About Mentone, California – By and For Mentonites
Revelation of Peace online live streaming with Jeffrey Harper on Friday, April 10, 2020 at 7:00pm. Online Live-stream link, Pre-Registration, + More, Visit:
RevelationofPeace.live
C.O.M.E.T.’S counsel hasn’t yet received any notification from the California Supreme Court whether it will order the [subordinate] Fourth District Court of Appeals to consider C.O.M.E.T.’s Petition for Writ of Mandate to the San Bernardino Superior Court to reconsider or reverse its denial of C.O.M.E.T.’s request for damages in its lawsuit against the City of Redlands and San Bernardino County LAFCO (“Local Area Formation COmission,” which oversees annexations).
In the meantime, everything else sits: the San Bernardino Superior Court closed March 17 for all but emergency matters, like restraining orders, until April 30, although courthouses apparently are still open in the high desert. All other matters and deadlines are extended by 30 days. The Fourth District Court is open on shortened hours but the Supreme Court is apparently completely open, hearing arguments by teleconferencing. MM will keep you posted on the progress of the lawsuit. MM
On February 26 the court denied COMET’s Petition for Writ of Mandate, which sought an Order to the Superior Court to reverse its denial of COMET’s request for leave from filing a late claim for damages. The Appellate Court did not specify its reasons for denying the Writ Petition (Ed.,’s note: that process is called a “summary denial”). According to lawyers’ blogs online, the court summarily denies most writ petitions.
COMET’s Writ Petition was based on the grounds that Mentonites did not know of Redlands’ annexations of their territory until long after they were concluded and therefore Mentonites could not have filed their protests or claims for damages within the 60-day time limitation; that when they learned of the completed annexations they did not know what to do about them except protest, which did not stop the annexations, until advised to file suit; and then could not find an attorney to take the case for what they could afford, until late 2018. The lawsuit was filed in Spring 2019.
On March 6 COMET’s pro bono (Ed.’s note: donating their professional time) counsel filed COMET’s Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court, requesting that the high court order the Fourth District Court of Appeals to consider the Writ Petition on its merits or on the grounds stated in it. One ground in the Petition for Review is that the 1997 Measure U, which Redlands utilizes to demand annexation in exchange for water and sewer service (where available) – after decades of allowing hookups for just a minimal cost for connection – was unauthorized by existing state Supreme Court law at the time: in 1915 and again in 1986, the high court held that a city purchasing a private water company was required to continue providing water to the customers, including any new customers who moved into the area. The Supreme Court cases were mentioned in a case decision supplied by Redlands’ and LAFCO’s counsel. A San Bernardino-based case also prohibited discrimination in the provision of water.
Another ground in the Petition for Review quoted a 1982 case which held that rules for LAFCO (Ed.’s note: Local Area Formation COmmission, which the Legislature set up to exist in every California county) did not allow a receiving city to vote on annexation, that the voting right belongs solely to the territory being annexed. The Petition for Review also raised constitutional issues with Measure U and reiterated its position that Measure U is extortionate (Ed.’s note: in other words, demanding something that it is not entitled to have).
The high court can either: grant the Petition and review the case itself; grant review and order the Appellate Court to reconsider its denial; or deny the Petition for Review, with or without comment. There is no time limit to do so.
The Superior Court also denied COMET’s earlier Motion for an Injunction against Redlands’ enforcement of Measure U; however, that Motion did not contain the law given in the Petition for Review, which was recently discovered by COMET’s counsel.
COMET stands for Community of Mentone Empowered Together and represents all Mentone residents and landowners who wish to be involved : of the respondents to a recent poll conducted by MM, almost all were against annexation. MM will report on developments as early as possible after they occur.
MM
Yucaipa Regional Park, off Oak Glen Road
Start at Sunnyside Drive north of Oak Glen Road, Finish at Oak Glen Village
[fb_plugin page href=”https://www.facebook.com/mentonemoose.lodge.7″ tabs=”events”]
Hello!
