To the Editor:
In his March 24th editorial, Farrell tries to politicize the unfortunate realities of the current economy. He opines that Measure H/I resulted in property owners not paying their CFD taxes. He quotes an anonymous Gazette reader. “These properties have been paying taxes for CFD No. 1 since 1992 and now after 18 years they have stopped paying taxes”
For the record, this CFD was formed in 1990 to build infrastructure for the failed North Fillmore Industrial Park. In 1999, there were also several defaults which resulted in Griffin obtaining various properties in the North Fillmore Industrial Park and after the rezoning from industrial to residential, they built the Hometown development.
Over the years, there have been many defaults and transfers of ownership on these properties. It is disingenuous to blame Measures H/I for the current economic state of housing, commercial development or business defaults. According to Bank Call Reports, $44.5 billion of construction and land development loans are delinquent throughout the US.
Also, the property owners and potential homeowners would have been required to fund an additional $18 million in debt for infrastructure costs. It’s possible that Measure I prevented that additional debt.
Gayle Washburn
Fillmore Council Member

***

To the Editor:
Mrs. Washburn was the sponsor of Measure I, prior to the election she proudly shouted the benefits of the measure. She and then citizen Walker, who worked to limit growth planning three times in North Fillmore, are now seeing the savage outfall of their coffee table plan. Yes, it’s true, property owners have been paying taxes on their land prior to the CFD. Additionally they have been paying CFD taxes on top of their normal tax amounts since it was formed. It’s not a coincidence that we’ve now had foreclosures, local property owners walking away from their investment, because the investment has little or no worth with Measure I forced upon them. One property owner spoke to the ills of the Measure, relating to the council how the Measure reduces his family’s security, but his words fell on the deaf ears of Washburn and Walker.
Griffin’s successful development in North Fillmore has nothing to do with Measure I and the impact it’s had on our local citizens and businesses. What is disingenuous is Mayor Pro Tem Washburn’s effort to hide the facts and shield herself and her cabal like group from criticism for their privately concocted scheme. Now that the real effects are being felt by local Fillmore residents it’s time she admit that she’s ruined families financial savings, limited freedom, increased density planning over the remainder of Fillmore, drove up sewer rates and conspired with her like minded group to control things they know little about.
Name withheld by request

***

To the Editor:
On Mar 18, 2010, The Ventura County Star published an article about the #1 goal of the Fillmore City Council which is Economic Development. This goal could strengthen and help Fillmore in so many ways.
The March 23 Council meeting broadcast on Channel 10 seemed to be a strange debate about high vacancy rates of new properties on Highway 126, debt, and risk. Councilwoman Washburn stated, "We didn't qualify for 'iBank' funding for the waste water treatment plant, how can we qualify now?" It was state revolving funds, which is allocated each year, and can’t be counted on for large multi-year projects, not "iBank" as was stated.
The Highway 126 vacancies discussed by Mayor Walker are not industrial properties as the business park would have, they are small retail and office space.
One of the business park developers proposed that the city take his funds, select a contractor and administer the work to study alternatives for funding the business park infracture. That concept as moved by Councilmember Conaway finally passed despite Councilmember Brooks elementary school technique of repetition, repetition, repetition. Is Councilmember Brooks comparing fellow Council members and the public watching the meeting to elementary school students?
Seven days prior to this meeting the Council said economic Development was Goal #1. At this meeting their actions said Economic Development really isn't important enough for Brooks Washburn and Mayor Walker to even have an options study done at the developer’s expense. How can the council make informed decisions if they are not willing to look at alternatives?
Ray Johnson
Fillmore

***

To the Editor:
I’m at a loss for words but I feel I need to express my concern and frustration over the disagreement between the teachers union FUTA and Fillmore Unified School District. It seems to me that all of us have, or should have, the well being of STUDENTS as our first priority. If this is the case then how is it even a possibility, a worst case scenario that Mountain Vista Elementary could loose 48% of its teachers?
Imagine what your life would be like if you were forced to lose 48% of your family and friends. This example is only slightly exaggerated, as the teachers and staff of a school spend countless hours working and planning together, even spending time together outside of school. This bonding is what creates the community atmosphere of an elementary school. Four years ago when Mountain Vista opened its doors these teachers began their work creating a wonderful environment for children. Now that the school is beginning to feel settled almost half of the teachers may be laid off? How does this make any sense?
Another point I want to bring up is the number of students that will be leaving the district because of these standoffs. Parents are tired of waiting to see what next year will bring. Families are looking elsewhere for their child’s education. With private school registrations beginning soon we may loose many students if this is not settled now. My children are in Fillmore schools because I believe in the quality education offered here and I want my children to have the benefits of a community school but I’m looking around.
My youngest daughter will enter 4th grade next year and I’m very worried about who will be teaching in the fall. Currently Mountain Vista’s entire 4th grade is composed of a strong group of young teachers who may loose their jobs. Will the entire grade level be replaced by teachers who either didn’t choose to teach 4th grade or didn’t choose to move to Mountain Vista? What am I supposed to do as a parent? I’m asked to support the schools and teachers but now I don’t feel like those who are supposed to protect our teachers and students are doing their job correctly.
Please keep class sizes small and keep our teachers jobs safe. Highly trained employees are our greatest resource!
Kelli Couse
Fillmore