First Prev
of 2
Next Last
In the know

Encino, CA

#1 Dec 8, 2008
I understand a recall has started on Barrett. It would be a big day of celebration if he gets recalled.
Desert Shores Resident

Lucerne Valley, CA

#2 Dec 9, 2008
So what would be good reasons (charges) to recall Director Barrett on?
Long Time Resident

United States

#3 Dec 16, 2008
Desert Shores resident:
To answer your recent question:
Constantly bombarding the DA's office with issues that are rejected -- constantly bringing up issues to the Grand Jury -- that are ignored.
Costing the District (your tax dollars in legal fees) to fight the charges that are basically ignored by those we put in office to defend our rights!
I understand that Director Barrett spends a lot of his personal time researching these issues and that he honestly believes he is in the right; but when legal counsil consistantly tells him he is wrong and those that are in higher elected office tells him he is wrong, then why do we keep spending money to tell us AGAIN that he is wrong.
Imperial County keeps the great majority of my property taxes each year for themselves -- we do not need the spend the remainder that does come back to this District on legal fees because Director Barrett continually brings up questions that have to be researched.
If he had a partially winning record then I probably would have a different oppinion -- but, to date, he has legally lost every issue he has brought up.
I don't know if this is a valid reason to recall Director Barrett -- but I do know that I am tired of paying Imperial County and then not gettting anything back for the fee that I pay.
Worth Saving

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#4 Dec 18, 2008
I guess that's the price you pay for a corrupt government like the SCSD
Outsider

Waco, TX

#5 Dec 19, 2008
If the government at SCSD was corrupt why is it that no one other than Mr Barrett sees it? Could it be that Barrett is acting like a IDIOT or just trying to make a name for himself?
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#6 Dec 19, 2008
NEWS FLASH!!!

SCSD Refunds $54,000 More in Illegally Obtained Developer Impact Fees

Not that I'm one to say "I told you so" but the Salton Community Services District is once again accepting applications for refunds for a Fire Department/Street Lighting Developer Impact Fee that they illegally charged new developments between July 1st, 2005 through December of 2007.

This never would have happened without the diligence of www.saltonseawest.com and the perseverance and tenacity of Director James G. Barrett.

$54,000 in refunds were authorized and sent out the week of December 15th, 2008 and there is still over $170,000 in unclaimed funds just waiting for the rightful owners to apply for them.

As a Community Service to our neighbors and fellow property owners that might have paid this illegal fee and who are eligible for these $1,000 refunds, Salton Sea West with public documents provided to it by Director Barrett has posted online a list of people/entities who records show have at least $1,000 owed to them.

Click this link to view the list and download the Official Refund Form.
http://www.saltonseawest.com/News%20Articles/...

Again the refunds are once again flowing!

Be a good Neighbor and help spread the word.

Thanks!
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#7 Dec 19, 2008
Oh and by the way.

In January of this year Mr. Barrett filed a complaint with the Grand Jury about the December 31st, 2007 “deadline for submission” date that the SCSD arbitrarily (and without legal authority) placed on the refund applications.

Even though the Grand Jury declined to investigate the matter the SCSD Board of Directors in October of 2008, acknowledged via Resolution, that applications must be accepted up until the 3 year (plus 45 Day) anniversary of when the illegal fee was paid. After that time period the SCSD can take legal possesion of the unclaimed funds, as they did to $39,000 so far with the next capture of funds scheduled for February of 2009.

So why don't all you naysayers try to explain to the people that received $54,000 in refunds in this week how Director isn't doing his job. I'm sure they'll explain how if it wasn't for Director Barrett and several other honest citizens that they never would have gotten their applications in in time.

NONE of the other Directors even lifted a finger to inform the rightful owners of these refunds about them. In fact, one of the Directors even publicly yelled at one of those honest citizens for not minding his own business and interfering by spreading the word about the refunds.

That's because they want to capture the funds to help balance the District budget that is in the red because of BAD policy making by the Board.
Long Time Resident

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL

#8 Dec 20, 2008
Director Barrett,
I am a tax payer, I am a local resident. What I stated is exactly right -- Imperial County collects over one thousand dollars from me each year and there is currently less than three hundred dollars of that returned to the SCSD.
As to the people that received the refunds WITH YOUR HELP they came here, paid their fees, BUILT INFERIOR HOMES which they sold to our current NEW residents, AND THEN LEFT!!!!!!!!!!
Those people that just received the refunds WITH YOUR HELP were legally entitled to it but at the same time what are YOU doing to help the people who bought those homes? What are you doing to help those people file a class action (for inferior construction) against those very same people that just got a $54,000.00 windfall?
Just keep in mind that the people that live here are the only voters that can re-elect you!
The people you helped get the refunds -- where will they be on voting day??????????
They can't register to vote in this area and they certainly are not back with their $54,000.00 fixing what they did wrong. WE WILL NEVER SEE THEM AGAIN!
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#9 Dec 21, 2008
The way "long time resident" mixes apples and oranges you'd think she use to work in an Orange Julius" concession at the mall.

