06/13/06
DHS City Council to vote on CVAG's MSHCP
This Thursday or Friday Evening
Probably in Close Session

10/03/06
Your Personal Property Rights Are Still Under Attack!
MSHCP has just come back from the dead!
Filed Under FYI
Property Owners Association Of Riverside County

September 2006 Activities Bulletin
Pro Property Rights Organization - This organization needs your support!
Passing Proposition 90 will finally kill the CVAG MSHCP
( Coachella Valley Association of Governments Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan) walking zombies. Proposition 90, if passed, will stop the property robbing zombies from rising back from the dead after they have been killed just like the Dawn Of The Dead horror movie.

Movie Fan Quote:
"I like Dawn of the Dead because you expect that when you die your dead, right?
Well in this movie they (like the MSHCP) come back to life and want your brains (property)". View Movie Trailer Here

Property Owners Association Of Riverside County September 2006 Activities Bulletin:
New law to stop bullying by Riverside County Supervisors.
California property rights (Proposition 90) initiative update.
News Briefs – development opportunities.
Bruce Colbert, Executive Director
Property Owners Association of Riverside County
Post Office Box 127 , Riverside , CA 92502
Tel: (951) 274-9899 Fax: (949) 673-1851
E-mail: bcpoarc-net@yahoo.com

Our FODHS sources just told us that:

One to two Council members wont be available Saturday being that it is Father's Day weekend so Thursday or Friday are most likely the time the DHS Council will be voting on the MSHCP.

Also, City Officials plan to use the phony excuse that their may be litigation sometime in the unforeseen future to justify voting for the MSHCP in close session so Council members can avoid facing all the victims that will be devastated by this plan if it passes.

City Administrators will need to violate the First Amendment (Free Speech - Brown Act) to pass a plan that will violate the Fourth Amendment (The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated).

Two Council members will most likely vote for the MSHCP. Pray that the other 3 remaining Councilmembers wont, even in close session.

Please contact by e-mail Councilmen, Alex Bias, Gary Bosworth and Hank Hohenstein and urge them to vote no on this MSHCP (abomination to our constitution and the stealing private property).

06/20/06 Late Night
The MSHCP is voted Down in DHS
While Indio Approves The Same.

There where 3 options given for DHS Council members to vote on.... Yes, No and Yes with Conditions. Fish & Wildlife representative testified that they would not sign on to approve the Yes with options vote. Plan Architects refused to reimburse any portion of the 3 million dollars per year DHS would loose in sales tax revenue from land the plan would take. Plan Architects refused to guarantee that DHS would get COD campus if DHS voted for the plan. Dozens of small time land owners testified against the plan. Six speakers testified for approving the plan, of which 4 where paid to do so by their respective agencies. One of the two speakers for the plan was the MSHCP lipstick pig. Click here to see her testimony Download may take a while.

06/20/06UPDATE!
Is the MSHCP Dead?
FODHS Opinion: It should be!

Time to get married to this pig?
No divorce for irreconcilable differences for at least another 75 years. That means that not only may we be married to this pig, sharing its affections with 27 others, but our children will be married to this pig too! Anywhere else but California, this would be illegal

The required 24 hour notice was posted on the DHS website (as usual) at the last moment, sometime last night after 5 PM. There was 3 options to vote. Yes, No and Yes contingent upon conditions. The conditions of course where not available on line. Some say the conditions did not include the issues of the small property owners fair and speedy reimbursement. If this is so, the small property owners will be screwed if council votes Yes or Conditional Yes per City manager, Marie Ann Gallants's recommendation.

The Notice for the MSHCP Special Meeting went dead (no link) quickly after it was posted on the web last night at 5:20 PM The MSHCP vote needs to be delayed until proper legal (brown act) full 24 hours notice is given. A notice posted about 24 hours ago for a few minutes does not count as proper notice. The City Web link is still down as of this 10:00 AM posting. The Link just now went back up at 9:59AM effectively giving a full 7 hour notice, not the 24 notice required by law. But how often does the past DHS administration follow the law anyway?

Another fine example of how disingenuous the pro MSHCP bullies are, we are providing a scan of a document from a biologist stating that the Palm Springs Pocket Mouse is not endangered or even a separate species. If you remember, this was the same Palm Springs Pocket Mouse the Sierra Club was going to sue to force the MSHCP to be enlarged even more so than it already is.

Quote from Christine Scobee- Biological Consultant: "The Palm Springs Pocket Mouse is not a species, nor a subspecies, nor even a unique lineage"

Link to MS Scan of report

Will DHS Council allow DHS to
Remain the
Coachella Valley's
Whipping Boy Forever?

The Whipping Boy

In feudal times, a whipping boy was a boy of the same age but lower rank, raised with a prince or nobleman as a playmate, who was whipped in his place when the young nobleman -- too high in standing to be beaten by anyone below his father, who was often unavailable -- misbehaved or slacked in his studies, as a psychological 'indirect punishment'.
In modern times, the term "whipping boy" has come to mean a scapegoat, or something that is a frequent recipient of pain or punishment, including inanimate objects.

