Barry G, post: 402435, member: 12296 wrote: Miller and Starr, California Real Estate 2D, KB 167 M5: After the roads and streets have been accepted for dedication and formally accepted as a part of the public road system, the city or county assumes the affirmative duty of maintenance. 79 All of the property owners abutting the street have a right of ingress and egress across the dedicated streets, 80 and they have a right to expect that their access will be cared for. If the city of country fails to maintain and repair the streets after due noting, and the abutting property owner loses access to his property as a result, the private property owner is entitled to recover the damages that result from his loss of access. 81 Also, if it fails to properly maintain the dedicated property, the city or county will be liable for any injuries incurred as a proximate result of a defective condition. 82.
Acceptance of Subdivision Map (941 n6): Responsibility and liability for maintaining streets in subdivision in proper condition remained with defendant subdivider until such streets were accepted by county board of supervisors as county roads; nothing in statues imposes obligation on county to accept , improve, repair, maintain or exercise any control over streets showing on subdivision map until county, in its discretion, by action of its board of supervisors, determines to accept such streets as part of county road system. County of Kern v Edgemont Development Cor (1963, 5th Dist) 222 Cap App 2s 874, 35, Cal Rptr 629.
An example of the correct form of citation for Miller & Starr is:
7 Cal. Real Est. å¤ 20:1 (4th Ed.) although I add Miller & Starr to it: 7 Miller & Starr Cal. Real Est. å¤ 20:1 (4th Ed.)
That is Volume 7 of the 4th Edition, Chapter 20, Section 1.
Your case would be:
County of Kern v. Edgemont Development Corp., 222 Cal. App. 2d 874 (1963). Miller & Starr adds the appellate district to the citation which is a good idea.
Normally you would add parallel citations: County of Kern v. Edgemont Development Corp., 222 Cal. App. 2d 874 (1963), 35 Cal. Rptr. 629; 1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1742.
The case would be found in Volume 222 of the official California Appellate Reports, 2nd series, page 874 and Volume 35 of the California Reporter, Page 629 and the Lexis on-line citation is in the Year-serial number form. Westlaw will have an on-line citation too. The California Reporter is a private case reporter published by West Publishing Company. California was originally in the Pacific Reporter (which contains several western states in one set of books) but in the early 1960s the volume of cases being published was overwhelming the Pacific Reporter so they moved our cases into its own set. I guess the advantage of it was a Law Office could subscribe to one set of books which has both Appellate and Supreme Court published cases in it. The official reporter is split into two sets of books, the Appellate Reports (Cal. App.) and the Supreme Court reports (Cal.).
Tom Adams, post: 402418, member: 7285 wrote: @ Plumb Bill
Right of Way is an easement with the word "right" being the noun and the "of way" is the adjective. You pluralize the noun. It's like "Brothers in law" or "Attorneys general". That is the key to (some of) the above discussion as well. The City or County right of way is a right for public passage. It makes the value of the land virtually worthless to the underlying owner since it is a public right of way. The sale of this land would not be valued very high because there is a public roadway on top of it. But if the road were ever abandoned it would revert back to the adjacent owners. I don't know much about all the legal gobble-de-gook above though. I agree with Dave that the presumption is that the adjacent owners would be presumed to be the fee-title owners unless there were evidence otherwise (such as a deed granting fee-title to someone else)edit: I did notice the winky-smiley-face at the end of your post, but the term is one of my pet peeves, so I am responding anyway)
Agreed but that is what I was acknowledging. You can have multiple rights to one way (different instruments pertaining to one route (new easements, etc.), multiple routes dedicated/conveyed per one instrument (right of ways), and/or usually multiple instruments pertaining to multiple routes per project (rights of ways). You can't pluralize lone ranger, though.
It's tree separate words that usually convey a singular idea, but that doesn't negate the ability to modify the different parts of the phrase as needed.
Think of bucket of nail, buckets of nails, bucket of nails...
Edit: I may be thinking entirely incorrectly - this is just how I always perceived the grammar. Would love hard proof of correct legal usage.
BajaOR, post: 402388, member: 9139 wrote: You said "SHC 941a and 1806 cover dedications of property in housing tracts." Looking at those code sections, I'm missing your point because it appears the County is clearly permitted to enact an ordinance for maintenance. Re: 1806, how could** a county be held liable for failure to maintain if they enacted an ordinance for that very purpose? **1806 applies to Cities, not Counties.
