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

LETTERS to the EDITOR Page 1
LEG News
LEG Actvities
LEG Youth
LEG About Us
LEG Contacts
LEG Archives
CA Grange
USA Grange
LEG Links




To The Concerned Constituents of Del Norte County

Published by Thomas W. Resch, President of PSPOA

(Pacific Shores Property Owners Association)

Here are the financial facts about Pacific Shores

Since 1964, Pacific Shores Property Owners have paid your County $3,300,000 in property taxes. It appears that your County took this money and spent it on your citizens because they never spent a dime of it at Pacific Shores.

The above tax should not be confused with the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District Tax. This District Tax is an assessment paid only by lot owners in Pacific Shores for paying the costs needed to complete studies required by the agencies for building permits.  Since 1988, the costs on this project so far are around $2,000,000.

Now let's review: Del Norte County has collected $3,300,000 in Pacific Shores from property taxes and spent that money on everything in the community except Pacific Shores and the District has spent $2,000,000 of their own money (not a dime from tax payers outside of Pacific Shores).

Now your two current Supervisors Ms. McClure and Ms. McNamer along with our ex-supervisor Sarah Samples in September of 2006 voted to send a Resolution over to LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) to get rid of the Water District in Pacific Shores.  This battle at LAFCo continues to this day.

My opinion on this type of leadership in your community: As we grow up, we all make mistakes- its what I call the “brains below your beltline” syndrome.  As we get older, hopefully, the brains pass above the beltline and get firmly situated on the shoulders.

Where do you think the brains are here?  If the County received $3,300,000 over the years, and the Water District spent $2,000,000 of their own money on their own project, would you use your power as a Supervisor in the County to get rid of them?

 It’s time to get rid of McClure and McNamer and bring some common sense to Del Norte County.  Let’s get the brains above the beltline.


Letters: County denies rights of Pac. Shores owners

Published: March 13, 2008

Here we go again ("Hearing postponed for another 2 weeks," Tuesday article). The people who own lots in Pacific Shores exercise their right to vote and again, as in the last 40-plus years, Del Norte County votes to seek a loophole that yanks that right out from under them.

The majority rules or should rule, yet not when it comes to the county doing whatever they feel they need to do to take the owners' rights away from them so they can shut down the road and sell these lots to the state if and when these property owners default on their lots in Pacific Shores, just like they have in the past, not allowing the public to buy any of these lots when defaulted on, in hopes the state will one day have the majority vote. This is when the people of Del Norte County will see what the 40-year battle has really been about. The term "land grabbing" comes to mind.

How sad is this latest tactic on the part of the board to turn away the people's right to vote on whether or not they want to keep their water district? It's very simple to me, the majority of the people voted to keep the water district. Now they claim the form they used may not be correct. The point is the people want to keep the water district.

The people in Del Norte County need to pay close attention to what is happening to the lot owners in the Pacific Shores subdivision because they could be next. Your county is only as good as the people you elect to run it.

Dr. Phil says, "If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." The county members need to make some changes. Instead of fighting the rights of the people they need to work for the people and do the right thing.

Linda Bonville

Gainesville, Va.



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



We hear these comments on managed open access & multi use of Mill Creek Park from our Ron Plechaty:


Community hoodwinked by the Park Service


Do we really want more parks without any activities ?  We have almost no where to ride an OHV or ATV. We do not have a lodge. The park service in 1966 projected 1.7 million visitor days in the national park for 1983.  The reality was a stark 277 thousand.  Simply put the old management plan has failed the community. It needs to be reopened to this community. So what about the Mill Creek acquisition???

