- She has been active in the community. A Director on the WLIC board, she knows first hand the challenges our lake community faces in regards to trespassing, as she puts it "environmental or physical".
- She has been a Municipal Judge, Federal Prosecutor, and Trial Attorney.
- Her expertise includes various aspects of the law as it applies to the environment.
- I believe her application of the law and judgements will be fair. That being said, it is my belief our court should not be seen as a "patsy". After listening to her remarks at the Forum and reviewing her campaign materials I feel certain her court will not be viewed as a push-over. This is a good thing.
- Ms Roper mentioned at the Forum her concern about "assault to the community" from the outside. I feel confident we have the vigilance of our citizens and members to resist this assault, a mayor and police department to cite the wrongdoers and the City Attorney who is willing to prosecute. Beverlee Roper as Municipal Judge will complete the package we need to deal with the assault, which no doubt is coming...and that is As I See It.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Roper for Municipal Judge
If you attended the Candidates Forum and listened to the responses of Mark Geran and Beverlee Roper this post probably won't provide much additional food for thought. However, a majority of the voters in WL did not attend the Forum, if you didn't, see my review of the Forum under the title "Forum Fun". Here are the reasons I believe Beverlee Roper is the best choice for Municipal Judge:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Just received a campaign letter(s) from Mark Geran, couple hours after the original post. If you get one, read it carefully, I think he raises more questions about himself than he provides answers. Rather than give more space than it deserves, I have one comment...to quote page two of his letter, misspelling and all, "If Its Not Broke/Let's Keep Weatherby Lake's Independant Court/Don't Fix It." In my view, it is broke, and it is my sincere hope the voters fix it.
Someone had better take a long hard look at the municipal bonds for street repair that Weatherby Lake taxpayers are taking on. Some of those Auction type Bond loans are more like credit card rates now.
Here is what can happen when the voters aren't paying attention.
http://tinyurl.com/5pcgsa
Bonds are a loan just like any other.. The only thing is that the collateral for the loan is the tax base and the city assets. Just an aside, I have no idea what type of bonds the City took out or what the current canidates position is on them..I am just worried about all of these people fighting for control of the city all the sudden. I don't even know how to find out. Maybe the author of this blog does.
Regarding 82thebar's comments: Thanks for the comments, I can understand your concern, I went to the site you mentioned. The site refers to Sewer Warrants which were rated, what caught your attention I assume, was the schedule based on ratings, which escalate upon downgrading. The City of Weatherby Lake bonds are General Obligation bonds. The principal and interest are paid with taxes, real and personal property. The Board of Aldermen sets the levy at a rate which will meet our payment obligations. Our bonds are not rated, they don't need to be. The bond rating process is very expensive. Bottom line, we are in good shape in my opinion. The Mayor or current aldermen should be able to confirm.
Ms Roper is the best candidate. I echo your recommendation. Geran is way too lax and he knows it.
Hi Mike, thanks for your reply. My problem exactly is that the bonds are backed up and paid off by the taxes collected. We have been on the lake a long time. Our property taxes just more than doubled in a single year. It got me to looking into why they doubled. I still don't know. All of these people fighting over the seats has me worried though. We are on fixed income. If this happens enough, it will start to hurt. Don't get me wrong, I love the city and the job they are doing taking care of our lake. I wish they wouldn't sue people so much but that is a personal preference and they gotta do what they gotta do I guess. Maybe the city should consider starting a fund and saving the tax money up for repairs instead of taking out bonds for them and passing that interest along to taxpayers in the form of higher taxes. Sort of like a person saving their money for what they want instead of putting it on the credit card. Perhaps you can post here how you looked at the bond contracts. I would really like to have a look at them but don't even have a clue as to where to start or who to talk to. Thank you for putting up this blog to discuss issues! It is great! Also, Sherry you recommended Ms. Roper. I have no idea who to vote for in this seat. Can you give an example of Geran being lax?
