Dear Mr. M,
There are a few things I have to get off my chest.
So far, I have only heard how the rules are in your office’s favor. Your office can be negligent from my view by not securing a quorum and holding a hearing, and that that seeming negligence can be in support of a cell tower going up. I haven’t seen anything about my rights.
Where is my choice such as regarding rules for an appellant when the planning commission’s quorum isn’t reached as is listed here? I should be given an option of 1 or 3 if the planning commissions office can’t find 5. There has to be rules written somewhere. I would like to see them, please, as demonstrated here:
“This bill, until January 1, 2030, would require the office to establish a process under which a person filing an appeal may opt to appear before one administrative law judge, rather than a tax appeal panel, when…” *
This is an example from a business that has rules for how this office runs things. Surely, I am protected from your office’s negligence in writing somewhere.
If your office fails to hold a hearing, then your office should automatically refund my money. By placing me in the position of requesting a refund, you are setting me up to make it seem like I am rescinding the appeal, which is a lie. I jumped through all the hoops I was asked to. After I do this, you will show me the rule that I am the one who just ended the process. If I hire you to sing at a party and you don’t show up, you should send me my money back. I should not have to ask for it.
Also, I should be reimbursed the $22 for parking and the $22 for all the copies I made per the appeals process’ request. Were five copies for the quorum your office neglected to secure? Who were the other three for? If they had anything to do with this, then why couldn’t they sit on the quorum?
Your office not setting up a hearing only hurt me, not your office or V****** (cell phone company), and that is inappropriate. If you don’t set up a hearing, then V****** should be denied. That this company wasn’t denied makes me think that you are hiding behind words on paper (Section 704) and never intended to hear what the public had to say; therefore, this whole process was fraudulent.
Your office not setting up a hearing only hurt me, not your office or V****** (cell phone company), and that is inappropriate. If you don’t set up a hearing, then V****** should be denied. That this company wasn’t denied makes me think that you are hiding behind words on paper (Section 704) and never intended to hear what the public had to say; therefore, this whole process was fraudulent.
I have been calling the planning commissioner’s office and the zoning administration offices since about 10 days after handing in the appeal. There is no way that 75th day just sneaked up on your office. Every time I called, I was either given the run around or ignored.
You told me that when your office realized it was so close to the 75th day, your office approached V****** and asked them if they could have an extension. Wait. Hold the phone! What? The fox gets to guard the hen-house? How is that appropriate? That is a conflict of interest right there. V****** didn’t want to grant extra time for the planning commissioners to come up with enough people to listen to the appeal, because it is not in their best interest to have a hearing. If time runs out, then the appellant should be the winner, or else there is no reason for your office to set up a hearing. Your exact words, "Unfortunately your appeal [hearing] was not scheduled and the Harbor Area Planning Commission loses its ability to make a decision on this appeal." Why is this job given to your office if there is no consequence to you for not setting up a hearing?
The other story I heard from Ms. C was that Mr. I, the zoning administer who decided a tower would be fine and sent us letters informing us that we could appeal his decision, did not hand the file/my appeal in in a timely manner, therefore his original decision stands. Still a fox guarding the hen-house. (Another person at zoning this time, told me that J of V****** didn’t want Aug 6th, so if what she says is true, V****** really do hold all the power…) So since I was given so many stories along the way, it is hard to know the truth. I do know the group in the hearing that happened after our original hearing back in February has appealed part of the decision that was made and will be having their hearing on August 6. It is possible that was to be our quorum, and that J of V****** said no, the date didn’t work for him. And if that is true and he was given that kind of power, something is very wrong.
I have to straight out ask you. How do the planning commission or zoning administration, or both benefit by a tower going up? At least one of these offices condoned the tower being built through inaction. Any job that is supposed to have five officials at hearings would make certain that they are there. They would hire enough people.
I am sorry that the health and safety code of California can be snuffed out by Section 704. I am even more sorry that your office is supporting such evil and without even giving us a chance to say why we appeal the decision, even if just to be documented if there are any future generations to revisit how insane our officials were.
Bright Day Thoughts,
A "living man of the territory" who deserves better,
Paget
No comments:
Post a Comment