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.

###