What the community was really supposed to be commenting on regarding the Mill Creek Acquisition was about the actual inclusion of the land into the old existing preservation orientated general management plan. (Read the fine print on the brochure at the meeting) The current plan would find an ATV trail or lodge,  incompatible with the mission of the management plan jointly administered by the National Park Service and California Parks and Recreation agency. (You may recall it is the same plan orientating the goals of these agencies  calling for preservation and restoration of the redwood park into a pristine forest i.e.:... into a pre-columbian forest.)  The California and National Parks have no intention of letting community out cry for additional recreational activities to be heard. They do not care about local tourist based business opportunities or local outcry for recreational activities. It simply  falls outside the existing management plan. The goals of the  Mill Creek scoping meeting our community and I attended was to only amend the same old  general plan to include this property . The intent was to just “amend “ this acquisition into the old  management plan that would then allow the National Park service to avoid costly and time consuming studies required by NEPA, as well as other payments to the community. Remember NEPA requires that the park service review the “economic impacts” and other issues surrounding the community. Miller Rellim  employed many loggers, who worked on this land and ran a saw mill, who lost their jobs; this is a real impact..

So with  a slight of hand, the people behind the purchase gave the property to State Parks.. The California Department of Parks and Recreation  used the CEQA exemption allowed for a  private donor who can donate land for a specific purpose and be categorically exempt from the CEQA process. This means that state parks can avoid proving or paying the community mitigation for the loss of jobs and recreation activities like hunting which occurred historically on this land by circumventing the CEQA process. ( In fact the Mill Creek property has already been incorporated into the Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park via  administrative placement prior to the meeting. This has denied the county and public any comment while putting the property under the old management plan). Furthermore, since the Del Norte Coast Redwood State Park was put  under the National Park service plan  it should have also triggered NEPA. This NEPA requirement has been mandated and should be  required  for all  acquisitions. (We have asked for all the NEPA  studies since 1978 from NPS  and no one can produce them) The NPS  has no intent in doing a NEPA study  as the acquisition is only an amendment. No wonder the public is confused into indifference....


In summary, when the other parks expansions occurred, this community received funds for retraining timber workers, monies to off set impacts to the local communities.  This will not be happening if we allow the agencies to avoid the responsibilities set forth in law. The truth is that the claim that this acquisition was principally done with  “donors’ money” is a lie as the donors   got grants from public agencies to the tune of 75% of the cost of the land using taxpayers money. The donors will counter that they gave the county $5 million dollars, yes they did, but only to compensate for the loss of in lieu taxes ( for future property taxes lost in perpetuity) . Sorry this is hardly compensation for the loss of jobs, timber tax dollars that support our schools and the social costs for the lost jobs. That is why NEPA and CEQA were written into law. We can not allow any more park shenanigans, we should deny all expansions, and force them to be accountable to the community and the intent of the law. I urge all of you fellow recreational enthusiasts, local government officials  and small business owners to comment on the Mill Creek acquisition and demand the park service open the general management plan for public comment. This property acquisition of nearly 26,000 acres  is too large and the consequences to recreation in this community is too dire to ignore. The clock is ticking..




----- Original Message -----

From: <>

To: "openbeaches-trails" <>

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:11 AM

Subject: Re: Mill Creek



> Dennis,

> I just tried to reach Helen, but she wasn't in. I left a message for her

> about the meetings. Thanks for the reminder. The meetings were announced

> on

> the front page of the Triplicate last Friday, and I will have a couple of

> radio spots tomorrow morning. Below I atached a flyer that we inserted in

> the most recent Chamber of Commerce newsletter.  It's going to be a

> presentation of the interim resource protection work we have been doing.

> We

> will also have EDAW Introducing the upcoming general plan amendment. That

> will be the process that will  solicit input from the public on

> recreational use, resource concerns and possible development of use areas.

