How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Opinion
- Details
- Written by: Barbara Betz
After several conversations with John Stoddard and others, I became aware that there are many laws being broken by members of the current board. Both developed and undeveloped property owners are being held hostage by these tyrannical individuals, who prey on the elderly and absentee landowners, illegally imposing fines and restrictions and forcing compliance by processing liens against them. There is no democracy here.
My property was transferred to me in 1979 and I have not developed it. Plans were submitted and approved, but with the economy being what it was (through the 1980s and 1990s), and next to zero growth in the Riviera over the last 20-plus years, I couldn’t afford to build on it.
After the debacle with Mt. Konocti Water Co., it even left a bigger sour taste in the mouths of property owners. The only people who prospered from that endeavor were the attorneys.
There was a glimmer of hope. Younger families began migrating into Kelseyville, and it seemed that there was some positive movement towards cleaning up old dumpy properties and chasing out the less-than-desirable characters that inhabited Kelseyville proper. A new grammar school was built two blocks below my property, and I saw hope. The property values jumped exponentially and it was time to build.
Then came the crash. Sept. 11, 2001. Within one year, the market began to decline and the insurgence of new blood all but dried up. Property vales began to stagnate, and sales and purchases began a steady decline.
Two years ago, my little chunk of land in the Riviera was fetching a price over $60,000. Yet now I can’t even hope to list it for more than $25,000 – and then there’s the lien, which prevents me from being able to sell anything.
Add in Allied Trust, and the tyrannical Riviera Association.
Right around the time the Riviera began to see some positive growth, the board saw fit to start charging folks late fees and assessments and aggressively pursuing homeowners for ridiculous demands such as the removal of a carport (that was part of the permanent structure) to the clearing of properties. In my opinion, this was done to do nothing more than fatten the board members' coffers, and the community as a whole saw no benefit.
Without proper notices on property “assessments” from the Riviera Association, I received a threatening collection notice from Allied Trust for more than $3,000 for past due Riviera fees and of course a 50 percent-plus collection fee attached. Like a fool, I settled the matter. I had to borrow money to bail my property out of a lien status, and it took the agency months and me constantly requesting them to produce the completed filing, to actually acquire the recorded lien release.
In short, I allowed the Riviera to bully me out of fear. They won, and I’m out thousands.
Then the real problems began.
I began receiving notices from the Riviera Associatioin that all lots had to be “cleared to a park-like setting” and they provided a list of “recommended contractors” who would clear properties for astronomical prices. I smelled a rat. This was the first. I checked it out, and called several of the “approved” vendors, and was amazingly quoted very similar price structures from each. I began to think that they had a deal with the board, and kickbacks were being given to listed vendors. Although I cannot substantiate the claims, there was talk that this had in fact occurred.
I, at one point, found an independent vendor (out of town) who said they would gladly do it for approximately $500 less than the quoted prices for approved vendors. He, too, also believed that the landowners we being bamboozled by the board.
As if this wasn’t enough, I started receiving notices from the Riviera board that noncompliance of lot clearing would result in a fine of $125. I contacted the Riviera Association and began asking questions. They were many times downright rude and abrasive, and refused to answer questions. I tired to negotiate with them. I took several days off of work to personally meet the members of the board and review activity within the Riviera, and somehow, the office was always closed, or they were unavailable.
The minute I began to question the ethics of the board, their attitude changed and they became more aggressive and threatening. They told me my property was now designated a “fire hazard,” and shortly thereafter that I began receiving notices in the mail, that I was being fined $125 for the “fire hazard,” and if I cleared the lot, and until I cleared the lot, I would continue to be fined. They said I could attend a hearing, which meant taking more time off work, to deal with these felonious charges. I chose to address the board in a letter. Their response was to send me a letter that stated the fines would not be lifted, and increased to $250. Clearly, this was purely retaliatory in nature, and meant as an in-your-face tactic to bully me.
At this point, I began to demand accountability. One, to produce a signed copy of the CCRs and bylaws, and two, to prove to me that all members of the Riviera had similar fines. They refused on both parts, and continued to send me fines. Every attempt I made to resolve the issue was met with resistance and more fines. They have now employed the use of Allied Trust to further harass me.