There were quite a few owner/builders that paid the illegal fee that got their money back also. And since when does building an inferior home (which only a few of the builders seem to have done) justify the illegal behavior of the district?

And the blame for any "inferior" built homes falls on the builder and the County. The SCSD has NO land use authority AT ALL.

It is NOT a Directors job (or oath) to involve the District in the contractual obligations between a developer and a home buyer. In fact NO SUCH authority is granted anywhere in the Districts list of seven powers. Get your facts straight “long time”.

It is however a Directors duty and oath to uphold the laws and constitution of the State and the United States as they relate to the seven powers of the district. And that is exactly what Director Barrett is doing with regards to the illegally charged developer fee.

“long time” is probably just pissed off that the district only got to capture $39,000 of the $64,000 that was up for grabs in the first round of asset capturing.

And what would “long time” be saying if she/he had been one of the people that paid the illegal fee? We all know what kind of hypocritical answer that’d be.

And as far as “long time’s” point that a lot of the refund recipients don’t vote here; who cares. A Directors oath is protect the rights of the Citizens AND the Property Owners in the district.“long time’s” moral decadence is absolutely amazing.
Desert Shores Resident

Lucerne Valley, CA

#10 Dec 21, 2008
AKA SCSD Director Barrett wrote:
“long time” is probably just pissed off that the district only got to capture $39,000 of the $64,000 that was up for grabs in the first round of asset capturing.
Hell you already have it spent- the SCSD has to pay that out as a third of what you've cost us just this year in legal fee's.

See you at the Board of Supervisors meeting Fool!
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#11 Dec 22, 2008
you are such the lying sack of sh*t
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#12 Dec 22, 2008
Hey "Desert Shores Decedant", why don't you mention how the district spent thousands of dollars trying to find anything that Director Barrett has done, is doing, or is thinking about doing that might be illegal so they could kick him out of office?

And then why don't you tell everybody how they found NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH! Director Barrett has done nothing illegal...period. Now the other Directors are another story as the facts have shown time and time again.

The SCSD Board spent thousands of dollars of taxpayer money trying to kill the messenger because they didn't like the message.

And when did the Board vote to spend all this money on a fishing expediation? That's right, they didn't! Another example of the Board violating the Brown Act. Further proof of their illegal behavior.
Desert Shores Resident

Lucerne Valley, CA

#13 Dec 22, 2008
barrett is a legend ... in his own mind! LOL
Long Time Resident

United States

#14 Dec 27, 2008
Director Barrett,
I agree with you that the District cannot be involved in inferior built homes by the developers.
You just do have to understand that it is very infuriating that YOU are the one that assisted and helped those same developers get back money that they will never use to help the CURRENT LOCAL homeowners fix the problems that they purchased.
Yes, there are people still living here that also got money back -- and they most certainly deserve it; because the District cannot provide them with new street lights or upgrades in our fire department because all of the fees collected are being refunded to NON-EXISTANT developers that do not want to deal with their inferior work.
According to what has been posted on the District office bullitin board some of those developers received some $35,000.00 or more AND the County received the same amount of money.
STILL there are very few new street lights and the fire department is still doing an excellant job with less funding than they had last year!
If you want to spend your time on a project, why don't you get the money from the County that SUPPOSEDLY collected the fund legally.
At least if the SCSD had been allowed to keep the funds, they would have put that money directly back into this area when YOUR imposed three year requirement was up.(We will be waiting another ten+ years for Imperial County - and then we'll be lucky to see it).
THANK YOU for your diligence!?!?!?!?!?
Taxpayer

Huffman, TX

#15 Dec 27, 2008
Mr. Barrett has some sort of vendeta agianst the District, He only wants to hurt the district and the people of the district. In the years he has been here he has done nothing for the area except cause trouble. It is apperant he has a couple of screws loose. He will explode at some point. I just hope no one is around when it happens.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#16 Dec 28, 2008
Who is the district (and the Board) to say who does and doesn't get their refund back? If the money is owed to them by the district then they should get it back.

And if the SCSD was able to retain all of the collected fees, what guarantee is there that the District would spend it on Fire Department and Street Lighting? In fact, the issue of spending the illegally charged fees came up at a special SCSD Board Meeting when the Directors were trying to find the money to make up for the Sewer Maintenance Fund deficit that was caused because Butler, Palmer, Rouhe, and Urbanoski failed to set the fee at a level that would pay the bills….this was because Butler and Palmer were running for re-election at that time.

