Can you remember when all neighbors in Calaveras County were "friendly" to each other?
Even if you didn't really like what your neighbor did, you respected their right to do with their land what they pleased.
You didn't threaten, trespass, harass or in any way act crazy, did you?
Well, that has all changed. Look at Sam Mosby's 108 acre property on Pool Station Road, for example. He continues to get resistance from the county and his "friendly country neighbors", who we found out, have close ties (relatives) in the Planning Department.
What are their names? You will soon know!!
Calaveras County Planning department officials continue to make the argument that the road "rating" is inadequate for Sam's 5 homes on the 108 acres.
However, that same stretch of road seems to be just fine for the DRUG REHAB that has been there for awhile.
A lower "rated" road gets you to the Ironstone Vineyards, where thousands and thousands of people drive just to see a concert!
The county cannot show a legal "ratings" system law, code or ordinance in Calaveras County or the State of California, but they were nice enough to provide us with highway guidelines from an engineer in Minnesota and in Bombay, India. Wow!
Nearly 15 years after being sued for having inconsistent land use designations and road "ratings", aren't we exactly where we were in 1985? And it looks like Mr. Mosby is the one being punished for our bad planning.
When we were told about this particular project, we decided to do some investigating on our own. The Planning Director then was Rebecca Willis, (remember her?) and she was not happy to have her authority questioned.
Since this seems like an excellent type of project for Calaveras County, unlike the 400 home crowded subdivisions that some developers put on small properties, we just don't understand.
It seems that nobody can make a living in construction in Calaveras County if the Planning Department has anything to say about it.
But no worries folks....ranchers like John Tiscornia and Leroy Rader can still make a living.
Maybe that's because of the subsidies (what most people call "entitlements") or "welfare" that they have received over the years from the USDA. (YES! OUR TAX MONEY)
And then many of the local ranchers are in the Williamson Act, so property taxes are almost non-existent for them, unlike what most homeowners get stuck paying. We pay so they don't have to!!
People like these ranchers who collect "welfare" benefits will never understand what people who don't get "entitlements" have to do to feed their children in today's economy. They have to EARN their living.
Such nice? "neighbors" live here in Calaveras County. Welcome to "welfare" county, California. Home of the "friendly" "welfare" ranchers!!
14 comments:
LOL. AWESOME!!!
These ranchers should be cut off from their subsidies and tax free property. why do they get special favors we can't get?
Isn't Tryon another one who gets our tax money and other special "welfare" benefits?
Is this the project that Willis quit over?
Those guys friendly? I hear they carry guns!!
Well, that sure puts the Tiscornia's and the Raders in the "neighbors from hell" category. Doesn't Tiscornia have some kind of restaurant or something?
At the very least neighbors from hell! what restaurant? i'll be sure and stay away!
Was there really ever a time when people got along?
They must be very political Democrats!
The lawsuit started in 1982. 31 years ago, not 15. You're right, nothing has changed.
The Pool Station Road project is in the Sierra Sentinel's 40 Acres & a mule resolution. Public water & public sewer required. The road rating is secondary.
Look up the state's guidelines for general plans. You'll find the road rating, also look up the out of date County Road Ordinance, you'll find the road rating there.
That is if you're really interested. Has Mosby appealed to the BOS? Rumor is yes. Should be an interesting hearing. Considering last March during a BOS / Planning Commission agenda, Spellman brought up the resolution 07-242 and got it confirmed by Bob Garamendi. Let's see if 3 board members have the cajones to remove it. Then we get to see how they circumvent the rest of the rules.
Does the county have enough money to fight another lawsuit, the same one as 31 years ago?
The county cannot defend this.....the road ratings do not match the land use designation....period. they were told in 1986 to fix it and they did not do it. so willis was in the process of trying to change land use to match road ratings..that is why she squashed all projects. Adios Willis.
What years were the roads in Calaveras County constructed?
Mt. Ranch Road 1945-1948 era, has it changed from it's origin? No
When was Pool Station Road constructed? Take a look in places as to what the road was constructed on. Without roads meeting, at least, safety standards or mitigated standards (RIM FEES), 40 acres & a mule will prevail and the public water & public sewer throws a glich into the equation.
This was started long before Director Willis' time as Planning Director. Has anyone looked back to see how far back the BOS has been the driving force?
The issue is that in 1986 the county was mandated to make sure that the road circulaton correlated to the land use designation. It does not. This means property is zoned for growth (Mosby is zoned RA 10) but that road ratings will NEVER allow it. This is a violation of California Planning Statutes. The county knows it and that is why they are going into closed session. They screwed up again.
You forgot the 40 acres and a mule rule with public water & public sewer.
1985, the Court noted that the land use element, which provided for substantial growth, neither discussed the potential inadequacy of the roadways, not contained proposals by which growth would be restricted in the event the road system were overwhelmed. At the same time, the circulation element pointed out current and expected deficiencies in the state highways serving the county. Further, the element's only policy for rectifying the situation was to "lobby for funds." No other funding sources were identified.
Yes, the Court concluded that the land use and the circulation elements were not sufficiently correlated and violated section 65302 (b).
That was then, this is now. An adopted, out of date Road Ordinance is in place and 40 acres and a mule with public water & public sewer. A building moratorium was put in place. So either 3 BOS recommend rescinding 07-242 and doing something about the Road Ordinance or Mosby can choose to sue. It will be an interesting hearing.
Thanks for the discussion, Spellman.
Post a Comment