I contacted the California Department of Forestry, which I believe is the governing body for the Kelseyville area, to ascertain if, in fact, my property had been deemed a “fire hazard.” The chief I spoke with said that there had not been a fire, and no properties within the Clear Lake Riviera had been tagged for fire hazard. I questioned further if the Riviera Association had the authority to designate a property “fire hazard.” “No,” they do not. Further, there haven’t been any significant fires in the Riviera, period.
As my property, and a majority of the hillside has been undeveloped for over 25 years, it seems to me that we would be destroying the natural habitat, and it seemed senseless to change the trail of the deers, quails, etc., for no reason. There is, I believe, a green belt directly behind the end of Bel Air East/West, in which everything remains in it’s natural state. As an environmentally aware person, it seemed senseless to destroy the natural surroundings, and if and when I was to build, great care would be taken to make sure that the natural wildlife would not come to any harm, and be disturbed as little as possible.
In short, I started doing research on the Web, and discovered there may be many more people, many of which are retired seniors, who are in a similar boat as I.
John Stoddard, and his colleagues belong to We the People, which I understand is an organization established to represent the owners of the Riviera properties. I gladly lend my voice to them, as we cannot fight the tyrannical association and its cronies without help.
I would encourage all residents and owners of the Clear Lake Riviera to band together and stand up to the egregious claims and fines levied by the current board.
Talk to any real estate agent in the surrounding area. Property values in the Riviera have plummeted, and lots are just not selling.
The current board has done nothing for the Riviera community to improve this situation. All they have done is generate false charges, harass senior citizens and landowners, and cast a disparaging light on the future of the community as a whole. I once thought this would be a great place to retire. I’ve changed my mind.
I suggest we contact the plaintiff’s attorney in the Mt. Konocti Water Co. debacle, and see if they would represent the Riviera landowners in a class action lawsuit. I know personally that I can’t afford to hire an attorney, and I doubt many senior citizens are in any better shape. We need help. The Riviera community needs the help of someone greater.
Barbara Betz lives in San Jose.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: James BlueWolf
The fantasy of “royalty” is built into European mythology. Becoming a prince, princess, king or queen dominated the fairy tales and early cinematic cartoons of our era; however its roots were firmly entrenched from the beginning. New World Europeans, long under the boot of aristocracies, cherished the “freedom” to own their own property and lands, and create whatever personal “castles” they could with as much of a buffer between themselves and their neighbors as they could afford. In fact, this has been the standard for determining one's status of wealth in the Americas. The more square footage; the more acreage; the more isolation one can achieve is a direct measurement of financial achievement. Today's monoculture still exhorts the rags-to-riches mythology – a procreation of the desire to become royalty.
This desire translated geopolitically as new immigrants automatically looked to creating their own kingdom – which was eventually watered down to houses in the hills, Beverly, or otherwise. The American dream encompassed a desire to, in some small way, achieve the goal of becoming a king or queen of one's domain – the essence of the philosophy of private property. If an individual can autonomously control the right to affect one's property and lands with impunity – one has, in some small measure, achieved royalty.
Some people claim that I am misguided, and that this tendency toward wanting one's own is inherent in the human psyche and can be evidenced in the behavior of children. Unfortunately, it is they who are misguided. The type of selfish behavior our children often display relating to toys and possessions is primarily a First World trait. You do not find that behavior evidenced in communally oriented communities, certainly never in indigenous communities. It's like the myth that all teenagers are rebellious. It simply isn't true anywhere but in the fat First World. Teenagers the world over in Third World countries suffer no such alienation and social repugnance. It wasn't even common in America until around the aftermath of the Second World War, when James Dean and Marlon Brando gave the myth of rebellious teens its face.
The Provinsalia project proposed for Clearlake is a classic example of “sprawl.” It contains all the elements that have contributed to the creation of the word in the first place. What are those elements?
First is the desire to escape urbanity, with all its attendant poverty, slums, lows property values and feeling of closeness as opposed to space. Of course urban areas were constructed that way, even though space could have been incorporated if it had been deemed important. But rural planners and developers have responded to areas of poverty in the same way. Their answer is to ignore or isolate them and then relocate or develop in other areas. Redevelopment is always a last option when there are new and more pristine areas to conquer!
Second is the desire to create “upscale development – supposing that bringing in wealthier people will somehow “trickle-down” wealth to the general populace and improve values. Of course, there’s no evidence that this has ever happened. The presence of wealth has never elevated the poor ... The poor areas remain poor – the wealthier people just move further away so they aren't offended by the needy. It’s the same mentality that created landfills and Indian reservations.
Third is just plain old selfishness. Upscale people want their gated community in a safe and beautiful location. However developers and proponents never admit that, sooner or later, other development will follow. A gas station convenience store here, a mini-mall strip there ... the simple drive to bring necessities closer (even if it’s only a five minute drive to town) will cause that development to ultimately take place. After all, it makes good business sense. If you have a community of 500 families and can build a business that provides services they need closer to them than other competitors – whom do you suppose they will go to? Sooner or later – the new development is consolidated into the old town and you have “sprawl.” Yes, it could take a generation, even two or three, but it will happen. That's the model of American development we must break.
In the modern world, short of an unlikely total philosophical reversal, the issue of private land ownership rights cannot be altered, but reasonable provisions must be added that recognize the new/old understanding that we share this world – and what we do with it, both individually and communally, will have a lot to do with whether or not we survive as a species. A communal sense of responsibility for the land and its resources must come into play, even while recognizing a right to private ownership.
The concept of individual authority, cherished as the basis of the private property paradigm, has heretofore freed property owners from any community responsibility, giving them carte-blanc on their own lands. Unfortunately, no matter how entrenched this philosophy has become in the American psyche, it has become obsolete and must needs be discarded for Americans to embrace the changes that must be made.
James BlueWolf lives is an artist and writer. He lives in Nice.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News Reports
CAN is a tool, composed of ordinary citizens who have joined with the Coast Guard, to detect suspicious activities in and along the Pacific Coastal Waters as well as assist in search and rescue. Basic equipment – binoculars to observe the shores and coastal waters and a telephone to report observations.
Can this idea be extrapolated to areas other than coastal? Yes. There are CAN organizations across the US. Without becoming another Lake County organization, citizen awareness can be developed along these lines.
How can citizen vigilance work? Again, my one plus one theory, if enough people report violations, perhaps violations will decrease as violators are apprehended. Report what you see or sit on your tush and say how terrible!
Document and report traffic violations: speeders, cell phone users, passing on yellow lines, tailgating, driving under the influence, crossing over the centerline.
Drug use: report suspected drug houses, meth labs, use of a hallucinogen and unusual congregations of people.
Neighborhoods: cars driving “too” slowly through your neighborhood, night driving without lights, strangers on bikes, questionable solicitors, unknown “greenbelt walkers,” graffiti showing up.
Firearms: Suspicious carrying or use.
Dumping: on roadway and private property.
Unsafe boating/water activities: use of alcohol and erratic driving of boats.
Realizing, no matter how good a police force is, it cannot have eyes and ears everywhere at all times. Observe what is happening around you. Using the chart of NON-EMERGENCY and EMERGENCY phone numbers published in this issue, factually report what you see.
Lt. Commander Dane R. Hayward, Clear Lake Area Highway Patrol has graciously provided the correct contact phone numbers. Please clip the chart and post in a convenient location and carry a copy in your vehicle and purse.
NON-EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Traffic Violations:
Kelseyville CHP Office
707-279-0103, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Ukiah CHP Dispatch
707-467-4000, After hours
Caltrans (Lakeport)
707-263-6848
Lake County Road Department
707-263-2341
Drug Enforcement:
Lake County Sheriff’s Office
707-263-2690 (Dispatch Center)
Lake County Narcotic Task Force
707-263-9055
Suspicious Circumstances/ Firearms/Dumping:
Lake County unincorporated area:
Lake County Sheriff’s Office
707-263-2690 (Dispatch Center)
City of Lakeport:
Lakeport Police Department
707-263-5491
City of Clearlake:
Clearlake Police Department
707-994-8251
Lake County Code Compliance
707-263-2309
Waterways:
Lake County Sheriff’s Office
707-263-2690 (Dispatch Center)
Fish and Game
707-944-5500
U.S. Coast Guard, Noyo
Station, Fort Bragg
707-964-6611
The above numbers are non-emergency numbers. Call 911 for all emergencies.
Leona Butts lives in Clearlake Oaks.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
For anyone who has had a family member in the military, who has heard their stories firsthand, days like this take on a painful significance, especially when remembering those whose stories have been silenced by time, age or injury.
Memorial Day is usually a time to focus on those already departed, but for me it's also a time to honestly consider how we treat all vets, and if we're doing right by them before it's too late.
The millions of veterans who call the United States home have a right to the best health care we can afford them.
It certainly hasn't been the case in recent years that all our vets have been treated to the highest standard of care. The well-known nightmare of Walter Reed Hospital is an example that continues to resonate in many peoples' minds.
A country with a strong military needs a strong medical program for its service members, and that takes funding.
A bill in Congress that has the attention of many local veterans as well as national veterans organizations is HR 2514, the Assured Veterans for Health Care Act of 2008.
The bill is meant to change the way Veterans Administration funding is determined, taking it from discretionary to mandatory, establishing a baseline funding year and providing future funding based on the number of actual veterans who participate in the health care system. In addition, it would figure in rising costs of providing health care.
Congressman Mike Thompson is among the bill's cosponsors.
Unfortunately, the bill – introduced May 24, 2007 – has been stuck in the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health since just days after its introduction.
In January, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota introduced S 2639, the Senate's version of the bill. In February, that bill was sent to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Sen. Johnson reported on his Web site that the legislation is supported by the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
The Vietnam Veterans of America also are lobbying for the bill. Dr. Thomas J. Berger, chair of the VVA's National PTSD and Substance Abuse Committee, and Rick Weidman, the association's executive director for policy and government affairs, testified last Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, asking them to consider a number of bills, including S 2639.
The men pointed out, “Unfortunately the debates regarding funding of veterans' health care continue to focus on the year-to-year 'band-aids' and quick fixes needed to keep the health care system afloat.”
They said it was time to ensure “a consistent, predictable and responsible level of funding that will give more than lip service to the mandates for health care set forth in law, and by the will of the American people.”
The Veterans Administration's funding is so uncertain and inadequate that it is barring many veterans from eligibility for services, Berger and Weidman reported.
There are many causes vying for attention and money from Congress, but certainly the care of our nation's veterans has to be at the top of the list.
For those of you who would like to help move these bills forward, write to Congressman Bob Filner, the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health chair, and ask him to move HR 2514 toward a House vote. Write to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 335 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C 20515; fax your letter to 202-225-2034; or call 202-225-9756.
On the Senate side, contact Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chair Sen. Daniel Akaka at www.senate.gov/~veterans/public/index.cfm?pageid=1, by writing to 412 Russell Senate Building, Washington D.C. 20510, or by calling Democratic staff at 202-224-9126 or Republican staff at 202-224-2074.
Neither Sens. Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein have signed on as cosponsors of the Senate bill.
Contact Sen. Barbara Boxer at 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington D.C. 20510; telephone 202-224-3553; Web site, http://boxer.senate.gov; e-mail, http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm. Her San Francisco office can be reached at 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111, telephone 415-403-0100, fax 202-224-0454.
Contact Sen. Dianne Feinstein at 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington D.C. 20510; telephone
202-224-3841, fax 202-228-3954, TTY/TDD 202-224-2501. For her San Francisco office, write One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; telephone 415-393-0707; fax 415-393-0710. Her Web site is http://feinstein.senate.gov, where you also can send her an e-mail at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe.
I think Memorial Day is an entirely appropriate time to ask if we're doing right by our surviving veterans. After all, those who died in combat, or served and passed on later, did their duty to ensure that this country continued to give its citizens the very best it had to offer.
Our honored dead had a right to expect we would take care of their brothers and sisters in arms when they came home, after their service was done. That's what we should strive to do now and always. It's a critical and moral obligation, and a duty of love to those who served.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:4}