Author Topic: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities  (Read 22258 times)

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #347 on: October 29, 2018, 07:25:50 pm »
The state imposed a cap of 1,566 a/f when we had the big water fight years ago. If memory serves me right, LACSD used to draw twice the amount before the state imposed the cap. Since then, water conservation measures have taken place, such as the golf course being irrigated with reclaimed water and less overall water use by the community. LACSD also has a few wells yielding a couple hundred a/f and an agreement with the SB City water district to purchase about 500 a/f every year. LACSD then has to pay an exorbitant amount of money to CLAWA to "wheel" the water to LACSD. The exorbitant fee imposed by CLAWA is for LACSD leaving CLAWA high and dry (pun intended) when CLAWA was formed and Lake Arrowhead decided to walk away at the last minute.

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #346 on: October 29, 2018, 06:55:27 pm »
If thought LA wasn't allowed to pull much from the lake anymore? Which would say your water is coming from the state water project.

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #345 on: October 29, 2018, 03:48:05 pm »
Lake Arrowhead is getting hosed (pun intended) by CLAWA. If memory serves me right, CLAWA was charging LACSD $2,700 per acre feet in supplemental water purchases. 

ArrowheadWoodsGuy

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,277
  • Karma: +192/-305
  • Gender: Male
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #344 on: October 29, 2018, 03:00:55 pm »
When the lake goes down another 30 feet, people will start again talking about forming a mountain city.  We need to get water from the State water project at a reasonable cost.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #343 on: October 20, 2018, 04:46:01 pm »
My personal experience differs. The people I knew thought we didn't have enough government, including me. I'm talking about quality of life issues such as little to no code enforcement, never ending loose or barking dogs, poor road conditions and not enough cops.

BTW, what does former unofficial Crestline mayor Mike Chilson think about the push for incorporation?

What's "enough" cops? One per block? Not sure that cityhood would fix that problem, as all it costs is money. I've been told $200k a year to put a deputy on the street. Same with the dog issue - odds are it would be contracted out to County with no increase in services. And codes have to be written to be enforced, although I would agree that County is a little lacking in that department in the right areas. But heaven forbid anyone assume some basic responsibility for their property, especially given the number of absentee owners we have (present company excluded, of course.) Again, all it costs is money.

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #342 on: October 20, 2018, 04:09:41 pm »
The name Bruce Buscher sounds vaguely familiar but I can't place it. Was he the guy in ROTW that used to call people from Crestline Crestline Critters, or is known for something else?

Jocko

  • is a newbie talker
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #341 on: October 20, 2018, 03:48:40 pm »
Thanks for that Gemini, that will calm me down for a while, as for the former unofficial Crestline mayor Mike Chilson, he will go to his grave and remembered  as the Biggest Con man on the mountain next to Bruce Buscher!

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #340 on: October 20, 2018, 03:12:40 pm »
Jocko - With the costs involved and other hurdles that need to be overcome, I doubt Crestline is going to be incorporating any time soon.

Jocko

  • is a newbie talker
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #339 on: October 20, 2018, 12:01:13 pm »
I don't like the incorporation idea and most of the people I am talking to don't like it either. What is so bad about our little community that we need to incorporate?
Look who is putting this together, some extremely self righteous do gooders, snob evangelicals of the worse kind given permission now by Adolf Trump to do what ever they want here in the United States of un america! So so wrong!

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #338 on: October 20, 2018, 09:16:53 am »
Most seem to have moved here because there was no local government...

My personal experience differs. The people I knew thought we didn't have enough government, including me. I'm talking about quality of life issues such as little to no code enforcement, never ending loose or barking dogs, poor road conditions and not enough cops.

BTW, what does former unofficial Crestline mayor Mike Chilson think about the push for incorporation?

