks,
Ron
- - - - -
sewerwatch.blogspot.com
- - - - -

posted by Ron at 10:35 AM | 0 comments

Wednesday, October 07, 2020

Too Fun!: The SLO County District Attorney's Office Has a "Public Integrity Unit"

[Note: Eric Dobroth is a Deputy District Attorney for the SLO County DA's office.]


Hello Mr. Dobroth,

I noticed on the SLO County DA's web site, at this link:


... that your office includes a "Public Integrity Unit," that will "aggressively and proactively seek out public corruption at all levels of government," however, what I didn't see on that page was contact information for the PIU, so, I was hoping I could email the following information to you, and then, if you would be so kind, you forward the information to the PIU to "aggressively" review.

I also wanted to quickly let you know that I published this entire email on my blog, at this link:


Thank you,
Ron
- - - - - -

Hello SLO County District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit,

I recently read on the SLO DA Public Integrity Unit's web page that "all matters referred to the Public Integrity Unit for consideration will be thoroughly and fairly reviewed."

I'm requesting that the PIU "consider" the following "matter."

This case involves the SLO County District Attorney, Dan Dow, and how it appears that he accepted fraud money to initially get elected in 2014.

Here are the details:

I'd like to start with this graphic:

... from the SLO County campaign finance web site, that shows how Dan Dow, in 2014, received $200 in campaign funds from a Los Osos couple, Gary Karner and Pandora Nash-Karner.

Now, as I've been reporting for over a decade, the Karners committed massive fraud in Los Osos, starting in 1997, when they "developed" a known-to-them-to-be-dead-on-arrival sewer system for Los Osos (now, I realize that sounds unbelievable -- that an ordinary married couple, he a landscaper, she a graphics-type person, would develop, in their living room, a sewer system for their community -- but that's exactly what happened, for reasons that are about to become crystal clear.)

I'm not going to reset their entire fraud (I've done it many times already, and I'll provide the links below), but, for the main question of this inquiry -- "Did Dan Dow accept fraud money from the Karners in 2014?" -- the PIU will need to get your heads wrapped around obvious fraud things like Gary Karner's SWA Group connection ("He specialized in project management and risk management with SWA for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA to consult on risk management," yet he failed to disclose that crucial fact when he wrote in 1997, "We recommend (these) firms be retained for professional design services when this Plan is accepted," and one of those firms "recommended" by Karner to be "retained for professional design services" "when" his (and his wife's) fake project was "accepted," was the SWA Group, which is exactly what happened), and Pandora Nash-Karner's fraudulent "Summer 2000," newsletter, that she produced when she was an elected Los Osos CSD Director, and, very importantly, what I call "The Karner Confession," where they actually confess to knowing that their fake project was "blown out of the water" in early 1998, yet they spent that entire year heavily marketing their fake project, then used it to form the Los Osos CSD, where Nash-Karner was elected as a CSD Director, and then she immediately used public money to hire her husband's firm as a contractor to "develop" their known-to-the-Karners-to-be-fake project, and, after thousands and thousands (millions?) of public dollars was completely wasted on their fake plan, it never even came close to working, of course, but not until Gary Karner's firm made a ton of money off of their scam.

So, in a nutshell that's the Karners' obvious fraud. It's open and shut. To be clear, there's no question about whether the Karners committed fraud. They did, and it started as early as 1997.

But, again, the question in this matter isn't really about the Karners' documented fraud, it's: "Did Dan Dow KNOWINGLY accept fraud money from the Karners in 2014?"

Now, I'd like to point out another key piece of evidence here. It's a March 11, 2014 Facebook post from Dan Dow, where he writes:

"Enjoyed a wonderful evening in a Los Osos home (Thank you Pandora Nash-Karner) making many new friends and discussing my vision for the future of our District Attorney's office. Received many new endorsements!"


So, here's Dan Dow, in 2014, at the home of known fraudsters, and then he ends up collecting $200 (at least!) from those known fraudsters, some five years AFTER the Karners' fraud was exposed.

