Tuesday, May 21, 2024
63.4 F
Oxnard
More

    Latest Posts

    Two Visions of America by Don Jans

    IUF Lawsuit: Moving Oxnard Forward

    LETTER TO THE EDITOR FROM AARON STARR

    During our recent lawsuit –– where we prevailed against the City’s illegal Infrastructure Use Fee (IUF) –– the City of Oxnard claimed to the Ventura County Superior Court that any period shorter than eight years to return to the City’s utility enterprise funds (i.e. water, wastewater and solid waste) the $36.5 million it had illegally charged would be an unreasonable hardship, as it had competing priorities for these monies.

    The City Council even submitted to the Court a formal resolution making this claim.

    The Court wouldn’t give the City eight years, instead granting the City three years to repay the judgment at the rate of $12 million per year –– a lot more than the roughly $4.5 million per year that the City sought to avoid a “financial hardship.”

    Several weeks after that decision, though, the City Council approved making an extra $5 million payment to the City’s utility enterprise funds beyond the amount required.

    Of course we’re not complaining about a faster repayment, but the point is that the City’s claims of financial distress were obviously greatly overstated.

    Now, we have a new clash between the City’s words and its deeds.

    <span style=font family helvetica arial sans serif>Alexander Nguyen Oxnard City Manager<span>

    In the City’s August 27 news release concerning the ruling in the IUF lawsuit, City Manager Alexander Nguyen wrote, “As I’ve stated before, the judge’s ruling on this matter was fair and reasonable.”

    Given Mr. Nguyen’s public statements of high praise for the judge, one might reasonably conclude that City Hall was happy to learn that this same judge was assigned to our new lawsuit against City Hall –– a suit seeking to stop the City’s unlawful spending of Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) assessment moneys.

    However, behind the scenes the City’s private actions are very different from its public press releases.

    This week the City’s outside attorney filed a motion seeking to disqualify the judge from hearing our LMD case, and it included the following sworn statement:

    “[T]he judge before whom the trial of said action is pending is prejudiced against the interest of the Respondent City of Oxnard, so that I believe a fair and impartial trial of said action cannot be had before said Judge.”

    So why would the City file a motion to disqualify a judge it recently proclaimed was “fair and reasonable?”

    Is it perhaps because Oxnard City Hall does not want to risk receiving another “fair and reasonable” ruling from this judge?

    Let us know what you think.

    Aaron Starr


    PLEASE TELL YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT CITIZENS JOURNAL  Keep us publishing – Please DONATE

    - Advertisement -

    1 COMMENT

    0 0 votes
    Article Rating
    Subscribe
    Notify of
    guest

    1 Comment
    Newest
    Oldest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Ray Blattel
    Ray Blattel
    2 years ago

    Sounds like the city could be two-faced. One side faces the general public and other is hidden behind a mask which the general public is not supposed to see. But the city leadership wants us to “trust them”. My mantra is “trust is earned”, not dished out willy-nilly.

    Latest Posts

    advertisement

    Don't Miss

    Subscribe

    To receive the news in your inbox

    1
    0
    Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
    ()
    x