To 82thebar:
I'll try to give you short answers to some complicated questions.
Taxes: County Assesor's Office should be the first stop. My guess is your property had not been reassesed in some time and they caught up. Good news your house is worth more, bad news taxes might increase.
Lawsuits: The last lawsuit brought against the City was in regard to the Sonoma Ridge Development. The City won, but had the expense of the trial. WLIC has spent more time in court, don't confuse the City and WLIC. The latest court case involving WLIC, which WLIC won, cost at least $9,000 (or more).
Bonds: The only practical way to pave our roads. Our revenue is very limited, by the time we saved enough, the streets would resemble a cow pasture. I was an alderman when the plan for the bonds was developed. I do not have copies of the documents themselves, but if you really want to see them I would contact the Mayor or one of your alderman.
Hi Mike,
Thanks again for your response. I am happy that I found someone with some information! I guess my major question about the bonds is do you remember if the interest rate can be changed on them under any circumstances?
It was my understanding that most of the lawsuits had to do with silt in the lake from developers. (This is just my limited understanding from attending meetings) When I was much younger, the Lake would just dredge the silt from the bottom of the lake every so many years to make the lake and coves deeper. I am still unclear why we stopped doing this and started going after everyone around us for the silt problems. Surely there was a lot of development around the lake during those early years such as 435 HWY. No one ever bothered to control the silt then that I remember. It was just viewed as our problem because it was our lake and part of taking care of the lake. Didn't it cost the city less when they took the dredging approach?
It seems like now, we are still spending just as much or more money on the legal fees and also causing the developers around us problems and expense. It also doesn't really fit with the idea of doing unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you. Do you know if anyone has looked at the cost of dredging the lake to remove the silt or even buying a dredging machine? It even seems like the lake might be able to sell the silt as topsoil (I believe farmers call it 'muck') I think it is very valuable resource for farmers to make their fields richer.
I also heard that the large development over at the end of Roberts road (Sonoma Ridge?) went bankrupt. Was wondering if this could be partly because of possible expenses adding those two huge siltation ponds (I guess that is what they are) and all the controls and siltation stuff and engineering to do that. Those developers would add houses and eventually add families to the lake and increase the tax base. Seems like we would want to do everything we could to help them succeed. Another short term problem I see is couldn't those two giant siltation ponds for that development turn into huge mosquito breeding pits if no one takes care of them? I noticed that one of the retaining walls for one of the ponds was caving in when I drove by there a few days ago.
Anyways, once again, this is from outsiders view with very limited information. I try to keep up on things but it is hard to do. I am aware of the two separate entities WLIC and City of Weatherby Lake and we just got a letter that the WLIC is buying the field by Amity Road. I understand it was going to be developed but don't understand exactly why we purchased it or what we are going to do with it or even why we would want to stop someone from developing it? 600K is a lot of money and once again, for a fixed income, those unexpected $700.00 bills out of nowhere can hurt. Is the WLIC a non-profit corporation? Will they be able to annex this land to the city? It seems wrong somehow to pass that cost along to the residents without them ever voting on it to start with (maybe it isn't but this is just the gut feeling I get). The farmer also has that field set up nice and has the rows set against Rush creek and also set against the natural slope of the hill. I hope they are going to keep it a field like that because the field is probably purifying and filtering a lot of the water that goes into Rush creek.
Anyways, I have rambled on long enough and sorry for the windy post but I will say that the lake has been ran so well for so long that residents like me never bothered to take part beyond voting and paying taxes which is my own fault. I am just interested in what can be done to help solve problems. I am going to try and attend more of the meetings in the future (for a start) Right now, I am just trying to decide who is best to vote for. Thanks in advance for your comments and views and thanks again for putting up this forum. Thank you especially for the time you served as Alderman. I know that was probably a very tough job. I hope that more residents will find your blog. You should put a notice about it in the Weatherby newsletter. It would certainly give residents a place to talk about things and understand better what is going on in the City.
