I sent an email to 5 Ventura County Board of Supervisors months ago requesting to send 12 simple questions to County Counsel, so the Unincorporated Area of Ventura County would receive answers regarding a 2006 Illegal Ordinance 4355.
I sent over these questions (See attachment) to County Counsel, she responded back, “Attorney Client Privilege”, where there is no Privilege on questions never asked or answered. The Ventura County own Mission Statement, Values and Guiding Principles are being ignored; “Building and foster public trust through: Ethical Behavior, Transparency and Accountability, equitable treatment and respect of all constituents, excellent delivery in service delivery”. All these are empty words with no enforcement of job duties and performance.
A majority of Americans don’t trust our government, for good reason, lack of representation to constituents. Board of Supervisors act as Judges and Attorneys for the County Counsel, a duel role, the job is to protect their client from answering questions to expose conflict regarding an illegal ordinance approved by previous 5 Board of Supervisors. In our court system, we don’t allow a Judge to also be the Defendants lawyer, that is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution on Due Process. Do you think the Ventura County Board of Supervisors are going to send over these 12 questions from our Unincorporated Areas of Ventura County, to require their client (County Counsel) to answer questions they don’t want to answer, that shows Ordinance 4355 is Unconstitutional? That is why not one Board Supervisor has written a letter to County Counsel requiring answers to this community’s questions, they advise their client (County Counsel) to not answer questions, to keep this Illegal Ordinance on the books. We the Unincorporated have provided substantial evidence to prove Ordinance violates the State Constitution and every court case decision in California on this subject for over 200 years. Fact and evidence are irrelevant here, they don’t matter. The intentional failure to answer constituents’ important questions regarding the validity of local Ordinance violates public trusts in our institutions, and its own Mission Statement on values and principals.
Illegal Ordinance 4355 cover-up by Board Supervisors, violate Mission statement on Ethics
See the 12 questions below:
1. Provide one Ordinance in California in 200 years, in a General Law County that is identical to
Ordinance 4355, regarding residential housing tracts.
2. Provide one case law in California, in 200 years, Judge decision, where a Judge allowed a General
Law County to pass on duties, responsibilities and liabilities regarding the right of ways to the
adjacent property owners in a housing tract.
3. Provide one court case in California, in 200 years, where a residential property owners sued the
adjacent property owner in a General Law County in a housing tract for failing to maintain the right
of ways and won.
4. Provide one court case in California, in 200 years, in a General Law County, Judge ruling where
residents were responsible to pay County to remove a County owned parkway trees County owns by
Ordinance 2041.
5. Director of Department of Transportation and Public Works have sent letters to adjacent property
owners’ home, stating “the sidewalks on your property”. Prove on document (ie property map) that
shows that the public sidewalks, destroyed by County owned parkway tree roots, is on adjacent
property owners’ property.
6. Provide Ventura County document from 1961-present that clearly defines what an out of repair
sidewalk legal definition, impending, endangering, etc. Show how this document conforms to the
current Streets and Highways Code 941A and 1806 (1955 and 1957), written by State Legislators
specifically for California residential housing tracts starting in the early 1940’s.
7. Provide the document that states, once the Board of Supervisors there is an acceptance of
subdivision map and dedication of property, the responsibility, duty and liability for maintaining
the public rights of ways, the adjacent property owner is obligated to accept, improve, repair,
maintain or exercise any control over streets shown on subdivision map. It’s the Counties
responsibility by State Law.
8. John F Johnson, Report to the Board of Supervisors, sidewalks maintenance and repair,
unincorporated area on 18 September 2001, Page 4, C. Sources of Damages. Repair to the sidewalk,
curb and gutter generally requires removal and trimming of the tree roots. The PWA is authorized
by County Ordinance to trim tree limbs and tree roots. The PAW is authorized by County Ordinance
to trim tree limbs and roots as necessary or issue for maintenance of the public right of ways. Please
explain in detail why the Ventura County permitted liquid Amber Trees on a 4″ parkway for 60
years, knowing a large tree roots would eventually destroy the public sidewalk
sidewalk adjacent to owner’s home. Also explain why Ventura County failed to put in root barriers
and trim parkway tree roots for 60 years. Remember by Ordinance and Dedication of Property, the
County is responsible to trim the tree roots and maintain the public right of ways. This neglect cause
the public sidewalks to go out of repair. Please explain in detail why this was allowed to happen
since 1960, then the Board of of Supervisor, in 2006, 56 years later, decided to illegally transfer their
own duties and responsibilities by Dedication and their own Ordinance’s, to adjacent property
owners.
9. Around 20 years ago, a resident fell over County residential sidewalks that County failed to
maintain, then sued the Ventura County and won 50K. The County had 50K to put this under seal,
did not have a few hundred dollars to cut parkway tree roots as required by their own Ordinance,
Dedication of property, current Streets 941a and 1806 for residential, did not have money to lift the
sidewalk up, remove roots, then place down. Please explain this in detail.
10. Willits vs Los Angeles 2015, current Judge decisions regarding a Charter Cities duties and
responsibilities 1.4B against LA, LA to remove parkway trees in towns and residential areas, also to
replace/repair public sidewalks in towns and residential areas. Please explain why General Law
County of Ventura is immune to this decision, and every other court case, Williams vs Foster,
Shaefer vs Lenahan, Martinovich v Wooley, the Petitioner did not win. Even in a Charter City,
adjacent property owner was not liable. Please explain why Ordinance 4355 is legal, in detail, when
no previous case law decision support it.
11. The 1911 Improvement Act Streets and Highways Code 5600-5630, written 112 years ago by State
Legislators, what was their intent and purpose back in 1911? Housing tracts in California started in
1949, 39 years before years before this Act, only a business in a town existed in a big city. What taxes
(property, state, etc.) were collected by the Municipality in 1906 to repair the towns sidewalks in
front of their business establishment and the right of ways in a town? Why did the Municipality have
to post a bond? Did the business owners in towns have an Ordinance in 1911, like Ventura County
Ordinance 2041, stating that everything planted on parkway is owned by the County? Did the towns
in 1911 have Dedications of property, signed by Board of Supervisors, authorizing the County to
maintain the public right of ways in their town, like they do for residential properties started in the
1940’s here in California?
12. Did Ventura County post a bond, like they did in 1911 in towns, to pay for repair, removal,
replacement of county owned by parkway trees and public sidewalks destroyed by County owned
parkway tree roots that it failed to maintain by Dedication of property adjacent to property owners
home? What taxes does the Ventura County receive today from adjacent property owners to
maintain the public right of ways, the Ventura County agreed to maintain by signing the Dedication
of property in housing tracts?
In Order for Ordinance 4355 to be legal, it’s has to have a precedent law judge decision to piggyback on. None exists today, no General County has this same Ordinance since SHC 941 and 1806 written for Housing Tracts is the current State Constitutional Law on Dedications of properties to Municipality regarding housing tracts in California. Public Property is maintained (paid in taxes) by Municipality, not by Adjacent property owners. Board of Supervisors won’t send 12 questions to County Counsel for good reason, she can’t answer the questions that would show Ordinance 4355 is illegal. Solution, don’t send the letter, don’t require a response.