CALIFORNIA STREETS & HIGHWAYS CODE
DIVISION 2 - COUNTY HIGHWAYS
CHAPTER 2. POWERS AND DUTIES OF BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS
941. (a) Boards of supervisors shall, by proper order, cause those highways which are necessary to public convenience to be established, recorded, constructed, and maintained in the manner provided in this division.941 and its sub-sections is followed by...
942. Such boards may enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the construction, improvement or maintenance of county highways, and for the protection, supervision, management, control, or use of such highways.
DIVISION 2.5. CITY STREETS
CHAPTER 1. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
1806. No public or private street or road shall become a city street or road until and unless the governing body, by resolution, has caused said street or road to be accepted into the city street system; nor shall any city be held liable for failure to maintain any road unless and until it has been accepted into the city street system by resolution of the governing body.[/QUOTE
Let me explain this a different way. You and I enter into a contract that I pay you everyday to mow my lawn once a month. I pay you $1 a day, 365 days a year. You mow the month the first month, then decide you want and additional $30 when you mow the lawn. You take me to court stating that I owe you $1 a day plus $30 when you mow the loan. You stop mowing the lawn, even though Im still paying you $1 to mow the lawn. When we go to court, who will win? The County signed the dedication of property to maintain this rights of way property, in exchange of receiving gas taxes in its transportation budget, paid for by taxpayer. This is an agreement between the County and the taxpayers, that when County parkway trees destroy public sidewalks, that the Municipality will repair it, in exchange for the tax dollars in generates for this maintenance. Court cases require the County to maintain their own parkway trees and sidewalks. County decides it wants to take your taxes, then when public sidewalks are out of repair, charge you again for this same repair. The State Law requires that if they want to raise taxes for this repair, they can go to the voters and ask for additional taxes for this repair. Since my County has a 50M reserve, they know it will be voted down. So they decide to raise taxes by Ordinance, which is illegal. There is no State law that allows an Ordinance, in a General law County to transfer this duty and liability in public property to property owners in housing tracts, after they sign the dedication of property. They cant charge me twice for the same maintenance.
James Fleming, post: 402437, member: 136 wrote: The truth is - in all 50 states, after dedication of public "rights-of-ways" by plat or map in a housing tract secret deeds are recorded transferring fee title to a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate.
[MEDIA=youtube]TPMS6tGOACo[/MEDIA]
What people dont understand is the difference between private and public property. When we buy a home, that is private property, we pay Home Owners Insurance to protect us on our property. We have private property rights. Public property (schools, libraries, streets, parks, government buildings, etc) are own by the collective. They are maintained by taxes that we pay a government to maintain. For example, We pay property taxes to schools so schools maintain this property. If the school is out of repair, they have money in the budget to maintain that school. They cant charge me individually for someone to mow the lawn, take out the trash, fix a light bulb, etc. That is why we pay taxes to the government, schools hire people to maintain the property. If the schools need more money, they go to the taxpayers to post a bond, at the ballot box. It cant create a law, force people to pay additional money to schools for mowing a lawn, fixing a light bulb, etc. This is what my County has done, creating an Ordinance to remove their own responsibility to maintain public property, keep charging taxpayers for this maintenance, then when out of repair, charge them again. Governments cant assign individuals to maintain public property. For example, if you live next to a park, charge you to pay for a maintenance crew. They have no State law that allows this to happen. What would be the purpose of government, its role is to maintain public property. We pay taxes for this purpose.
Dave Karoly, post: 402439, member: 94 wrote: An example of the correct form of citation for Miller & Starr is:
7 Cal. Real Est. å¤ 20:1 (4th Ed.) although I add Miller & Starr to it: 7 Miller & Starr Cal. Real Est. å¤ 20:1 (4th Ed.)
That is Volume 7 of the 4th Edition, Chapter 20, Section 1.Your case would be:
County of Kern v. Edgemont Development Corp., 222 Cal. App. 2d 874 (1963). Miller & Starr adds the appellate district to the citation which is a good idea.Normally you would add parallel citations: County of Kern v. Edgemont Development Corp., 222 Cal. App. 2d 874 (1963), 35 Cal. Rptr. 629; 1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 1742.