To 82thebar:
Thanks for your comments. I have been interested in starting a blog for over a year, I just didn't have an idea for focus. The election season gave me a jump start. I intend to continue post election with information and comments about our city and lake.
You would know better than me the cost of dredging in the past, I understand the costs continue to skyrocket. I believe that is part of the reason WLIC is vigilant about potential siltation from outside. More importantly, I believe, is the potential fouling/polluting of the lake. If that were to happen, say goodbye to property values. The good news is our water quality continues to be rated as one of the best. Joe Ennett (president of WLIC) in his recent letter to members explained the purchase of the so called "Bean field". This purchase by the way has been actively discussed at WLIC meetings, literally, for years. It is another critical move to be proactive in protecting the watershed. Nobody likes to pay more in assessments but we would regret when it was purchased by a developer for who knows what. There would be no practical purpose in annexing the property, it would be costly at a minimum.
There was a discussion regarding Sonoma Ridge at the last Board of Aldermen meeting. The developer has definite financial problems, the City has been actively pursuing all the problems you mentioned. All developers, inside and outside of the City, have an obligation to provide measures for storm water control. I don't think that is the reason for the lack of building. The price range of the projected homes seems to me to be very competitive and the downturn in the housing market in general is a problem. There are some very nice lots in SR, sooner or later building will happen...in my opinion.
Missed one question, regarding payment of the bonds. In the documentation of the bonds there is an amortization schedule for repayment. This schedule is used by the Board to set the levy to support payment for the following year.
I have to agree with 83thebar. It is obsurd that the residents who would be forced to pay for the "bean field" were never asked to VOTE on the issue prior to WLIC deciding to purchase the property. Then taking it to court to "Make" us pay for it. $700+ per family is a lot of money. When and if a family ever left the lake they would have no claim to this land they had to pay for.
Though I am also for Roper for Municipal Judge, this comment is to 82thebar regarding the bean field. A crop field probably is not the best filter and purifier for water entering our lake. Exposed soil gets eroded more quickly than soil that is densely covered with vegetation, and this soil could be more readily washed into the lake. Also, fertilizers are almost invariably used in modern farming, and nitrates, in particular can easily be washed into the lake to encourage even more algae bloom. I am hoping that the WLIC will see that the "Bean Field" is quickly planted in native prairie plants. These could include Little Bluestem, Big Bluestem, Switchgrass, and Sideoats Gramma for native grasses. A multitude of prairie flowers could keep the field afire with color all season long and would also help to harbor wildlife that is being displaced by the development going on all around us. I am not happy at having to fork over even more money, but if we are going to do it, let's make sure that what we do with the land is not only good for the lake, but also good for our environment in general.
80th terr makes good points. I have always been concerned about the property being farmed with fertilizers and pesticides being washed into the creek, under the bridge and into the lake. It will be great just to "retire" the property. I do not know the immediate plans for the property, but a grassland with native plantings is appealing. Joe Ennett, WLIC president, could speak to these issues.
I totally agree with 80th Terr on the need to protect the lake by naturalizing the bean field. After having been involved in WLIC for several years, there are many reasons to buy the field. First it is VERY close to the lake and we have held off the building of a gas station near here in the past. Also, the watershed has much more development in the past 5years with car dealerships, apartments, housing and Zona Rosa. The 435 project actually drains off away from us. We have a high potential to lose our lake in the next 10 years if we do not heavily protect ourselves from silt and pollution. The reason for putting off the dredge is that it costs much less to protect ourselves than the cost of the dredge. The bean field is a minor cost compared to what the assessment might be if we need a complete dredge as the cost is now in the millions for our lake. I understand the concern for property owners who sell, we should only hope this cost is recouped in the sale of the property by protecting and increasing our values.
Mike,
Why is it my post did not show up here a few days ago? Was it that we had different views?
Post a Comment