Tuesday, November 30, 2010

SBCERS Pension Beneficiary's should be public records to prevent abuse! a 50 year old Goleta Water Manager is drawing A Pension, how is that?

I already have the main contradictions in regards to the SBCERS Pension. I will expose false present values using past reports, I am just waiting for the opportune time to expose there corruption! As for foreclosures in Santa Barbara:

http://sbcassessor.com/ClerkRecorder/Browse.aspx
I searched             Notice of Defaults                           Notice of Trustee Sales and                   Trustee Transfers.
                   2716 Records Avg 208 a month            2587 Records  Avg.199 a month           1387  Records  Avg 107 a month
Wow but why do we have anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 Real Estate documents filed in this County a year. That averages out to more than 1 document per parcel that is awful high.
The above data covers 11/01/09 through today! I am just wondering where all these property's are posted at? I do not see them in the local news press do you?


 Why does Santa Barbara Media fail to uncover anything in regards to the SBCERS pension fund and similar abuse's other CA. County's are trying to expose?
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:17:53 -0700

Below is some local pension data I find disturbing.
PERS Safety, 3% @ 50; the City contributes 100%. The City does not participate in Social Security. Now below Michael Alvarado is drawing a retirement from the Goleta Water department. Since he and I are close in age how is a water manager drawing a pension at 50 years of age? Is the water company now considered a safety position equal to the extended benefits of Law Enforcement? It is another clear abuse of our pension system that cost us Law Enforcement protection? I am just asking as a concerned citizen can we say Bell Ca.

http://www.californiapensionreform.com/database.asp?vttable=calpers

Name Monthly Annual Employer
ALVARADO, MICHAEL $8,583.13 $102,997.56 GOLETA WTR DIST
WALSH, KEVIN $10,956.40 $131,476.80 GOLETA WTR DIST
KENT, JOAN                   $15,995.00 $191,940.00 SANTA BARBARA




Joan Kent retired as Assistant City Administrator and some how she receives almost 100% of her top salary for a position she only held 9 years.
http://agency.governmentjobs.com/santabarbara/default.cfm?action=viewclassspec&ClassSpecID=71962
Powered
 by NEOGOV
Class Title: Assistant City Administrator
Class Code: 01029
Salary: $76.08 - $92.48 Hourly
$6,086.37 - $7,398.03 Biweekly
$13,187.14 - $16,029.07 Monthly
$158,245.68 - $192,348.84 Annually
Do our Santa Barbara Police force receive these kinds of benefits 1600 to spend on benefits and 539..00 car allowance a MONTH?
Benefits

THE ANNUAL SALARY is within an established range, based on qualifications and experience. INCREASES, through the top of the salary range, are tied to job performance. Employees receive annual performance reviews.
THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS may vary:


Note: Part-time employees receive pro-rated benefits, e.g., 50%, 60%, etc.
  • The City is a member of the Coastal Housing Partnership, which offers home loan assistance and rental reductions.



  • 9/80: Standard Citywide 9/80 work schedule with closures on alternate Fridays.



  • Flexwork/Telecommuting is available.



  • Vacation is accrued at 160 hours / year, increasing with City service.



  • Management Leave (40 hours) is provided each July 1st (pro-rated the first year).



  • Personal Leave (32 hours) is provided each July 1st (pro-rated the first year).



  • Sick leave is accrued at the rate of 96 hours / year. Also, after 5 years accrue 16 hours / year up to 240 hours max in non-replenishable bank.



  • Holidays: 10 holidays (80 hours) are observed / year.



  • Car allowance is provided at $539 / month.



  • Retirement: PERS Miscellaneous, 2.7% @ 55; City employees contribute 6.673% of salary (pre-tax) towards their retirement. PERS Safety, 3% @ 50; the City contributes 100%. The City does not participate in Social Security.



  • Insurance including medical, dental and vision benefits is available under a group plan. Cafeteria 125 Plan: The City will contribute $1,602 / month. The employee distributes this money toward the various cafeteria plan options.



  • Life Insurance: City-paid term life insurance (1 x annual salary) is provided.