Will our Council sell our city's economic future and the future of the other MSHCP victims and the Constitution of the USA down the road so that they (Rancho Mirage, Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Etc) will look favorably upon their "Whipping Boy" (Desert Hot Springs)?

Will our City Council allow our city to remain the Whipping Boy for the rest of the "well to do" Coachella Valley Cities for another 75 years by voting Yes on the MSHCP tonight?

We shall see.

06/06/06
Sign of the Devil?
New DHS negotiating team asked for deadline extension
to work out Prenuptial Agreement
with CVAG's MSHCP Lipstick Pig

Sexy MSHCP Lipstick Pig
Wants to Marry you Too!

We cant Divorce this Pig for 75 years if it does not work out!

DHS Council/Manager wants to marry this pig. So they need more time so they can put more lipstick on the pig first to make it more palatable to marry.

Desert Sun Story link
Desert Hot Springs could vote on Multi Species as soon as Wednesday

Bill Byron The Desert Sun June 5, 2006

The Desert Hot Springs City Council could hold a special meeting as soon as Wednesday to vote on the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

Mayor Alex Bias, City Manager Ann Marie Gallant and Gallant’s negotiation team met Monday with members of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and planned to ask for a 14-day extension of CVAG’s June 1 deadline for voting on the plan.

Portion of our precious disappearing Bill Of Rights shown below. Once these rights are legislated away, we will cease to be a free nation of "liberty and justice for all". How we are so eager to give up our rights for the false sense of "security" Those of us who do this deserve neither.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (DHS Sign Ordinance?); or abridging the freedom of speech (DHS Sign ordinance?), or of the press (fire [COP] volunteers who are whistleblowers); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (CCW's rarely given out in DHS)

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, (the MSHCP pretty much violates this underlined clause with impunity) and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

06/11/06
Just a Reminder......

Graphic shown below shows the flow chart that leads to
the advantages of DHS approving the MSHCP.
The green box is the ultimate goal.

05/20/06
Beware Of The Killer MSHCP Rodent!
Proof Positive That Signing on to the MSHCP
is as insane as signing a
Blank Open Ended Check/Contract
To Environmentalists
Who Have Just Proven That They Can Not Be Trusted
To Honor The Agreement.

Picture of the Deadly
Common P.S. Pocket
Mouse?

The Rat That Kills (with the help of the Sierra Club) By
Taking The Human's
Habitat Away.
How many Humans will die
for lack of funding for fire
and police services once
this rodent takes away our future retail tax base land?

Environmentalist have said that the major advantages of signing on to the CVAG-MSHCP was that we could be assured that no more land would be add to the plan for set asides for species.

They Lied!

Just before the CVAG-MSHCP will be voted on, the environmentalist are actively trying to increase the "conservation" area that the MSHCP will take for the sake of a well populated pocket mouse who lives in 100,000's of miles of habitat. The successful petition by the conservationist to the US government for this mouse will increase the MSHCP area or will allow them to add an additional area to be set aside next to the MSHCP area.

When will the insanity end? If the environmentalist are willing to chance jeopardizing the passing of the MSHCP now by this provocative act, what will they do later if the MSHCP is approved? Who will stop them from adding even more area to the conservation plan? Answer: No one!

After the recent action by the local environmentalist to add but another non threatened species to the plan even before the plan has been approved shows that only fools would sign on to the MSHCP.. It shows that conservationist can not be trusted. The MSHCP is nothing more than a Trojan horse that will invite the destruction of the future habitat of humans.

Link to Desert Sun Story Below:
Groups fight to protect mouse
Say endangered species listing could be avoided with adoption of plan
The plight of a little mouse is making a big stir in the politics of building and conservation in the Coachella Valley. On Friday, two environmental groups petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an emergency listing of the Palm Springs pocket mouse under the Endangered Species Act.
Link to MSHCP regarding PS Pocket Mouse

05/19/06
MSHCP
Oh, It's A Growth Plan!
Thanks for that Desert Sun Front Page Opinion

Frank Zappa: Don't be a Naughty (MSHCP) Eskimo
Don't Eat That Yellow Snow Where The (CVAG) Huskies Go!

We don't want to be too hard on The Desert Sun. They have been good for the community of Desert Hot Springs when they helped shine the light of day on some very dark past city manager doings. But, we have to take The Desert Sun to task on its blatant editorializing on the front page of Today's edition.

There may be some that call the MSHCP growth. We can not understand how taking hundreds of thousands of acres out of proactive development could be considered growth. But for the sake of our point, we will give them theirs.

On the MSHCP issue, there are clearly those that say the MSHCP is very much a no-growth measure - especially for Desert Hot Springs, Indio and to a lesser degree Cathedral City.

The point being, there are two very clearly delineated points of view on the MSHCP. It is either growth or it is no-growth depending which side of the political debate you are on. The Desert Sun has clearly come down on the side of those calling the MSHCP plan "growth."

So what's the offense? Papers take positions on issues all the time. The problem today is that the opinion of The Desert Sun is masquerading as a headline on page one and top of the fold that proclaims, "All eyes on
growth plan holdouts."

