Incorporate Oakhurst? [Archive] - Yosemite Area Forums

MtnEagle

Dec 08, 2002, 06:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Coldwolf:
So, which people of Oakhurst are they going to represent? The people that have lived here for all their lives, and want things like they were, or the people that lived in LA or Santa Barbara until they retired and then sell off the expensive home,pack their stuff up and move to Oakhurst and try to make it like the town they came from with CCRs and sign ordinances, and complain about workers on FREAKIN mountain time (which only exists in the mind of Flatlanders)?

Sorry about the run-on sentence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I lived in Fresno before my wife and I moved here 10 years ago. Hated every minute of it. We worked hard to afford our place here.

I love the small town atmosphere of Oakhurst, but I sure do get tired of the above example of thinking. You aren't paying my mortgage or my utilities, and I think we've both been here long enough to be members of this community.

I think Oakhurst should be careful in its growth yes, but I also think people should be realistic about the fact that things do change.

Simply put, I already have to chance my death on 41 everyday to go to work, because there isn't a decent FREAKIN job to be had within 50 miles of this town. Add to that the choke hold on any real new technology that could be available to us all by the FREAKIN monopoly called SierraTel. And, lastly the fact that a lot of us have to commute to Fresno or Madera to shop for the things that most "Flatlanders" as you call them take for granted at Target, WallMart, etc.

We don't have to give in to the big Strip Malls and all, but we should have and invite a few big name stores into town to relieve the traffic to Fresno that everyone complains about so often. I'd love to give the local stores all my money that I spend in shoping, but I find it annoying the attitude that I have to take their crap as well.

Sure you want the traffic for tourist to polulate your cash register, but you want to be able to shoo them out of town as soon as they do.

Face it, a lot of people in this town have a chip on their shoulders the size of Texas, and then complain when they hear that Oakhurst has a reputation.

I can't help but want to knock it off every time I see or hear it... It makes me sick... /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[This message was edited by Alien on December 08, 2002 at 08:47 PM.]

maccabee

Dec 10, 2002, 04:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by rpm:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by huh?:
Wouldn't incorporating mean more cops?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would be so wrong with having more cops? If you live within the law, you shouldn't be afraid of more cops, but rather relieved at the added security and safety they can provide. Whenever I am being followed by tailgaters, poor and agressive drivers, speeders, etc. and whenever I encounter cracked out meth head losers, I wish there were more cops around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunately cops are not cracking down on meth heads. they can be found in the same spots-arco, the pines bar at 2 am waiting to arrest people, and following high school kids. How would more police solve anything?

greg dempsey

Dec 11, 2002, 02:38 PM

Oakhurst is being bled dry by county taxes. As we suffer water shortages and sidewalk issues, the City Of Madera proceeds to decorate their municipal buildings with remodels and murals, and has now announced a new $4 million dollar Cultural Arts Center, paid for by...you guessed it...US.

No taxation without remuneration!

Greg

greg dempsey

Dec 12, 2002, 09:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by greg dempsey:
Oakhurst is being bled dry by county taxes. As we suffer water shortages and sidewalk issues, the City Of Madera proceeds to decorate their municipal buildings with remodels and murals, and has now announced a new $4 million dollar Cultural Arts Center, paid for by...you guessed it...US.

No taxation without remuneration!

Greg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

===============

Aren't the needs of Madera County et al and the needs of its five individual districts distinctly different sets of needs?

Are we at the place yet where we need to have our own local government? Do you know where your county tax money is going?

To be sure, Oakhurst incorporation is an expensive proposition in the short run, but papers have been filed, and the process is underway. Is this a good or bad development?

Greg

Curious

Dec 24, 2002, 06:13 AM

whitebird

Dec 24, 2002, 08:22 AM

Oakhursat doesn't have the tax base to support its own local government. It would still have to contract out to the county/state for public safety support , so would still be on the apron strings of the existing government structure.

Stan

Dec 24, 2002, 12:20 PM

This is so dumb. If you do nothing wrong, you will not get hassled. The fact is, alot of people that look dangerous, ARE dangerous. You can't judge a book by the cover, but you can "sorta" tell what is inside by the cover. Black people, white people, brown people, green people, if you look nice, act nice, do nice things, you are a nice person and are treated as a nice person. If you do bad things, you need to be treated accordingly.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Afraid citizen:
What if you live by the law but still get hassled a lot by the cops just because they think you are doing something wrong because of the way you look.

If I was a short-haired white guy in a suit I wouldn't be afraid of them.

Explaining myself to cops all the time gets old.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MtnEagle

Dec 24, 2002, 05:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Curious:
The new Town Government will represent the people of Oakhust who vote. It will be governent by local people rather than other people who live somewhere else, whose primary focus and attention are somewhere else and who suck over one million dollars of wealth out of Oakhurst every year to spend somewhere else. The American Colonists had such an arrangement two and a quarter centuries ago. They had a "Tea Party," we had a very successfull petition drive.

Local people will have input - which we have very little of now - about such things as sign ordinances and CCRs. Let the new Town Council know what you think.

Government that is controlled by local people is in fact, LESS GOVERNMENT, not more government.

Have you tried lately to maneuver through the Madera County Bureaucratic maze in in effort to get a simple building permit issued? Our county
administrative process is the lauging stock of central California.

We can, and must do better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man do I so agree with this... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MtnEagle

Dec 24, 2002, 05:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by whitebird:
Oakhurst doesn't have the tax base to support its own local government. It would still have to contract out to the county/state for public safety support , so would still be on the apron strings of the existing government structure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, but in any case it brings us one step closer to autonomy.

Madera only thinks about one thing... Madera

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Coldwolf

Dec 26, 2002, 11:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alien:
Well, I lived in Fresno before my wife and I moved here 10 years ago. Hated every minute of it. We worked hard to afford our place here.

I love the small town atmosphere of Oakhurst, but I sure do get tired of the above example of thinking.

You aren't paying my mortgage or my utilities, and I think we've both been here long enough to be members of this community.

I think Oakhurst should be careful in its growth yes, but I also think people should be realistic about the fact that things do change.

Add to that the choke hold on any real new technology that could be available to us all by the FREAKIN monopoly called SierraTel.
And, lastly the fact that a lot of us have to commute to Fresno or Madera to shop for the things that most "Flatlanders" as you call them take for granted at Target, WallMart, etc.

We don't have to give in to the big Strip Malls and all, but we should have and invite a few big name stores into town to relieve the traffic to Fresno that everyone complains about so often. I'd love to give the local stores all my money that I spend in shoping, but I find it annoying the attitude that I have to take their crap as well.

Sure you want the traffic for tourist to polulate your cash register, but you want to be able to shoo them out of town as soon as they do.

Face it, a lot of people in this town have a chip on their shoulders the size of Texas, and then complain when they hear that Oakhurst has a reputation.

I can't help but want to knock it off every time I see or hear it... It makes me sick... /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[This message was edited by Alien on December 08, 2002 at 08:47 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
'm not a "close the gates behind me person. I just think there is a reason that people like the small town atmosphere, and that can only be destroyed by changing the small town to the big city. Growth is enevitable, but growth doesn't nessesarily mean something bad.
People that move here complain about workers being on "mountain time". Yup. Example. I went to deliver a piece of equipment to someones house. Deliver. Not Setup, not Install, not Reconfigure.
Now I'm even willing to place and hookup, but the guy insists I have to hook it to his system, then test the system to make sure each piece in the system will work with the new equipment. I find a problem, which now becomes MY problem, and he insists I need to fix it before I leave. Everything else on my schedule get shoved into the ****ter, and Now I've done 2 hours work, plus my delivery time, and I get my damn delivery charge because "thats all he asked for".
And the next man I went to complained about workers on "Mountain Time".
A friend,roofer, went to do a simple reroof, scheduled a week to do it, gets to the house, finds it was built subcode, many ower built additions over the years that are sagging, trusses not properly placed, no roof anchors, so now the week job he bid on is going to push off everything else he scheduled, but he can't do that so he's working on weekends and holidays to get the job done properly. And because it takes more than a week to do the job, (if he had no ethics he could have patched the roof well enough to make it through the warranty period,but he tries to do a GOOD job) the people complain about workers on "Mountain Time", but never consider that my friend is giving up his freetime and family time, and holiday time so they can have a sound roof.
No, I don't pay your morgage, I pay mine. So yes, we've both been here long enough to be members of the community, but lets be members of THIS community, where a worker has to travel for an hour to go 20 miles to a job, and thats coming out of his pocket. And if he can't get there today, he'll be there tommorrow or the next day. Hopefully, he'll call you, but he might be stuck behind someones wall, or on someones roof, or under the floor trying desperatly to fix someones broken pipes and stop an emergency from becoming a tragedy. Or just trying not to alienate customer/client/community member at the expense of another. I'll tell you, you don't often find local businessmen at the lake on a workday.More often you'll find them working somewhere on a weekend.
Stores like Walmart or Kmart? Do you have any concept what that would do to the small shop owners? Sure, maybe the stores here don't have quite the selection you can get at a huge chain store. Granted. I'm sure you have to go to Fresno for the "right color" or something. But there are stores in this town selling almost anything you could want.

So a man, Mr Baker has taken his dads little business, 40 phones lines or so, and built it into a conglomerate of related businesses. Monopoly? There are 3 OTHER internet service providers, 1 OTHER cellular phone provider, one OTHER pager provider.Sierra Tel might not be the phone company of the big city, and Mr Baker might have make lots of money doing what he does, but thats what being in business is about.
New technologies? Remember Sierra OnLine, WorldPlay International,Tsunami Media...? The new Technology was here, and left. I wish they would come back.
Tourists? this town doesn't cater to the tourist trade. How many "tourist" shops can you name? In any other tourist town (and I've lived in some, visited many)the main street is one after another of t-shirt shops, trinket/souveiner vendors, gift shops and the like. This town has...41 Trading post and a souviener shop inside of The Kettle.
I'd love for the tourists to drop more money here...but pretty much, they use this town for the motels and resturants only.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I know this is going to come off that way..
Its just the way I see it.
CW

[This message was edited by Coldwolf on December 26, 2002 at 01:57 PM.]