So, again, in 2014, how did Dan Dow NOT accept fraud money from the Karners to help him get elected? I mean, there's really no other answer. He did. Which means the only other question becomes, was he aware of the Karners' fraud when he went to their house for "endorsements?" I argue he SHOULD have. A simple Google search of "Pandora Nash-Karner" is all he had to do BEFORE he went to the Karners' home that night, and he could have read up on stories like at this link:


... from 2009, where I first exposed the Karners' SWA Group scam.

Or, this link:


... from 2011, where I exposed "The Karner Confession," where they actually confess to knowing, one month after rolling out their fake project, that their fake project was "blown out of the water," and, therefore it was nothing more than a vehicle for them to make money, which is exactly what happened.

Then, there are my emails to Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham, at this link:


... and this link:


... where I show, among many other things, the massive fraud Pandora Nash-Karner committed with her "Summer 2000" newsletter from her Los Osos CSD.

[By the way, I confirmed with Assemblyman Cunningham's staff that he received those emails, but he never did anything about it, despite the fact that, as I show in those emails, the Karners' fraud not only has about 4,000 property owners in Los Osos funding the Karners' fraud until the year 2034, but the San Luis Coastal Unified School District will ALSO continue to be fleeced by the Karners' fraud until 2034, to the tune of about $400,000, but Assemblyman Cunningham, surprisingly, simply doesn't care. So strange for an elected official whose District includes all of the Karners' victims.

Maybe the PIU could look into that, as well: Why doesn't Assemblyman Cunningham care that thousands his constituents are victims of a massive fraud, and they will continue to be fleeced by that fraud until 2034, yet he just doesn't care? Why doesn't he care?... would be an interesting question for the PIU.]

So, that's the "matter" I would like the PIU to "aggressively seek out": Did SLO County District Attorney, Dan Dow, KNOWINGLY accept the Karners' fraud money, or, was he unaware of the Karners' disgusting (I will add) fraud when he accepted their fraud money?

If you have any questions, please just ask.

Thank you,
Ron

P.S. If you go to "Dan Dow 2022" "endorsement" page, at this link:


... and scroll down to the "Community Leaders" section, you'll see that the first person listed is, "Pandora Nash-Karner, SLO County Park Commission, Chair." So, I'm left assuming that he is STILL accepting the Karners' fraud money for his campaigns. Yes?

P.P.S.:


###

posted by Ron at 12:42 PM

Thursday, January 09, 2020

At $199/month sewer rate, the people of Los Osos STILL "owe everlasting gratitude," according to the Trib

TO: Joe Tarica, Editor, SLO County Tribune

Hello Joe,

Hey, I have excellent news for the property owners of Los Osos!

I was just reading Nick Wilson's story, at this link:


... headlined, "Los Osos facing 5 years of sewer rate hike -- and bills of nearly $200 a month," and, in that story, Nick writes, "annual increases of 3% to cover inflation in each of the following three years, reaching a total of about $199 per month by 2024-25."

Ironically, that is excellent news for Los Osos property owners.

You see, back in the day when the Trib was popping out editorial after editorial in support (support!) of the Los Osos CSD's disastrous (and now-failed, of course) mid-town "sewer-park," like the one at this link:


... the Trib also popped out an editorial that read:

"... if (Los Osos CSD) recall proponents make good on their campaign promises by building a sewer system out of town that will cost households less than $205 per month, the residents of Los Osos will owe them everlasting gratitude."

Well, fast-forward to today, and the County of SLO WAS able to "make good" on the "campaign promises" of the "recall proponents," by constructing a sewer system with a treatment facility "out of town," and, since $199 is less than $205, the residents of Los Osos, in 2024-25, will STILL "owe everlasting gratitude" for the people responsible for stopping the LOCSD's "infeasible" mid-town disaster, according to the Trib's own editorial board.

See? According to the Trib's own editorial board, a $199 a month sewer rate in Los Osos STILL deserves "everlasting gratitude" over the LOCSD's failed disaster... that the Trib supported over and over and over again (without ever researching the facts behind that disaster).

And that is excellent news for the property owners of the Los Osos prohibition zone, according to the Trib's own editorial board.

Just wanted to pass on that great piece of news.

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

P.S. I posted this email on my blog, at this link:

posted by Ron at 11:46 AM | 5 comments

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:


###

posted by Ron at 2:16 PM | 4 comments