There you have it as fact, front page and the issue settled by The Desert Sun: The MSHCP is a "growth plan."

From here on out, The Desert Sun's reporting of the MSHCP can not be viewed as objective. It simply can not be trusted. To The Desert Sun we say, expand your opinion page section if you need a place to report on the MSHCP. To the readers of The Desert Sun, know that the coverage of the MSHCP in The Desert
Sun is not balanced. It is, in fact, opinion.

The Late Great
Frank Zappa

Don't Eat The Yellow Snow
Don't be a Naughty (MSHCP) Eskimo
Don't Eat That Yellow Snow Where The (CVAG) Huskies Go!
Dreamed I was an Eskimo, Frozen wind began to blow, Under my boots and around my toes, The frost that bit the ground below, It was a hundred degrees below zero...

And my mama cried, And my mama cried
Nanook, a-no-no, Nanook, a-no-no
Don't be a naughty Eskimo, Save your money, don't go to the show

Well I turned around and I said "Oh, oh" Oh
Well I turned around and I said "Oh, oh" Oh
Well I turned around and I said "Ho, Ho"
And the northern lights commenced to glow
And she said, with a tear in her eye
"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"
"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"

05/18/06
Protect Our Homes Coalition
Submits Almost 1 Million CA Signatures on 05/15/06
for Anti Eminent Domain Abuse (EDA) Initiative
(And Anti CVAG-MSHCP)
see links to new anti EDA CA assembly bill & Initiatives below

Link to financially contribute to their cause here

PROTECT OUR HOMES COALITION SUBMITS ALMOST 1 MILLION SIGNATURES FOR INITIATIVE
May 15, 2006, CONTACT: Kevin Spillane, 916-834-0979
Sacramento – Assemblywoman Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel), Honorary Chair of the Protect Our Homes Coalition, announced that approximately 1 million signatures from California voters have been gathered to qualify the statewide initiative to reform eminent domain abuses and are being submitted today to county registrars across the state in time to place the measure on the November ballot.

“The Protect Our Homes Initiative will restore the rights of homeowners and small businesses that were gutted by the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision in the Kelo case. This initiative will protect the average family from having their property taken by government only to be turned over to another private entity that is more influential,” declared the Orange County legislator.

“It is time to end the faction between local governments and special interests that sacrifice the property rights of the average citizen in order to line the coffers of government and the pockets of the powerful.
This initiative will return eminent domain to its original purpose – to be used for true public uses such as building roads, schools, firehouses and other infrastructure needs that serve the public and not the financial interests of the politicians and the powerful,” continued Assemblywoman Walters.

The Protect Our Homes Initiative is a bi-partisan effort composed of Democrats, Independents, Republicans and minor parties. This broad coalition has assembled because of the pervasive abuse of eminent domain that has victimized Californians of every economic, political, and social stripe. The Initiative already has over 5,000 California donors. Following the qualification of the Protect Our Homes Initiative, the committee will run an aggressive and fully-funded campaign.

“There will be powerful forces aligned against us. Local governments and certain special interests that now profit from the use of eminent domain are expected to run a well funded campaign. In fact, given the number of misleading arguments that I’ve personally heard about our initiative from those who profit from eminent domain, it would appear that the distortion campaign has already begun,” said Walters.

Link to
Anti Eminent Domain Abuse (EDA) Ballot Imitative
If this is accepted by the Legislature or Voters,
It should Kill EDA and the CVAG MSHCP (PDF file)

Link to
New Anti Eminent Domain Abuse (EDA) and anti MSHCP CA. Assemble Bill
It should help kill EDA & The CVAG MSHCP

California Eminent Domain
Limitations Act (Petition)

05/04/06
DHS Council Eminent Domain Abuse?
Council Now Moving To Use Eminent Domain
To (Steal) Take Land From Private Homeowners
And Hand It Over To Private Developer's
To Develop For Their Personal Profit.

Is your home in the path of eminent domain?

If you live between Palm and Cactus, Buena Vista and 2nd street, it is.

That is the information we have from a very reliable source close to negotiations now taking place over which developer's will be in on this "redevelopment."

When we first heard this rumor many months back we had our doubts. Later we heard Ted Mayhofen raise the issue. And recently others have been expressing the same concerns.

But now FODHS has it from a very good authority that the issue of eminent domain will soon be sprung on our city. According to our source, who we can not name, the negotiations with the developer's that will be handed the land are now going to be taking place.

The area to be taken is from Cactus to Palm and from Buena Vista to 2nd Street. It will be a part of the Pierson corridor, with shops fronting Pierson and a corridor for parking and a second tier of retail business to the back (to 2nd and Buena Vista respectively).

We asked how such discussions could take place outside council chambers and outside the public view. "It is taking place. It is moving forwards," said our source.

We trust our source on this who is not a regular contributor to FODHS but is definitely in a position to know.

05/15/06
Yet Another Political Blunder By Mary Stephens

Yet Another Political Blunder By Mary Stephens This time one that could hurt Palmwood

It is a mistake Stephens (or someone thinking for Stephens) has now realized but it may be too late to undo the damage.