The case would be found in Volume 222 of the official California Appellate Reports, 2nd series, page 874 and Volume 35 of the California Reporter, Page 629 and the Lexis on-line citation is in the Year-serial number form. Westlaw will have an on-line citation too. The California Reporter is a private case reporter published by West Publishing Company. California was originally in the Pacific Reporter (which contains several western states in one set of books) but in the early 1960s the volume of cases being published was overwhelming the Pacific Reporter so they moved our cases into its own set. I guess the advantage of it was a Law Office could subscribe to one set of books which has both Appellate and Supreme Court published cases in it. The official reporter is split into two sets of books, the Appellate Reports (Cal. App.) and the Supreme Court reports (Cal.).
Hello Dave. This is my case. This General law county signed the Dedication in 1961, making it responsible to maintain the public rights of ways in a housing tract. Once they do this, they assume the affirmative duty to maintain this property. That is the State law. The Counties own Ordinance state that they own the parkway trees on the parkway. I can not own something the County states in an Ordinance that the government owns. Therefore, when government parkway trees roots, own by the government, destroy public sidewalks, its the governments job (by law) to repair it, with tax dollars they receive from the public. This is not my parkway tree, per the Counties own Ordinance. It cant individually make me responsible for a government parkway tree our of repair. Jones vs Deeter 1984 clearly states this. No state law allows a General Law County to transfer this duty to the adjacent property owners, after signing this dedication, collecting taxes dollars earmarked for this repair, in their transportation budget. County Counsels position in last years meeting "If you want answers to your questions, look them up yourself".
Barry G, post: 402448, member: 12296 wrote: Hello Dave. This is my case. This General law county signed the Dedication in 1961, making it responsible to maintain the public rights of ways in a housing tract. Once they do this, they assume the affirmative duty to maintain this property. That is the State law. The Counties own Ordinance state that they own the parkway trees on the parkway. I can not own something the County states in an Ordinance that the government owns. Therefore, when government parkway trees roots, own by the government, destroy public sidewalks, its the governments job (by law) to repair it, with tax dollars they receive from the public. This is not my parkway tree, per the Counties own Ordinance. It cant individually make me responsible for a government parkway tree our of repair. Jones vs Deeter 1984 clearly states this. No state law allows a General Law County to transfer this duty to the adjacent property owners, after signing this dedication, collecting taxes dollars earmarked for this repair, in their transportation budget. County Counsels position in last years meeting "If you want answers to your questions, look them up yourself".
On general principle, I agree with you but local governments throughout California require property owners to fix the sidewalks. The law may seem straightforward and black and white at times but the Courts often look at things differently and more broadly than we are used to. It would be great if you could win this, believe me. In a former life I was a local City Construction Inspector. The job I really disliked was inspecting homeowner do-it-yourself sidewalk repairs; they usually couldn't meet the City's improvement requirements like compaction of aggregate base. It just seems like an odd anachronism that everything else is maintained by the public except the public sidewalks. But good luck persuading the Courts especially as a lay person.
The issue came up at my former job. It involved a sidewalk collapsing inwards in the Town of Mendocino. The reason is a retaining wall at the back of the sidewalk is buckling outwards in roughly the middle of the vertical face. There is a long horizontal crack. The County's position was the sidewalk was attached to a former (now demolished) building and is an encroachment into the right-of-way, not the County's responsibility. The State Park's position was we have no money. The County said use your park bond. The Park said, nope can't use it for that. The County Surveyor/Public Works Director said he had historic photos showing the concrete sidewalk attached to the front of the former building. That's when I really read the statute sections and the insight I had was that the genesis of the section was walks attached to buildings, not sidewalks that were built as part of the required street improvements. The County was willing to remove the offending improvements but the local historic district said, no, there has to be a sidewalk there. The last time I dropped by there the fix was a cap of concrete over the old walk, okay, fine but eventally that wall is going to collapse, hopefully no one is on the walk when that happens.
Dave Karoly, post: 402449, member: 94 wrote: On general principle, I agree with you but local governments throughout California require property owners to fix the sidewalks. The law may seem straightforward and black and white at times but the Courts often look at things differently and more broadly than we are used to. It would be great if you could win this, believe me. In a former life I was a local City Construction Inspector. The job I really disliked was inspecting homeowner do-it-yourself sidewalk repairs; they usually couldn't meet the City's improvement requirements like compaction of aggregate base. It just seems like an odd anachronism that everything else is maintained by the public except the public sidewalks. But good luck persuading the Courts especially as a lay person.
