SSDD Another Illegally Enacted Fee

SSDD Another Illegally Enacted Fee

There are 14 comments on the story from Feb 6, 2008, titled SSDD Another Illegally Enacted Fee. In it, reports that:

By Don Holland

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water more reports of JAWS has surfaced. No we’re not talking about the legendary shark of Steven Spielberg movie fame but instead we’re talking about the JAWS of government shame.

Once again the SCSD has set sail on a journey on their flagship USSDD. However unlike the movie, these seafarers have not set course to harpoon a Great White but instead they wish to capture it so that they can guide it to you to devour your wallet.

Join the discussion below, or

SCSD Meeting Attendee


#2 Feb 7, 2008
Please stop posting editorials from your website as news items. Your author Don Holland is a fabricated person. This story is from summer of 2007 from your website. BTW the pool is being upgraded (you voted for the expenditure) Why don’t you try posting NEWS from other sources besides your OWN “Personal” oh, I mean “web newspaper”. Better yet stop killing your stories, just to repost them on the top, it shows your irresponsibility.

United States

#3 Feb 7, 2008
mr. barrett must be running low on his precieved illegal activities to bring up 9 month old stuff.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#4 Feb 7, 2008
Imari (Sheri Nguyen)-YADA YADA YADA

Observer- After this story originally appeared on the Board of Directors made a new resolution concerning pool fees.

The resolution gave the General Manger authority to set the pool fees.

No where in Gov. Code 61115 does it say that the Board can give the power to set fees to the GM or anybody else.

61115 says:

"The board of directors may, by resolution or ordinance, do the following:(1) Establish rates or other charges for services and facilities that the district provides

The fact that they can't delegate rate setting authority to anybody yet they did makes this article current news because the resolution is still on the books.
SCSD Meeting Attendee


#5 Feb 7, 2008
I'm not the other editor on here, but it seems anyone that has an AOL account must be the woman editor you hate so much.
You are a User Editor, and had to agree to NOT use the Service to:

upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, torturous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Topix official, forum leader, guide or host, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;

upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements);

disrupt the normal flow of dialogue, cause a screen to "scroll" faster than other users of the Service are able to type, or otherwise act in a manner that negatively affects other users' ability to engage in real time exchanges;

"stalk" or otherwise harass another;

upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that violates the Fair Housing Act by stating, a discriminatory preference based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap (or violates any state or local law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of these or other characteristics);

upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that includes personal or identifying information about another person without that person's explicit consent;


I believe that you have done these above stated items in the case of the other editor on this Forum.

I have sent an email to Abuse @ with what you and your wife have said in slandering the other editor of this forum and telling them that you have abused your User Editor status. I also suggest that those that have read your attacks do the same as I have.

AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#6 Feb 8, 2008
Yet another attempt of censorship on the part of some closed minded person that can't stand to hear anybodies opinion of the facts unless it is the same as theirs.

It's because of attitudes like yours that the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution was written. Read it sometime instead of spending all your time trying to control what other people do.

Why are you so afraid to let other people read articles posted from a different "agenda" then yours? Are you THAT insecure in your own beliefs?
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#7 Feb 8, 2008
SCSD Meeting Attendee- Show yourself you coward
SCSD Meeting Attendee


#8 Feb 8, 2008
You see me at EVERY meeting Jimbo!

Rayland, OH

#9 Feb 8, 2008
mr. barrett, a small man who salnders everyone in sithe and hides behind the 1st amendment thet so many have fought and died for. He is the only one who sees all the precieved illegal activies.

United States

#10 Feb 8, 2008
When people who would buy property and live in this area read the postings here,it is small wonder our property values are depressed.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#11 Feb 8, 2008

I know it would be easier to just say that Director Barrett doesn't know what he's talking about, but why don't you try getting off your lazy butt and read the official documents on and then read the relevant laws....then you decide for yourself if any illegal activity is going on.

And if you discover some additional information that contradicts my synopsis of the illegal activity then bring it on and prove me wrong.

I stand by my accusations and back them with proof.

what do you base your "all things are lilly white" line of crap on?
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#12 Feb 8, 2008
"Bad Press" is not the reason that our property values are depressed(IF they even are).

What has happened here is that a "feeding frenzy" amongst builders and real estate agents took over the development in the area. "They" tried to manipulate the housing market here to drive up the prices of the houses and thus the agents commissions.

Unfortunitely for them there was really no housing market here in the first place. There were never any long lines of people waiting to buy houses here, just real estate speculators trying to create a marketplace and a list of "comparable sales" for the banks to gage against when financing home owners (not speculators).

The next straw on the camels back was a market that was oversaturated with too many brand new vacant houses...this will always drive the prices down.

Then you get the smaller developers that don't have the financial clout to ride out the storm and the construction loans get foreclosed thus creating even cheaper houses for sale through foreclosure sales.

Then on top of that there was a building moratorium because our poop was flowing in the Arroyo Salada wash.

So FTG, your statement that the property values are down because people read the postings here is for sure the most ridiculous item of the day!

Vanderbilt, PA

#13 Feb 10, 2008
mr barrett, just because you put information on your web-s**t does not make it true. Do you not understand NO ONE sees any of this precieved illegal except you. I have read your web-s**t and it is nothing abt attacts on the other board members and the managment of SCSD. You have get to prove anything.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#14 Feb 10, 2008
Yada Yada Yada
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#15 Feb 10, 2008
BTW Observer- Who do you think was responsible for overturning the illegal Fire Department / Street Lighting Devolper Impact Fee that Directors Butler and Palmer voted in back in 2005?

That's right Director Barrett, Citizens Barrett (Mr. and Mrs.) and outed it and saw to it that it was overturned!

And then there was the 1090 violation that Director Rouhe was guilty of...Director Barrett warned everybody about it before they voted on it and yet Rouhe, Butler, and Palmer still voted on the original Johnson's Landing sublease transfer that was later ruled illegal because Rouhe was a principal partner of the sub-leasee.

Why do you deny the facts Observer?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Proposal would commit California to acting on s... Aug 21 Solarman 3
I want to buy cheap land near the salton sea (Nov '08) Jul '17 castilloviejo 35
What type of business are lacking in the Salton... (Sep '08) Jun '17 maryanorvell 26
News Tragic collission near Salton City (Nov '07) May '17 Well Well 29
grocer (Oct '09) Mar '17 Mr parsons 7
New owners of Captn Jim's in Salton City (May '15) Mar '17 Hanks is the mann 2
Wayne Davis (Feb '17) Mar '17 Jim banks 2

Salton City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Salton City Mortgages