For the past several weeks a group of landowners - widely believed it is Palmwood among them - have been paying for and running daily full page political advertisements against the MSHCP.

Those ads also carry the names of people that ad say are landowners and contributors to the cost of the ad. Mary Stephens was among the names.

Was but not now. Her name no longer appears. It has been pulled. Why?

Someone realized it crosses a line between political speech and conflict of interest for someone to go from making a speech to pay for a campaign, especially when a major contributor of the ads is a prominent developer with business before the city (sound familiar).

It was bad enough when Stephens was on the payroll of a local developer. Now, though, she is paying for the developer's campaign. What could she have been thinking.

What others are thinking is that Mary has just disqualified herself from any votes on Palmwood coming before the city - or the business of any other developer associated with those ads.

Karl Baker challenged Councilman Hank Hohenstiens ability to vote on the MSHCP because he owned land. We found out it is not reasonable to disqualify Hank - by that standard anyone that owns property in the Coachella Valley could not vote on the MSHCP.

Karl picked the wrong Councilperson and for the wrong reasons. Speaking out against the MSCHP in OK. But a councilperson jumping into a paid campaign with the developer over it goes much farther than passive support. Mary Stephens crossed the line.

As much as we think the MSHCP stinks, Mary Stephens' judgment stinks even worse.

05/11/06
Re-elect Marion Ashley or Else?
Pass the MSHCP or Else?

FODHS Asks;

Will the city heed the warnings of County Supervisor Marion Ashley and vote for the MSHCP or will Desert Hot Springs cross the powerful supervisor and risk his ire?

The day or reckoning is drawing near. We see Ashley's campaign signs are up. Frankly, we did not know a royalty ran for election. .

Click Here For DHS Archived Pages Of Past (2/14/06, 02/06/06 & 02/24/06)
Marion Ashley-MSHCP Articles & Pictures

05/10/06
Another State Supreme Court
Rules Against Eminent Domain Abuse &
Against Plans (Like MSHCP).
Court Cite Says That Both
"Public Use and Public Purpose" Discount
Individual (Fifth Amendment) Property Rights.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Kelo
Constitutional Amendment Still Needed To Close “Blight” Loophole and Fully Protect Property Owners

PRESS RELEASE: May 9, 2006
CONTACT: John Kramer Lisa Knepper (703) 682-9320

Arlington, Va.—In a landmark ruling issued today, the Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision permitting eminent domain for private development, ruling instead in Board of County Commissioners of Muskogee County v. Lowery that economic development is not a constitutional reason to use eminent domain under the Oklahoma Constitution. The Court originally heard the case in 2004, before the Kelo decision.

“It’s a great day for Oklahoma property owners,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which filed a friend of the court brief in Lowery and litigated the Kelo case. “The U.S. Supreme Court essentially read the Fifth Amendment out of the Constitution but said that states could give more protection to property owners. The Oklahoma Supreme Court is right to reject the overwhelmingly despised Kelo decision.”

The Court noted its “constitutional obligation to protect and preserve the individual fundamental interest of private property ownership,” and cited several times to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent in the Kelo case, writing, “To permit the inclusion of economic development alone in the category of ‘public use’ or ‘public purpose’ (FODHS- Public Purpose would include MSHCP type plans) would blur the line between ‘public’ and ‘private’ so as to render our constitutional limitations on the power of eminent domain a nullity. If property ownership in Oklahoma is to remain what the framers of our Constitution intended it to be, this we must not do.”

05/12/06
Is Hank Hohenstein
"Seeing the MSHCP Light"?
Maybe the Light He Is Really Seeing
Is The MSHCP Freight Train Light
Quickly Coming At All Of Us In Our Tunnel Of Confusion!
This MSHCP Freight Train Will Run Down Our Most Precious 5th Amendment Constitutional Right To Land Ownership

Is DHS Councilman,
Hank Hohenstein getting ready to kiss the MSHCP Lipstick Pig?

We received a letter (shown below in red text) recently from one of our FODHS readers. We hope the letter's assessment is not true. We hope DHS Councilman, Hank Hohenstein does not fall victim to the factually void daily rhetoric spewed out from the local pretend wanta-be local promoters and other MSHCP self serving down valley interests.

We at FODHS don't really care that standing against the MSHCP happens to also help the "Palmwood Big Boy Developers" (As a local pro MSHCP activist refers to them on a adnausium bases.)

The daily MSHCP promoters are asking us to pass the plan and discard our constitution principles of private land ownership rights just because someone they may not like (including Big Bad Wolf Developers) will profit if the MSHCP does not pass.

Local pro MSHCP activist straw dog (Big Bad Developers) arguments are disingenuous at best. We all stand for fidelity to our spouses even though some known despicable dictators are also loyal to his spouses. What is right is right. What is wrong (MSHCP) is wrong. Who profits from it should not matter and should not be part of this moral/constitutional argument. We are not for dictatorships just because some dictators are also faithful to our spouses and we are not for "big bad developers" if we are for standing against the MSHCP.

As a dear friend told me; Either you have integrity or you don't. The MSHCP and those promoting it have none. Sometimes we need to take a stand for what is right even if it is unpopular and even if our enemies profit from it.

Most of us who are against the MSHCP are standing up for the most basic of constitutional principles of protected private land ownership our Founding Fathers gave us in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Local MSHCP activist's "Palmwood Big Buck Developers" profiting from the killing of the MSHCP is the least of our "worries". EVEN Mary Stephens's and Hank Hohenstein's political profiting from the killing of the MSHCP is the least of our "worries" even though we were recently worked against them in the recall effort. Turning our private citizen land owner rights to a faceless government entity is what is the most frightening worrisome to us.

We at FODHS are going to stand with our fore fathers on the most basic constitutional principles of private protected land ownership even if it happens to benefit local "Big Bad Evil" Developers. These same "Big Bad Developers" use our capitalist system to create many opportunity for US citizens to attain the most beautiful gift of the "American Dream" of private home ownership. So lets be honest and stop using the straw dog "Palmwood Big Buck Boys" to try to win the argument to support the MSHCP. This argument at worse is a thinly disguised liberal tactic of baiting the rich against the poor.

The irony to the "Rich Developer" Straw dog argument is that passing the MSHCP will in reality; 1) eliminate large portions of usable non habitat land 2) therefore drive up the cost of the available developable land. 3) therefore drive up the cost of all homeownership, exceptionally for the poor first time home buyer.

So the MSHCP will deny the "American Dream" of first time home ownership to many hardworking poorer citizens. MSHCP will also drive up the cost of homes already owned, including those owned by local pro MSHCP activists. So the MSHCP ultimately will make the rich richer and the poor (renters) poorer. Under the MSHCP, the poor will not be able to afford the "American Dream" while the "rich" homeowner will see their home values increase artificially because of the lack of available land for new homes.

So under this beloved MSHCP, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

MSHCP takes away the "American Dream" and gives it to MSHCP Administrators who give it to very questionable and often non existent or endangered lizards and other species.

I wonder how much these pro MSHCP advocates would be advocating if they themselves did not already posse their "American Dream" (Home).

Time to be honest and not deny this most basic right to the US citizens in the name of a very questionable MSHCP.

A vote for the MSHCP is a direct vote against our US Constitution and the principles it was based upon. A vote for the MSHCP is a vote for the rich and against the poor. Once our 5th Amendment of protected private land ownership is eliminated thru Eminent Domain for Profit and thru unjust conservation plans like the current MSHCP, we will cease to be a real representative republic.

The MSHCP principles are based upon the principles of a communist dictatorship born out of a non republic democracy were the majority eventually take over and tramples on the rights of the minority. The majority is the rich land owners and home owners and the minority is the working poor seeing their money gobbled up by "rich" landlord's inflated rents

We are about to take a major step to the elimination of our free country if we approve this horribly unconstitutional and immoral MSHCP plan.

In Conclusion:
Try to look past the rhetoric and straw dog arguments regarding the MSHCP. Instead, simply apply the US constitution and the Bill of Rights to the plan. If the plan tramples on these rights, then, the plan should be trashed even if it may possibly protect a half dozen lizards.

Letter from a FODHS reader below;

I have it from a great source that Hank Hohenstein has been accepting the wine and dine treatment from representatives from the MSHCP. They are promising him the COD campus along with Palmwood in exchange for his vote. I think Hank is having issues realizing that these two things alone will not do anything for the financial future of Desert Hot Springs. Please don’t let Hank’s vote be purchased by bribes via the MSHCP money line. Your website has tremendous effect on this city and its policy makers and I would really appreciate it if you could make a mention of this on your website.

Thank You,

Friend of D.H.S.

05/06/06
Local TV News -KESQ - Channel 3
Picks Up DHS Story On EDA*
*(Eminent Domain Abuse)
FODHS Blight story here

Click on link below, then on KESQ news video
By Jason Sloss
NewsChannel 3

There's controversy brewing in Desert Hot Springs over claims that the city is planning to use eminent domain to help "re-develop" downtown, leaving some homeowner's out in the cold. City leaders deny those claims.

According to the watchdog website www.FriendsOfDesertHotSprings.com, the Desert Hot Springs City Council is planning to enforce eminent domain to take property away from homeowners and use the land for re-development.

DHS resident Gabriel King runs the website. He says sources tell him eminent domain will be used in the area between Palm Drive and Cactus and Buena Vista and 2nd Street.

“I held off on the story for a long time. I try not to print stuff unless I feel secure. I've heard from too many reliable people that this is going to happen.”

The website also claims the city is secretly negotiating with developers.

“If this is what they're going to do. We need to shed light. If we wait, by the time the deals are made in secret, like they have in the past. It'll be too late.”

But city leaders say King is just stirring up trouble and that there's no reason for resident's to be worried.

05/05/06
Development Through The
Wrecking Ball Of Eminent Domain Abuse
Statement of FODHS regarding recent Eminent Domain Abuse Story

We have been hearing for several months and from various friends of FODHS that the city was planning to use eminent domain to take private property in the downtown area and turn it over to a private developer to demolish and rebuild.

With the very close ties between several council persons and large developers in this city - ties that have included city councilpersons being offered and taking jobs from these developers - it did not seem like a far-fetched notion.

During the recent city council elections the issue of Eminent Domain was raised by a couple of candidates. Among them was then candidate and now elected city council person Yvonne Parks. Her vision as explained to FODHS was exactly to tear down blocks of the city and start over.

Our recent reporting that the eminent domain issue is now moving from "just talk" to plans in progress has resulted in many calls and emails to FODHS, all wanting more information and to know who are source for this information is.

We will not reveal our source. But we do have every reason to believe that what they have told us privately and in detail is correct. Development through the wrecking ball of eminent domain is in the active planning stages.

This website takes its role very seriously. Just as we relied on solid information when we were first to break the Jerry Hanson consulting agreement story - weeks ahead of the main media - we believe our information and our source on this story is solid.

05/04/06
DHS Council Now Planning Some
Eminent Domain Abuse (EDA)?
Council Now Moving To Use Eminent Domain
To (Steal) Take Land From Private Homeowners
And Hand It Over To Private Developer's
To Develop For Their Own Personal Profit.

The area to be taken is from Cactus to Palm and from Buena Vista to 2nd Street. It will be a part of the Pierson corridor, with shops fronting Pierson and a corridor for parking and a second tier of retail business to the back (to 2nd and Buena Vista respectively).

We asked how such discussions could take place outside council chambers and outside the public view. "It is taking place. It is moving forwards," said our source. We trust our source on this who is not a regular contributor to FODHS but is definitely in a position to know.

Click On Image For
Castle Coalition Website On EDA

Click On Image For
www.mtotsa.com/
Long Beach CA. marchers website to stop EDA

Click On Image For
Norwood, Ohio Marchers Against EDA

Click On Image For
Michigan Supreme Court Halts EDA

Click On Image For
Institute For Justice March Fighting EDA

Click On Image For
Institute For Justice Main Web Site

Click On Image For
Goldwater Institute On Stopping EDA

Click On Image For
National Association Of Home Builders Concerns

Click On Image For
"NoLandGrab" Blog

Link to Castle Coalition Eminent Domain Abuse map
From the Institute For Justice Website
The Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment
was written to protect an accused from abuses witnessed throughout history, including in the early days of Colonial America. The founding fathers wished to ensure that, while trials could be conducted and guilty criminals punished, innocent men and women wouldn't suffer by mere government whim. Sufficient evidence of criminal conduct would have to be presented to a Grand Jury; the government couldn't repeatedly try an individual on the same charges until he or she was either convicted or financially exhausted; it couldn't demand answers from the accused, but rather would have to provide sufficient evidence to convict without such testimony; and it couldn't simply snatch property it wanted or needed from its owner.

Return to Friends Of Desert Hot Springs Home Page

FODHS
MSHCP* Abuse &
Eminent Domain Abuse Page
*(Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan)

04/27/06
Obvious flaws in the draft CVMSHCP need to be corrected in order for the plan to be fair and viable

The basic objective of the CVMSHCP plan is not bad, except it was poorly prepared and it proposes little or no opportunities for fair and objective recourse in instances of disagreements on fair compensation and land takings to individual property owners and the City of Desert Hot Springs pertaining to offset/mitigate costs for public infrastructure improvements impacted by implementation of the draft CVMSHCP.

It is interesting observing that the non-existence of remedies to deal with these most obvious flaws were not incorporated within the document itself, and that we are told that in order to make these relatively minor corrections, that it would entail having to redo the entire process, etc.

Obviously, this doesn't make any sense, is unacceptable, and it smacks of interference by special financial interests, etc., and it shows that there is an apparent major lack of integrity by those promoting it.

Also, it needs to be taken into consideration the several governmental entities that have greatly benefited as a result of the artificial delays in implementing the draft CVMSHCP. When these legitimate issues noted above were raised a long time ago by others to CVAG , they were simply ignored, as if they were never heard or presented and did not matter. In order for any document of this nature and magnitude to have clout, substantial issues like this realistically need to be accommodated as would be the case with any other major policy-setting/policy-steering document.

There is a lot of obvious political manipulation, maneuvering and interference by communities like Cathedral City, Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage in delaying the plan's implementation. One only needs to observe the scale of development in the northern portions of these communities, right in the very middle of the richest sand source area in the Coachella Valley, and most of this development is recent. Now, since development has seriously encroached into these areas where it should never have been permitted, it's considered "OK" under the draft plan to further destroy everything that is left. Since these areas represent the only logical places for these communities to expand, these cities have exercised their political clout in influencing the scope and boundaries of the plan, pretending that these environmentally sensitive areas don't count, at the cost of denying equally fair opportunities for economic development in many areas of DHS, in areas of DHS and environs deems as less significant as viable conservation areas. Then, another peculiar twist is the unstructured, unsatisfactory and unprofessional approach that the plan proposes to individual species themselves, lacking merit in the proper assessment and identification of viable habitat areas, pretending to offer protections where certain species just plain do not exist or can not exist, and not affording protection in area needed.