Coldwolf

Dec 26, 2002, 12:00 PM

So when was the last time you saw "to protect and serve" on the side of a sherriffs car? When did all police go from "peace officers" (remember peace officers associations?) to "Law enforcement"

maccabee

Dec 27, 2002, 08:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Stan:
This is so dumb. If you do nothing wrong, you will not get hassled. The fact is, alot of people that look dangerous, ARE dangerous. You can't judge a book by the cover, but you can "sorta" tell what is inside by the cover. Black people, white people, brown people, green people, if you look nice, act nice, do nice things, you are a nice person and are treated as a nice person. If you do bad things, you need to be treated accordingly.
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]
Stan that is nice that you believe that, and its the way it should be, but it is not a reality.

maccabee

Dec 27, 2002, 08:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alien:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by whitebird:
Oakhurst doesn't have the tax base to support its own local government. It would still have to contract out to the county/state for public safety support , so would still be on the apron strings of the existing government structure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see your point, but at the rate we are growing, and number is skyrocketing. Its better to get outside help at first as future Oakhurst govt learns and makes inevitable mistakes. any apron strings will not last for long.

maccabee

Dec 27, 2002, 08:43 AM

This is in response to coldwolfs post:
"my delivery time, and I get my damn delivery charge because "thats all he asked for".

Then You need to be clearer on the phone and explain your services and prices better. If the customer has a problem with this (and a little friendly phone manners goes a long way) then let that customer try to get something delivered from Fresno! They will have to come back to you.

"And the next man I went to complained about workers on "Mountain Time"."
Next time someone complains of mountain time I am going to remind them that people are late in all areas of California! Or in Fresno you don't let people deliver because some of the characters are not the type you want to allow inside your home.
"Stores like Walmart or Kmart? Do you have any concept what that would do to the small shop owners? "
Those stores will bleed Oakhurst of our uniqueness and we can not support them anyway! That is why those corporations have not even considered our area, the math is just not there.

"So a man, Mr Baker has taken his dads little business, 40 phones lines or so, and built it into a conglomerate of related businesses. Monopoly? "
Yes, its still a monopoly. If this situation existed in Fresno it wouldn't matter as much, but in this smaller area it still qualifies as a monopoly. I am not saying its good or bad, it just meets the criteria of a corporation in size and community power.

"this town doesn't cater to the tourist trade. How many "tourist" shops can you name?"
Shilo in, the elderberry house and chateau, horse inn whatever you call it B & B, pines resort, tenaya lodge, days in , pine rose inn, hundreds of privately owned vacation cabins and home and smaller restaurants on 41. The peddlars fair. Our gas stations do a large percentage of their business in the summer due to no gas in Yosemite. We have tons of souvenier shops in Bass lake, and our local art galleries benefit from tourists, as do spas.Luckily we don't have a lot of tacky gift shops, but our industry depends on tourist. Our tv shops and grocery stores are patronized by hotel, restaurant,etc workers , hundreds of them, so dependence on tourism does affect us all.

MtnEagle

Dec 27, 2002, 09:52 PM

"So a man, Mr Baker has taken his dads little business, 40 phones lines or so, and built it into a conglomerate of related businesses. Monopoly? "

My only comment to add here is that until this town and the surrounding areas are not dependant on STI's cabling system, it will remain a monopoly.

Then there is the fact that just about every time someone starts up a competitive business, he ends up buying them out or at least a controlling percentage.

I've never said he wasn't a GOOD business man... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I just despise how it stifles technical growth for this area.

And while we are on the subject, yes I remember Sierra, cause I got left out in the cold along with several hundred other workers when that French **** of a company bought it and closed the Oakhurst division.

Anyway... I've said everything I need to say...

Happy New Year fellas!

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Curious

Jan 05, 2003, 11:25 AM

Sandman

Jan 19, 2003, 09:03 AM

<H3>Oakhurst incorporation on agenda
Madera County commission looks into proposal, possible city limits.
By Charles McCarthy
The Fresno Bee Article - Click Here (http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/5901262p-6864295c.html)
(Published Thursday, January 16, 2003, 4:24 AM)
</H3>

MADERA -- The proposed incorporation of Oakhurst and its possible city limits is a key topic as the Local Agency Formation Commission begins its 2003 schedule.
The commission discussed expanding those proposed city limits at its first meeting of the year Wednesday, said Dave Herb, the commission's executive officer and Madera County planning director.

"It's the first and most significant step in determining if the proposal is financially viable," Herb said.

Local residents have pushed to incorporate, presenting Madera County with a petition in October calling for incorporating 5,500 acres -- 8.6 square miles of central Oakhurst, centered on the Highway 49 junction.

The bulk of the targeted area is the Highway 41 commercial corridor from the top of Deadwood Grade to the Bass Lake turnoff. From 6,000 to 8,000 people live there.

The Action Committee To Incorporate Oakhurst Now submitted the petition. The committee estimates that the incorporation area produces $3.4 million in tax revenue yearly for Madera County. The incorporated town could run itself on about $3.4 million, the committee said, leaving $100,000 for local improvements.

Herb said LAFCO has identified several areas that could be included in an expansion of the proposed eastern Madera County city. One of these is near John West Road, east of the limits suggested by a committee of Oak-hurst residents.

Also identified for possible inclusion in the proposed city is an area served by Road 222, north of central Oakhurst toward Bass Lake.

Three county roads serve smaller patches of land considered for inclusion into what eventually could be Madera County's third city.

Herb said these areas are served by roads 426, 422 and 425b, south and east of central Oakhurst.

Yosemite High School and most of central Oakhurst, including shopping centers near the junction of state highways 41 and 49, are already inside the proposed city limits.

Madera County Supervisor John V. Silva, last year's vice chairman, steps up to be LAFCO chairman for 2003. Other members of the commission are Frank Bigelow, outgoing chairman and Madera County supervisor; Madera City Council Member Gordon Skeels; and two other LAFCO incumbents, Ron Harris and Richard Dal Cerro.

The next LAFCO meeting is scheduled for Feb. 11. Although it deals with issues of local jurisdiction over boundaries, cities and special districts, Madera County's LAFCO has been an autonomous arm of the county since January 2001, Herb said.

The reporter can be reached at cmccarthy@fresnobee.com or 675-6804


If you have any questions or comments, please email me admin@oakhurstonline.com.

MtnEagle

Jan 22, 2003, 10:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by guest:
i'm not sure the oakhurst city administrators are competent enough to handle incorporation. they are a bunch of unorganized hicks who care more about their own personal agendas than the future of this great town.
(image)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey at least he likes John Deere tractors! http://oakhurstonline.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ROFL!

Curious

Apr 02, 2003, 05:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by whitebird:
Oakhursat doesn't have the tax base to support its own local government. It would still have to contract out to the county/state for public safety support , so would still be on the apron strings of the existing government structure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The initial financial analysis indicates that we pay more than one million dollars into Madera County than we get back in services. the CFA (Comprehensive Financial Analysis) will give us a more accurate picture. Yes, we will contract for some services, and probably with Madera County. But we are not restricted to Madera County - we could contract with the City of Madera, for exammple, or with Mariposa County, or some other governmental agency. The new Town Couoncil will negotiate for such services.

Oakhurst is now a "Contributing Community." Tht means that some of our tax dollars go to subsidize the rest of Madera County.

Check out tha A. C. T. I. O. N. web site: www.townofoakhurst.com (http://www.townofoakhurst.com)

Ironhorse

Apr 02, 2003, 07:16 AM

Believe me, the City of Madera would not be a good trade-off from the County of Madera to provide services if Oakhurst incorporates. They can't handle their own issues and spending. I was most impressed by Councilmember Gordon Skeels recent comment over funding for their new 5.5 million dollar police department (mind you the price tag started out at 3.5 million dollars originally). When it was indicated that due to circumstances associated with the city's own budget problems and the state's probable impact on the city, Mr. Skeels commented to the effect "I don't care where they get the money, just get it built", (not exact quote, couldn't remember exactly how it was put). This is a good indicator of his attitude, and this type of attitude generally translates to higher taxes, "full speed ahead and **** the torpedoes." The question should be, if they are faced with not filling open positions (of which there are several) and possible layoffs, is it wise to spend money on a new facility, or would it be wiser to wait a few years to start spending money they apparently don't have, according to their statements. The potential money that Oakhurst would have would disappear in a hurry with the City of Madera's spending philosophy.

Apr 02, 2003, 06:51 PM

Can't Please everyone...Everyone wants to complain about something...Cops, Govt, money...Everyone is angry about something. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wacko.gif

MtnEagle

Apr 03, 2003, 10:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JW:
Can't Please everyone...Everyone wants to complain about something...Cops, Govt, money...Everyone is angry about something. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wacko.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah... Especially in Oakhurst... I think it's a mandatory pass time...

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink2.gif

Ironhorse

Apr 03, 2003, 10:54 AM

Wasn't aware I was complaining. Just stating fact. Watched the City of Madera waste money for over 20 years. Don't see the point of building a building that you can't afford, especially one that it is predicted will be outgrown in 10 years or less. Doesn't seem financially responsible to me. When a councilmember states "I don't care where the money comes from, get it built that's scary to me. It would indicate that he doesn't care if the money comes from layoffs of personnel or from increased taxes to people that are already getting hit by the State as a result of their mismanagement of money paid by taxpayers. This from an entity that already closes its Police Department between noon and 1pm and its Finance department is only open from 9am to 4pm, its Community Development Department (engineering, planning and building) is closed during the noon hour. How can people who work 8am to 5pm get their business done? Many try to use their lunch hour so that they don't lose pay. There's something wrong with a whole department taking off for lunch at the same time, when it would be more logical to stagger their lunch hours. Sorry if you guys view this as a complaint. I lived with it and didn't like seeing my tax dollars spent this way.

