Lake Earl Grange A Community Action Grange (Rev 2) BASE

LEGrange E - News Page 1A
LEG News
LEG Actvities
LEG Youth
LEG About Us
LEG Contacts
LEG Archives
CA Grange
USA Grange
LEG Links

First Amendment - Freedom To Publish The Truth

(click on ribbon)

Current Lake Earl Grange
News Letter





P.O. Box 51148, San Jose, CA. 95151 (408) 238-4767



Letters to the Editor
March 18. 2008


Who is really misleading the Pacific Shores property owners?

 Maxine Curtis who lives in Medford, Oregon is the chief proponent of dissolving the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD) and is working with the North Coast Environmental Center in Eureka to force the dissolution of the district. 


Maxine Curtis has made numerous accusations at the Del Norte County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) hearings for the dissolution of the Water District, claiming that supporters of the Water District including myself have misled the other property owners.  So I investigated her claims. 


She claims that she bought her lot 20 years ago to build a house on and was “promised” that there would soon thereafter be water and sewer.  No such promise was ever made!  In fact Maxine Curtis knew or should have known about the facts and circumstances of Pacific Shores when she bought her property after all the public debate and news articles about the problems.  To begin with it is the buyer’s responsibility to research all aspects of any property before they buy. 


Maxine Curtis further makes it sound like some slick con man tricked her into buying property in Pacific Shores in order to swindle her out of her money.  Nothing could be further from the truth, Maxine Curtis bought her one forth share of a lot at a Del Norte County Tax Sale for tax defaulted property from Sarah Samples, Tax Collector, who always described the Pacific Shores lots as “Worthless sand lots” at the sales. 


While Curtis continues to whine about her money, she fails to disclose that she actually got a very good deal.  Her property has increased in value significantly over what was paid for it.  In fact, the lots are selling for about 3 times what was paid for hers.  That means she has received the equivalent of a rate of return on her investment of approximately 5% compounded monthly.  That is about TWICE what her money would have earned in a savings account. 


Now she is demanding a refund of the taxes she paid on the property because she is not satisfied with the efforts of the Water District to implement the water and sewer systems, saying “I went to them and said ‘Give me a refund,’”  “If I bought something that didn’t work I’d get a refund,”  “We need to get part of our money back.”  And that is the basis for her demand to dissolve the Water District.


Another thing that Curtis is not telling everyone is that she and her attorney, Robert Black, former County Counsel, are suing the PSSCWD for monetary damages in a separate legal action.


Very truly yours,

John Messina



Smith River Alliance + State Parks

“OUR PLAN IS – ???"

(Click On Above Pic)

(Click On Above Map)

(Click On Above Map)

Mmmmm ...  or maybe as the above Thomas Guide maps show, they have A PLAN and just haven't had the forthrightness and / or  honesty to tell US.


- It's Our Right!

"Our right to own property is at the core of freedom and liberty. Simply put, if you can't own property, you become property! Is the ... " And Now - The Rest Of The Story !

(this vid is 39 min 32 sec)

(click here)

Many thanks to the people at DNN for this lead.


… And Now For The Rest Of The Story!


The Pacific Shores "property rights battle" has been an on going one struggle of "David vs. Goliath" proportions ever since the county approved the development nearly a half a century ago.

(click here for more info)

( &here )



To Enlarge Document
(click doc - to enlarge to normal size)

Read All About It!

Pacific Shores Water Dist & Property Owners Recently Initiated Two Legal Actions 


We recently read in our LOR (The Triplicate) about Maxine Curtis' legal efforts to claim her share of the Del Norte County's highly questionable confiscation of Pacific Shores' funds. However, did anyone read and / or hear about the Pacific Shores Property owner (Daniel Wettengel) who recently filed a "Petition and Complaint" with the CA Coastal Commission and a "Writ of Mandamus" filed by the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District (PSSCWD) to recover impounded funds from Del Norte County?


While Curtis et al gets full play (a 13 paragraph article) from the LOR, PSSCWD and the PSPOA get "buttkus"!

Why does this not come as a surprise to us "Del Nortians"? Mmmm! Could it be the price of tissue limits their issue or maybe just a prejudicial lack of interest in the "rest of the story"!