  • Employee Assistance Program: A City-paid EAP is available for employees and members of their household.



  • Long-term Disability Insurance is provided.



  • Short-term Disability Insurance is available.



  • Deferred Compensation Savings Plans (457) are available to employees through a deferred compensation program.



  • Uniform allowance will be provided by the City to those employees required to wear a uniform.



  • Police Chief eligible for Advanced POST pay $656/month.



  • Employee must pay an amount equal to 1.45% of salary toward Medicare. An equal amount is paid by the City.





  • Thursday, October 28, 2010


    Sonoma County SCERA pension. Should our Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors release SBCERS Pension Fund Records? We have the right to review the names and pension payments to prevent further pension fund abuse!

    Why has our Santa Barbara or all County and State media not taken a similar course of action. With regards to investigating the SBCERS Pension and other State and County funds for possible additional corruption?

    Press Democrat sues for release of pension records


    By BRETT WILKISON
    THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
    The Press Democrat has sued the Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association in an effort to to force the disclosure of public pension records.
    The move follows numerous public records requests by the newspaper seeking the names and pension payments made to Sonoma County government retirees.
    SCERA officials have denied those requests, saying a state law governing county-run pension systems, including Sonoma County’s, requires that such information not be disclosed.
    But the California Supreme Court and state Attorney General have in the past overruled similar claims about the confidentiality of government salaries, concluding that the public has the right to such information, attorneys for The Press Democrat wrote in a lawsuit filed Friday.
    Judges in four California counties also have concluded recently that such pension information should be made public.
    “Nevertheless, SCERA insists on keeping the public in the dark about the identities of retired Sonoma County employees who collect large pensions funded by taxpayers,” the lawsuit states.
    Catherine Barnett, executive editor of The Press Democrat, said Friday the information sought serves an important public objective.
    “There is only one way to make informed choices as politicians grapple with the growing discontent over the disparity between public and private pensions. And that is to know the dollars and cents of these pension amounts,” she said.
    SCERA officials said Friday that they needed more time to review the lawsuit before offering any detailed comments.
    “The Board has carefully reviewed the previous requests by The Press Democrat and believes there are serious legal issues regarding the release of confidential information about retirees,” said Jerry Allen, chairman of SCERA’s board of trustees.
    Taxpayer anger over the skyrocketing cost of public pensions has fueled the standoff between media organizations and pension overhaul advocates on one side and public pension systems on the other over the release of records.
    In the wake of the recent court decisions, four county-run pension systems in the state, including Marin County, have voluntarily disclosed their records.
    Holdouts include Sacramento County, where pension officials have appealed a court ruling that would have forced them to turn over records. SCERA joined in that appeal in August after declining another of The Press Democrat’s public records requests.
    A group of former county workers who receive benefits from SCERA, the Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees, has not taken an official position on whether pension records should be made public.
    Carol Bauer, the group’s president, said she suspected many of the members would prefer not to have their names and pension payments published.
    “We think that SCERA has some right to anonymity,” she said.
    SCERA oversees retirement benefits for nearly 8,000 current and former local government employees, most of them connected with the county.

    http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2010/10/county/press-democrat-sues-for-release-of-pension-records/