MtnEagle

Apr 07, 2003, 06:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by myhome:
Wasn't aware I was complaining... ...Sorry if you guys view this as a complaint...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... I think you took my response personal, can't speak for the other guy.

My comment is/was on the reputation that the Oakhurst area has in general. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink2.gif

I mean really... people should plant some trees or something to settle their nerves...

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/grin2.gif

Chem101

Apr 24, 2003, 11:42 AM

I realize, that to some here, I fit the definition of a lowly Ã¢Â€ÂœflatlanderÃ¢Â€Â however, feel compelled to share my experiences regarding incorporation.
Having spent 40 years of my life with the goal of owning a home and eventually retiring up at the lake, I have a vested interest in quality of the closest big city (Oakhurst)

It doesnÃ¢Â€Â™t take a rocket scientist to see growth coming like a freight train. Look at the shopping center off Friant. Look at the ChildrenÃ¢Â€Â™s Hospital. Look and the new casino. Look at all the home development, all heading directly north. Oakhust has already grown at an alarming rate. I miss the Bigfoot Burgers, the small community feel, but those days are gone forever.

As a young boy I remember my father working with other folks in the small community I grew up in to try and incorporate the town into a city. At the time it was a small community surrounded by orange groves, walnut groves, cattle ranches and beautiful rolling hills. The effort to incorporate failed. People were worried about taxes.
The townÃ¢Â€Â™s growth was guided by the benevolent care of Los Angeles County. This town can now be conservatively classified as a rat hole. There are strip malls everywhere. The hills are covered with high density housing. Every corner has a gas station. During rush hour it takes 30 minutes to drive the two mile length of the main drag. It breaks my heart to visit that town knowing what was and what is.

After graduating from college I bought a home in a new community in Chino Hills. Like the town I grew up inÃ¢Â€Â¦. like Oakhurst, it is a beautiful rural setting in the hills. Unlike the town I grew up in, the people of Chino Hills did vote to incorporate early on. Just like before, the growth came. However, this time the growth was controlled by community members. Chino Hills maintains itÃ¢Â€Â™s rural atmosphere today. Lots of open spaces were left in the master plan. Housing densities were maintained low. Retail and industrial areas were laid out to minimize impact on the quality of life. Chino Hills has the lowest crime in the county and is rated as one of the best communities to live in Southern California. And guess whatÃ¢Â€Â¦. IÃ¢Â€Â™m not paying any higher taxes then if I had stayed in the town I grew up in!!! Nor did the city fathers create any nonsense city ordinances.

Look at Oakhurst today. What grade would you give Madera County planning so far?

I hope to retire at Bass Lake in 8 to 10 years, I own a home up there now so that sorta makes me a local. I certainly hope the citizens of Oakhurst will protect what they have so I can look forward to visiting Ã¢Â€Âœthe big cityÃ¢Â€Â in my golden years.

Curious

May 23, 2003, 05:32 PM

Oakhurst is a "contributing" tax area. That is, we pay more into Madera County than we get back in services - about 1.2 million per year, as shown on the preleminary financial analysis. An incorporated Oakhurst could provide better services at a lower cost.

Sandman

Aug 12, 2004, 10:01 PM

Let's bring up an old issue... and an old topic on these forums:

<h1 align="center">Incorporation issue resurfaces</h1><H3 ALIGN=CENTER>
Feasibility analysis regarding
the possibility of incorporating
Oakhurst as a town might
be completed this month</H3>

Submitted
<hr width="100%" noshade>

On Saturday, Aug. 7, Ron Bucheger, president of the Action Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst Now (ACTION) provided an update to the Oakhurst Democratic Club on the Oakhurst incorporation effort.

Ã¢Â€ÂœDemocracy is about taking control of our own situation and what the constitution is founded on,Ã¢Â€Â Bucheger said. Rather than only having one vote on the Madera County Board of Supervisors, providing Oakhurst with limited clout, ACTION envisions an incorporated Oakhurst with a five-member town council and a rotating mayor, giving the community much greater control over its quality of life and future. ACTION believes that by incorporating, the citizens of Oakhurst would have a direct say over issues such as police, fire coverage, and the very important planning aspects of town development.

An initial feasibility study performed by Economic and Planning Systems concluded that the incorporation of Oakhurst was financially reasonable, Bucheger said. Currently, approximately $3.3 million in tax revenues are generated by Oakhurst and $1.5 million of that stays in Madera CountyÃ¢Â€Â™s general fund.

If Oakhurst were incorporated, that money could be put to use directly for local needs.

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Madera County, which oversees and will ultimately vote on whether or not to approve OakhurstÃ¢Â€Â™s incorporation, has contracted with consultants to perform a comprehensive fiscal and feasibility analysis of the issue.
It is hoped that will be completed this month.

Initially, a newly incorporated town of Oakhurst would adopt all the current Madera County regulations, but then it would be within the townÃ¢Â€Â™s power to change them.

The new town would contract with Madera County for select services.
Ã¢Â€ÂœPeople are always afraid that taxes will go up if the Oakhurst incorporates,Ã¢Â€Â Bucheger said. Ã¢Â€Âœbut taxes canÃ¢Â€Â™t be raised without the majority of Oakhurst residents agreeing to it.Ã¢Â€Â

If LAFCO approves Oakhurst to move forward with incorporation, an election will be ordered, and the citizens of Oakhurst would vote to approve or disapprove the action.

Curious

Aug 19, 2004, 07:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Curious:
It's good Greg. Every year more than $1.2 million of Oakhurst taxpayers money is spent by Madera County outside of Oakhurst, with some $2 million spend on local services. We are a contributor community, that means we are subsidizing the rest of the county. Let' be governed by people who live in Oakhurst, know Oakhurst, and care about Oakhurst. That is not the situation we have today. It's time for Oakhurst to assume self rule.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Coldwolf:
So, which people of Oakhurst are they going to represent? The people that have lived here for all their lives, and want things like they were, or the people that lived in LA or Santa Barbara until they retired and then sell off the expensive home,pack their stuff up and move to Oakhurst and try to make it like the town
they came from with CCRs and sign ordinances, and complain about workers on FREAKIN mountain time (which only exists in the mind of Flatlanders)?

Sorry about the run-on sentence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The new Town Government will represent the people of Oakhust who vote. It will be governent by local people rather than other people who live somewhere else, whose primary focus and attention are somewhere else and who suck over one million dollars of wealth out of Oakhurst every year to spend somewhere else. The American Colonists had such an arrangement two and a quarter centuries ago. They had a "Tea Party," we had a very successfull petition drive.

Local people will have input - which we have very little of now - about such things as sign ordinances and CCRs. Let the new Town Council know what you think.

Government that is controlled by local people is in fact, LESS GOVERNMENT, not more government.

Have you tried lately to maneuver through the Madera County Bureaucratic maze in in effort to get a simple building permit issued? Our county
administrative process is the lauging stock of central California.

We can, and must do better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dodgergirl

Aug 19, 2004, 08:25 AM

I'm really late responding to this, but what's wrong with showing up when you say you will? Or even close?
So I was smart enough to get my kids outta the city my mom chose, you gonna blame me for that?
I usually agree with you, Wolf & know you aren't here as much as you were when this was originally posted, but I believe many 'mountain people' use 'mountain time' as an excuse not to get things done. There's good and bad business everywhere, and yes, even in your beloved Oakhurst. I moved here not to change things, but to adapt to a different lifestyle. I still wonder where that electrician is I had an appointment with LAST November! http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif I think his name was Mike & is real important in Oakhurst. He actually came out after numerous phone calls spanning a couple weeks, and said he'd be back to do said job the following week. (Ah, mountain speak..the week following what??)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Coldwolf:
So, which people of Oakhurst are they going to represent? The people that have lived here for all their lives, and want things like they were, or the people that lived in LA or Santa Barbara until they retired and then sell off the expensive home,pack their stuff up and move to Oakhurst and try to make it like the town they came from with CCRs and sign ordinances, and complain about workers on FREAKIN mountain time (which only exists in the mind of Flatlanders)?

Sorry about the run-on sentence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jimi

Aug 19, 2004, 08:30 AM

Nothing will change much if there is an incorperation .... people think it is the answer to all problems....

I saw a bumper sticker yeaterday that about sums thing up ... it said. Get involved, things are run by those who show up

The answer is to get involved ... be on your local boards... go to meetings .... Show up

Make your voice heard ... too often we complain and do not do a thing about it ...

Jimi

Aug 19, 2004, 08:37 AM

on another board there is a guy who says a few things that bug ne .....

One is ... LEAD FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY

When you read that it seems very arrogant.....but I understand it ...

It is directed to those who do nothing but complain .... they are not leading ... they are not supporting ... they are just whining ...

I hope Oakhurst does not Incorperate ... I sat on a few LAFCO meetings ... I think it will be a long uphill battle ... the water the largest undertaking ....

But at least Curious is in the hunt... he is supporting by actions what he wants .... I am not a resident of the area ...but if I were I would hope to be involved ....

Another post this guy says that I find arrogant .... "the turtle can do nothing without first sticking his neck out" ..... that means get involved.... do not be afraid......

Now him and I agree on moest things ... so I just hate onliners.

But you cannot hope for things with out action ... Faith without works is dead .......

Mibrew

Aug 19, 2004, 09:59 AM

Jimi,
I need some of that stuff yer a smokin http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/goofy.gif

Instead of our taxes staying here for the good of our town, they go to Madera and they make the decisions of were our money is spent, so our town might not even see any part of it...now thats crazy http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/wacko.gif

Newcomer

Aug 19, 2004, 12:10 PM

Jimi, It sounds like this guy is Posting things from fortune cookies. LOL

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jimi:
on another board there is a guy who says a few things that bug ne .....

One is ... LEAD FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY

When you read that it seems very arrogant.....but I understand it ...

It is directed to those who do nothing but complain .... they are not leading ... they are not supporting ... they are just whining ...

I hope Oakhurst does not Incorperate ... I sat on a few LAFCO meetings ... I think it will be a long uphill battle ... the water the largest undertaking ....