Hello Dave. This case is quite interesting, here in California. In my General law County, cities in this County all pay for sidewalk repair and parkway tree removal. The County is refusing to pay for this repair. I have asked County Counsel why would cities maintain this public property with tax dollars and the County can refuse to perform this function in all unincorporated areas. I have asked the Cities the same question. The Cites follow the State Constitution, believe its the Cities job to maintain public property with tax dollars. The County believes it can remove it own duties and transfer them to property owners in housing tracts in the unincorporated areas of the County. They ignore their dedication of property, their contract with the public to maintain this property. No State law allows this to happen, in a General law County. If this were the case, then all government agencies and reassign all their duties to individual property owners, refuse to maintain all public property. Then what would be the purpose of government?
I haven't read this thread in detail. What I have read however leads me to believe Mr. Barry G is only looking for the answer he wants. He instead should look for the correct answer.
CA Streets and Highways Code Section 5610 is written for all owners of land adjacent to public streets. Not just business owners, or towns as BG is indicating.
The Improvement Act of 1911 was amended during the great depression to provide for the maintenance and repair of sidewalks. Then Governor Merriam was clear in his inaugural address that the government alone could not indefinitely assume the responsibility for meeting all the demands, in particular those not absolutely essential to the public service. Assemblyperson Lyons presented AB 1194 just over two weeks after the Governor's address.
Please read SHC 5610 closely again. Note in particular that it states "The OWNERS..." Not just the business owners or those owners in towns or anything less than ALL owners.
There are a number of cities in California who have accepted the responsibility of maintaining sidewalks. That does not change the obligation of owners in the many municipalities who do not. It also does not absolve the liabilities of land owners even in those that do. SHC 5610 et seq is clear and unambiguous on this.
However after reading some of Barry G's posts. I'm unconvinced that any sound argument will sway him from his direction of travel. I do suggest that prior to filing any court case, that he might research case law a bit further on the subject. I strongly suggest starting with an open mind in reading this:
FLORENCE SCHAEFER, Appellant, v. J. W. LENAHAN, Respondent 63 Cal. App. 2d 324; 146 P.2d 929; 1944
Barry,
Has your development become part of a Community Service Area? Counties, as political subdivisions of the State, can form special districts to collect assessments for localized services. Often, this is how general fund and county-wide collections are not disbursed for such things as landscaping, sidewalks, street lighting, and other such infrastructure that benefit a specific area.
These actions are initiated and consummated through public hearings. The analysis and discussion will be on the record.
Warren Smith, post: 402463, member: 9900 wrote: Barry,
Has your development become part of a Community Service Area? Counties, as political subdivisions of the State, can form special districts to collect assessments for localized services. Often, this is how general fund and county-wide collections are not disbursed for such things as landscaping, sidewalks, street lighting, and other such infrastructure that benefit a specific area.
These actions are initiated and consummated through public hearings. The analysis and discussion will be on the record.
You should have a contest where people submit pithy sayings then you pick the best one 🙂 I'm just saying.
My neighborhood in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County doesn't have sidewalks, landscaping, or street lighting. Apparently it wasn't required in 1955 but slightly newer areas nearby do have sidewalks.
a bit off topic... what gets me is that in our area, we have streets and blocks with no sidewalks built. But when someone applies for a permit to do an addition to their house or build a secondary unit or build a new house, the City requires them to build a sidewalk in front of their house. But none of the rest of the street has any walks except maybe one or two who've applied for a permit. So, you end up with a big long street w/ a couple sidewalk sections connected to nowhere, it is totally stupid. It will take 100 +/- years for each one of the owners to go for a permit and create a continuous sidewalk to be built up and down the street. If the City really wants sidewalks they should pay for them themselves or levy a tax to cover it rather than have these useless sections of walk.
clearcut, post: 402461, member: 297 wrote: I strongly suggest starting with an open mind in reading this:
FLORENCE SCHAEFER, Appellant, v. J. W. LENAHAN, Respondent 63 Cal. App. 2d 324; 146 P.2d 929; 1944
Thanks for that case, which included a new word for me: ratiocination.
clearcut, post: 402461, member: 297 wrote: I haven't read this thread in detail. What I have read however leads me to believe Mr. Barry G is only looking for the answer he wants. He instead should look for the correct answer.