    County pension board refuses to release names

    Posted by Ted Appel in County on August 19th, 2010 tags: , , ,
    By BRETT WILKISON
    THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
    Sonoma County pension officials will continue to withhold the names and pension amounts of its top-earning retirees pending the appeal of a recent court decision that ordered such information be made public.
    The board of the county’s retirement association also decided Thursday to join in support of Sacramento County’s retirement system, which last week filed the appeal in the court case.
    The moves follow a recent request by The Press Democrat that the Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association, or SCERA, release the pension information.
    In their regular meeting Thursday, board members gave direction to Gary Bei, the association’s administrator, to reject that request, at least until the courts clarify legal questions surrounding the issue.
    A law governing 20 county-run pension systems in California, including Sonoma County’s, requires that the names and pension amounts of retirees not be disclosed, SCERA officials say.
    But judges in four California counties, including the recent Sacramento case, have concluded that the pension information should be made public.
    “The advice that we’ve gotten from counsel is that none of the court rulings that have come out have decided this,” said Gerald Allen, the board chair, explaining SCERA’s stance. “As of this moment, our policy appears to be legally the right one.”
    SCERA has rebuffed previous public information requests from pension overhaul advocates and The Press Democrat that sought names and figures on the system’s top-earning retirees.
    In 2009, there were 55 retirees receiving more than $100,000 annually in retirement benefits, according to SCERA records. Those retirees represent about 1.6 percent of the association’s roughly 3,500 retired workers. For new retirees, the average pension is $40,000 a year, while for all retirees it is about $25,000 a year.
    The association has attempted to make other financial and investment information easily accessible to the public in annual and quarterly reports, newsletters and on its website, said Bei, SCERA’s administrator.
    “We operate the retirement system in a very transparent manner,” he said during the meeting Thursday.
    But board members, in voting to join Sacramento County’s pension system in its effort to overturn the court decision, also conceded that they’re hoping for a different definition from the courts for what constitutes “transparent.”
    “It would be cheaper to write the letter (in support of Sacramento County) than to go through our own lawsuit – if it gives us the results we want,” said board member Sharon Stockham.

     http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2010/08/county/county-pension-board-refuses-to-release-names/


    From: sbcgj@sbcgj.org
    To: sb_magic@hotmail.com
    Subject: RE: Finally a understandable email showing my research and concerns with the abuse of the SBCERS Pension and alleged value
    Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:52:53 -0700
    Mr. Mendoza,
    The Grand Jury has received your complaint dated September 24, 2010. The Grand Jury’s review of this matter does not mean that it will necessarily conduct a full investigation of your complaint.
    You may not receive any further communication from the Grand Jury. By law, the Grand Jury cannot communicate the results of investigations to you personally. Reports are available to the general public when published, generally at the conclusion of the Grand Jury’s term in June.
    Your complaint will be kept on file, and your identity will remain confidential, as well as any information you may have supplied.
    Sincerely, Rich, Corresponding Secretary








    I wonder how much pension is drawn by persons who have taken advantage of the  County's early retirement offers these last 3 years? Lets start with Dan Perlin and go from there.

    Afternoon Edition: Average loan in foreclosure hits 492 days, What the banks don't want you to know about how foreclosure's are REALLY being handled.

    Afternoon Edition: Average loan in foreclosure hits 492 days, What the banks don't want you to know about how foreclosure's are really being handled. Because our Government has made this Mortgage crisis so easy for the Lending Institutions is this actually causing the delay in our economy's come back?
    This news letter is an excellent source for those interested in Real Estate an Pension Fund news!


    Subject: Afternoon Edition: Average loan in foreclosure hits 492 days


    HousingWire Morning Edition
    November 29th, 2010
    Afternoon Edition Banner
    Paul Jackson
    Paul Jackson
    The average age of a loan in foreclosure hit 492 days in October, and appears as if it will only loom ever-longer in the months ahead. But it’s how we got here that is the real untold story: One that is as much about an overwhelmed loan servicing function as...




    Latest News
    After a yearlong fight with her mortgage company's call center, Clare Sheaffer feels like a poster child for the country's foreclosure crisis. The former St. Cloud City Council member's center saga began last year when she was laid off from her job as program manager for a...

    Fraud risk control is commonly recognized as an effective way to avoid loan buybacks. Avivah Litan, vice president and analyst at Gartner research firm, says lenders who want to remain competitive in fraud management are also aware that they “cannot continue doing business as usual.” Instead of obsolete...

    In New York City real estate, there are few titles more thankless than guarantor. People who do not make enough to afford their paycheck-devouring rents must find a well-paid relative, a benevolent family friend or perhaps a kidnapped and hypnotized multimillionaire to supply personal...

    JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. are among U.S. banks that may face $54 billion to $106 billion in costs as more investors demand that issuers of mortgage-backed securities repurchase faulty loans, according to Paul Miller of FBR Capital Markets. Miller estimated in September...
    It’s not every day someone forgives a million-dollar mortgage. But that’s apparently the latest twist on the sale of the old Bedford Street police station that’s confounded officials for more than three years. A “satisfaction of mortgage” was signed by Pete Benevides of the Florida company Infinity Mortgage...

    The foreclosure crisis still divides us into two camps. There are those who believe that foreclosing rapidly on homes subject to defaulted mortgages is vital to clearing the market. Others believe we should do everything we can to keep people in their homes, urging loan modifications...

    In April, the Obama administration formally rolled out a new program, called Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives, that was designed to spur more short sales, where banks allow homeowners to sell their homes for less than the mortgage debt outstanding. Like other foreclosure-prevention initiatives, this one appears to be...

    When Caitlyn Corso’s salary as a veterinary technician was cut last year, she couldn’t keep up with her mortgage payment. She fell into a pattern of making her $1,200 payment 30 days late. She asked for a loan modification from her mortgage servicer, Chase Home...


    RSS
    Twitter
    Events
    December 4 - 6, 2010
    January 12 - 14, 2011
    January 28 - 30, 2011
    February 6 - 9, 2011
    Magazine
    HousingWire Cover
    Current Issue
    HousingWire Update
    Publisher: Paul Jackson
    Executive Editor: Kerry Curry 469-893-1516
    Editor: Jacob Gaffney 469-893-1494
    Reporter: Jason Philyaw 469-893-1513
    Reporter: Christine Ricciardi 469-893-1514
    Reporter: Jon Prior 469-893-1505
    The HousingWire Daily Update is a daily electronic publication offered for free to qualified industry professionals who have opted in to receive our newsletter. Thanks for being on the cutting edge!
    If this email has been forwarded to you, please visit HousingWire to subscribe.
    The LTV Group LLC 2701 Dallas Parkway Suite 200 Plano, Texas 75093
    Phone: 469-893-1480
    Any reprints or other use of these articles in whole or in substantial part, in any medium, requires advance written permission from The LTV Group. For reprint information on stories in the HousingWire Daily Update, please contact Christina Vick at 469-893-1493.
    The links and stories provided in "Around the Web" are to the publisher, publication, or article. Some links may require registration or subscription. The LTV Group is not affiliated with the referenced publications.
    Unsubscribe from the HousingWire Update. We'd be sorry to see you go.
    Copyright 2010 The LTV Group LLC. All rights reserved.



    Thursday, November 25, 2010

    Property Tax history and billing for 1430 S. E. Street Santa Maria 93454. Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado declares this property on his Form 700

    Is there corruption from our Santa Barbara County Assessor and Tax Collectors office?

    Somebody should ask our Lt. Governor Able Maldonado to pay his fair share of taxes. Some one should check with the Santa Barbara County Tax Assessor and ask him why Parcel numbers do not match address's? I hope that Lt Governor Able Maldonado's property Taxes are brought current! This property shows a net assessed value of over 10,000,000 dollars and has not been billed for property taxes since 12/06

    http://sbcassessor.com/Assessor
    Property Information Parcel Number: 117-820-040 Address: 1430 S E ST SANTA MARIA, CA 93454 Transfer Date: 09/30/2005 TRA: 003048 Document #: Transfer Tax Amount: $2,200.00
    Property Characteristics Use Description: Packing Plants Jurisdiction: City of Santa Maria Acreage: 12.24
    2010 Assessed Values Land & Mineral Rights: $2,284,232 Improvements: $7,982,703 Personal Property: $606,320 Home Owner Exemption: ( $0) Other Exemption: ( $0) Net Assessed Value: $10,873,255

    Santa Barbara County Property Tax System
    Bernice James, Treasurer-Tax Collector
    Santa Barbara (805)568-2920 | Santa Maria (805)346-8330


    Search: By: Parcel Number:

    of 1 Pages | Results per page
    Property List:

