Doggone, I forgot to ask an important question.
On page 7 of the LOCSD's Response and Request for Continuance to R3-2005-0137 ACL Complaint, the CSD attorney cites three code sections -- 33 USC section 1383 (d) (1) (c); 40CFR section 35.3120(a)(1)(4) and California Water Code section 13480(b)(1)(c) and states in the next paragraph, "The LOCSD asks the CCR board to take official notice of the above three provisions. The SWRCB's reference to those provisions constitutes an admission on its part that (1) it apparently agreed to fund the SRF Loan without first considering what impact the approval of Measure B would have on the SWRCB's obligation to comply with those code provisions; and (2) that Measure B must, at this time, be accorded a presumption of validity."
Then in Wednesday's Tribune, you will note that a key provision in this "new deal"is that the community must NOW vote to pass a Prop 218-type assessmen district which will ensure aNEW dedicated revenue source, i.e. property taxes instead of the old "fee for service."
Which, of course, begs a few questions:
*Was the original State Revolving Fund loan improperly or illegally secured in the first place?
*Did it violate the various codes cited?
*Is that original loan illegal?
*If it isn't, why is the State NOW demanding a do-over so it can be done right, this time?
* And are they maybe hoping nobody will notice? Especially if the threats are scary enough?
Well, all I can say is this: The CSD better resolve the question of whether the original loan was properly done. Otherwise, done-deal or not, no matter what kind of blackmail, threats, carrots, or booby-prizes the State dangles our way, somebody's gonna sue just to find out. Thereby delaying this project even further.
Nope, time to go back to the start of this loan and have a judge clear up, once and for all, whether the loan itself was legal and proper. And if it was and is, then there's no need for any mail-in election to form a taxing district.