I think “long time resident” and I could probably agree that the District captured un-refunded money, that the District can now legally be spend on anything, morally should be spent on the things that the fee was originally intended for, Fire Protection and Street Lighting.

In fact, Director Barrett has placed on the January 20th, 2009 Board agenda two Resolutions that would designate that at least 50% of the captured moneys could only be spent on Street Lighting/ Fire Department Capital Improvements. Unfortunately the other Directors will no doubt follow their SOP by not even giving a second to the motion to Discuss/Vote this Resolution. THIS is how the other Directors “serve” the public.

Now if other “concerned” citizens like “long time resident” put there money where their mouth is then they would lobby the other Directors to pass those two Resolutions or some form there of.

You can read the proposed Resolutions at these two links:

www.saltonseawest.com/documents/Resolution 2009-01-x.pdf

www.saltonseawest.com/documents/Resolution 2009-01-y.pdf
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#17 Dec 28, 2008
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#18 Dec 28, 2008
As for the issue of the Fire Protection money that the County has charged developers within the District and has yet not spent any of it within the District:

Mr. Barrett has been trying for almost two years to get the County Board of Supervisors to spend that money in the District. He has gone and spoke at Board of Supervisor Meetings, sent emails to them, contacted the County Counsel and the D.A. on the subject numerous times.

Director Barrett has been trying to get the other SCSD Directors to ask/demand the County to spend the money within the District, but up until this December the SCSD Board has flatly refused to do so. And the only reason that Resolution 2008-12-01 was even seconded on December 16th, 2008 was because it was put on the agenda by the Assistant Manager, even though it was authored by Director Barrett. As is the SOP with the other SCSD Board members “all things Barrett must die”; THIS is how the other Directors “serve” the public.

In fact, the only reason the District has an enforceable Fire Code is because Director Barrett authored it and had the then Fire Chief put it on the agenda. Otherwise the District would still be without a Fire Code. THIS is how the other Directors “serve” the public.

Now if other “concerned” citizens like “long time resident” put there money where their mouth is then they would lobby the other Directors to follow up on Resolution 2008-12-01 with further legislation (and possible legal tactics,) to compel the County to abide by the Mitigation Fee Act which mandates that those Developer fees be spent on the area impacted by the new construction charged the fees.

Resolution 2008-12-01 passed on a 4-0 vote (with Palmer absent). You can read it here:

www.saltonseawest.com/Directors%20Packet%2012...
Taxpayer

Glendora, CA

#19 Dec 28, 2008
So now barrett, who refers to himself as Mr. Bsarrett, wants to use the Districts money to sue the County, and now he must be feeling a little guilty being so proactive in giving money that he wants to put a light by the school. I think that was mentioned by someone else on Topix. Thats normal, barrett has stolen ideas before and claimed them as his.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#20 Dec 28, 2008
The light by the school was brought up here on topix by someone other than Director Barrett, but no doubt by a constituent of his.

And Director Barrett has obviously risen to the occasion by trying to get a light put in there. Somehow "taxpayer" thinks that this is stealing an idea.

Looks to me that Director Barrett is doing his job by addressing a concern brought up by a citizen. Isn't that what an elected official is supposed to do?

And "possible legal tactics" doesn't necessarily mean lawsuit.“taxpayer” really should have paid more attention in 3rd grade English class.

A simple Writ of Mandamus would cost $340 to file plus maybe 6 hours of District lawyer fees. This has the potential of getting the District over $350,000 from the County for the SCSD Fire Department. There are also other ways to use the legal system with suing.

(A Writ of Mandamus is a legal filing asking a Judge to order a government agency to do what the law says it is supposed to do. In this case, abide by the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act which mandates that Developer Impact Fees must be spent on the area that the new development has impacted.)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Salton City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Consuelo Falomir (Apr '15) Nov '15 Harvey Dent 3
$100 Starbucks Gift Card FREE (Oct '12) Aug '15 chula 3
dead fish clean-up (Jul '15) Jul '15 Drew kline 1
News Sean on Cover of May's Newsmax Magazine (Apr '11) Jun '15 Jolee arguello 2
New owners of Captn Jim's in Salton City (May '15) May '15 Mary Butler 1
Alarma: Criol Agua Purificada es Tóxico (Apr '15) Apr '15 Oscar from Mecca 1
Alarma: Criol Agua Purificada es Tóxico (Apr '15) Apr '15 Oscar from Mecca 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salton City Mortgages