> The field trip Saturday will be a guided car tour of the work that was

> presented on Thursday night. It will be from 9AM to 1PM. See ya there,


> (See attached file: Meeting Ad for C o Com.doc)


> Bruce Lynn

> State Park Superintendent

> Redwood National and State Parks

> Redwood Coast Sector

> 707-465-7330

> 707-464-1812 Fax



> |---------+----------------------------------->

> |         |           "openbeaches-trails"    |

> |         |           <openbeaches-trails@sudd|

> |         | >             |

> |         |                                   |

> |         |           06/20/2007 06:12 AM PST |

> |---------+----------------------------------->


>  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

>  |

> |

>  |       To:       <>

> |

>  |       cc:

> |

>  |       Subject:  Mill Creek

> |


>  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|





> Bruce,what is on the agenda for Thursday night concerning Mill Creek? Is

> there a plan and is this a notification or information meeting. Did you

> invite Helen Fergason and the Lake Earl Grange personally? If not I urge

> you again to reach out to them. I am obligated to the Harbor District that

> night so I can not come up. I hope that is not going to leave recreational

> users unrepresented. I am planning to come Sat. Morning and hope that we

> can cover some real uses for OHV touring,staging and camping areas at

> least

> one of the mill sites,and real muli-use areas for us all to use. Bruce I

> would especially like to see and understand the flags that are placed at

> several places along trails that horse back riders are currently using. It

> appears to some that these are to be gates and if so would shut off the

> access . Would like a clear understanding of this.  Again is there a plan?

> If so Blue Ribbon,Open beaches and Trails, Ca,State Horseman's Ass,and

> other recreational groups have not had direct input as of yet. Let's be

> sure to remember that a closed door secret plan that impacted the

> community

> negatively at Totowa Dunes has ignited the community to fight similar poor

> public policy planning . Lets be sure that the Mill Creek plan provides

> more than just more land acquisitions and little to no public use. Please

> e-mail me the agendas. Looking foreword to Sat. Dennis Mayo






Mill Creek Orientation and Welcome --- June 21 and 23



What has beautiful redwoods, miles of salmon and steelhead friendly streams, abundant wildlife, a vast former mill-site that included kilns and other support functions, and is just a few miles south of downtown Crescent City?


If you answered --- the greater Mill Creek watershed property within Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park then you have it right!!


California State Parks has secured funding for a General Plan Amendment to Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park to develop a long range management vision for this 25,000 acre property.  The first informational community gatherings to support public participation in the planning process will be June 21 and 23.


June 21, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., Learn more about the property and ongoing restoration projects.  You’ll also get an update on visitor access and tours --- and an introduction to the General Plan Amendment process.


Crescent Fire Protection District Station,

255 W. Washington Blvd.


June 23, 9:00 to 1 p.m.,  Join us for a morning site tour which

 will feature the native salmon and steelhead fishery and projects

 to restore instream habitat; road/culvert project sites; thinning

 projects to improve forest health; a native plant nursery; and the mill site.

Meet at the Hamilton Road gate, 3 miles south of Crescent City (across from the Vista Point Overlook).

We look forward to seeing you there!


For more information contact Rick Nolan at Redwood National and State Parks at 707-465-7304.


Dear readers;
The following letter / comentary was recievd from Mr. Bruce Smith, a Pacific Shores property owner, on 01 May 07 and has been scaned and posted, unaltered for your information, below:

To Read This Doc Enlarge It
(to enlarge click on doc)

To Read This Doc Enlarge It
(click on doc to enlarge it)

To Read This Doc Enlarge It
(to enlarge click on doc)


From: Richard McNamara
Date: 01/06/07 16:27:07
Subject: Attend Stewards of the Range event in Yreka.

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.


Just a few years ago Project 20/20 was initiated by Del Norte residents who united as the Friends of the Lakes. By forming coalitions with PFUSA, Lake Earl Grange, Stewards of the Range, PSHOA, Frontiers of Freedom, and The California State Grange Environmental Affairs Committee, they have educated the community, prevented government agencies from acting without understanding, and prevented some erosion of freedom and liberty in Del Norte County.


But, it is time to make the effort to really become effective, by educating as many interested people as we can find in more effective ways to work as a team on common goals.


Project 20/20 managed to enact County Empowerment in Del Norte County. It is time that we used this tool more effectively. One step in using our power is to learn what others are doing also.