    Property Number Property Type Supplemental Estimator Current Property Address Property Notes Total Due
    117-820-34 Secured Run 1430 S E ST SANTA MARIA CA 93454 None $0.00
    of 1 Pages | Results per page
    Bill Installment List:
    Select the Pay button below to add installment to your shopping cart.
    Installment Number Year Bill Type Install Property Address Delinquent Paid Due
    117-820-34-00-9-1 2006 Secured
    Menu Expand Menu
    View Installment
    Print Installment
    Scroll up
    Scroll down
    1430 S E ST SANTA MARIA CA 93454 12/10/2006 $10,106.17
    11/06/2006 $0.00 Paid
    117-820-34-00-9-2 2006 Secured
    Menu Expand Menu
    View Installment
    Print Installment
    Scroll up
    Scroll down
    1430 S E ST SANTA MARIA CA 93454 04/10/2007 $10,106.17
    04/02/2007 $0.00 Paid

    Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector Public Administrator Public Guardian

    Election Fraud by Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Carol Overton! Does this prove that a lack of ethics has over run our California Judicial System?

       Prior to this week nobody thought Life in Prison was possible for the actions of politicians, Well that all just changed and more change is on the horizon if we continue to work as hard as we have!
    "AUSTIN, Texas – Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay — once one of the most powerful and feared Republicans in Congress — was convicted Wednesday on charges he illegally funneled corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.
    Jurors deliberated for 19 hours before returning guilty verdicts against DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He faces up to life in prison on the money laundering charge."


      After much research I have proven that Santa Barbara Barbara Superior Court Judge Arthur Garcia has committed election fraud and should not be allowed to keep the Judicial bench seat he currently occupies. Tonight I spent 20 minutes to try an provide you that there are other Superior Court Judges who have also committed the same kind of election fraud. On July 12 2005 there where two new appointees to the Santa Clara Superior Court and they were Franklin E. Bondonno and Carol W. Overton. Mr Bondonno ran for reelection in June of 2006 and Carol Overton did not decide to run for re-election until June of 2008. Can you please tell me what law applied to Mr. Bondonno obligating him to seek election in June of 2006. An why wouldn't that law apply to the other appointee Overton until June 2008?

    I can do this in any county and intend on proving it! Fraud and corrupt actions in our County offices are a reality we must all come to accept.







    Larry Mendoza








    07/12/2005   GAAS:300:05   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   Print Version | ShareThis

    Governor Schwarzenegger Appoints Two to Santa Clara County Superior Court


    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment of Franklin E. Bondonno and Carol W. Overton to judgeship's in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Both newly appointed Superior Court Judges can seek a six year term in the June 2006 elections.


    http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/scl/judicial.html        June 6, 2006 Election



    Judicial Contests
    for Santa Clara County, CA






    Judicial Judge - Superior Court; County of Santa Clara; Office 8Click here for more
 info on this contest including known links to other sites
    Judge - Superior Court; County of Santa Clara; Office 13Click here for more
 info on this contest including known links to other sites

    Cancelled Contests not on the Ballot
    The following elected offices are not on the ballot because an insufficient number of candidates applied. All candidates that file win since they are uncontested. Judge - Superior Court; County of Santa Clara; Office 4 (1 Elected)


    Carol W. Overton did not seek reelection  in the 2006 election and is not well thought of in Santa Clara County! However Franklin Bondonno did appear in the June 2006 election. Why do two persons appointed to the Santa Clara Superior Court bench at the same time not seek re-election the same year? Carol W. Overton did however seek reelection in the 2008 election below!

    http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/scl/judicial.html     June, 3 2008 ELECTION
    Judicial Contests
    for Santa Clara County, CA


    Judicial Judge - Superior Court; County of Santa Clara; Office 8Click here for more
 info on this contest including known links to other sites
    Runoff Election 11/4/2008

    Cancelled Contests not on the Ballot
    The following elected offices are not on the ballot because an insufficient number of candidates applied. All candidates that file win since they are uncontested.


    Judge - Superior Court; County of Santa Clara; Office 30 (1 Elected)


    Lets look into San Fransisco County and how 2009 appointee  Richard Ulmer ran for reelection to maintain his seat on the bench.

    Did you all hear about the California 2009 Judicial appointee Richard Ulmer? Well he had to run for re-election to keep his seat this past June, or in other words he ran in the next general election.
    CAMPAIGN 2010 / Superior Court
    Politics up ante in Ulmer, Nava judicial race
    October 16, 2010|By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Superior Court elections are political afterthoughts, bottom-of-the-ticket entries that normally attract little public attention. But supporters of a San Francisco judge who faces a challenger Nov. 2 say there is much more at stake here than usual.
    Judge Richard Ulmer, appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2009, is running against Michael Nava, a state Supreme Court staff attorney, for a six-year term on the local bench June 2010.



    The following here will go back over legislation that applies to the election process of our California Superior Court as well as the actions of Judge Arthur Garcia.
    http://santabarbaracriminalcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-election-fraud-allowed-by-our.html


    Below is taken from my blog posting @ the address above.
    http://www.metnews.com/legcom/timing3.htm 


     A judicial seat is newly created If created in an election year, it will be on the ballot in two years; if created in a non-election year, it will be on the ballot the following year. 
    A newly created seat produces a vacancy which, under Art. VI, §16(c) "shall be filled by election to a full term at the next general election after the January 1 following the vacancy." Fields v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 322.
    A judge leaves office (dies, retires, resigns, is removed from office or is appointed to another post) in a non-election year. The election will be held the following year. 
    Under Art. VI, §16(c) of the state Constitution, "the vacancy shall be filled by election to a full term at the next general election after the January 1 following the vacancy, but the Governor shall appoint a person to fill a vacancy temporarily until the elected judge’s term begins." The person who is to "temporarily" fill the vacancy will, of course, nearly always become the elected judge owing to the advantage of incumbency in running for election.


    Judge Arthur Garcia was appointed to the bench on 08/27/03 So based on the criteria I have provided you I see that after. January 1 2004 being the an election year and the next available primary would have been March 2 2004. The primary's switch to there current June date in 2006.Yet Garcia does not run for reelection until June of 06. People how can that be? That would mean his appointment covered the remainder of 03, all of 04, all of 05 and all of 06. An he would seek re election in 06 for his first six year term to start 01/01/07 an that is just what he did!

    Not only is that election fraud but every Judge on our Superior Courts at the time in Santa Barbara endorse him!


    Santa Barbara County, CA

    June 6, 2006 Election
    Additional Endorsements for Arthur Alvarez Garcia

    Candidate for
    Superior Court Judge; County of Santa Barbara; Office 7



    If I am correct look at all the Superior Court Judges that play along as if Judge Garcia's uncommon challenged reelection is legal at the link below!
    http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/sba/vote/garcia_a/endorse.html

    1430 S. E. Street 93454 Lt. Governor why have you not been billed for Property taxes since December of 06?



    Santa Barbara County Property Tax System
    Bernice James, Treasurer-Tax Collector
       Santa Barbara (805)568-2920 | Santa Maria (805)346-8330









    Shopping Cart

    Supplemental Estimator

    Payment History

    Account Update

    Help


    of 1 Pages  |  Results per page
    Property List:
     
    Property NumberProperty TypeSupplemental EstimatorCurrent Property AddressProperty NotesTotal Due
    117-820-34 SecuredRun None$0.00
    of 1 Pages  |  Results per page
    Bill Installment List:
    Select the Pay button below to add installment to your shopping cart.
    Installment NumberYearBill TypeInstallProperty AddressDelinquentPaidDue
    117-820-34-00-9-1
    The Assessors web
    page identifies this
    address with parcel#
    117-820-040
    2006Secured
    MenuExpand Menu
    12/10/2006$10,106.17
    11/06/2006
    $0.00Paid
    117-820-34-00-9-2 2006Secured
    MenuExpand Menu
    04/10/2007$10,106.17
    04/02/2007
    $0.00Paid
    Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector Public Administrator Public Guardian



    PAID                                Due

    $10,106.17           $0.00
    11/06/2006
     $10,106.17
    04/02/2007         $0.00

     Is there corruption from our Santa Barbara County Assessor and Tax Collectors office?

    Somebody should ask our Lt. Governor Able Maldonado to pay his fair share of taxes. Some one should check with the Santa Barbara County Tax Assessor and ask him why Parcel numbers do not match address's? I hope that Lt Governor Able Maldonado's property Taxes are brought current! This property shows a net assessed value of over 10,000,000 dollars and has not been billed for property taxes since 12/06

    http://sbcassessor.com/Assessor
    Property Information Parcel Number: 117-820-040 Address: 1430 S E ST SANTA MARIA, CA 93454 Transfer Date: 09/30/2005 TRA: 003048 Document #: Transfer Tax Amount: $2,200.00
    Property Characteristics Use Description: Packing Plants Jurisdiction: City of Santa Maria Acreage: 12.24
    2010 Assessed Values Land & Mineral Rights: $2,284,232 Improvements: $7,982,703 Personal Property: $606,320 Home Owner Exemption: ( $0) Other Exemption: ( $0) Net Assessed Value: $10,873,255


    I have add this reply based on the comments I had to this posting.
    Anonymous said...I did research the form 700 and those are not the APN numbers which correspond to the E street address you were talking about originally.You are correct that those APN numbers are listed. However, that is way at the other end of the valley and have nothing to with E. Street. If you keep digging you will also see there was some lot line adjustments done at what you are saying is Dos Rios which resulted in new and combined APN #'s.
    Rest assured I would not have commented had I not been sure that E Street (which was your original big complaint) was not associated with Mr. Maldonado.
    November 26, 2010 9:21 AM

    Again I ask is there corruption from our Santa Barbara County Assessor and Tax Collectors office? Let me start this off with the fact I agree it should not be this hard to verify a property address to a parcel number to a property tax bill, but why is it?
    In your first comment you ask me why do the tax statements say zero due if they are delinquent. You are correct they say zero due from the 12/06 tax bill. The problem is why has the Santa Barbara County assessor and tax collector stopped billing for property taxes on that parcel?  Than you state "If you look further to find the owner of that property you will see the title is held by Driscoll Strawberry Growers. The last time I checked Mr. Maldonado was in NO way connected to this company."  Now I ask you; DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE MY DATA AND QUESTIONS ARE COMING FROM? MY DATA COMES FROM MR. MALDONADO HIMSELF BY WAY OF HIS FILING TO THE CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION LOCATED @ http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=550 Mr. Maldonado claims on his Form 700 to be involved with the corporation Agro-J Framing of which he sits with the title 'Controller" an states he makes over 100k from that position. He than list Tri M. Rental group as a partner. Since this information is filed on his Schedule A-2 we automatically know that means he has a 10% interest or greater. Now if you review my earlier posting I did also question why the different identifying parcels numbers for the same address. Go back to to the posting you you are originally commenting on. The Tax collector bill has a parcel listing of 117-820-34-00 an address of 1430 S.E. street 93454
    Yet the County assessors web site has the address 1430 S E street tied into parcel identified as 117-820-040 So why the confusion on the assessors part? Than the assessor shows a 2010 assessed value of over 10,000,000 yet no billing for property taxes. An that is what I am asking. Why is there no new billing ? Why the confusion on the assessor's part.

    Now we have the same kind of misdirection involved in another portion of Mr. Maldonado's Form 700.

    http://sbcassessor.com/Assessor/Results.aspx?APN=117820&HN=&SN=&UN=&SB=SB_APN

    117-820-028 1850 STOWELL RD
    What happen to 117-820-034? This A.P.N. is listed on Pg 12 of the form 700  An the Santa Barbara Tax collector has billing for this parcel, just look again at the top of this page and there is the billing!
    117-820-036 1767 A ST
    117-820-037 1735 A ST
    117-820-039
    117-820-040 1430 E ST

    Why would Mr. Maldonado be confessed as to any parcel modification to property he owns, the assessed value reflects a current 2010 value? I am sorry your argument just does not hold water. Feel free to paste your findings here so we may all verify your statements.

    Double click on pictures below to see in there own window.