No-Annex.com Comments

YOUR PROPERTY TAXES MAY GO UP BY $225.00 A YEAR! LET OTHERS KNOW HOW YOU FEEL. SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS.

Today I spoke with Rusty Van Rozeboom, the petitioner for the Fig Garden Police Protection District, he said, "the Board of Directors met 2-2-04 in a special meeting and decided to 'table' the issue, re-apply with a condition that there be a vote in the affected areas of the assessment area."

Mike

The Central Section of the Old Fig Garden County Island has an extra Fresno County Sheriff's patrol car that they pay for privately. This is called the Fig Garden Police Protection District. It was originally a 24 hour patrol, but due to a raise in the rates charged by Fresno County, it's been cut back to 17.5 hours. In an attempt to find an additional revenue source, the 625 home district is attempting to annex 1100+ more homes in the surrounding Fresno County island. These homes are smaller and worth much less than the large homes on Christmas Tree
Lane and the Old Fig Garden neighborhood between Palm and Maroa, and Shaw and Dakota. The surrounding neighborhoods being forced into annexation are between Palm and Fruit to the west and from Maroa to Blackstone to the east with a few more homes to the south as well.

The fee will be $225 a year and be collected with the County Property Taxes.
This is the same rate that the larger homes are currently paying.

Our neighborhood has become very well organized against this fee. We are happy with the current Sheriff's Department protection. We have organized into the Fig Garden Taxpayer's Committee. Our members have walked the entire neighborhood and have had petitions signed against this forced annexation. At our last meeting on Jan. 4, it was reported that only 3 homeowners had stated that they were in favor of this added fee.

On Dec. 5, there was an informational meeting held in the cafeteria at Power's Elementary School by representatives of the Fig Garden Police Protection District. We packed the cafeteria with angry homeowners. We were told that we had a choice in this, but when we asked where and when we could vote, we were told THAT would not happen. We asked that if
we had petitions showing a majority were against this, could we stop the process. We were told that PETITIONS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED! We were told that the only way to stop this would be a protest by a majority of the homeowners AFTER it's approved by the Local Agency Formation Committee, (LAFCO).

This LAFCO hearing is being held on January 14 at 1:30 pm at the Fresno County Board of Supervisor's Chambers, Hall of Records room 310 Tulare and M Streets. We hope to have a lot of people there. It's in the afternoon and during most people's work day, some are taking time off from work to attend. We expect a large turnout, but I don't see how we can be expected to have a majority of homeowners at a 1:30 pm meeting to protest this unwanted, unasked for fee.

We are upset about this for a number of reasons. Some of them are:

1. We are seen as a source of revenue and were never asked to join the Police Protection District until Fresno County raised the Sheriff's patrol rates.

2. The Fig Garden Homeowner's Association is behind asking LAFCO to annex our larger neighborhood. I have yet to meet anyone in my neighborhood that is a member of the Fig Garden Homeowner's Association.

3. We have a well organized Neighborhood Watch group. We are happy with the Sheriff's Dept. and what our current taxes are paying for.

4. $225 a year being charged to our small 2 and 3 bedroom homes at the same rate as the luxury homes on Christmas Tree Lane and the other streets between Maroa and Palm. This fee is inequitable when compared to property value and has not been negotiated with us.

Who do these people think they are? What gives them the right to decide for us?
I'm a member of the Fig Garden Taxpayer's Committee.

The core area is now paying the max amount $225.00 and are receiving 17 hours of protection 7 days a week. Having annex areas 1,2,3 and 4 pay the amount of $225.00 will benefit the core area with an additional 7 hours of paid protection 7 days a week without raising their cost, million dollar properties I might add. I believe that the core area should have a voted to raise their $225.00 tax sufficient enough to fulfill their protection of 24 hours a day 7 days a week prior to annexing others.

One definition from the Merriam-Webster on (annex) is “to take anther’s possession illegally and without his knowledge”. A two to four week unofficial notice for a one-time chance to take part is very suspicious to myself, and would prefer to have a public vote of the citizens in all of the proposed annex areas. All citizens voting on the annex would have to be well-informed and acting on their best interests.