 

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #337 on: October 20, 2018, 08:15:23 am »
I'm just not picking up a lot of warm fuzzies by the locals in favor of this. Most seem to have moved here because there was no local government, along with lower housing prices and the lure of the mountain. I guess time will tell. It will really tell if they pick up their $100k needed to fund LAFCO.

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #336 on: October 20, 2018, 06:33:34 am »
This article is from 10/11/18

Incorporate Lake Gregory

In Crestline, a community information meeting was presented Oct. 9 to a standing room only crowd at the Thousand Pines Conference Center by a group of Crestline community leaders consisting of Bill Mellinger, Steve Garcia, Mike Johnstone, John Short and Penny Shubnell.

The group has been formed to investigate the feasibility of municipal incorporation for the communities of Lake Gregory, including: Crestline, Crest Forest, Valley of Enchantment, Cedarpines Park and San Moritz. Penny Shubnell presented the scope of Incorporate Lake Gregory with a map of Crestline Sanitation District and its sphere of influence.

Examples were cited by members of the group indicating that, by incorporating as a city, they could provide all the existing services (water, fire, law enforcement, road and sewer and parks) while retaining local control of tax revenues, which means they could operate more efficiently. The group believes that community development would also be streamlined by having local control of building safety and planning; emergency services; and parks and recreation. Local governance and oversight would improve the direction of tax resources and ultimately enhance all the services to the communities of Lake Gregory.

John Short spoke to the unique challenges of a mountain community, citing snow removal, parking, fire and flood preparations, which he said a local city council could address faster than the County government.

This was an informal meeting to introduce the community to the process of incorporating as a city. The procedure for a proposed city is considered by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The process could take two to three years and cost $100,000, more or less. The group has applied for nonprofit status so that they can raise funds to hire the experts needed to work through the LAFCO process.

A petition for incorporation was available at the meeting for signatures by those local residents who want to investigate the feasibility of cityhood for the communities of Lake Gregory.

Searching their website at www.incorporatelakegregory.org, you will find Item 7. The preliminary feasibility study documents on the website are from the proposed Rim of the World Incorporation in 2014 through 2015, which also included Lake Arrowhead and Hilltop (a portion of Running Springs). These documents serve as an outline of what the Lake Gregory Preliminary feasibility study must present to LAFCO.

The presenters are confident that they will have the support of the Lake Gregory Community, and with their focus and persistence, the goal to incorporate will one day come to fruition.

http://www.mountain-news.com/news/article_16095d68-cccd-11e8-b906-afc4c9638f4b.html

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #335 on: October 19, 2018, 06:19:40 pm »
Mick Hill is the official "Hillbilly"of Crestline not the un official mayor of Crestline!!!

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #334 on: October 19, 2018, 11:16:07 am »
LOL!

Jocko

  • is a newbie talker
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #333 on: October 19, 2018, 10:58:00 am »
Mick Hill is the official "Hillbilly"of Crestline not the un official mayor of Crestline!!!   

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #332 on: October 19, 2018, 10:26:33 am »
Isn't Mick Hill content just being the unofficial Crestline mayor?  ;)

Jocko

  • is a newbie talker
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #331 on: October 19, 2018, 10:11:32 am »
There is a hidden agenda here? Why do Bill Mellenger & Steve Garcia along with Mike Johnstone want to incorporate Crestline, they say it would give the local community more control over community issues, no it would give more control to certain so called elected officials picked by all of the above, so whose that going to be somebody like Mick Hill?We have pretty darn good services provided by the County already, why do we need to change that, what is their problem? If we incorporate you can expect sales & property tax to go up and you can expect more regulations and lots of frivolous town spending by those new elected officials!!
The County provides lots of jobs to local people.
Incorporating is a control issue by a few  with another agenda and it's a BAD idea!