Although the basic objective of the plan is certainly worthwhile and ultimately of terrific benefit to the Coachella Valley, it is these many careless flaws that distinguish it as "politically polluted" document, which is truly unfortunate for everyone. And, worse yet is CVAG's effort to coerce the media and distracting from the real issues, and rather than fessing-up to these mistakes, instead try to hang the blame on the DHS City Council and Planning Commission, trying to distinguish the city as being against an organized growth plan, which could not be further from the truth. The City of DHS has it's own set of environmental experts who are authoritative on these matters and whose extensive research on the draft plan makes them conversant on all of these pertinent issues and who are very capable of objectively analyzing it.

In the interest of achieving genuine progress, this will only be possible if CVAG will stop bending to special financial interests and instead strive to correct these serious deficiencies, because after All if the plan should fail, CVAG will have no one else to blame except themselves.

04/26/05
MSHCP Detractors Have their Concerns and Questions Go Unanswered Again At CVAG MSHCP Meeting.
Supporters have NO ANSWERS, NO GUARANTEES
But Lots Of Rhetoric And Empty (Half) Promises!
File this under; "I have a great used car to sell you!"
See Desert Sun Article

Per today's Desert Sun Article; Portions of D.S. Article text in Italic Red

There's plenty of money coming in to buy property that's in the path of a proposal to set aside land for conservation in Desert Hot Springs and throughout the Coachella Valley. They asked whether planners would be able to pay fair market value for private land designated for conservation, what methods were used to designate conservation land and a host of other questions about the plan.
Then why wont MSHCP require a time line to buy the land made unusable and worthless by the plan? Why must there be a open ended time line (30 or more years) to purchase the land in the Plan area? Why is their no plan definition of how to determine values for land in Plan? Again, CVAG MSHCP has no answers or written guarantees.

The sweeping plan is an attempt to balance economic development and environmental preservation in the Coachella Valley for the next 75 years. It covers more than a million acres from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Salton Sea and includes habitat for 27 species of wildlife.
Detractors say that fees for land outside the plan used to fully fund the MSHCP to buy land located in the plan boundaries may be double or more the actual cost of the land outside the plan. Why is their no provisions in the MSHCP dealing with this possibility. Why is their no limit on how much the MSHCP administrators can charge land owners to fund the plan? Why is it that many MSHCP land areas do not actually contain the species the plan is supposed to protect? Why are the CVAG MSHCP supporters not willing to put in a exemption clause for land the plan can not purchase for lack of funds? Again, CVAG MSHCP has no answers or written guarantees.

The incentive for property owners and builders is that the plan aims to reduce red tape that slows building on land that's not set aside for wildlife.
Is the "incentive" worth it to land owners outside the MSHCP area paying double or triple in development fees what the land is worth? And why not allow the current system to work? "If it is not broken, why fix it" The current system works just fine. Currently each agency must evaluate land based upon actual field studies of species while the MSHCP relies on computer models that have been proven to be flawed. The MSHCP will allow land with endangered species to be developed while denying other land without endangered species from being developed. HOW CAN THIS BE BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?

After 10 years in development, the CVAG executive committee in February voted 10-1 to send the plan to cities for their endorsement. But it needs support from every community to work.
So, if the MSHCP is dead without DHS support, why must DHS be forced to sign the current bad MSHCP compete with all these ambiguities. Why cant the plan be reconfigured to be acceptable to DHS and then re-circulated to all the CVAG parties. This will take about 2 more years. Isn't 2 more years worth the wait to not be saddled with a bad plan for 75 years? Again, CVAG MSHCP has no answers or written guarantees as currently configured. The current plan must have a up or down vote with NO guarantees of future "Amendments" being accepted by all 20 plus CVAG MSHCP signatures.

(DHS Councilwoman Mary) Stephens, who lent her name to a campaign against the plan, said conservation restrictions would hurt development prospects in the city and on property it plans to annex.
MSHCP supporters (including Bill Effinger) say that this wont happen. But they don't offer any guarantees in the plan (or outside the plan) that would prevent DHS development and annexation from being hurt. MSHCP supporters and CVAG refuse to guarantee DHS annexations of future retail and commercial land to make up for the same land lost to the MSHCP. Heck, CVAG continues to show "very poor faith" and "bad will" by continuing to give DHS sphere of influence retail and commercial land located just north of the I10 freeway to Cathedral City and Palm Springs! Again, CVAG MSHCP has no answers or written guarantees.

Fred Bell, executive director of the Building Industry Association Desert Chapter, accused the anti-plan campaign of spreading misinformation.
What misinformation? With Bill's accusations, why cant he provide us with some particulars?

Cathedral City Mayor Pro Tem Greg Pettis, who did not attend, said Tuesday that CVAG and wildlife officials have negotiated in good faith to assuage concerns in that city. He encouraged Desert Hot Springs leaders to overcome their distrust of the people behind the species plan. Specifically, he said the commission that would enforce the plan would be made up of leaders from local governments. "If we say we don't trust them to do it right, we are saying we don't trust ourselves," Pettis said.
Would you be willing to use this philosophy the next time you buy a used car? It is easy for Pettis to take his position because his city has little to loose if the plan passes. DHS has its entire economic future to loose if they sign on to the current MSHCP. Will Pettis help DHS when it becomes saddles with high property taxes, lack of services, even higher crime rate because we have little Retail and Commercial to fund our Police, Fire, etc? DHS citizens already spend 68% of their retail sales tax dollars across the freeway. The MSHCP will make this leakage of desperately needed sales tax dollars even worse. Of course, this DHS money source provides even more revenue for the cities that back the MSHCP to spend on their police, fire and other services while DHS goes begging for funds to provide the same services for its citizens.