The Stewards of the Range are offering us an opportunity to meet and learn from Fred Kelly Grant in a seminar in Yreka, California on February 16-17, 2007. For al the information see their website at:


Attendance is highly recommended.


Another  important ally in the struggle is PSPOA. Take the time to read their side of a story The Daily Triplicate manipulates and mangles on a weekly basis:


And, of course, the backbone organization regaining ground through participation and private community action. The most dynamic place in Del Norte county for youth and family activities: The one and only Lake Earl Grange. See what is happening on the real frontiers of freedom:


With two new Supervisors now in office we have a great chance to stand up and be recognized. As simple an action as clicking on the LEG website gives us a number that can be used to show the depth of our audience and our supporter's interest.


Be a team player for liberty and freedom in 2006, 2020, and forever, support the people who are working for all of us.


If I might add the address of another great local News / Blog site to the list: Del Norte News (DNN)



The following is an exchange of e-mail letters between Dennis Mayo (Open Beaches-Trails), Julie Cart (LA Times) & Bruce Lynn (State Park Superintendent  Redwood National and State Parks) on the Dec.18th L.A.Times article "Thompson's Fishing Rights in RNP Causes Storm on North Coast".
Date: 12/21/06 17:57:45
Subject: Fw: responce to RNP fishing article
----- Original Message -----
From: "openbeaches-trails" <>
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: responce to RNP fishing article
> Thank you for the clairification. I am looking foreward to some productive
> colaberations. I'm sure we will have disagreements,but that doesn't have
> to color the totality of our relationship. There is one negitive reality
> that will be difficult to jib untill we find true compromise and balance.
> That is the overriding negitive management style that parks is running
> full bore on like a runaway train. The look don't touch,restoration at all
> costs,to hell with active recreation model has destroyed your park visitor
> rates. Oregon is seeing increased facilities for vistors and active
> recreational use and is reaping the boon of increased visitors because of
> it. The surrounding communities are also reaping the economic benifits of
> a sound parks policy. Bruce from little river all the way to south beach,
> we used to have access and use of all the beaches, they are empty, save an
> occasional walker or birdwatcher. The spit at Orick is a sad example of
> the the total park master plan. Devoid of human contact. Untill California
> says no more to the enviromental extremist your visitor number will
> continue to decline right along with the economy of the affected
> communities . On a brighter note I feel I have an idea that with a little
> discussion and tweeking might provide the answere to our permits at Gold
> Bluffs Beach. Again thank you for your nice responce, MerryChristmas,
> Dennis
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: responce to RNP fishing article
>> Dennis,
>> Amy forwarded your note to me.
>> I wasn't happy with my quote in Julie's article either. You probably know
>> how sometimes (always?) our words often don't look familiar when they
>> show
>> up in print. Although she put it quotes, and it is probably pretty close
>> to
>> what I actually said, it was part of a long conversation in which I was
>> relaying to her how when the bill was first made public, we didn't know
>> how
>> as a matter of legal reality, the federal legislation directing federal
>> agencies would affect our State Park policies and procedures. That is
>> what
>> i was referring to in my statment about abiding by the law. I went on to
>> tell Julie how State Park Director Ruth Coleman had told us very early on
>> that in the spirit of our partnership with NPS we would abide by the
>> bill's
>> provisions, and that is what we are doing. Unfortunately she didn't
>> provide
>> that context and went fot the sond bite instead.
>> Thanks for sharing your impressions and giving me the chance to respond.
>> My hope is that over time you will realize that I shoot straight, and
>> stick
>> by my committments.
>> A Merry Christmas to you too, and hopefully early next year we can work
>> together on the issue of how the the fishing access permits will be
>> maintained "in perpetuity."
>> Bruce Lynn
>> State Park Superintendent
>> Redwood National and State Parks
>> Redwood Coast Sector
>> 707-465-7330
>> 707-464-1812 Fax
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: openbeaches-trails
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:10 AM
>> Subject: Fw: responce to RNP fishing article
>> Bruce,I was not to happy to read your statement in this article,Pierce's
