To the Editor:
Michael T. Mecca responded to my August 14th letter in which I ask Fillmore residents to help in the effort to decrease chloride discharges into the Santa Clara River. Everyone please note the following:
A) The approximately 450 brine (salt) discharging water softeners in use in Fillmore are in fact the number one cause of Fillmore's chloride pollution problem.
B) Removing all or most of the 450 brine (salt) discharging water softeners in Fillmore will in fact bring Fillmore into compliance with the state's chloride limits.
C) We are not seeking any "draconian measures" to deal with our chloride problem. Asking residents to turn in their out dated, polluting brine (salt) dischargers, and receive a rebate for a machine which is out dated is certainly not "draconian."
D) California state prisons may contribute huge amounts of salt into fresh water rivers and streams because of their use of the brine (salt) discharging water softeners; this has nothing to do with Fillmore. He states the case and agrees that these brine (salt) discharging water softeners DO pollute!
E) The "Pacific Water Quality Association" of which Michael Mecca is past-president, is a sham organization of businesses who sell these brine (salt) discharging water softeners. They are not at all interested in water quality; they are interested in their own profits.
Residents of Fillmore cannot afford any more increases to their water or sewer bills. If you have, or know of someone who has a brine (salt) discharging water softener (these are the ones you add salt to each month), call the City for a rebate: 524-1500x234.
Mary Farkas,
Fillmore

To the Editor:
On November 18, 2007 El Dorado's old HOA gave all it's money to the El Dorado Social Club and claimed they dissolved the Corporation they were in charge of.
These are the facts. The old HOA- Fillmore El Dorado Homeowners Association, IS still a corporation and has been in suspension for years. Being in suspension, they have no right to move or spend money. They needed to comply with the law and file financial reports with the state, which they did not do, to get out of suspension. Charles Richardson says the money was "gifted" to the social club. It was illegal, under corporate law, for them to give the $9,100+ of the El Dorado residents’ money to anyone. Therefore, this money does not belong to the Social Club. The Social Club is not incorporated and has no legal standing with the state. The Old HOA spent $1,500+ on a lawyer when they had no right to spend any money. Being suspended, anything they did with the money was on a personal basis only as they could not act on a corporate level. The residents of El Dorado deserve their money back! There are residents in the park who will sue and return the money to the rightful owners, the residents of El Dorado. The perpetrators of this act are within a hair of suffering the consequences. They have been given every chance to "right their wrong".
Dave Roegner,
Fillmore

To the Editor:
NORTH FILLMORE INITIATIVE “MEASURE I” PUTS CITY AT RISK LEGALLY AND FINANCIALLY
The impacts of Measure I on the City of Fillmore are significant and could result in serious legal and financial issues for the City.
Below are several facts that Fillmore voters should consider when they vote on Measure I:
1. Measure I violates the housing element requirements of state law.
2. Adoption of Measure I will put the City at risk of being held in violation of state statutes which require internal consistency among General Plan elements. This could mean the loss of revenues paid by the State to the City for the running of the City.
3. From 1991 to the present, the City has already lost over $2.7 million in state revenues and the City cannot afford any additional losses in revenues.
4. Measure I will reduce revenue to the Redevelopment Agency by 50% from over $2.1 million per year to approximately $1million.
5. The City should be prepared to incur attorneys’ fees if a legal action is commenced challenging the validity of the Measure I.
6. Measure I may expose the City to protracted litigation.
7. There is a high probability that Measure I would be subject to legal challenge(s), with a potential ruling that the Measure I was invalid when passed.
8. If Measure I passes, it will negatively impact the City’s ability to meet its share of regional housing needs, and an inordinate amount of City funds and resources will be required to amend the General Plan, the housing element, specific plans and existing zoning ordinances, requiring extensive review by environmental and other consultants.
9. Measure I does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental document has been prepared to study the environmental impacts of the plan.
10. Measure I reduces planned park and open space in the North Fillmore area by approximately 36%. The City needs more park space, not less park space.
11. The reduction of 50% of the housing units will double the cost per dwelling unit for the utilities for the North Fillmore development project; thus, Measure I will increase the cost of the project meaning no development will occur and North Fillmore will remain blighted.
12. Measure I has no financial plan to pay for the necessary public improvements that will be required to develop the plan.
13. Because Measure I does not allow enough development to trigger the traffic improvements identified in the North Fillmore Specific Plan, the impacts associated with whatever development does occur in the North Fillmore Area would not be mitigated as called for in the City’s General Plan.
14. If Measure I is approved by the voters, monthly water and sewer fees to all Fillmore residents will have to be higher without new development in the NFSP area.
15. Measure I will be a negative impact on the City due to estimated ANNUAL revenue loss from $106,000 to $146,000 per year.
Roy Payne
Fillmore City Manager (1989 -2005)