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #330 on: October 13, 2018, 03:42:23 pm »
I wonder if they ever considered formation of a single special district to manage all these functions that they want to merge under cityhood, such as all the water companies, sewer, trash, etc. Wrightwood did just that and it was voted and approved; went into effect July 1, 2017.

xoxo

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,181
  • Karma: +508/-104
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #329 on: October 13, 2018, 02:08:49 pm »
" let's not forget the residents outright displeasure, strike that, hostility when the park's management was taken over by a private concessionaire and park use fees were imposed.  ""

make that some residents

I don't know how the percentages fell, maybe the NIMBYs were just louder than the rest, but I don't personally know anyone (those who actually understood the alternative of SB County just washing their hands of the $700K annual loss and walking away) who didn't think revitalizing the lake and local businesses was a bad thing.

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #328 on: October 12, 2018, 02:40:40 pm »
You got it, amen!

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #327 on: October 12, 2018, 08:35:31 am »
When this was discussed three years ago, I thought Lake Arrowhead could have made it on his own by using a more realistic tax distribution than the 3% used in the study. However, in my opinion, Crestline's tax roll and commercial activity isn't as high as it is in Lake Arrowhead that even with the most generous tax distribution it won't be able to pull it off. I don't know what "substantial growth" the proponents are counting on since all the mountain communities are hemmed in by the national forest and "growth" will be limited to the few buildable  lots that are still available. And the likelihood that large retailers that can generate tax receipts will open stores in Crestline, or any other mountain community, is practically nil.

And let's not forget the residents aversion to higher taxes and fees. Crest Forest Fire District had to be dissolved after voters voted down a tax increase to keep the district solvent. Also, let's not forget the residents outright displeasure, strike that, hostility when the park's management was taken over by a private concessionaire and park use fees were imposed.             

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #326 on: October 12, 2018, 07:16:37 am »
They are, they're using it. They're seemingly adjusting it to fit their needs. Now, there is something to the argument that you can negotiate the tax distribution from the county from the 3% used in the study to upwards of 14%, but it still won't be enough. But they're also depending on substantial growth and higher tax rolls. If you look at the past 30 years, it isn't going to come just because you build it.

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #325 on: October 12, 2018, 07:01:40 am »
Are the people behind this push for incorporation aware that we just went trough this 3 years ago, and are they aware of the study's conclusion?

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #324 on: October 12, 2018, 06:38:58 am »
Letter to the Editor, Mountain Reporter (Raymond Ray's latest effort). Interesting quote by Rutherford:

I have spent my life trying to find the perfect place to live across both Orange and San Bernardino counties. Finally, I stumbled across a wonderful place tucked away in the mountains that most of the “flatlanders” had no clue existed.

The charm of Crestline doesn’t just lay in its distance from the hustle and bustle of everyday city life, or the fact that the community atmosphere is so much more tight knit than anywhere else. Crestline has a magic to it from outsiders just looking in. It seems as if time has stood still for eternity here. While other places build taller and taller buildings, play music as you walk down the street, and have large plasma screens everywhere you look, Crestline still looks much like it did in the old black and white photos.

Now that talks of incorporation have started to brew, some folks are scared of the change, which is understandable. My family and I have only been here for four years but my roots have grown and I love Crestline just like so many others. Unfortunately, some rumors have sprouted from these new talks.

As many of you may have heard the rumor of Crestline possibly being annexed by Hesperia, do not let this sway your feelings on if you think incorporation is a good idea or not. I spoke with Janice Rutherford to try and get to the bottom of this rumor, and this is what i was told.

“Wow— first time I’ve heard the Hesperia rumor.  No, Hesperia can’t annex Crestline. It is not in the city’s ‘sphere of influence,’ which is the legal jurisdictional boundary set by the Local Agency Formation Commission. LAFCO would not proceed with an annexation outside a sphere. And both annexation and incorporation require an affirmative vote of Crestline residents. No one will dictate Crestline’s future except Crestliners, though LAFCO must act to allow a vote. LAFCO will only do that if a city is financially viable. The last incorporation study done of the mountain region indicated that the only possible way for a new city to be viable was a complete incorporation of the entire Rim; no one area (Crestline or Arrowhead) can make it on its own.” – Janice Rutherford (Emphasis added)

I was so relieved to hear this. This magical place may grow and change as the years go by, but it will only grow and change in the way we as a community want it to.