But at least Curious is in the hunt... he is supporting by actions what he wants .... I am not a resident of the area ...but if I were I would hope to be involved ....

Another post this guy says that I find arrogant .... "the turtle can do nothing without first sticking his neck out" ..... that means get involved.... do not be afraid......

Now him and I agree on moest things ... so I just hate onliners.

But you cannot hope for things with out action ... Faith without works is dead ....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jimi

Aug 19, 2004, 02:10 PM

Mibrew ... I was at the BOS meeting ... and the LAFCO meeting ... the biggest obstical and hang up is Oakhust biggest problem... one no one has attempted to answer ... the owner of Hillview water is not co-operating on this ...

The cost to incorperate will include the water co. now the bad problem is all the extra monies that they think they are going to have is going to the water co .... and then some ....unless things change .....

It will not affect my home a bit .... so it really doesnt matter to me ....I happen to be at the meeting for other reasons .... but heck ....

I just hope they put it off until they get the water situation settled so that they do not accept the great debt and problems of that ...

MtnEagle

Aug 19, 2004, 07:16 PM

...but Jimi...

Complaining is a national passtime in Oakhurst... Didn't you know that?

And the older folks amoungst us have such long and rich experience at it...

http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/wink2.gif

j/k! http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/tongue2.gif

CatdaBrat

Aug 26, 2004, 12:25 PM

Most people voted "yes" but not in the "yes, if it is financially feasible" section. How can it work if it is NOT financially feasible? (Not disagreeing, but just curious.)

Sandman

Aug 26, 2004, 12:56 PM

I'd just add those two results together since they both vote "Yes" http://oakhurstforums.com/icon/wink2.gif

cak

May 16, 2005, 09:19 AM

I haven't heard anything about this issue for a while so I thought I'd give an old thread a new bump.

Any progress? I certainly would like to see the tax money stay in Oakhurst (even though I don't live *in* Oakhurst - Cedar Valley is too far north to be considered that).

chris

BGW

May 17, 2005, 07:16 AM

I think the issue is just sitting on a back burner for now. I also think Oakhurst is slowly gearing towards up for incorporation i.e. by getting both an area plan and a public water district locked into place. What I found rather odd is that many of the higher-ups at the Madera County Planning Department are members of the ACTION Council (incorporate Oakhurst group)and they don't even live up here. If you don't live here what would your motive be to incorporate Oakhurst? The public interest sort of faded away when the ACTION Council released their water report for the area. You can read their report at the link below.
http://www.townofoakhurst.com/docs.htm
The report (poorly summarized) says Oakhurst has more water than it knows what to do with and is missing a huge opportunity by not using the Fresno River to it's full advantage. Many of the locals and the Planning Commission found fault with this way of thinking, and the push to incorporate sort of fizzled out.

I am on the fence on this one. I don't like the idea that some much of out hard earned tax money leaves the area and basically supports the City of Madera. It is this area that generates tourist tax dollars and yet not much of that stays on the mountain either. We are currently governed by people that don't live in the area. Only one or two members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors combined actually do live in the mountain area. I question their ability to judge what is best for us; without actually living here and knowing how our day to day lives commence. It would be nice to put the experts, the locals, in this capacity.

Dodie

May 18, 2005, 06:10 PM

While you are thinking about this subject what towns besides Oakhurst do you want to become a part of Oakhurst: Bass Lake, Fish Camp, Coarsegold? Where would your boundaries be? Also would you also be responsible for your part of YNP and the Madera County portions of it? All of this has to be decided before you ever begin to think of leaving the umbrella of Madera County. Dodie

Mibrew

May 19, 2005, 03:57 AM

The proposed boundaries for the Town of Oakhurst include an area of about 5,500 acres (8.6 square miles). This area extends from

Bass Lake Road on the North to the top of Deadwood on the South, and from Mountain Christian Center on Highway 49 to past

John West Road on Road 426 (Crane Valley Road). Maps are available in the Initial Feasibility Analysis report in the Oakhurst Library

EdBailey

Sep 02, 2007, 11:37 PM

Should Oakhurst Incorporate? It appears that will be the question on the February 5, 2008, Primary Ballot, allowing Oakhurst residents to vote on Incorporation, and at the same time, elect a five member town council. ACTION (Action Committee to Incorporate Oakhurst Now) has been working over the past five years to bring about self government for Oakhurst. A new Comprehensive Financial Analysis (CFA) shows financial feasibility for the proposed Town of Oakhurst. In fact, the latest figures show that Oakhurst taxpayers are sending about $2 million more to Madera than we are getting back in services Even with state mandated revenue sharing with Madera County, and the added cost of running the town government, we still come out with an additional $500,000, or so, for improved services. The complete CFA is available on ACTION”S web site: http://www.townofoakhurst.com/

Today, California has 478 incorporated cities and is adding about one per year. Of all the cities that have incorporated in California’s 157 year history, all but two are incorporated today.

No city in California has disincorporated since Hornitos, in neighboring Mariposa County, 1972 and we were unable to find any disincorporation effort now underway in the state. Incorporation is one of the most common political changes in a functioning representative government. Disincorporation is extremely uncommon, despite the fact that it is much easier to accomplish. The self governing idea we inherited from our founding fathers is alive and well in California, and is indeed spreading throughout the world, Town of Oakhurst, an idea whose time has come.

For more information on the proposed self governing Town of Oakhurst go to: http://www.townofoakhurst.com. Send questions or comments to: incorporate@sti.net, or call Ron Bucheger (the ‘c’ is silent), at (559) 642-2970.

Mysteefied

Oct 16, 2007, 07:55 PM

Ironhorse

Oct 17, 2007, 07:39 AM

I'm one who doesn't support it. I think that our taxes will raise, that our level of services with either go down, or will cost more to keep at current levels. I've dealt with city and county budgets, helped to form budgets for departments, been part of a transition from city provided services to letting CDF take them over (fire). CDF came in the first year, quoted a cost to take over dispatch services that my boss and I knew was ridiculously low. Our bosses bit anyway and signed the contract. The next year, they came back wanting a substantially higher amount for the dispatch contract (more than triple the first amount) and that's the way it went every budget session after that. Same with when they took over firefighting services. The city would have been money ahead to just have hired the additional people needed to do the job. If Oakhurst has to contract with CDF for fire and the County for law enforcement services, and other services, those contracts will not be in Oakhurst's favor, they will pay for those services big time. There is also the issue of antiquated water and sewer systems that the county let go too long before doing anything about them, the overbuilding of the area to the point that those systems can no longer support the population without significant upgrades. I also worry that people who have not lived here for a long time will lose sight of the fact that most people moved here for a lifestyle far different than what they came from. Those people will push for more big ticket stores. Sure, it would be nice to have some of those places here, but they will force many smaller businesses out, costs most likely won't be any cheaper (we pay more for gas because we live up here, so does anyone really think we won't pay more for things in those big name stores?), and the whole feeling of the town will change. There will be more push for building and development, more traffic (and everyone thinks traffic is bad now), more crime, etc. Yes, the county BOS does not give fair representation to our area, doesn't return the tax dollars to this area that they should, but that could be dealt with in other ways, like elections and more demands for access to public meetings (like more frequent chances to attend board meetings UP HERE, instead of always having to travel to the valley.) No I don't have all the solutions, can't know all the ins and outs of the incorporation, I just feel that the whole process is wrong for this area, that we will grow to be something that most of us were trying to escape. JMO

Mysteefied

Oct 17, 2007, 08:36 AM

Thank you, I appreciate your response.

Anyone else?

mary oleary

Oct 18, 2007, 07:56 PM

Seems like it would allow more local control.

I don't see why CDF would charge an incorportated Oakhurst more than it charges an unincorporated Oakhurst?
I've dealt with city and county budgets, helped to form budgets for departments, been part of a transition from city provided services to letting CDF take them over (fire). CDF came in the first year, quoted a cost to take over dispatch services that my boss and I knew was ridiculously low.

The example isn't really equal since Oakhurst wouldn't be cancelling city services, or county services, but rather sharing costs for state services that already exist...or am I missing something?

another point I'm not getting is:
There is also the issue of antiquated water and sewer systems that the county let go too long before doing anything about them, the overbuilding of the area to the point that those systems can no longer support the population without significant upgrades.

Wouldn't local control be more attentive to growth issues?

Celticsoul

Oct 18, 2007, 08:46 PM

Ironhorse

Oct 19, 2007, 07:12 AM

Ironhorse, I'm a distant flatlander and my opinion counts for nothing, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. I fear that a terrible mistake is about to befall your charming community. I have only followed the text of the developments for the past year or so, and I don't have prior experience from which to draw, so my opinion means even less.
Do be careful of what you wish.

Glad it's not just me. Some people can't see that we won't just "share costs" for things like CDF with the county, we will have to enter in to our own contract with CDF for fire protection. And local control would be better for some issues, but we will have to take over water and sewer systems that will cost an arm and a leg to "fix right". Hillview's system is a disaster, I live with it every day, just love paying for water I can't even drink. Who do people think will have to pay to fix that?????????? Incorporation won't make all those problems magically go away like the proponents for incorporation would like you to think they will. There are a lot of costs to setting up our own city offices, or costs to contracting with the county for those services, and I think that either way will cost us more in the long run. Suddenly people with roads that they currently have to maintain will want the new City of Oakhurst to maintain those roads, they'll demand drinkable water, they'll demand offices open here, 8 hours a day to conduct their business with the city, those offices will have to be staffed and those people aren't going to want to work for peanuts. Cops salaries/benefits are high, (not saying that they don't deserve it for the most part), equipment costs are out of sight. Did you know a gun can cost $500+, a vest $700+, uniform allowance usually runs $800/yr or more, cost of cars, mandated yearly P.O.S.T. training, handheld radios run $600 or more depending on the specifications required for range, etc., then there are support services, dispatch and clerical, office supplies, court standby (and in this county the court standby is outrageous). There are a myriad associated costs with each individual "department" associated with a city government, and if the city elects to contract for all or even just some of those services with the county, either way we're going to pay more for them. The county is NOT going to charge us just their costs for those services, we will also pay for the time of the person(s) who do the oversight of those contracts, and the contracts will be written to benefit the county, not the new incorporated city, it's business.

Beyond all that though, the simple fact is that this town will change, bigtime, it won't be a small mountain community, the push will be on to bring in bigger businesses to generate the tax base/revenue to pay for the services associated with a growing town, but somehow they won't pay for it, and every year the city will push for more tax revenues. Big or little, it happens everywhere, just at a slower rate here, unincorporated. To me a better solution would be for the people in this community to do a better job being "watchdogs" for the revenues that should be coming this way from the county (such as the $3 million give the the City of Madera for an overpass, that was originally marked for the mountain area). JMO and I don't expect everyone to agree.

rimalicious

Oct 19, 2007, 07:04 PM

I am not sure what all of the differences are but Oakhurst would be incorporated into a "town", not a "city." Perhaps that will address some of the negative issues commented on here.

Ironhorse

Oct 19, 2007, 07:21 PM

I am not sure what all of the differences are but Oakhurst would be incorporated into a "town", not a "city." Perhaps that will address some of the negative issues commented on here.

sorry it (I) sound negative Rimalicious, but it's honestly what I feel will happen. I'm not sure either of the differences, but I don't really think a verbage difference will matter in how the issues are addressed. Either way, the Town/City of Oakhurst will have to become more "self-sufficient" and starting up is not going to be cheap. Insurance costs (both for the town/city (liability, property loss, accident, health, workman's comp, etc.), and it's employees insurance costs are something else that can be added into the pot. I haven't even remembered all the costs of things associated with the budgets I used to work with, but it can be overwhelming. But all that aside, my gut feeling is that the town will change, and while change can be good, I don't think the kind of change we'll see is what some want. Oakhurst may become another small town with more problems than it wants to deal with from an influx of a new tax base, etc. I saw on another thread someone complaining of more traffic etc. from the casino expansion, well that's what we'll see with growth in the town, so what's the difference???? I'm sure the plan that was presented had a lot of information for the public, but it's the little things (that can become very big things because the results can't be predicted until you get into the negotiations for them) that I don't think enough information has been provided on. Maybe it's just that I overthink a problem. Like I said, this is all JMO. I like this town and don't want to see it become like so many other towns in the Central San Joaquin, I would like to see it keep it's uniqueness and build on that, not strive to become like it's bigger neighbors.

mary oleary

Nov 09, 2007, 03:53 PM

How will remaining under county jurisdiction inhibit Oakhurst growth?

How will remaining under county jurisdiction fix the hillview water problem?

How would incorporation allow people with private roads demand pulic funds?

Mibrew

Nov 12, 2007, 01:27 PM

Oakhurst should have Incorporated years ago..... this has been going around and around...I'm glad were getting closer... the grants will come ; }

EdBailey

Nov 19, 2007, 02:18 PM

I've been thinking a lot about this, I'd like to get others opinions on this. This is one area where I don't feel I know enough to make an educated decision. I am reading more and learning more about it, but I also wonder what you think.

I spoke with someone the other day who doesn't support it, because it will hurt the small businesses with increased taxes.

I'm all ears!!!

There is no reason to think small businesses will be hit with new taxes. The proposed Incorporation has an excellent tax base that produces a surplus of about $2,000,000.00 per year which the county government spends somewhere else.

Acutally, the new town will be purchasing supplies and awarding contracts that should help local businesses. Incorporation is win-win!

EdBailey

Nov 19, 2007, 02:38 PM

A lot of scary stuff is being posted and spread around town. It is not reality based - it is imagination based. Please go to www.townofoakhurst.com and read the ojective "Comphrensive Financial Analysis" and real the objective letter from the Madera County Fire Chief.

Whatever one's concern, we will have a much better chance of responsive government with 5 people who live in Oakhurst, know Oakhurst, and care about Oakhurst. Don't you think we can do a better job of keeping our rural lifestyle with people that we can vote for or against - all five of them?

Don't let them scare you into voting against your own best interests.

Summer

Nov 19, 2007, 10:07 PM

Ed, have you ever been involved in or seen incorporation in action?

EdBailey

Nov 19, 2007, 11:29 PM

Ed, have you ever been involved in or seen incorporation in action?

Yes, I was living in Lancaster in the early 1970s when they were just about where we are now in their incorporation process. Oponents made the same dire predictions that we are hearing now in Oakhurst. Lancanster was incorporated and the dire predictions did not materailze. After Oakhurst is incorporated they won't materalize here either. They never do. If those predictions ever did come true after a city had incorporated, three things would happen: 1) That city would move to disincorporate asap. that hasen't happened anywhere in the state. 2) No other city in California would ever incorporate. Instead new incorporations are happening at about one per year. 3) Existing incorporated cities would be reversing the process. Instead, of the 480 cities that have incorporated in our state, 478 are incorporated today. Once people experience self governance through an incorporated city (or town), they just don't want to go back. Nor will we.

oakhurstleaf

Nov 20, 2007, 09:18 AM

It's sort of like finally growing up and moving away from Mom and Pop....time to take charge of one's own destiny. Scary, yes. But when one matures, there comes a time when one needs to cut the apron strings and become self-sufficient.

I liken this little town to a lot of other little towns, but far better off...and not because we are located in the poorest county in CA....but because we are different than the overall county from which we reside. I, personally, think our difference and our uniqueness separates us from the rest of Madera County and we shouldn't be so reliant on the will and whim of the whole county. We are a separate entity...we deserve better, and we deserve to be able to choose how our tax revenue is spent...to better our community. We deserve to choose our pace of growth and how we wish to grow.

Ojai is a perfect example of a little mountain-like town, alot like us in many ways...though they've been incorporated since 1921.

If they can do it...we can do it. It'll be alright. In fact, it'll be good. Just my opinion.

Chem101

Nov 21, 2007, 12:57 PM

Having spent 40 years of my life with the goal of owning a home and eventually retiring up at the lake, I have a vested interest in quality of the closest big city (Oakhurst)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see growth coming like a freight train. Look at the shopping center off Friant. Look at the Children's Hospital. Look and the casino. Look at all the home development, all heading directly north. Oakhust has already grown at an alarming rate. I miss the Bigfoot Burgers, the small community feel, but those days are gone forever.

As a young boy I remember my father working with other folks in the small community I grew up in to try and incorporate the town into a city. At the time it was a small community surrounded by orange groves, walnut groves, cattle ranches and beautiful rolling hills. The effort to incorporate failed. People were worried about taxes.
The town's growth was guided by the benevolent care of Los Angeles County. This town can now be conservatively classified as a rat hole. There are strip malls everywhere. The hills are covered with high density housing. Every corner has a gas station. During rush hour it takes 30 minutes to drive the two mile length of the main drag. It breaks my heart to visit that town knowing what was and what is.

After graduating from college I bought a home in a new community in Chino Hills. Like the town I grew up in, like Oakhurst, it is a beautiful rural setting in the hills. Unlike the town I grew up in, the people of Chino Hills did vote to incorporate early on. Just like before, the growth came. However, this time the growth was controlled by community members. Chino Hills maintains it's rural atmosphere today. Lots of open spaces were left in the master plan. Housing densities were maintained low. Retail and industrial areas were laid out to minimize impact on the quality of life. Chino Hills has the lowest crime in the county and is rated as one of the best communities to live in Southern California. And guess what. I'm not paying any higher taxes then if I had stayed in the town I grew up in!!! Nor did the city fathers create any nonsense city ordinances.

Look at Oakhurst today. What grade would you give Madera County planning so far?

I hope to retire at Bass Lake very soon. I own a home up there now so that sorta makes me a local. I certainly hope the citizens of Oakhurst will protect what they have so I can look forward to visiting the big city in my golden years.

CatdaBrat

Nov 21, 2007, 07:50 PM

I miss those Big Foot burgers, too!

Those were the days...................

EdBailey

Nov 23, 2007, 04:05 AM

sorry it (I) sound negative Rimalicious, but it's honestly what I feel will happen. I'm not sure either of the differences, but I don't really think a verbage difference will matter in how the issues are addressed. Either way, the Town/City of Oakhurst will have to become more "self-sufficient" and starting up is not going to be cheap. Insurance costs (both for the town/city (liability, property loss, accident, health, workman's comp, etc.), and it's employees insurance costs are something else that can be added into the pot. I haven't even remembered all the costs of things associated with the budgets I used to work with, but it can be overwhelming. But all that aside, my gut feeling is that the town will change, and while change can be good, I don't think the kind of change we'll see is what some want. Oakhurst may become another small town with more problems than it wants to deal with from an influx of a new tax base, etc. I saw on another thread someone complaining of more traffic etc. from the casino expansion, well that's what we'll see with growth in the town, so what's the difference???? I'm sure the plan that was presented had a lot of information for the public, but it's the little things (that can become very big things because the results can't be predicted until you get into the negotiations for them) that I don't think enough information has been provided on. Maybe it's just that I overthink a problem. Like I said, this is all JMO. I like this town and don't want to see it become like so many other towns in the Central San Joaquin, I would like to see it keep it's uniqueness and build on that, not strive to become like it's bigger neighbors.

Ironhorse,

I'm sorry you have heard or imagined so many negatives about self rule for Oakhurst. First, the tax base will not change. The difference is that today we are paying approximately $3.5 million in taxes and Madera County is spending approximately $2 million of that outside of Oakhurst. Second all those costs you mentioned are covered in the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis and proposed budget which you can read at www.townofoakhurst.com. Please pay close attention to the conclusioins on page 28. Third, I think we all want to keep our rural atmosphere and lifestyles. Don't you think we can influence that more effectively with five coumcilmembers that we can vote for or against - all of them - than the one-of-five county supervisors who represents a portion of eastern Madera County, and four others who have no reason to care as much about Oakhurst as we do?

Ironhorse, there are people trying to scare you about this. Think about this, of 480 cities that have incorporated in California's 157 year history, 478, or 99.58 percent are incroporated today!

If all the negatives you are hearing were to materalize in just one city after incorporation, don't you think that city would move to disincorporate asap? That has not happened anywhere in California. Do you think any more cities would become incorporated? New cities are incorpating at a record pace of about one per year. Do you think all those 478 cities would remain incorporated? Self governance through incorporated cities or towns is not some kind social and political hell that is designed to destroy our way of life. It is, instead, just the opposite.

I'll just bet you that five years down the road you will be glad we did it!

Jerry

Nov 24, 2007, 06:49 AM

Ironhorse!

There is no legal difference between calling Oakhurst a town or calling it a city it is just a matter of local preference.

You are concerned about the insurance and other costs of operating a new town. You are paying these exact same costs now but the money is being paid to Madera County and they are taking a portion of that money and using it elsewhere. As Ed said, we are sending Madera about $2 million a year more than we are receiving in return.

You are concerned about Oakhurst changing. Oakhurst is not the same sleepy little town it was in the past, it is already changing. Oakhurst will continue to change whether it is incorporated or not. If it is incoporated, we will at least have some say in how it changes.

You don't believe you have enough information on this sbject. There have been numerous townhall meetings over the past several years that have done an excellent job of explaining most of your concerns. The information was presented to all that were interested.

I don't see how we can loose. If we incorporate and it doesn't turn out the way we think it will, we can unincorporate very easily.

EdBailey

Nov 24, 2007, 09:16 AM

[I][QUOTE=Jerry;50172]Ironhorse!

There is no legal difference between calling Oakhurst a town or calling it a city it is just a matter of local preference.

California law states that the two words as "explicitly interchangable." ACTION chose to use "Town of Oakhurst" because it better reflects the rural atmosphere that we wish to keep. Local control will give us a better opportunity to do that.

Ironhorse

Nov 24, 2007, 10:54 AM

I have been to some of the meetings and still felt they did not answer all the questions. If the "Town of Oakhurst" cannot fully support/operate it's own law-enforcement and fire-figthing units without have to rely on the state or county to provide those services via contract services, then they are STILL reliant/at the mercy of the County BOS. Those contracted services levels are negotiated, the costs are negotiated, and they aren't going to negotiate to benefit us, I've seen it happen. Sales tax sharing is negotiated with the county, the town doesn't automatically get to keep everything it generates. Sharing of other taxes is negotiated with the county. We MIGHT have more control over how our community grows, and we could have decisions made by a council at the beginning of their terms that we don't like/agree with and be faced with recall or waiting to vote them out. By the time that happens, the damage has been done. I've worked for both county and city governments and it's not quite the rosy picture that the people for incorporation would have it painted when it comes to how city/county governments get along. The egos get in the way and common sense flys out the door, as with many relationships. The incorporation may happen, who knows, I won't vote for it. I just don't happen to believe that people should walk down the "rose covered path" and made to believe that everything is going to be just fine. The incorporation is being represented as the cure to all the ails of the town, and it isn't. There are still major problems with the water systems, the waste treatment (which is already seeing increases in fees, albeit it is needed because the BOS didn't do what needed to be done before). When I see the background on some who constantly tout the incorporation, I find it interesting. Again, it's JMO, but we're all entitled to that, aren't we?

BGW

Nov 24, 2007, 11:14 AM

A lot of scary stuff is being posted and spread around town. It is not reality based - it is imagination based. Please go to www.townofoakhurst.com (http://www.townofoakhurst.com) and read the ojective "Comphrensive Financial Analysis" and real the objective letter from the Madera County Fire Chief.

Whatever one's concern, we will have a much better chance of responsive government with 5 peopll who live in Oakhurst, know Oakhurst, and care about Oakhurst. Don't you think we can do a better job of keeping our rural lifestyle with people that we can vote for or against - all five of them?

Don't let them scare you into voting against your own best interests.

***taken from last Wed. Sierra Star***
http://www.sierrastar.com/opinion/letters/story/14183410p-14717287c.html

--Ed, I'll let you post your letter :)

It's about the reality
Dear Editor:
Ed Bailey (Nov. 16) urged readers to review the Incorporation consultant's comprehensive fiscal analysis (CFA). We couldn't agree more. Specifically, refer to the general fund charts at the back.
For example, in 2009-10 (the first real year after transition), once you subtract projected expenses from the expected income, you're left with $1,263,116. The city must then subtract a minimum payment of $1 million to the county (the first installment of a $10 million debt to be paid over 10 years). That leaves a balance of $263,116. But the city still owes another $986,000 to the county, the first installment of an additional $9,860,000 debt to be paid over 10 years. But, there's not enough money--so this annual debt payment must be deferred this year and every year for the next 10 years. After year 10, the county will begin charging 3.5 percent interest on the unpaid balance.
Perhaps we should ask Mr. Bailey which CFA he would like us to read. Would it be the Aug. 16, 2007 version that states "Incorporation may require the town to consider additional taxes to meet basic municipal services, payments..." Or would it be the Aug. 28, 2007 version that states "due to the limited budget projected...a reserve fund is not included." Or would it be CFAs from 2004 and 2005 that were never released to the public because the numbers had to be "tweaked." No matter how many times you rewrite the CFA, it's the same story--hang on to your wallet.
Jeanne Aceto
Oakhurst

EdBailey

Nov 25, 2007, 09:04 AM

I can appreciate the concerns of Jeanne Aceto (Nov. 21) who quoted from a Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) of August 16, 2007 (not the final version) “Incorporation may require the town to consider additional taxes to meet basic municipal services (COUNTY) payments…” (Note the words “may” and “consider.”) Several other references from non-finalized reports were cited in the letter.

In the “Conclusion” section, Page 28, of the final version of the CFA we read the following:

“As demonstrated in the revenue and expenditure estimates in this CFA,
incorporation of Oakhurst is anticipated to be fiscally feasible, as a result of the
agreed-upon revenue neutrality agreement and projected revenues and
expenditures. This conclusion assumes existing levels of service are maintained;
however, expansion of service levels may require additional revenues beyond
those foreseen in this forecast. Additional revenues necessary to provide for
additional reserve funds or additional services would be subject to voter approval
under Proposition 218.”

If the people of Oakhurst should choose to expand services beyond what current abundant revenues will cover, and are willing to vote by a super majority to increase revenues, it could conceivably happen. It is not likely because independent study shows a healthy surplus the first year and increasing surpluses in following years.

Again I suggest that voters read the final version of the CFA which can be found at www.townofoakhurst.com , and if all those numbers make you as dizzy as they make me, at least read the conclusions of the study found on page 28.

EdBailey

Nov 25, 2007, 09:46 AM

It was the new pastor’s first day on the job when he met an elderly volunteer. “I’m the oldest member of this church in more ways than one,” the gentleman said. He went on, “I joined this church when I was six years old and that was 90 years ago.” “My, oh my,” said the pastor, “you must have seen a lot of changes around here.” “I sure have” he said, “and I fought every one of them!”

If that gentleman were living in Oakhurst today, you can bet he would be opposing incorporation. Even if he were living outside the proposed incorporation area, as some of the most vocal opponents are, he would be joining in and helping to invent dire consequences that will never happen.

I lived in Lancaster in the early 70s and remember when their incorporation process was just about where Oakhurst is now. I heard the same “the sky will surely fall if we incorporate” rhetoric there that I am hearing here. Lancaster incorporated and the dire consequences did not materialize. They never do – That’s because they are imaginary. As Yogi Berra would say, “This is deja veu all over again,” for me.

The good news for those who fear change so much, is that after we have been incorporated for a while, and it has become status quo, even they will be comfortable with it. In fact, I’ll bet that if after ten years we had a movement to dis-incorporate Oakhurst, many of those same people would oppose that. It’s not that it’s good or bad, it’s just that it’s change.

It’s interesting that some who do not even live in the proposed incorporation area, are campaigning to deny the blessings of self government to those of us who do. Is that presumptuous, or what?

jakobscalpel

Nov 25, 2007, 12:27 PM

helping to invent dire consequences that will never happen.

I think it's wonderful you know exactly how the future will play out. With this kind of foresight, any underestimated tax revenues for the new town can be made up through your ability to predict the future and, by extension, the stock market. Nice to have that ace in the hole!

I lived in Lancaster in the early 70s and remember when their incorporation process was just about where Oakhurst is now.

Since incorporation, Lancaster has grown in population 288%.
LA County has grown 43% in that same time frame.
Well done indeed, incorporation, well done.

In fact, I’ll bet that if after ten years we had a movement to dis-incorporate Oakhurst, many of those same people would oppose that.

What odds are you offering? I've been known to lay down the occasional wager.

It’s interesting that some who do not even live in the proposed incorporation area, are campaigning to deny the blessings of self government to those of us who do. Is that presumptuous, or what?

I agree. How silly (and presumptuous!) of those who live two miles outside the proposed town limit to actually care what happens to the largest clustering of population in our area, where all we do is support the businesses, use the roads, use the medical facilities, and use the recreational facilities. All of which we have been paying for just as much as you geographically blessed individuals.

Let's take a look at this slam dunk decision financially shall we?
2009-2010
Revenue: 4,093,117
Expenses: 2,830,001
Neutrality payments: 1,000,000
Profit/Loss: 263,116

This shows a reasonable gross profit margin of 6.4%. Of course, the revenue stream, as indicated in the "NarrativeReportOctober22.pdf", is based on a 5 year average of the various components:

Property Tax: 18% of the total revenue. What has happened to property values the last five years? What is the most reasonable response of property values in the coming five years? Greater than or less than the assumed 3% annual appreciation rate? If appreciation is greater than the assumed rate then the neutrality payments go up. If it is lower, nowhere does it say the neutrality payment goes down! If true, this means that if property tax collection goes down, then the town of Oakhurst would still be on the hook for a 1mil payment based on higher estimated values! Nice cover charge. Not to mention the full 1% decline in total revenues for each 5% decline in property revenues.

Sales Tax: 36% of total revenue. They are assuming a 3.5% growth rate. If you feel this is reasonable (the ten years 92-2002 were 5.12%) then all is well. If you feel there is a relatively high chance of a recession and probable decline in sales tax receipts, then all is not well. Don't believe that sales tax receipts can decline over a period of time? http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/ca/ca_ts_49yr.jpg Guess which stage of the ten year cycle we are at?

Assuming no growth in property tax and sales tax revenues (not even counting the already visible ~5-10% decline in property values since last year), what then are the new results?

2009 (with zero growth) profit = 190,085
2010 (with zero growth) profit = 180,059

Still profitable.

What about the transient occupancy tax? It comprises 21% of total revenue. Growth rate estimate is 3.5% per year. Still expect those hotels to be filled to the brim every year with rising consumer debt ratios and expensive gas?

Still profitable? Assuming zero growth for two years, yes. Net is 127,416

What about those expenses? Surely no outlandish assumptions went into those calculations have they? You make the call. But tell me one thing.. When has a government entity EVER accurately estimated costs before a project. Assuming their revenue growth rates are accurate, all it takes is a 9% underestimate on costs to wipe out the profit. With no growth a 4% underestimate wipes it out.

To me, this thing is priced for near perfection but there is some wiggle room. Assuming that they can restrain expenses and assuming there is no economic downturn then it can fly financially. Personally, I wouldn't bet on the Ed Bailey side of either of these requirements. I'd expect the first new tax to be levied by the town within four years, most likely on hotel rooms.

But what the hell do I know? I'm just some dumbass that lives outside the proposed incorporation limits and therefore should have no opinion.

mountainmissy

Nov 25, 2007, 02:17 PM

The total revenue neutrality agreement is for $19.86 million of which the minimum payment is $1 million annually for 10 years. The remaining $9.86 million is separated into payments of $986,041 per year for 10 years but the CFA charts conveniently list the amount and make it look like it's being paid--but when you do the math, all they did was defer it; they do that every year. If you read the neutrality agreement that the proponents signed on to it states that after year 10, the County will begin charging 3.5% interest annually on the unpaid balance. In other words, in 2009-10 the City is actually in the hole $722,925.

But the CFA Charts want you to believe there's a whopping balance of $263,116. This "cushion" is a joke since none of the subcontracts with fire, sheriff, planning, etc. have been officially negotiated/signed; numbers in the CFA are estimates from 3 years ago so would guess labor costs have gone up since then. $263,116 certainly won't go very far.

Ironhorse

Nov 25, 2007, 02:21 PM

I think it's wonderful you know exactly how the future will play out. With this kind of foresight, any underestimated tax revenues for the new town can be made up through your ability to predict the future and, by extension, the stock market. Nice to have that ace in the hole!

Since incorporation, Lancaster has grown in population 288%.
LA County has grown 43% in that same time frame.
Well done indeed, incorporation, well done.

What odds are you offering? I've been known to lay down the occasional wager.

I agree. How silly (and presumptuous!) of those who live two miles outside the proposed town limit to actually care what happens to the largest clustering of population in our area, where all we do is support the businesses, use the roads, use the medical facilities, and use the recreational facilities. All of which we have been paying for just as much as you geographically blessed individuals.

Let's take a look at this slam dunk decision financially shall we?
2009-2010
Revenue: 4,093,117
Expenses: 2,830,001
Neutrality payments: 1,000,000
Profit/Loss: 263,116

This shows a reasonable gross profit margin of 6.4%. Of course, the revenue stream, as indicated in the "NarrativeReportOctober22.pdf", is based on a 5 year average of the various components:

Property Tax: 18% of the total revenue. What has happened to property values the last five years? What is the most reasonable response of property values in the coming five years? Greater than or less than the assumed 3% annual appreciation rate? If appreciation is greater than the assumed rate then the neutrality payments go up. If it is lower, nowhere does it say the neutrality payment goes down! If true, this means that if property tax collection goes down, then the town of Oakhurst would still be on the hook for a 1mil payment based on higher estimated values! Nice cover charge. Not to mention the full 1% decline in total revenues for each 5% decline in property revenues.

Sales Tax: 36% of total revenue. They are assuming a 3.5% growth rate. If you feel this is reasonable (the ten years 92-2002 were 5.12%) then all is well. If you feel there is a relatively high chance of a recession and probable decline in sales tax receipts, then all is not well. Don't believe that sales tax receipts can decline over a period of time? http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/ca/ca_ts_49yr.jpg Guess which stage of the ten year cycle we are at?

Assuming no growth in property tax and sales tax revenues (not even counting the already visible ~5-10% decline in property values since last year), what then are the new results?

2009 (with zero growth) profit = 190,085
2010 (with zero growth) profit = 180,059

Still profitable.

What about the transient occupancy tax? It comprises 21% of total revenue. Growth rate estimate is 3.5% per year. Still expect those hotels to be filled to the brim every year with rising consumer dept ratios and expensive gas?

Still profitable? Assuming zero growth for two years, yes. Net is 127,416

What about those expenses? Surely no outlandish assumptions went into those calculations have they? You make the call. But tell me one thing.. When has a government entity EVER accurately estimated costs before a project. Assuming their revenue growth rates are accurate, all it takes is a 9% underestimate on costs to wipe out the profit. With no growth a 4% underestimate wipes it out.

To me, this thing is priced for near perfection but there is some wiggle room. Assuming that they can restrain expenses and assuming there is no economic downturn then it can fly financially. Personally, I wouldn't bet on the Ed Bailey side of either of these requirements. I'd expect the first new tax to be levied by the town within four years, most likely on hotel rooms.

But what the hell do I know? I'm just some dumbass that lives outside the proposed incorporation limits and therefore should have no opinion.

Good response (and I live IN the proposed incorporated area. The move will affect those outside the area too potentially, can you guarantee no move will be made by the new council to annex in areas outside that area, or that those who will be forced into the "town" even want that to happen Mr. Bailey????)

EdBailey

Nov 25, 2007, 04:00 PM

Good response (and I live IN the proposed incorporated area. The move will affect those outside the area too potentially, can you guarantee no move will be made by the new council to annex in areas outside that area, or that those who will be forced into the "town" even want that to happen Mr. Bailey????)

Can you guarantee anything the County Board of Supervisors will or will not do? We have far less control over them than we will have over the town council.

No area can be "forced" into a town. That can happen only by a vote of the people in that particular area. I can't imagine why the council would want to take in people who do not want to be in the town. Can you?

I don't have the forsight to know everything that will happen in the future. No do the prophets of gloom and doom.

I do, however, believe that we the people of Oakhurst will be better able to control our destiny when we have five local people, all of whom we can vote in or out, making those decisions. I just don't like government by default like we now have.

oakhurstleaf

Nov 25, 2007, 04:34 PM

While Lancaster is Ed's example of personal experience with incorporation, I don't think that "city" is comparable to Oakhurst in it's landscape. There are far more many small mountain towns in California and elsewhere that would serve as a better model to what we have on our plate. There are many which have remained small in size, restrictive in development, and profitable!

Yes, Oakhurst is growing despite lack of incorporation and would regardless...but with that growth comes an inevitable milestone when responsibility, planning, and management need to take shape. Especially in the last 20 yrs and up to this point, the town has evolved and grown by way of the prospectors (realtors and developers)....if it stays on that track, I don't see it being better in the long run. Madera County has certainly beneifitted from our growth...but has Oakhurst itself? Oakhurst has enough in it's population to have a say, a voice, a vote in how this town should continue it's growth and preserve what we treasure.

I was raised in an incorporated, small 2-mile radius city with a pop. of 14000 or so....La Palma (nestled right in the middle of Cerritos, Cypress, Buena Park and La Mirada).... I think La Palma's been incorporated for at least 45 years now. Maybe more.

mountainmissy

Nov 25, 2007, 05:07 PM

Everyone should take a look at Lancaster:

The City of Lancaster has grown from 37,000 residents at the time of incorporation in 1977, to an estimated 143,818 residents in 2007

9th fastest growing city in the United States.

largest city named Lancaster in the world

The city has also been recently named one of the top 100 most dangerous cities in the United States, ranking 80th

The so called "housing bubble", fueled mostly by subprime mortgage failures, has recently caused a dramatic spike in foreclosures within the city, and thus some property values have begun to fall

mountainmissy

Nov 25, 2007, 05:32 PM

Ed Bailey said: I can't imagine why the council would want to take in people who do not want to be in the town. Can you?

“Local officials want to change their boundaries so they can serve additional areas, gain taxing powers, or encourage new development.” (LAFCo—It’s Time to Draw the Line; A Citizen’s Guide to LAFCo)

Ironhorse

Nov 25, 2007, 06:21 PM

Can you guarantee anything the County Board of Supervisors will or will not do? We have far less control over them than we will have over the town council.

No area can be "forced" into a town. That can happen only by a vote of the people in that particular area. I can't imagine why the council would want to take in people who do not want to be in the town. Can you?

I don't have the forsight to know everything that will happen in the future. No do the prophets of gloom and doom.

I do, however, believe that we the people of Oakhurst will be better able to control our destiny when we have five local people, all of whom we can vote in or out, making those decisions. I just don't like government by default like we now have.

I've seen the proposed boundaries for the incorporation, and with the smaller "population" of those areas, they can indeed be forced into the incorporation, by the vote of the other areas. This isn't being voted on by several small areas individually. The housing/voters areas within the current town boundaries could force in those smaller areas, easily. Annexations "force" areas into a town or city all the time, sure there's a public hearing, but then the county and town or city do what they want, based on LAFCO/Planning Department recommendations. If the current town wants to incorporate, then why are the proponents trying to increase the boundaries?????? Not everyone living outside the current boundaries wants to be included in this.

Ironhorse

Nov 25, 2007, 06:28 PM

...............Yes, Oakhurst is growing despite lack of incorporation and would regardless...but with that growth comes an inevitable milestone when responsibility, planning, and management need to take shape. Especially in the last 20 yrs and up to this point, the town has evolved and grown by way of the prospectors (realtors and developers)....if it stays on that track, I don't see it being better in the long run. Madera County has certainly beneifitted from our growth...but has Oakhurst itself?.............

Exactly. And the realtors and developers are in it to make money, for themselves, not for the general population. Look at the increase in available housing for sale, and the amount of time it stays on the market now. I see more signs every week on my drive home and around town.

oakhurstleaf

Nov 25, 2007, 08:21 PM

Exactly. And the realtors and developers are in it to make money, for themselves, not for the general population. Look at the increase in available housing for sale, and the amount of time it stays on the market now. I see more signs every week on my drive home and around town.

Well, of course, realtors and developers are in it to make money...but these days most aren't making much money at all with the real estate slump we're in which predictors say won't even bottom out until winter 2008. Lots of new builds and existing homes sitting vacant with their over-the-top sticker prices. However, this is prevelant in a lot of places...not just here. Before the real estate market's current downturn...things were very much diferent. Realtors/developers were making a killing...the county was/is making a killing on property taxes. Oakhurst has been saved from indiscriminate over-development because of all the water and sewage problems...but it's obvious development that has happened didn't exactly happen with much good planning. We've all complained about the haphazard lay-out in town and the disproportionate amount of fast-food chains all near the main intersection.

Truthfully, and this might not seem agreeable to some, but incorporation could well bring us some strong limitations on development (if we all voted for it)....which in turn, would increase real estate value. I'd confidently say that already real estate is way too expensive right now. Most home prices and commercial real estate prices are way out of reach for the locals....and this town does not provide near enough sustainable income for most families to afford a home. But frankly, demand drives prices. I've come to sense that Oakhurst, as it is, has become a place for people with big bucks made elsewhere to come....but it's not necessarily the place for people to make big bucks. At least, right now anyway.

I might be going off the main subject a bit...but oh well. To get back on it....I don't think
developers, realtors, and the county should be reaping all the benefits of Oakhurst's growth...nor do I think the developers, realtors, and the county should be deciding how our town will be or become. Property taxes are a given. And yes, they are crazy-high. But if anyone should be benefitting from the exhorbitant property taxes in Oakhurst...it should be Oakhurst and Oakhurst should decide how best that will be spent. I think it's high time this town take some control.

oakhurstleaf

Nov 25, 2007, 08:39 PM

EdBailey

Nov 25, 2007, 11:56 PM

If the current town wants to incorporate, then why are the proponents trying to increase the boundaries?????? Not everyone living outside the current boundaries wants to be included in this.

The additional areas weree added by LAFCO, not by the proponents of incorporation. Some people from two of the proposed additional areas appeared at the LAFCO meeting and asked to be excueded. LAFCO granted their wishes. We have no way of knowing if the people who made these request at the meeting represented a mojority of the people in the areas in quesation. It was a "squakey wheel" action. A town council cannot annex an area without a vote of the people of that area.

jakobscalpel

Nov 26, 2007, 01:27 PM

Property taxes are a given. And yes, they are crazy-high. But if anyone should be benefitting from the exhorbitant property taxes in Oakhurst...it should be Oakhurst and Oakhurst should decide how best that will be spent. I think it's high time this town take some control.

This is it exactly. The only valid justification for incorporation is more local control (a good thing, no doubt). Based on the finance estimates it seems reasonable this control will come at a marginally higher cost to town residents. Will the cost associated with incorporation be higher than the benefits of local control (and, by definition, an additional layer of government)? If you think so, vote no.

Summer

Nov 26, 2007, 04:34 PM

Gosh, Lancaster sounds a lot like Fresno.

I don't know what Lancaster has to do with anything....but I'd wager that incorporation itself didn't cause the 30 yr population explosion. That place grew like any other desert mecca....it was affordable. The population density from Santa Barbara to San Diego has squeezed the "American Dream" inland. I'd bet you many places that became cities in the 70's are huge now by comparison. But I'd also wager, those places *wanted* growth and industry...they welcomed it. No more long commutes to the bigger city.

If there's a will, there's a way.

Well, I don't think Lancaster is like Fresno, but yes, I don't know what Lancaster has to do with it either. It grew for those reasons you stated. If it was brought up as a good example of cityhood, bad choice. City or no city, I would never want to live there. Housing values fell shortly after being developed and thus brought in poverty and crime. Santa Clarita also became a city - but went the other way. It grew very big and very rich. But it was followed up with new industries, massive new housing, high end shopping mall. Yes, it is very beautiful and very successful - but I would never want to live there either. When we first moved there (before incorporation) we loved the open rural town. It was a great place to live - sure, you had to commute to work (45 min. to 1 hr. - like Fresno), but it was worth it. As soon as incorporation plan started buzzing, then came the promises, the "great city of SCV would be able to manage itself", no more bad L.A. influence, taxes would not increase - much - HA HA Ha, they would maintain the small town atmosphere and we would be so happy if we voted yes. They did and the city grew at an alarming rate. Within 10 years it had grown even bigger than what we moved from! The land developers had their golden day in the sun. They and the city fat cats became mega rich. So we found another little town - Oakhurst. Now, the incorporation buzz is starting again. Being uneducated in the political arena I cannot debate the financial, political hows or such, but I do know what I've seen. I would hate for Oakhurst to have the same fate as either towns like Lancaster or SCV. I think like most people here we don't want something we moved to get away from. Incorporation leaves a sour taste - I know growth is inevitable but why hit the meter to max right away? And, just who would profit from this move exactly? I've tried to keep an open mind, really. But when I read Ironhorse and Jacabscalpal's well thought out comments I know in my heart that it is not a good thing for Oakhurst. But being another "dumbass" outside the proposed city limits, maybe I shouldn't comment either. JMO

Sandman

Nov 26, 2007, 04:37 PM

Someone tried to hang an anti-incorporation sign in the window of my store today. I wouldn't let him do it. The bottom line is that I just have not read enough about it. I'll take some time to read this thread later tonight.

Ironhorse

Nov 26, 2007, 05:36 PM

Well, I don't think Lancaster is like Fresno, but yes, I don't know what Lancaster has to do with it either. It grew for those reasons you stated. If it was brought up as a good example of cityhood, bad choice. City or no city, I would never want to live there. Housing values fell shortly after being developed and thus brought in poverty and crime. Santa Clarita also became a city - but went the other way. It grew very big and very rich. But it was followed up with new industries, massive new housing, high end shopping mall. Yes, it is very beautiful and very successful - but I would never want to live there either. When we first moved there (before incorporation) we loved the open rural town. It was a great place to live - sure, you had to commute to work (45 min. to 1 hr. - like Fresno), but it was worth it. As soon as incorporation plan started buzzing, then came the promises, the "great city of SCV would be able to manage itself", no more bad L.A. influence, taxes would not increase - much - HA HA Ha, they would maintain the small town atmosphere and we would be so happy if we voted yes. They did and the city grew at an alarming rate. Within 10 years it had grown even bigger than what we moved from! The land developers had their golden day in the sun. They and the city fat cats became mega rich. So we found another little town - Oakhurst. Now, the incorporation buzz is starting again. Being uneducated in the political arena I cannot debate the financial, political hows or such, but I do know what I've seen. I would hate for Oakhurst to have the same fate as either towns like Lancaster or SCV. I think like most people here we don't want something we moved to get away from. Incorporation leaves a sour taste - I know growth is inevitable but why hit the meter to max right away? And, just who would profit from this move exactly? I've tried to keep an open mind, really. But when I read Ironhorse and Jacabscalpal's well thought out comments I know in my heart that it is not a good thing for Oakhurst. But being another "dumbass" outside the proposed city limits, maybe I shouldn't comment either. JMO

I disagree Summer, you should comment, in fact everyone outside the proposed limits should comment. One way or another, if you wind up in the boundaries or not, it will affect everyone living up here. Another thought, the bigger a town is, the more potential crime there is, just goes with the territory. And don't take the "crime stats" at face value, believe me, those can be written to reflect whatever the departments writing them want. Suddenly, crimes become "not reportable" on state stats, or because the department no longer responds (you have to file the report yourself via mail or in person at the department, then those stats don't get reported anymore either sometimes, but they still happened. A crime is a crime.) Homeless populations, transients, pan-handlers, etc., also increase. A person may not know the ins and outs of all the political rhetoric associated with an incorporation, but their own experiences in watching/living with similar situations can pretty well make them familiar with the potential risks and empty political promises.

Yosemite_Wolf

Nov 27, 2007, 01:43 AM

lancaster... subprime mortgages.... foreclosures... and this has something to do with Oakhurst incorporating?? Lancaster is a bedroom community. Subprime mortgage brokers took advantage of people who wanted to own homes... they gave them loans that should have never been given... cos they told the people that they were "approved" Well, I was approved for a loan.. am good for it.. and I then took out a HELOC on the good advice from Mom who had a HELOC.. than stuff changed... and blammo.... interest rates went up on those ARMS. No subprime, foreclosures and Lancasters have little to do with our lil Oaky.

Lancaster was doomed to grow... and so is Oakhurst.. cos more and more people want to live in Cali and want to live in the suburbs/rural areas.

EdBailey

Nov 27, 2007, 09:37 AM

Of course, Oakhurst is not like Lancaster. No one has said it was. My point was that the oponents' predictions of dire consequences are virtually the same here and now as they were in Lancaster 35 years ago (similar campaign tactics, not similar cities). Those predictions did not materialize there after Lancaster incorporated and we really have no reason to believe they will materalize here.

For those who are still inclined to fear the worst, just ask yourself why that of 480 cities that have incorporated since California became a state, all but two are incorporated today. If being incorporated is such a bad thing, don't you think more would have taken steps to go back to being unincorporated?

Communities such as Oakhurst have not experienced being both unincorporated and incorporated. But communities that HAVE experienced both have shown, and continue to show a strong preference for remaining incorporated. Does anyone think that Oakhurst, unlike 478 other cities in California, will choose to go back to being governed by someone else, who lives somewhere else, whose primary focus in governing is somewhere else, and who takes huge sums of money out of our pockets to spend somewhere else? These are the elements of governing that let to the Boston Tea Party.

Someone said it well, "It's time for Oakhurst to grow up."