CA Streets and Highways Code Section 5610 is written for all owners of land adjacent to public streets. Not just business owners, or towns as BG is indicating.
The Improvement Act of 1911 was amended during the great depression to provide for the maintenance and repair of sidewalks. Then Governor Merriam was clear in his inaugural address that the government alone could not indefinitely assume the responsibility for meeting all the demands, in particular those not absolutely essential to the public service. Assemblyperson Lyons presented AB 1194 just over two weeks after the Governor's address.Please read SHC 5610 closely again. Note in particular that it states "The OWNERS..." Not just the business owners or those owners in towns or anything less than ALL owners.
There are a number of cities in California who have accepted the responsibility of maintaining sidewalks. That does not change the obligation of owners in the many municipalities who do not. It also does not absolve the liabilities of land owners even in those that do. SHC 5610 et seq is clear and unambiguous on this.
However after reading some of Barry G's posts. I'm unconvinced that any sound argument will sway him from his direction of travel. I do suggest that prior to filing any court case, that he might research case law a bit further on the subject. I strongly suggest starting with an open mind in reading this:
FLORENCE SCHAEFER, Appellant, v. J. W. LENAHAN, Respondent 63 Cal. App. 2d 324; 146 P.2d 929; 1944
Please Read Schaefer v Lenahan, starting back in 1937. This is a good discussion, thank you. This took place in the City of San Francisco, a Charter City, not a General Law City or County, nor is it in a housing tract in California. You can apply the 1911 Improvement Act, SHC 5600-5630 to a City, not in a housing tract, not created in California till 1945, per the DOT. The intent of the 1911 Improvement Act was get the City business owner to pay for maintenance of the city sidewalk, since taxes were not collected for this purpose. There were no housing tracts in 1911, nor in 1937. There is no dedication signed by City Representatives to maintain the city, like we have in housing tracts, starting in the later 1940's. In 1937, like in 1911, the Municipalities did not collect gas taxes to maintain this property, they posted a bond for this maintenance. Looks go forwards, to a current time. Municipalities collect gas taxes in California starting back in the 1950's, to pay for public residential sidewalks and parkway trees in housing tracts, earmarked in Sacramento transportation budgets to Counties in California. Look at more current cases like Jones vs Deeter, 1984. The adjacent property owner is not responsible to maintain the public parkway tree roots that cause the pedestrian to get injured. It is the responsibility of Long Beach, a charter city in a housing tract. The parkway trees are the responsibility of the City, not the adjacent property owner, See SHC 22060. The adjacent property owner is not liable, cant pass liability since adjacent property owners own on duty to a pedestrian. Find one lawsuit where a pedestrian hurt themselves over a public residential sidewalk in a housing tract, sue the adjacent property owner, and won. None exists. Please explain why? In my General Law County, the parkway trees are owned by the government, by Ordinance. The Controller sent me budgets, where sidewalks and parkway trees are paid for in the transportation budget. Once the Dedication of property is signed by the Municipality, they assume the duty to maintain the public rights of way, in a housing tract. This is apples and oranges. Please look at current Law Case in California Willits vs City of Los Angeles 2010. The courts rules that the Charter City of LA is responsible, 1.4B in transportation funds to maintain the public's rights of ways in housing tracts and the city, to include parkway tree removal and public sidewalk repair. This again is a Charter City, not a General law County. Why did a Judge rule for the residence of Los Angeles, not the Charter City of LA, if Schaefer v Lenahan is precedent? If you go through timed events in time , you see why.
Warren Smith, post: 402463, member: 9900 wrote: Barry,
Has your development become part of a Community Service Area? Counties, as political subdivisions of the State, can form special districts to collect assessments for localized services. Often, this is how general fund and county-wide collections are not disbursed for such things as landscaping, sidewalks, street lighting, and other such infrastructure that benefit a specific area.
These actions are initiated and consummated through public hearings. The analysis and discussion will be on the record.
Where would I find this information? County Counsel, under a PRA 6250 request charges me money for any document they send. Many documents they refuse to send me, claim Privilege, with no justification, My guess, we dont have a Community Service Area starting back in 1961. From 1961, this Municipality paid for out of transportation funds for public sidewalks maintenance and parkway tree removal, for 25 years, then stopped in the late 1980's. They still cut the tree limbs in our housing tract, for the remaining parkway trees. Street lighting goes through our electric company.