Somewhere, sometime a vote was taken for this proposed annex, probably at a private Home Owners Association meeting whom has $40,000 to pay for an application but not enough time or money to get the proposed annex area residents informed of their plans to reach into their pockets and keep them there for good. I don’t believe this is the right place or time for this unfair annex.

I’m so glad that I received the flyer. I’ll be at the meeting to show my support against the tax increase. My home is west of Palm and I have owned my house for 4 years. The added police protection proposal came as a shock to me. I talk to the sheriffs that patrol the area all the time. They have told me for years that they are bored in the Fig Garden district because NOTHING HAPPENS. The proponents confess our area has the lowest crime rate in the city. If we saw a measurable rise in the crime rate, their proposal would be justified. As it is, I don’t understand it.

I thank you profusely for your flyer. I am one of the people that about threw away the notice before you called.

I have lived here for over forty five years am a disabled vet, and cannot afford more taxes.

One of my neighbors has lived here fifty plus years also and lives primarily on SS. They definitely cannot afford this.

I am west of palm and have called the sheriff twice in the last fifteen years, once for vandalism and once for a loud party. Both times the sheriff came to my aid within minutes.

I walk my dog in the surrounding neighborhood and see police cars all the time. I am very happy with our sheriffs and the protection they give us. I guess some people do need extra protection. Those are dark streets over in the Wilson and Van Ness area, but I don’t think we should have to pay for it.

I have called five of my neighbors this evening and they all agree with you. This is not right.

I am a neighbor in the area of this proposed annexation for enhanced law enforcement. Like many in this area I am on a limited income and cannot afford to pay additional property taxes nor do I think that someone else should decide this for me.

This has made me do a little looking into this issue. From what I can understand, even though we homeowners and/or registered voters have the right to protest this under certain restrictive guidelines, the ultimate decision is still up to LAFCo. If you ask me, I think they are the bandits in the night that we might need protection from! Their flyer looked like a piece of junk mail that talked about a non-public meeting that I would think I would not be permitted to attend, had I not called LAFCo to ask them. I am happy with the numerous police I see in our area. I think we have plenty of protection. Of course my house isn't a block long, either!

I actually did read the pamphlet that came in the mail about the meeting this Friday, but I misplaced it. I would like to thank the neighbor who wrote the flyer and put it on my doorstep.

I will be at the meeting tomorrow night, and I am going to knock on a few doors to get my neighbors there too!

It is my opinion that some of the people living in their large homes in the Fig Garden Police Protection District would like us living in the proposed annexation areas to pay for their added police protection at a cost of about $400,000.00 a year. At 225.00 a year per home, 300.00 for businesses and 150.00 for an empty lot. We live in the lowest crime area in Fresno County and one of the lowest in the state. Raising a retired couples property taxes by 50% isn't going to make them any safer.

I think it's strange that you can't find any information on the Fig Garden Police Protection District's web site about the proposed annexation. The person in charge of Fresno LAFCo. is also a member of the Fig Garden Homeowners Association and I'm told a former Board Member of the Fig Garden Police Protection District. However if you go to the Fig Garden Police Protection District's web site, it shows this person still on the board.

The way the notices were addressed looked to me like political junk mail, and the non-public public meeting was confusing to some.

Now I'm not saying that this is wrong, I would just like someone to tell me why its right. If the information here is incorrect, lets correct it. The only written information I have found is the notice, all other information is from talking to others. Why are we keep in the dark?

If you learn anything from your phone calls or talking to others please share here.