>> were sadly worse. This is not the way to move foreward unless the goal is
>> to further polorize our communities. If you look at the resent release of
>> visitor stats on your ( collective pronoun) management of Northern Ca.
>> Parks you will see about a 200,000 drop in visitors. Your entire program
>> is
>> a failure and that is damning our local communities to share in that
>> failure. I have great hope that you will be reseptive to true
>> partnerships.
>> Murphy was a disappointment and a failure because she was simply here to
>> perpetuate the "LIE". I tried,however, at every juncture to work with
>> her.
>> I urge you to be pro-active and work closer with us,  the working private
>> sector. If you will contact the Lake Earl Grange, Helen fergason,
>> you
>> will do a great service for the community and yourself. I know you meet
>> and
>> work closely with the enviroment "movers&shakers" Just be honest. Thats
>> all. If it ain't so--- say so. If you can help--- just say so. If you
>> can't
>> help--- just say so.  Don't fall into the Parks usually modus-operandi,
>> of
>> sucking and jiveing us along.  Bruce you will find the folks in Cresent
>> City are just like me. I don't care what you think,what your position is,
>> who you voted for, or who you go to bed with, I simply care if you tell
>> the
>> truth and will do what you say. Thats what I give to everyone I deal
>> with---I expect nothing less. This is not ment to be harsh,but another
>> attempt to get us together. MerryChristmas to you and yours, Dennis Mayo
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: openbeaches-trails
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:14 PM
>> Subject: responce to RNP fishing article
>> Concerning the Dec.18th L.A.Times article."Thompson's Fishing Rights in
>> RNP Causes Storm on North Coast"  Julie,thank you for the article on the
>> long,hard job we have endured to finally bring some common sence and
>> fairness for the fishermen and the community of Orick.Its sad to see some
>> in the park service,especially those reciently retired, intent on
>> defending
>> the old, failed management model that has blindly divided our community.
>> We
>> embrace the concepts of habitat protections,healthy eco-systems, and a
>> cooperative management policy that allows those needs to flourish side by
>> side with farmers,ranchers,and fishermen.  Those of us who earn our
>> living
>> from natures bounty know full well that our good stewardship is the most
>> vital componet necessary to on-the-ground sucess for all our needs. BUT,
>> society must protect our right to earn a living.  To have so-called land
>> managers who have no connection to this reality, have no background in
>> resource production and no accountability for the impacts they cause, has
>> been at the foundation of a bad management model that has allowd for
>> unnecessary barriers. Barriers, for one and only one goal,the total
>> destruction of a small number of fishermen.  The surf fishermen on Gold
>> Bluffs Beach have self initiated a holistic program for their
>> association.
>> From CPR training to biological studies on the areas habitat, to classes
>> and acredited training for "Plover Protocalls", these fishermen are great
>> stewards, good neighbors, and willing partners if the park will do the
>> right thing. Many of the fishermen learned their craft from their fathers
>> and want to pass the lifestyle on to their children. Some of the surf
>> fishermen are also college grads, with fisheries and bilogy degrees. In
>> fact this year one of the association members is teaching classes at
>> Humboldt State University on beach fishing.      There is more to it than
>> how to find the fish, bait a hook, or work a surf net. The how and why of
>> regulations,habitat concerns,and the health of the bio-mass are part of a
>> total approach that surf fishermen would like to see incorporated into
>> joint interpertive programs at Redwood National/State parks. Change the
>> equation and see what happens. Wouldn't it be great to go to RNP and see
>> surf nets and how they work. Try some smoked or canned surf fish. Or,
>> maybe
>> take a fielf trip with a fisherman and try your hand with the odd looking
>> nets while hip deep in the cold Pacific water. Lets get off  the negitive
>> rethoric and start working together for everyones benifit. Its important
>> to
>> put issues in real perspective,protecting these few fishermen has as
>> Congressman Thompson has stated"Absolutly no down side".   Dennis Mayo,
>> OpenBeaches&Trails, 4457 Kjer Dr. McKinleyville, Ca. 95519 cell#

From: Don Amador

Date: 10/16/06 16:30:05

Subject: BRC NEWS RELEASE - FMF Kicks Off 07 Sound Education Program

This is good news.  FMF continues to help support OHV sound education effort!



Go to:




Pacific Shores Property Owners Association


16026 Wyandotte St.

Van Nuys, CA 91406


October 9, 2006


Del Norte County Board of Supervisors

981 H. Street Room 100

Crescent City, CA 95531


RE: Appeal of the August 8, 2006 Resolutions to 1: Withhold Chapter 8 Tax Moneys from the Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District and 2: Send a petition to LAFCo to dissolve and reorganize PSSCWD.


Honorable Supervisors,


The Pacific Shores Property Owners Association IS NOT  the Pacific Shores Subdivision

California Water District.


The following comments are those of PSPOA and not the PSSCWD.


Item 1: Withholding of Chapter 8 Tax Moneys from the Water District.

As representatives of the property owners and tax payers in the Water District,  we want to know why the properties that were eventually sold to the state under Chapter 8,did not go up for Public Auction? What law says that a public auction for tax default properties cannot or should not be held. Who made the decision to withhold these properties from the market. 


By not having a public auction, the person that made this decision may have cost the defaulted lot owners nearly a million dollars or more.


Example: Everyone knows that private parties auction off lots purchased in the subdivision in San Francisco and Los Angeles twice a year. The prices at auction vary from $6,000 to $10,000.


If someone in Del Norte County refused to put these properties up for Public Auction, they should be responsible for paying the difference that the defaulted property owner

would have received above the $2,000 to $4,000 that the properties were sold to the state for.


Example 2: If your husband or wife dies, and your house goes into foreclosure. If its worth $500,000 and you owe $200,000 which includes the back taxes, and it sells at auction for $500,000, the bank or county doesn’t keep the extra $300,000, it goes to

the living spouse.


We have many witnesses to testify that they were told that there was no property

in Pacific Shores to be auctioned off therefore, the losses to the original property owners

should be paid by the person or persons that called off the County Auctions in Pacific





County Resolution of  August 8, 2006 authorizing Del Norte County  Board of Supervisors to withhold Chapter 8 sales money of lots in the Pacific Shores Subdivision is unlawfull. State law directs that “The tax collector shall deposit the money received from the (Chapter 8) sale like tax collections” (RT 3718). The funds should have been distributed without delay the same as any other tax revenues.


It is the opinion of PSPOA that the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors is reading  the CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13 TAXATION SEC. 32




Legal or equitable process to prevent prohibited.

No legal or equitable process shall issue in any proceeding in any court against this State or any officer thereof to prevent or enjoin the collection of  any tax. After payment of a tax claimed to be illegal, an action may be maintained to recover the tax paid, with interest, in such manner as may be provided by the legislature.


Conclusion: pay the amount due the PSSCWD (a state agency) now plus interest. If the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors feels that the District tax claim is illegal feel free to pursue the second part of the Constitution.After payment of  a tax claimed to be illegal, an action may be maintained to recover the tax paid, with interest, in such manner as may be provided by the legislature.


One recommendation that was suggested at the August 8, 2006  meeting of  the Del Norte Board of Supervisors, was that the Supervisors should hold the Districts money until a court of  law made a decision on the withheld chapter 8 money. The PSPOA agrees with this recommendation and  will demand that the PSSCWD go straight to the

District Attorneys office if necessary.


Item 2: LAFCo  We are asking Ms. McNamer to recuse herself from the August 8, 2006 resolution vote and asking the Board of Supervisors to revote on the Lafco resolution. Because her sister in law was on the petition to dissolve the District. “The appearance of impropriety must be avoided at all costs.”