I'm sure the opposing attorneys will have this discussion indexed and filed in their database.
Dave Karoly, post: 402466, member: 94 wrote: You should have a contest where people submit pithy sayings then you pick the best one 🙂 I'm just saying.
My neighborhood in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County doesn't have sidewalks, landscaping, or street lighting. Apparently it wasn't required in 1955 but slightly newer areas nearby do have sidewalks.
Good suggestion. People in my community are quite angry that we are charged to County approved maintenance, where tax dollars are earmarked. So the developer did not put on sidewalks, landscaping or street lighting? Do they maintain the public streets, repaving, etc? Get a copy of the dedication from the developer to the County, quite interesting. It will show the streets dedicated to the County, for maintenance. Do they charge you directly to repaved your streets every 20-25 years? They legally cant, since they approved the dedication to maintain the streets, with you gas tax dollars.
roger_LS, post: 402469, member: 11550 wrote: a bit off topic... what gets me is that in our area, we have streets and blocks with no sidewalks built. But when someone applies for a permit to do an addition to their house or build a secondary unit or build a new house, the City requires them to build a sidewalk in front of their house. But none of the rest of the street has any walks except maybe one or two who've applied for a permit. So, you end up with a big long street w/ a couple sidewalk sections connected to nowhere, it is totally stupid. It will take 100 +/- years for each one of the owners to go for a permit and create a continuous sidewalk to be built up and down the street. If the City really wants sidewalks they should pay for them themselves or levy a tax to cover it rather than have these useless sections of walk.
I believe that the city decides if they want to pay for sidewalk repair in their transportation budget, they receive from the State, from gas taxes or other taxes. Where I live, all the housing tracts were build by the developer adjacent to a property owners home, dedicated to the County for maintenance, as a part of the streets public rights of way. You will need to get an experts opinion on this matter, I can only assume.
Barry G, post: 402477, member: 12296 wrote: Where would I find this information? County Counsel, under a PRA 6250 request charges me money for any document they send. Many documents they refuse to send me, claim Privilege, with no justification, My guess, we dont have a Community Service Area starting back in 1961. From 1961, this Municipality paid for out of transportation funds for public sidewalks maintenance and parkway tree removal, for 25 years, then stopped in the late 1980's. They still cut the tree limbs in our housing tract, for the remaining parkway trees. Street lighting goes through our electric company.
I see that Ventura County has archived Board minutes back to 2003 online. You can search for a topic relating to your subject matter for an ordinance during the last 13 years. Otherwise, it would be a visit to the Clerk of the Board's office for older minutes.
imaudigger, post: 402479, member: 7286 wrote: I'm sure the opposing attorneys will have this discussion indexed and filed in their database.
I had a meeting with County Counsel last year, called by the Department of Public Works Director, after a Board meeting I presented at. He had the Department of Transportation and the County Counsel meet with me in the Government Administration building, the following week. Public Works told me that I could ask questions and gain answers from both Director of Transportation and County Counsel. So I brought my neighbor and my son to this meeting. Dept of Transportation and County Counsel made speeches for 30 minutes, then finished. I started asking my questions that I sent them years ago, waiting for answers to each question, as the Public Work Director stated that this was the purpose of this meeting. I made copies of my questions, handed them out a the beginning of the meeting. Its the same questions I requested answers years ago. After asking several questions on this list, County Counsel stopped me, and stated "If you want answers to your questions, look them up yourself". Then he walked out the meeting. He would not answer one question, nor would Dept of Transportation. I contacted the Public Works Director. He has yet to return any of my calls, 1 1/2 years later. I went to the Board of Supervisors Meeting twice, presented my questions, requested the Board to gain answers to many questions, the same questions I sent them and 5 other agencies in the County. Till today, no response from anyone. The Board was ordered to stay silent by County Counsel, if this goes to court. I have a friend at the County, who told me what the County Counsel had ordered to Board to do, just ignore me.
Warren Smith, post: 402482, member: 9900 wrote: I see that Ventura County has archived Board minutes back to 2003 online. You can search for a topic relating to your subject matter for an ordinance during the last 13 years. Otherwise, it would be a visit to the Clerk of the Board's office for older minutes.
All of my requests that go to the Clerk, go directly to County Counsel. They send a letter back wanting money for any information, then state its all priviledged information, with no explanation.