	*NoAnnex.com's sole purpose is to help defeat the proposed annexation by the Fig Garden Police Protection District.*
Home Public Notices Comments News Fig Garden Homeowners Association Web Site Fig Garden Police Protection District Web Site	YOUR PROPERTY TAXES MAY GO UP BY $225.00 A YEAR! LET OTHERS KNOW HOW YOU FEEL. SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS. Supportive comments for No-Annex below. Negative comments and responses here. 02/03/04 Today I spoke with Rusty Van Rozeboom, the petitioner for the Fig Garden Police Protection District, he said, "the Board of Directors met 2-2-04 in a special meeting and decided to 'table' the issue, re-apply with a condition that there be a vote in the affected areas of the assessment area." Mike 01/08/04 The Central Section of the Old Fig Garden County Island has an extra Fresno County Sheriff's patrol car that they pay for privately. This is called the Fig Garden Police Protection District. It was originally a 24 hour patrol, but due to a raise in the rates charged by Fresno County, it's been cut back to 17.5 hours. In an attempt to find an additional revenue source, the 625 home district is attempting to annex 1100+ more homes in the surrounding Fresno County island. These homes are smaller and worth much less than the large homes on Christmas Tree Lane and the Old Fig Garden neighborhood between Palm and Maroa, and Shaw and Dakota. The surrounding neighborhoods being forced into annexation are between Palm and Fruit to the west and from Maroa to Blackstone to the east with a few more homes to the south as well. The fee will be $225 a year and be collected with the County Property Taxes. This is the same rate that the larger homes are currently paying. Our neighborhood has become very well organized against this fee. We are happy with the current Sheriff's Department protection. We have organized into the Fig Garden Taxpayer's Committee. Our members have walked the entire neighborhood and have had petitions signed against this forced annexation. At our last meeting on Jan. 4, it was reported that only 3 homeowners had stated that they were in favor of this added fee. On Dec. 5, there was an informational meeting held in the cafeteria at Power's Elementary School by representatives of the Fig Garden Police Protection District. We packed the cafeteria with angry homeowners. We were told that we had a choice in this, but when we asked where and when we could vote, we were told THAT would not happen. We asked that if we had petitions showing a majority were against this, could we stop the process. We were told that PETITIONS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED! We were told that the only way to stop this would be a protest by a majority of the homeowners AFTER it's approved by the Local Agency Formation Committee, (LAFCO). This LAFCO hearing is being held on January 14 at 1:30 pm at the Fresno County Board of Supervisor's Chambers, Hall of Records room 310 Tulare and M Streets. We hope to have a lot of people there. It's in the afternoon and during most people's work day, some are taking time off from work to attend. We expect a large turnout, but I don't see how we can be expected to have a majority of homeowners at a 1:30 pm meeting to protest this unwanted, unasked for fee. We are upset about this for a number of reasons. Some of them are: 1. We are seen as a source of revenue and were never asked to join the Police Protection District until Fresno County raised the Sheriff's patrol rates. 2. The Fig Garden Homeowner's Association is behind asking LAFCO to annex our larger neighborhood. I have yet to meet anyone in my neighborhood that is a member of the Fig Garden Homeowner's Association. 3. We have a well organized Neighborhood Watch group. We are happy with the Sheriff's Dept. and what our current taxes are paying for. 4. $225 a year being charged to our small 2 and 3 bedroom homes at the same rate as the luxury homes on Christmas Tree Lane and the other streets between Maroa and Palm. This fee is inequitable when compared to property value and has not been negotiated with us. Who do these people think they are? What gives them the right to decide for us? I'm a member of the Fig Garden Taxpayer's Committee. Saturday, December 06, 2003 To Whom It May Concern The core area is now paying the max amount $225.00 and are receiving 17 hours of protection 7 days a week. Having annex areas 1,2,3 and 4 pay the amount of $225.00 will benefit the core area with an additional 7 hours of paid protection 7 days a week without raising their cost, million dollar properties I might add. I believe that the core area should have a voted to raise their $225.00 tax sufficient enough to fulfill their protection of 24 hours a day 7 days a week prior to annexing others. One definition from the Merriam-Webster on (annex) is “to take anther’s possession illegally and without his knowledge”. A two to four week unofficial notice for a one-time chance to take part is very suspicious to myself, and would prefer to have a public vote of the citizens in all of the proposed annex areas. All citizens voting on the annex would have to be well-informed and acting on their best interests. Somewhere, sometime a vote was taken for this proposed annex, probably at a private Home Owners Association meeting whom has $40,000 to pay for an application but not enough time or money to get the proposed annex area residents informed of their plans to reach into their pockets and keep them there for good. I don’t believe this is the right place or time for this unfair annex. Concerned resident of Fig Garden Terrace, Area 1 I’m so glad that I received the flyer. I’ll be at the meeting to show my support against the tax increase. My home is west of Palm and I have owned my house for 4 years. The added police protection proposal came as a shock to me. I talk to the sheriffs that patrol the area all the time. They have told me for years that they are bored in the Fig Garden district because NOTHING HAPPENS. The proponents confess our area has the lowest crime rate in the city. If we saw a measurable rise in the crime rate, their proposal would be justified. As it is, I don’t understand it. We had a problem with some renters several years ago. They were making lots of noise and had party’s often. I emailed the Sheriff at 9am. That afternoon I had two Sheriffs at my door and I explained the problem. HE GAVE ME HIS PERSONAL CELL PHONE # and told me that if we have ANY problems to call him. For the next month I saw a Sheriff car every day; parked across the street, driving slowly by numerous time EACH day. I’m telling you, our neighborhood is BORING to those looking to fight crime. Anyone who doubts me needs to talk to a patrolling officer. They’ll tell flat out that our neighborhood is a boring shift. You can usually find them at the Texaco on Palm and Shaw. Next time you see a Sheriff there, ask them. I know many of my neighbors have been here since the 1950s and are on fixed incomes. Will $225 break them? Probably not but remember, once a tax is in place, it goes nothing but up. The thing that gets me is the deceptive mailing and the idea that they can raise taxes without a vote. Regards, John To whom it may concern, I thank you profusely for your flyer. I am one of the people that about threw away the notice before you called. I have lived here for over forty five years am a disabled vet, and cannot afford more taxes. One of my neighbors has lived here fifty plus years also and lives primarily on SS. They definitely cannot afford this. I am west of palm and have called the sheriff twice in the last fifteen years, once for vandalism and once for a loud party. Both times the sheriff came to my aid within minutes. I walk my dog in the surrounding neighborhood and see police cars all the time. I am very happy with our sheriffs and the protection they give us. I guess some people do need extra protection. Those are dark streets over in the Wilson and Van Ness area, but I don’t think we should have to pay for it. I have called five of my neighbors this evening and they all agree with you. This is not right. They all asked and so do I, what about voting??? See you at the meeting Thanks again I am a neighbor in the area of this proposed annexation for enhanced law enforcement. Like many in this area I am on a limited income and cannot afford to pay additional property taxes nor do I think that someone else should decide this for me. This has made me do a little looking into this issue. From what I can understand, even though we homeowners and/or registered voters have the right to protest this under certain restrictive guidelines, the ultimate decision is still up to LAFCo. If you ask me, I think they are the bandits in the night that we might need protection from! Their flyer looked like a piece of junk mail that talked about a non-public meeting that I would think I would not be permitted to attend, had I not called LAFCo to ask them. I am happy with the numerous police I see in our area. I think we have plenty of protection. Of course my house isn't a block long, either! I actually did read the pamphlet that came in the mail about the meeting this Friday, but I misplaced it. I would like to thank the neighbor who wrote the flyer and put it on my doorstep. I will be at the meeting tomorrow night, and I am going to knock on a few doors to get my neighbors there too! I can't believe that we are not all up in arms about this! Come on neighbors, let's get out and let our voices be heard!!! It is my opinion that some of the people living in their large homes in the Fig Garden Police Protection District would like us living in the proposed annexation areas to pay for their added police protection at a cost of about $400,000.00 a year. At 225.00 a year per home, 300.00 for businesses and 150.00 for an empty lot. We live in the lowest crime area in Fresno County and one of the lowest in the state. Raising a retired couples property taxes by 50% isn't going to make them any safer. I think it's strange that you can't find any information on the Fig Garden Police Protection District's web site about the proposed annexation. The person in charge of Fresno LAFCo. is also a member of the Fig Garden Homeowners Association and I'm told a former Board Member of the Fig Garden Police Protection District. However if you go to the Fig Garden Police Protection District's web site, it shows this person still on the board. The way the notices were addressed looked to me like political junk mail, and the non-public public meeting was confusing to some. Now I'm not saying that this is wrong, I would just like someone to tell me why its right. If the information here is incorrect, lets correct it. The only written information I have found is the notice, all other information is from talking to others. Why are we keep in the dark? If you learn anything from your phone calls or talking to others please share here.
	Domain Names for sale: no-annex.com For information email
	Web Services Provided by Clem Systems.

NoAnnex.com's sole purpose is to help defeat the proposed annexation by the Fig Garden Police Protection District.