Del Nortians Wonder Where's The Rest Of The Story 


You may have recently read The Daily Triplicate's (LOR) opinionated take on the BofS's Pacific Shoes actions, but here we seek to give you both sides. Although the letter archived here was sent to the Board last 18 Dec, We're sure you haven’t seen or been told of it or The Rest Of The Story. Evidently the Board didn’t release it, or if they did; our LOR didn’t believe it warranted our attention. Mmmm, wonder why?




Pacific Shores Property Owners
In Fight To Defend & Keep
Home, Hearth & Retirement Dreams

Tom W. Resch of the Pacific Shores Property Owners Assoc. (PSPOA) has published an open letter to the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors, asking them to rescind the August 8, 2006 resolution to withhold the payment of $225,000 in tax money due the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District. It's a must read!


PSPOA asserts this is a violation of the State of California tax laws and property rights. PSPOA notes its main purpose is to represent the property owners in Pacific Shores, especially their property rights.


Mr. Resch was careful to draw the line between PSPOA and the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District. The main reason for this was to clearly delineate the rights and corresponding responsibilities of each in regards to the property owners and the Del Norte County government. The bottom line is, that regardless of who talks to whom, the right to decide rests solely within the collective vote of property owners.


The LOR (local opinion rag) stories of a solution being worked out are just that, stories! One, an old one on multi-use, was spun years ago. It has since been resurrected and acquired new legs. It was a fantasy then is a fantasy now and will in all likelihood remain so. As Mr. Resch so aptly put it; " Property owners in Del Norte County, don’t panic by what you read in the newspaper. If I make a comment to the newspaper, after I read it, I think that the opposition wrote it."


By the way, as of this posting (10-14-06), not a word of our LOR's three articles on Pacific Shores, published this week's front pages for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, have been posted at their web site - Mmmm strange! 



For more info click on the subject below:

Del Norte County Land Use  Gateway

Pacific Shores Home Owners & Water District Docs

LAFCo Docs

Del Norte County Board of Supervisors Pacific Shores Docs

Del Norte County Board of Supervisors Docs



… And Now For TheRest Of The Story!


The Pacific Shores "property rights battle" has been an on going one struggle of "David vs. Goliath" proportions ever since the county approved the development nearly a half a century ago.


It's a classic "little guy" struggling against the almighty state and a juggernaut of special, so called, environmental interests wanting to drive the private owners off their land. This hardy bunch has been stubbornly holding on to their retirement dreams and the property that anchors them in reality for almost 40 years. During this time the CA state government has done a 180 and along with their eco junkies has bulldozed under all earlier legal acceptance and recognition of this legitimate development. It continues relentlessly to do so as I write.


In struggles like this, rarely does the "little guy" have venues open to fairly present his / her side. Our LOR (Local Opinion Rag) offers no exception to this and has not stepped forward to fulfill this void. However, they have been more than willing to serve as the biased "mouth piece" on this issue for The California Coastal Commission, the State and various prejudiced factions within our local county government.


The property owners strongly contend both local and state laws have been violated in an aggressive coordinated county / state effort to trample and destroy their property rights. In the past they have had little or no success in getting out this story; so it is with great satisfaction that we announce the PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION blog web site at, just click on the blue hyperlink, you'll go right to the site. Go ahead visit it and get the rest of the story!









Tuesday's edition of our LOR headlines:

"County inches closer to solving water woes". Pacific Shores property owners petition asking the water district be dissolved …. LAFCO to meet again Thursday to choose an adhoc committee to help select independent council to … advise the commission …."   County Council Robert Black told LAFCO members they "have the authority to receive the petition  … decide whether the names on it are authentic, then decide whether to ask home-owners if they want to do this."  "We need to proceed cautiously and get information to the property owners" said Supervisor Sarah Samples who chairs LFCO. … Daren McElfresh, LAFCO's executive officer, aid he hopes the commissioners decide to provide an outside council to advise them". Sarah recommended an adhoc committee. I recommend myself as chair," she said. (Bruin / Triplicate 08-29-06)


Well so much so for one opinion


Now For The Rest Of The Story!


It seems to me that, the county's inching has all the earmarks of a headlong rush to cut the private property rights and protections right out from under the Pacific Shores homeowners and turn the area into a monumental $6 million dollar a year tax loss.


Talk about a need for council - I'll say!!!! This whole action stinks like a Lake Earl catastrophic breach on a hot day.


If the Pacific Shores Water District and Pacific Shores Property Owners Association are to be believed the county's  August 8th action is fatally flawed. Substantial problems remain outstanding and largely unanswered:

-         An incomplete and unacceptable document of petition

-         Total disregard for legal process and procedures of timely notification, publication, promulgation and investigation

-         Lack of supporting data for recommended county action and resolution

-         Proposed monitorial confiscatory actions of a highly suspicious nature 

-         Strong indications of improprieties and conflicts of interest

-         A long and extensively documented history of county neglect and inaction

-         Finally dissolution of what little political structure exists with no thoughtful economic solution for the property owners, other than to sellout and get out at artificially depressed price

Judge for yourself, checkout the archived documentation at and / or hyperlink back to the original sites.


A) Archived - Del Norte Board of Supervisors On Pacific Shores Water District

B) Archived - Pacific Shores Water District & Home Owners Assc.Docs

c) Arichived - LAFCo Documentation


So why the rush to make mistakes? Clearly what are called for here, are actions of careful deliberation, consideration, and forethought. Not some headlong rush to spend taxpayer's monies for someone to gloss over and / or cover up past county inadequacies and failures. Slow down and do it right!


 For our land Use Gateway Page - click here.




The Brown & Open Meeting Acts


You Have The Right To Know!


One of our readers, Thomas Resch, recently posted this bit of relative civic information at another web site ( ).We believe this piece of legislative declaration should become an integral part of our mantra and be ingrained in our activist psych.


We can only confront with and hope that our local governmental bodies will take it as equally as serious in their public &/or private deliberations. We again call for NO BACKDOOR or BACKROOM  actions, open deliberation / discussion and complete transparency! In this regard we see a creeping return to the disgusting practices of unannounced or poorly announced meetings which have hastily published agendas that are poorly adhered to and stray into areas and decisions of public concern without wide and proper public consultation, public contribution and  due public consent. This is not the PRC (Peoples Republic of China) and we, the public, have no intention of letting it be run that way!





The Ralph M. Brown Act was enacted by the Legislature in 1953. The Act refers to requirements governing the conduct of meetings of local agencies,as well as the conduct of the governing officials of those agencies. If you want to read it in detail, you can look up the Government Code section starting at 54950.

The intent section of the Brown Act has never changed and it reads as follows:

"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that
public commissions, boards and councils and other public agencies
in this state exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It
is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that
their deliberations be conducted openly."

"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the
agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating their
authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what
is good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed
so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." (Section 54950.)


As Mr. Resch so aptly put it; "The reason we posted the Brown Act Information: so people can attend public meetings and retain control over the instruments they have created."


Thomas Resch / Pres. PSPOA


A Call To Reason From One Of Ours:

Liberty and Freedom are under constant erosion from the simple weight of government and the tendency of our government employees to narrow their focus. Preserving and strengthening  Liberty and Freedom are the rightful role of citizens in a pluralistic republic.


To be effective, in the honorable business of  husbanding Liberty and Freedom, concerned citizens must organize and form coalitions with good people who share the same concern you have for the culture, traditions, values, and heritage, of free women and men. ...

(click here for the rest of the story)




How's Your Coordination Status?


Can Private Property Rights & Public Property Use

Coordinate With Rural & Urban Environmental Needs

For A

Symbiotic Symbiosis?


With a little bit more effort put toward coordination than that spent fighting endless contestation - yes they can! And now for the rest of the story:

How Coordination Plans Work

by Fred Kelly Grant

Local governments that have implemented “coordination” status with federal management agencies are successfully fighting erosion of private property rights in their communities.  The “coordination” status is authorized by almost every federal statute relating to management of land, resource, and environment.  All the local government has to do is formally accept the congressional invitation to “coordinate,” and federal agencies have no choice but to agree.

(for the rest of the story - click here)


Recent LAFCo Meeting Notes:

(click here)

Meeting dates:

      Del Norte LAFCO convenes, as needed, upon the 4th Monday of the month, at the Del Norte County Administrative Center, Board of Supervisors Chambers, 981 H Street, Suite 100, Crescent City, CA 95531 at 4:00 p.m.


To Check Local Gas Prices
(click pic & use zip)

Contact LEG
(click pic)

LEG E- News Front Page
(click pic)

Just click desired page below to go there: