Not voting for first time in nearly 60 years

By GARY HURST

Property owners in San Diego Country Estates recently received an election handbook, ballot, and the April issue of the the association’s publication. None of the candidates for director oppose the current recycled water contract. Most support the contract and the “savings” resulting from the contract.

This three-party contract among the San Diego Country Estates Association (SDCEA), Spangler Peak Ranch, and Ramona Municipal Water District (RMWD) sets recycled water allocations between SDCEA (for golf course irrigation) and Spangler Peak Ranch, but does so at a cost far below the cost of alternative sources of water. The SDCEA candidates refer to this as “savings” for the association.

The problem with this “savings” spin becomes apparent when reviewing the budget and financial statements of RMWD. For every dollar “saved” by the association, Spangler Peak Ranch saves more. The advantage to these two entities of reporting such low water costs is apparent on their profit and loss statements.

But somebody must pay for the “savings” of these entities, and the RMWD statements clearly show that the “savings” are offset by fixed property assessments to property owners who use the San Vicente wastewater facility (mostly San Diego Country Estates owners). As a result of the three-party contract, owners in the San Vicente facility user district are paying the bill to reduce the reported costs of Spangler Peak Ranch and SDCEA’s golf operations.

Fixed assessments on the property tax bills of San Vicente facility users are more than $400 higher each year than if the recycled water contract were fairly and equitably priced in accordance with the cost of alternate sources of water available to SDCEA and Spangler Peak Ranch. This cost must be added to SDCEA assessments to determine the full cost of association membership. Statements that association assessments are not rising are an attempt to distract from the real issue, because the total cost of association membership is higher than it should be, and rising.

The association directors are covering this up in a number of ways as explained by several writers, including Doug Kafka’s and the general manager’s claim that the LAFCO report (a publicly available document, paid for with taxpayer dollars) is confidential.

The candidates point out the obvious — the three-party contract saves the association dollars, but avoids mention of the equally obvious — the cost to association members is more than double their association “savings.” Since the association is the result of a contract among Estate property owners, the directors’ duty is to represent the interests of the property owners. The candidates focus on reducing association costs at the expense of association members is misplaced, at best.

None of the candidates has given the property owners any hope that Estate property owner interests will be put above those of a special interest group. None of the candidates offers anything to Estates property owners except fine-tuning “more of the same.”

The “competition” among candidates is limited to statements of who loves the Estates more (or who has lived here longer), who has “saved” the association more money, who “listens” better, who will divide the association assessments more “fairly” among interest groups, etc.

Until one of the candidates gives me some hope of representing my interests, I will not be voting in the upcoming election of association directors. This is the first election in which I have been eligible to vote, but have not — any time, any place, in almost 60 years of voting.

Based upon past voting records, and statements made by other Estates property owners, I am far from alone in reaching this conclusion.

Unless a real possibility of change exists, what reason do most members have to vote? Candidates may “spin” the difficulty of obtaining a quorum as apathy, but isn’t it really a collective expression of disgust?

Gary Hurst is a Ramona resident.