Documented and Verifiable Facts

From: Andy [mailto:andy@upinarms.net]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 10:26 AM
To: ‘BCC-AllCommissioners@pbcgov.org’
Cc: ‘RWeisman@pbcgov.org’; ‘George Webb’
Subject: RE: The FACTS, nothing but the FACTS

Commissioner,

Here are the documented facts that are verifiable through the BCC meeting videos, Staff backup, electronic correspondence and personal meetings. All proof can be found at www.upinarms.net and on the County website www.pbcgov.com.

1. When I met you after the BCC in June of 2008 you told me my neighborhood was not in an area of your concern. You offered your own personal funds in place of working through the County. I declined that offer and told you I wanted to do things the right way. The reason you thought the price of paving Fargo was to be under $100,000 is because Fargo is a short road only 12 properties in length. The latest estimate from George Webb is nearly $500,000.

2. On July 21, 2008 during a meeting in your office with George Webb, you proposed changing the MSTU program to the 100% participation from the previous 50/50. George Webb told us that a petition to property owners was not necessary to start the paving project. I told you that you would take a lot of heat for the decision to assess “all users” as is County policy. You told me that you were use to taking heat and that the project was in the best interest of the neighborhood. “I tape all of my meetings” is what you say over and over. Please produce the tape!

3. During the July 22, 2008 BCC meeting, I presented the idea of changing the MSTU ordinance to the 100% owner participation, as we had discussed the day before, as per your guidance. George Webb responded to your direct question with a dollar amount estimation for each of approximately 100 to 200 property owners. George Webb gave his support for the change to help “this neighborhood.”

4. During the December 16, 2008 BCC meeting, the Board passed the MSTU change. Once again you, George Webb and I had a meeting in your office after the BCC meeting concluded. Mr. Webb had made no forward progress in facilitating the paving of Fargo. You became irritated with Mr. Webb’s attitude and gave him three instructions to move forward with paving Fargo. You said, “Number one. Make it legal. Number two. Make it fair. Number three. Make it quick.” Again, “I tape all of my meetings” is what you say over and over. Please produce the tape!

5. During the March 17, 2009 BCC meeting, I expressed my disappointment and dissatisfaction that no progress had been made in the three months following the MSTU change in December. Prior to the meeting I wrote a lengthy email to the Board outlining the issue again. Your words were, “Those of you who have read Mr. Schaller’s memo to all of us, [the BCC] all of his statements are in fact accurate.” My paper and video trail on this topic is second to none and available to the public via my website.

6. It was during this meeting [March 17, 2009] that the subject of funds not being available came up. You responded, “This is the first time I was informed that there’s no funds at all.” Next you said, “The only explination, I’m guessing, why it has slipped through the cracks is because there have been other bigger more important projects in the meantime. And I guess this Fargo paving has been a low priority and it has only resurfaced at his [Andy Schaller’s] persistence coming to us over and over again.” Why would you allow a project you have been involved with that included changing a county ordinance “slip through the cracks? The answer is in your own statement, I’m guessing, there have been more important projects to you than keeping an eye on this one. So much for you representing the “little guy.”

7. In a letter dated March 18, 2009, Engineering sent out petitions to nearly 100 residents to vote on the paving of Fargo Avenue. A follow up letter dated March 24, 2009, six days later, canceled the 100 or so petitions.

8. During the June 2, 2009 BCC Meeting, you made a motion to petition 13 owners on Fargo and to assess about 240 property owners. When Commissioner Aaronson objected to 13 owners having the power to vote and ultimately assess all 240 properties, you defended your motion. You even asked the attorney, Marlene Everett, to confirm your legal standing for assessing all 240 property owners. Immediately after the meeting I told you of my concerns that the 240 property owners would voice opposition. You told me several times not to be concerned and that the issue was now over and Fargo would be paved.

9. You wrote: “During the many occasions that you publicly presented your request to pave Fargo, none of your neighbors came to oppose your request. I presumed (as probably the other commissioners also presumed) that you had the support of your neighbors in your Ranchette Community to pave Fargo.” I stated more than once that I spoke only for myself and my neighbors on Fargo that asked me to speak for them. In fact it only took me a few hours to collect the necessary majority YES votes for the second paving petition. You presumed something I plainly expressed the opposite of. However, it is the County policy to assess all benefiting properties. Why did you decline my requests to personally visit the road you were so involved with. How do you just not show up and see for yourself?

10. At the July 7, 2009 BCC Meeting, there were many Ranchettes owners who voiced strong opposition. The decision to pave Fargo was placed on hold. The very next day you wrote in a memo, “… I feel that the action taken by the BCC on July 7, 2009 was a big injustice to Mr. Andy Schaller …” and you listed three reasons. Further you wrote: “We owe Mr. Andy Schaller an apology for encouraging him to proceed and costing him thousands of dollars of expense and hundreds of hours of wasted time. I intend to personally reimburse him for his monetary expenses, but who can reimburse him for his wasted time and aggravation? We all know how much effort he put into this for over one year!” A month ago everyone owed me an apology, according to you and now your claim is that I am “manipulating my “supposed” FACTS in an illogical, irrelevant sequence.” You sir are projecting.

11. In your July 10, 2009 memo to Bob Weisman you wrote, “It was about a year later that I realized that homeowners outside of the Fargo Road were also considered to be assessed a portion of the cost.” Either this is a patently false statement or you do not have a grasp of the events you were involved with. Either choice or both choices leave the citizens you represent in dire straits.

A. June 3, 2008 – You offered me 10% of the cost of road paving for a short road. The road has not grown since then.

B. July 21, 2008 – It was your suggestion to change the MSTU ordinance during the meeting with George Webb and myself.

C. July 22, 2008 – You asked George Webb during the BCC Meeting for an estimated cost. He responded and told you the assessment would affect 100 to 200 property owners.

D. December 16, 2008 – You told George Webb to proceed with assessing all properties who would benefit from the road paving of Fargo.

E. March 18, 2009 – Petition letters are sent to over 100 property owners who would be potentially assessed for Fargo road paving.

F. June 2008 – June 2009 – Meetings, discussions and correspondence about a road 12 properties long.

G. June 02, 2009 – Your motion was to assess 240 property owners.

So when exactly do you claim that you realized what you were involved with and the affects? What part of your idea to change the MSTU ordinance did you not realize? What part of George Webb’s July 2008 answer did you not understand? Who wrote the motion that you made during the June 2, 2009 BCC Meeting? Is it your practice to be involved with issues that you spend “many, many hours” and “many occasions” for a period of over a year and not realize the situation?

Commissioner, we are talking about paving a residential dirt road only 12 properties long! What if this was a major county issue?

The reason I came to you in the first place was for you to help correct the County “mistakes” that Mr. Weisman so frequently refers to them as. Engineering made decisions that created this entire situation. Proper initial oversight of this project would have kept you and I from ever being involved with trying to correct this mess. Continuing oversight would have avoided this long drawn out affair. To date, I have received no apology that you called for and the residents along Fargo are still dealing with the admitted “mistakes” made by the County. This matter is on hold indefinitely with no sign of relief in sight.

Remember a couple months ago when you and I were meeting at a restaurant and you said if you did not seek re-election you would support me for District 6 Commissioner? You told me that I should continue to be involved and that not enough good people are involved in politics. We get the people in power that we deserve because not enough of the “good guys” run for office. I have not changed my stance or my involvement in this issue. You made a statement during a BCC meeting that all of my statements are in fact accurate. You encouraged me to become more involved because I was one of the people qualified to hold your position as an elected official. I am the same person with the same set of facts and logic that you encouraged to consider public office. You say, “Right is Might.” I have been and remain right on this issue and have not wavered.

Andy Schaller
www.upinarms.net

——————————————————————————————–

From: Jess Santamaria [mailto:JSantama@pbcgov.org]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 12:38 PM
To: andy@upinarms.net
Cc: BCC-All Commissioners; Robert Weisman; George Webb
Subject: The FACTS, nothing but the FACTS

August 21, 2009

Subject: The FACTS, nothing but the FACTS

To: Mr. Andy Schaller

In your 8/18/09 email, you state “It is time for you to face the FACTS.”

You have quite a knack for manipulating your “supposed” FACTS in an illogical, irrelevant sequence to arrive at your desired conclusion!

Let’s see how cleverly you refute the following simple relevant FACTS:

(1) Sometime early 2008, following a BCC public meeting, you approached me in the 6th floor hallway and asked me to assist you in getting your Fargo Road paved. I agreed to assist you and also voluntarily offered to personally contribute $10,000 to the Fargo Road paving (thinking that since you said Fargo was a very short road, it would cost less than $100,000).

(2) Over the following approximately twelve (12) months you presented your case to pave Fargo Road to the entire Board of County Commissioners numerous times. In addition, you also met with me and the County Engineer on many more occasions.

(3) You often complained that the County Engineer was not very cooperative about your request to pave Fargo. I continued to be very supportive of your request to pave Fargo and I spent many, many hours assisting you in your efforts.

(4) During the many occasions that you publicly presented your request to pave Fargo, none of your neighbors came to oppose your request. I presumed (as probably the other commissioners also presumed) that you had the support of your neighbors in your Ranchette Community to pave Fargo.

(5) Sometime in early 2009, it appeared that you had succeeded in convincing all the Commissioners to support the paving of your Fargo Road.

(6) Finally, on June 2, 2009, the paving of Fargo Road was placed on the BCC Public Meeting Agenda. During the presentation and public discussion of this item no one spoke in opposition to the paving of Fargo Road. Primarily based on the FACT that, at this public meeting, as in the past, no one spoke opposing the paving of Fargo, I made the motion to approve your petition to pave Fargo, and my motion was seconded by Commissioner Aaronson, with Commissioner Aaronson adding that all Ranchette residents who were affected be notified in writing of the action taken. The motion was unanimously approved by all commissioners present.

(7) After the June 2, 2009 BCC meeting, the residents of the Ranchette community, (your neighbors) were notified by mail that they were going to be assessed and contribute to the cost of paving Fargo.

(8) Soon after the Ranchette homeowners received the mailing notifying them of their contribution to the cost of paving Fargo, many homeowners started expressing their strong united opposition to contributing to its cost.

(9) At the July 7, 2009 “Matters by the Public” BCC public meeting, the BCC chamber was filled with Ranchette homeowners who had received the mailing requested by Commissioner Aaronson when he seconded my motion to pave Fargo (6/2/09). About 98% of all Ranchette homeowners who spoke at that “Matters by the Public” BCC meeting in unison (one after the other) very strongly and vehemently expressed their united opposition to contribute any amount towards the paving of Fargo! Based on this overwhelming opposition by the Ranchette homeowners, Commissioner Abrams made the motion to delay the paving of Fargo until such time as the “Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU)” program is re-established, subject to a new vote by the neighborhood. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Aaronson. All commissioners in attendance (including myself) unanimously voted in favor of this motion.

In this United States of America, this is the way Democracy is supposed to work – elected government officials, as public servants, are supposed to represent the will of the majority of its constituents (in this case, the will of the super great majority!).

Mr. Schaller, at the conclusion of your 8/18/09 email, you made a threat to “explore options of a recall.” Please do me a favor – push through your threat. I look forward to finding out how many people follow your illogical thinking.

Jess R. Santamaria

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.