 Respectfully yours,


Thomas W. Resch

President, PSPOA



The following is a gaggle of e-mail sent to us by Don Amador / BRC relating to the "Wilderness Bill": 
Subj:EUREKA REPORTER - Recreation Groups Made Wilderness Bill Better
10/01/06 06:13:33
ALT and Helen,
Thanks to you guys including Karl who went out on field trips with Thompson folks to point out roads that needed to be left out of bill.
* I do believe that because of the hard work of recreation groups... that it forced
the bill's advocates to address many of our access concerns and also protect
a local fishing industry important to the area's economy.
-- Don

Subj: BRADENTON HERALD/CONTRA COSTA TIMES - N. Cal Wilderness Bill on Pres. Desk

 *This was a long and tough 4 year fight. A local access group - Dennis Mayo of Open Beaches and Trails - also played

a key role.  Other recreation groups pitched in as well to try and get some pro-recreation tenets.

For a story on that collaborative effort.... go to:


I also think our Backcountry Survey in that area that showed support for a more access friendly designation helped

win some additional access considerations in the bill.  See that story at:


--- Don Amador


Subj: WASH POST - New Wilderness Bills Come with Recreation Access Protections

*FYI - Even though several of these Wilderness Bills are far from perfect, the Thompson Bill did include a number

of access protections including codifying motorized and mechanized use on a significant amount of recreation routes

and protected 27 commercial surfishing permits/access in and to Redwood National Park (The Park had worked hard to destroy this important mainstay on the Northcoast).  I want to thank my special friend - Dennis

Mayo - at Open Beaches and Trails for his hard work on HR233.  If you want to see a local story on this battle go to:


Subj: ALERT - Dirt Rider Mag/BRC Announce 2007 Trail Vol. Day at 24 Hr.




I know a lot of you OHVers have worked hard over the last year for our sport.  Once again, DR Mag has teamed up with BRC for the Trail Vol. Appreciation Day at the 2007 24HR. Torture Test.  Ck. out details at:


Thanks for all you do for the sport!




 Subj:  Sept. 06 BRC Mag Online - Lots of Stories

 Just an FYI that the Sept. 06 BRC Mag is online.

New stories include a article about a new OHV park, green lawsuit dismissed, OHV leader in NV gets BLM award, and op ed on Rider Rights and Responsibility (the OHV Spotted Owl Study), etc..


See those issues and others at:


Thanks for your interest and support.




Don Amador
Western Representative
BlueRibbon Coalition, Inc.
555 Honey Lane
Oakley, CA 94561
925.625.6287 Office
925.625.5309 FAX
925.783.1834 Cell




I attended the BOS meeting of 9-12-06 just to say thank you for the resolution "No Net Loss" proposed by Supervisor Dave Finnegan. To my surprise it was a 3 to 2 vote against. I thought it was a sensible resolution and was surprised to see the negative  vote. It was opposed as a property rights issue. To me it supports property rights. Just review the meeting and see what you think.
Dear ALT List,
I was just contacted by Dennis Mayo and he asked me (since he cannot send out emails - his computer is down) to have folks in your area contact him
regarding questions you have about the Thompson Wilderness Bill.
His cell number is: 707 832 9334
I also appreciated talking with ALT on Wed.  Even though the Bill (I understand congressional staff are working on the exact lang. and going over maps regarding affected
routes) is not perfect, I do think that Congressman Pombo (and even Thompson in the end) listened to our requests made over the years including
our request for access and help for rural fishermen
 -- see article from 2005 Wilderness Tour
As I stated to ALT on Wed... I think that as many of us as possible should support this compromise and move onto other issues, such as Tolowa Dunes, NRA road inventory, etc.  If you can't support the entire bill, then at least support the access and fishing provisions in the bill.
Thanks again to all of you who have worked on this issue!
Don Amador, BRC

Return To Letters To The Editor (page 2)
(click pic)

Enter content here

Enter content here

Enter content here

Enter supporting content here


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: