Paving Bond Ballot Measure

I have until 60 days before the November election to complete the filing and signature gathering. I'm hoping that in the meantime the Board will get off its a-- and get the paving done.

As far as me tanking this plan, just the opposite. I have been in favor of paving for 10 years or so, how about all of you? I just refuse to be scammed by speculators and self-entitled appointed road commissioners and their lawyers. The Board's plan was a non-starter fabrication from the beginning. Lee Lucas and one of his friends in a Pdx law firm dreamed it up is what he told me. It was and is never going anywhere except a complicated legal mess because the Board has no liening authority as they have now admitted by asking the Court for that authority..

As far as paying my fair share, I'm happy to do so, I am not willing to subsidize other homeowners and speculators with their proposed lump sum payment. Why do they need our subsidy? Just entitled to some of our money?

A ballot measure would ensure that everyone pays their pro rata share according to their property values. That's fair eh? I'm also trying to make sure everybody gets to vote on the project, not just the Board and property owners, some of whom do not even live here.

As far as the Board and its lawyers withdrawing their lawsuit, that's where we need to focus right now. The finger pointing and deflecting blame to me is laughable. One old crank in Panoramic is holding up the whole project with 3 expert Board members and the best law firms in town on the other side? lol Well, thank you but no. It's the Oregon constitution and related state property and tax laws that are holding up the project, The Board and its lawyers never had a good answer to that. The Board is just disappointed and embarrassed after all this that it hasn't gotten its way. Or maybe they needed better lawyers - ones that would not have taken us all down this expensive and contentious path without a good legal basis for it. The lawyers' legal basis for filing this case is another issue that should be examined as part of an accounting or audit to see about getting our getting our money back from them. The State Bar has a process for contesting fees. If the Board won't agree to an audit or Court-supervised accounting, the State Bar fee mediation process is available to us. They will look at the lawyers' actions as part of that.

So Jim and the rest of the Board, if everything is hunky dory at the Board, I assume you'd agree with me, that is stipulate to asking the Court to audit our District? Just so everyone knows, a few years ago the Board changed our accounting from yearly audits to superficial annual reports. That was about the same time they decided to not do a ballot measure as it turns out. One Panoramic owner with experience in financial sheets has told me the annual reports do not disclose specifically what our road repair money has been spent on. Given the history here, we need a District audit, especially now that Jim has admitted that the Board decided 3 years ago to NOT do a ballot measure. It sounds then that they decided together 3 years ago to exclude electors from the vote if they didn't own property here, again in spite of all legal authorities to the contrary.

I was ready to let this die a quiet death until the Board responded by attacking me. They just got caught at their scam and have been unable to shove it down our throats, at least so far. They should be embarrassed, and they should resign.

Glenn Brown

Lee, you've been touting those ideas for years and they are still bs. It doesn't matter what you and I think, the state/county property and tax laws matter, period. Every registered voter in the District gets a ballot, no one who is not a registered voter in the district gets a ballot. It's that simple. You simply refuse to accept it and have wasted our money chasing what you want. It's time to stop it.

Glenn