I am excited to announce we are opening applications for the Assembly District 47 Young Legislators Program. This is a yearlong program designed for high school sophomores and juniors living in the 47th District who are interested in learning about public/community service, state government, and the legislative process. The program focuses on three main themes: civic engagement, public policy, and professional life skills. Please see the attached letter and flyer. Also, feel free to share it with your networks. The application can be found online at https://a47.asmdc.org/young-legislators. Applications are due Friday, February 28, 2019. Feel Free to contact me at (909) 381- 3228 or at Daissy.Arteaga@asm.ca.gov with any program-related questions.
With love,
Esméralda Vazquez | District Representative Office of Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes California State Assembly, 47th District 290 North D Street, Suite 903 San Bernardino, CA 92401 Ph: 909-381-3238 ext. 10747 Fx: 909-885-8589
WHAT’S NEW FOR TAX YEAR 201 9
Health Care Coverage for 2019: you no longer need to either make a shared responsibility payment or file Form 8965 if you don’t have minimal essential coverage for part or all of 2019.
Tax Provisions that were set to expire at the end of 2017
have been extended for the following: Tuition & Fees
Deduction, Deduction for mortgage insurance premiums,
nonbusiness energy property credit, alternative fuel
vehicle refueling credit. If you are eligible for one or more
of these benefits for tax year 2018, you will need to file an
amended return Form 1040-X.
Lifetime Learning Credit for 2019 is gradually reduced if
your MAGI is between $58,000 and $68,000 ($116,000
and 136,000 if you file a joint return). You can’t claim
the credit if your MAGI is $68,000 or more ($136,000 or
more if you file a joint return).
The Standard Deduction for 2019 has increased for all
filers as follows $12,200 if filing single, $24,400 if
married filing jointly or qualifying widower, $12,200 if
married filing separate returns, and $18,350 if head of
household.
Student Loan Interest Deduction for 2019 is gradually
reduced if your MAGI is between $70,000 and $85,000
($140,000 and $170,000 if you file a joint return). You
can’t claim the deduction if your MAGI is $85,000 or
more ($170,000 or more if you file a joint return).
Tuition and Fees Deduction has been extended to
cover qualified education expenses paid in 2018, 2019,
and 2020.
Retirement Plan Contributions for 2019 are as follows,
the basic limit for 401K contributions is $19,000, plus
another $6,000 for those who are at least age 50. Total
contributions to all traditional and Roth IRAs cannot exceed $6,000, or for taxpayers age 50 and older, $7,000.
Saver’s Credit income limit is $64,000 for married
couples filing jointly, $48,000 for head of
household, and $32,000 for singles and married
individuals filing separately for 2019.
AMT Exemption Amount for 2019 has been increased
to $71,700 ($111,700 if married filing joint or qualifying
widower), $55,850 if married filing separately. The
income level at which the AMT exemption begins to
phase out has increased to $510,300 or $1,020,600 if
married filing jointly.
Maximum Earned Income Credit for 2019 has
increased to $6,557 for taxpayers filing jointly who have
three or more qualifying children, up from a total of
$6,431 for tax year 2018.
Standard Mileage rate for 2020 is 57.7 cents
(business) and 17 cents (moving or medical)
and 14 cents (service of charitable
organizations).
Maximum credit allowed for adoptions is the amount of
qualified adoption expenses up to $14,080, up from
$13,810 for 2018.
Estates of decedents who died during 2019 have a
basic exclusion amount of $11,400,000, up from a total
of $11,180,000 for 2018.
Foreign Earned Income Exclusion for 2019 has
increased to $105,900 up from $103,900 for tax year
2018.
Monthly limitation for the qualified transportation fringe
benefit is $265, up from $260 for tax year 2018.
Dollar limitation for employee salary reductions for
contributions to health flexible spending arrangements is $2,700, up $50 from the 2018 limit.
California Health Care Mandate effective January 1,
2020 a new state law requires California residence to
maintain qualifying health insurance throughout the
year. This requirement applies to each resident, their
spouse or domestic partner, and their dependents.
California New Employment Credit the sunset date for
this credit is extended until taxable years beginning
before January 1, 2026.
California Competes Tax Credit the sunset date for this
credit is extended until taxable years beginning before
January 1, 2030.
Courtesy of Sherlock’s Income Tax Service
According to their e-mail sent out on Monday, February 10, the Red Brennan Group planned the next day to deliver their petition, requesting their FP-5 repeal be placed on the November 2020 ballot. On behalf of proponents Rick Sayers, David Jarvi, and Charles Pruitt, they intended over 34,000 “raw” signatures to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters.
