SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
September 15, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Almost Wordless Wednesdays

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Developer controlled HOA board astro-turfs (as opposed to grassroots) campaign against annexation

Comments (14)

  1. Berta González-HarperSeptember 15, 2010 at 11:39 am
    @Jeff, I find it abhorrent that a developer who has now changed his project WITHIN THE COUNTY to include many more homes than originally approved and which now has NO WATER SOURCE so may not ever be built out is holding the current residents of Tesoro del Valle (vahyeh, please) hostage with his control of the HOA Board. Question for ND. Are you planning to attend community meeting at City Hall tonight? If so, will you please write commentary for scvtalk.com on that issue? Thanks.
  2. mikeSeptember 15, 2010 at 11:55 am
    Berta is 2 for 2 today.
  3. Berta González-HarperSeptember 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm
    @mike or you are 2 for 2 today (she smiles gleefully)!
  4. Tim MyersSeptember 15, 2010 at 12:01 pm
    Its all part of the real estate game Berta. Getting that plan change for 2.5 times more homes could raise the value of the property to support additional leverage and cash distributions to the Montalvo partners, and the quisling HOA members go along because they are flattered that guys in suits will talk to them like they are important.
  5. Berta González-HarperSeptember 15, 2010 at 1:07 pm
    @Tim, a situation vastly more unlikely to be approved within the City I might add and most likely, the reason the developer Montalvo, does not want to annex in.
  6. Tim MyersSeptember 15, 2010 at 2:26 pm
    @Berta: But according to NAFF this is just the type of high density change that Ken Pulskamp should love! (hee hee)
  7. mikeSeptember 15, 2010 at 12:10 pm
    Right, so whatever the case is, they don’t, as a political matter, speak for the residents.
  8. Tim MyersSeptember 15, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    Who speaks for the 90% that did not even vote in the plebicite and half their heads so far up their behinds that they thing their is an incorporated City called “Valencia?” (I’m waiting for the story about how someone in Tesoro calls 911 and asks for the Valencia Police Department.)
  9. mikeSeptember 15, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    The 10% that did vote. If that doesn’t make them Claritans, I don’t know what does.
  10. ToddSeptember 15, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t 50% of the owners of the tract have to vote in the affirmative for annexation to happen? Not just 50% of the turnout, but an acutal 50% of all owners. And doesn’t Montalvo still own > 50% of the parcels in the tract? I’m hazy on annexation and such….
  11. DamageincSeptember 15, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    If it is 50% of owners Montalvo would be 1 owner.
  12. ToddSeptember 16, 2010 at 7:23 am
    Again, I may be mistaken, but I believed it was that each parcel gets a vote. Similar to shareholder elections. Your vote counts as many times as you own shares. But I may be mistaken. I grew up in a landlocked city that had no annexation issues for its entire 100 year history.
  13. mikeSeptember 16, 2010 at 8:16 am
    Yes and no, depends on how far along in the process they are. But remember, the proposed annexation doesn’t include Tesoro only. Also, the developer seems to be suggesting that the whole tract won’t be included in this round. I’m not sure.
  14. Tim MyersSeptember 16, 2010 at 8:29 am
    @Todd: There is no cut and dried process and LAFCO exercises a lot of discretion to arbitrate the “will” of the area to be annexed. If the City decides to move forward with their application look for Montalvo to send someone door to door with all kinds of tall tales to gather signatures against annexation to present to LAFCO in the next step.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support