Local Resident, Bryan Jeffrey

joebozo

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,765
  • Karma: +606/-310
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #323 on: October 10, 2018, 07:15:10 am »
Every time someone complained about not having enough cops, which I agree, I proposed forming a special district to fund additional cops and my idea went nowhere. It's far cheaper and more effective to form a special district for a specific purpose than incorporating an entire area just to gain a few benefits. Talk is cheap, nobody wants to pay new taxes for additional services. Don't get me wrong, I'm still for incorporating when feasible but I'm not so sure Crestline could successfully pull it off at this moment.

Crestline just needs some marketing to attract new residents and businesses. I’ve got several bumper sticker pitches ready:

Crestline - come up for the visitation, stay for the food
Crestline - a tooth optional community
My other car is up on blocks in the driveway in Crestline
My child was student of the month at Pilot Rock Work Camp.
Valley of Enchantment - Where dreams go to die.

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #322 on: October 10, 2018, 06:52:24 am »
Every time someone complained about not having enough cops, which I agree, I proposed forming a special district to fund additional cops and my idea went nowhere. It's far cheaper and more effective to form a special district for a specific purpose than incorporating an entire area just to gain a few benefits. Talk is cheap, nobody wants to pay new taxes for additional services. Don't get me wrong, I'm still for incorporating when feasible but I'm not so sure Crestline could successfully pull it off at this moment. 

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #321 on: October 09, 2018, 09:21:03 pm »
Can't say I was impressed with tonight's meeting. Didn't hear anything new, or anything that would drive me to jump on this bandwagon. Their reasons for pushing this were vague - regaining a grant for the seniors meal program that the county took away (no reason as to why they did so), lousy sidewalks, not enough cops (what city thinks they have "enough"?), no parks. They did a little bit on the money factor, but there is much to be done there. From what I know of the numbers, thought the words were a little skewed, presenting things a little more positively than they might really be. There was a reference to "fees that might have to be raised" - aka new taxes. Interestingly, the boundary was the Crestline Sanitation District. Kinda confusing, because they said it went to Grandview, but that it didn't include Twin Peaks.

They did go over the process, which will take two to three years. On the first steps is to get 25% of all regIstered voters within the boundary to sign a petition (to LAFCO) asking that the process go forward. Cost involved $100,000, + or -. They have formed a 501c to allow for fund raising. Lots of steps before getting to a vote, which is a simple majority.

They are forming additional committees, and said they plan to hold quarterly meetings.

Gemini

  • Administrator
  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,796
  • Karma: +505/-341
  • dolce far niente
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #320 on: October 09, 2018, 06:43:36 am »
Info on the meeting tonight:

Meeting tonight at 7 pm at the Thousand Pines Camp in the Whittier Building to discuss the feasibility of Incorporation for Crestline. 

CatsMeow

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,906
  • Karma: +663/-134
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #319 on: October 02, 2018, 09:56:04 am »
Meeting is next week, and yes, I plan to go.

Local control seems to be the mantra; haven't heard any other but.

Don't think this group (of those I know of) are opposed to the lake inflatables, or the current management. I think they'd like control over the entire lake, but again, not sure that the County would give that up.

Stay tuned . . .

xoxo

  • is a non-stop talker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,181
  • Karma: +508/-104
Re: Cityhood proposed for mountain communities
« Reply #318 on: October 02, 2018, 07:34:27 am »
oh, not again. Please, stop the madness :(

Has anyone been able to clearly define what the advantages would be (aside from the nebulous "local control".... of what?)

Is this the same small group that protested the inflatables in Lake Gregory so vociferously?

I didn't read this till this morning so....did anyone go to the meeting? Have they given up yet?