VOTE NO ON THE CURRENT MSCHP! IT IS BAD FOR DHS AND PRIVATE LAND OWNERS! MSHCP IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IMMORAL, UNETHICAL AND BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

04/26/05
Is CVAG Illegally Misusing Public Agency Funds
For Private Pro MSHCP Political Position Ads?
Does CVAG Think It Is Now The New "European Union" Of The Coachella Valley City Governments?

In the past couple of days there have been a few 1-minute +/- ads airing on our local TV stations (Channel 3 or 6?), paid for by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") urging listeners to contact their local city council members requesting that they support and approve the draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("CVMSHCP").

We find it somewhat peculiar and troublesome hearing ads paid for by our local council of governments agency that is not representative of all city/county governmental agencies in the Coachella Valley.

One would assume that CVAG should remain neutral pending action by its independent city governmental agencies at least until the June, 2006 vote (or later date?). The fact that the ads are being run assumes that the public at large will simply ignore the fact that CVAG as a "public" institution. CVAG thinks that it is OK to promote a point of view not necessarily supported and not yet decided by several of its member cities, yet still paid for by all member cities, some of which may believe that the CVMSHCP is not in their community's best interest.

The ads legitimately raise questions as they portend to be an inequitable and inappropriate expenditure of public funds contributed by member communities, now being used against the local interests of some of the same member communities that helped generate these monies.

Perhaps the ads would not be disingenuous if they limited their scope to "encouraging valley residents to become educated in the issues and to get involved in the discussion of the pros and cons on a local government level."

Unless CVAG backs down, withdraws these ads, and issues public apologies for them being aired, it is necessary for some of its member cities to boycott any further involvement in CVAG to justifiably emphasize a valid point? Although CVAG was created as an institution to accommodate communication among its member agencies, the message in CVAG's recent ads seem to represent itself as a forerunner to a new "super" governmental union, with a goal of surpassing the significance of local community sentiment.

04/19/06
MSHCP On Its Last Gasping Breath
Soon MSHCP Will Be Killed, DOA - MSHCP RIP

21 Public Speakers voiced their last night during Council Session regarding the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

Of the 21 public speakers, 19 voiced passionate strong opinion against the MSHCP. Many of the speakers in opposition were small "Mom and Pop" land owners that would be financially devastated if the current MSHCP plan is adopted.

Even though the MSHCP was on last night's council legislative agenda as "10.1 - Report and Discussion regarding the MSHCP", Hank Hohenstein immediately made a motion regarding the MSHCP (with councilwoman Yvonne Parks immediately seconding) without any prior council discussion about said motion.

Hank Hohenstein's motion is as follows:
I move to vote down the Coachella Valley Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan effective immediately. The City of Desert Hot Springs will agree to reconsider this decision no later than May 9, 2006 on condition that CVAG and the wildlife agencies make appropriate modifications to the plan in order to satisfy the concerns of all property owners of Desert Hot Springs.

Mayor, Alex Bias immediately dissented to the quick motion and second, stating that even though the motion was legal, the motion was not proper at that time and the agenda did not call for a motion but instead called for a discussion only of the MSHCP report on negotiations. Bias stated that at the very least, if the council choose to make a motion tonight, the council needed to "show good negotiating faith" and discuss the motion prior to voting for it.

Thereafter, council members discussed the MSHCP at length, and the merits of the motion made by Hohenstein. Council members Mary Stephens, Hohenstein and Parks said that Hohenstein's motion was necessary to send a strong message to CVAG that the MSHCP was totally un-acceptable in its current form and unless CVAG started to negotiate seriously with the 4 member DHS negotiating team of Hohenstein, Parks, Stephens and (acting city manager) John Souiller, Council would be forced to vote down (No) the conservation plan.

Hohenstein, Parks and Stephens said that a strong message from council was needed to be sent to CVAG so that CVAG would start to address their concerns seriously. They felt that their concerns were met with CVAG placating them and not addressing them with real concrete solutions. All 3 council members felt that CVAG was not addressing their concerns "in good faith" and that a strong motion may help to change that.

Even though Council member Bosworth and Bias also stated that they were apposed to the MSHCP in its present form, they where concerned that passing Hohenstein's motion would show "bad negotiating faith" with CVAG.

Hohenstein, Parks and Stephens respectfully disagreed and stated that Hohe

The Whipping Boy

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Kelo Constitutional Amendment Still Needed To Close “Blight” Loophole and Fully Protect Property Owners

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rejects Kelo
Constitutional Amendment Still Needed To Close “Blight” Loophole and Fully Protect Property Owners