Comments to the Town Council opposing the ballot measure (March 9, 2017)
Good Evening Mayor Pro tem and council members.
Thank you for taking the steps to place a measure to acquire financing on the ballot.
150 million dollars with interest rates up to maximum permitted by law, 12% per annum, is a lofty sum indeed and should require the public’s approval.
However I rise to inquire if you are putting the cart before the horse.
You only need 88 days to hold a special election, just about three months. You are not yet set for trial on the public purpose aspect of the eminent domain … you don’t know if you have the court’s permission to take the water system … so you are agreeing to spend money on a special election for financing for something you may not be able to seize buy eminent domain.
IF you are allowed to seize the water company, the value has not been set….you may need another election to cover any shortfall. Why not wait until you get to the valuation phase … at least you will have better information as to the cost.
I think the exercise at this juncture is wasteful and made with inadequate information. And while I ask you to reconsider, I know you won’t because your human, human nature won’t allow your egos to take a breath and reconsider.
Secondly, You have waited to the last day to call this meeting, perhaps to hide it from the public. The meeting does not show on the face of your website, one must look to the Agenda section to know it occurs. But then, you have been planning it for longer and your calculated timing is not unnoticed. Further, you allowed your consultant to leak it to your supporters before you posted the public notice. I have two e-mails From Tim at 20/20 Network, sent to public members at 3:49 and 3:51 p.m., yesterday. It was sent out to public members nearly two hours before you post a public notice. You have and still play unfair with the public.
And to top things off, you are using public dollars, which pay 20/20, to advocate and campaign for the measure before there is an actual election called. Clearly the emails ask people to come out and support the measure … it certainly appears to be a contribution of public monies toward advocacy of the measure as defined in Got. Code 82015(h) although I am sure your attorneys will find a slick ambiguity to
defend your position against such a violation.
Since you all have already decided your course of action prior to this meeting, and no discussion will take place on the dais, I anticipate your vote to be another exercise in wasting public dollars.
Diana J. Carloni, Apple Valley, CA