“Rather than tell the story of the signature gathering campaign, I point you all to the writeup in the San Bernardino County Sentinel. Here is the link: http://sbcsentinel.com/2020/02/top-county-lawyers-ploy-failed/. Long story short, we gathered well in excess of the actual number of signatures required by state law. A last minute assist from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association helped us to clarify requirements with the county,” said Tom Murphy, sender of the e-mail.
The Red Brennan Group had filed suit against the County, who instituted the fire tax to all properties in the County; Mentone had joined in the lawsuit. The Group’s Facebook post for February 8, 2019 tells the story of the lcase and its end. [Ed.’s note: the same Judge Alvarez denied relief to Mentone in its lawsuit against Redlands’ takeover of Mentone territory; Mentone is awaiting the appellate court’s ruling on its petition for writ of mandate] to Judge Alvarez.]
“Please contact me at tmurphy@redbrennan.org if you have questions or comments,” he added, and gave his number as
(760) 810-5830.
The Op-ed piece was supposed to go under the link so that whoever wanted to know MM’s opinion could click n it. Instead, it went into the news area.
Civil engineer Steve Rogers, who – although he does not live in Mentone -has been actively helping to protect Mentone’s interests for the past give-or-take 10 years, recently forwarded to Mentone Matters the following points he made in writing to the city of Redlands, regarding its General Plan, back in 2017. Readers may be most interested in numbers 2, 3 and 5:
“The following additional comments are hereby provided concerning the City of Redlands General Plan Update (GPU) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR):
1) Comment letters as provided by the State of California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), dated September 8, 2016, and the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, dated June 23, 2017 and concerning the scope and analysis of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) as being inadequate, have been ignored by City staff and the GPU EIR consultants with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) documents.
2) Figure 3.15-1 Existing Roadway Classifications shows the future extension of San Bernardino Avenue as a Proposed Arterial street to be constructed east of Crafton Avenue in the Mentone area and bisecting the former Lockheed contamination site, then curving southerly through property owned by the San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District and eventually connecting to State Route 38 east of Garnet Street. This new intersection of San Bernardino Avenue as proposed with the State Highway (as well as with Garnet Street) has not been properly analyzed with the GPU TIA as was prepared for the EIR-FEIR and has not even been conceptually considered or approved by CalTrans, the agency responsible for the State Highway System (SHS).
3) Figure 2.3-1 General Plan Land Use inappropriately shows the Pre-zoning of property located within the unincorporated territory at Mill Creek Rd (SR38) and Garnet Street to Commercial, a change that impacts the existing historic Mill Creek store rock structure.
4) A notation on Figure 2.3-1 General Plan Land Use pertaining to the newly created Transit Village Overlay Zones associated with the Redlands Passenger Rail Project (RPRP) reads “Mixed Use Core areas and other Transit Village details are shown in maps in Section 4.5.” However, no such section is contained in the documents held in the City Clerk’s office or the Smiley Library.
5) The 200-ft wide strip of property owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, east of the Wabash Avenue alignment in the Santa Ana River Wash area (APN 0168-311-02) appears to have inappropriately been annexed into the City of Redlands in 1958/9 as “inhabited” (vs “uninhabited”) territory.
6) The Redlands Sk8Park project was originally proposed to be built on property located off Park Avenue, west of University Street (APN 0170-191-38) on the southside of the railroad tracks adjacent to Sylvan Park. This property was sold by the City of Redlands to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) by City Council action on January 15, 2008 ” for the purpose of developing future affordable housing.” Figure 2.3-1 General Plan Land Use shows the subject property instead as “Parks/ Golf Courses” and therefore would be the appropriate site for the proposed Redlands Skatepark project as opposed to destroying a portion of historic Sylvan Park which will be further impacted by the future Redlands Passenger Rail Project (RPRP), where SanBAG (now sbcta) has already incumbered an 18-foot wide strip of property along the southern edge of the park, adjacent to Park Street, under a 2015 License Agreement for use with the RPRP.”
MM believes that Redlands basically ignored these comments, especially as they relate to Mentone’s interests. MM