City lets initiative off the ballot

Press Release and some responses:

The voters of Big Bear Lake are spinning this week. They don't understand what happened. After decades of inability to solve a problem with thousands of nightly rentals in their neighborhoods, the voters used direct democracy to bypass their ineffective or unwilling city council. First, they wrote a ballot initiative. Second, they sent it to the city council for any comments or suggestions. They received no answer. Third, they contacted every local election official to make sure they properly proceeded. They were told that their official was the city clerk of Big Bear Lake. This person was the only person the voters were allowed to go to for guidance, and the official who must approve any new initiative. So they took their petition to the city clerk. The clerk required several changes. They made these changes. She required more changes, two more times. The voters made all the changes the official required. This process took so long, the petition was approved too late for the November 2006 election, but the officials accepted and approved the petition, with more than enough voter signatures, and put it on the November 2008 ballot. In 2008, the former Big Bear Lake city manager, Michael Perry, now paid by opponents of this initiative, sued the city clerk for improperly approving this petition. He claimed the initiative should have been typed on each signature page rather than stapled to it. This surprised the voters, because the election code seemed to provide to different options for attaching the actual initiative to the petition. The City Council decided not to defend itself, or its city clerk. Even though the clerk was the election official who approved the petition after three changes, the city said this was between two parties other than the city. Last week, the Judge agreed with the former city manager and ordered the city council to remove the ballot measure. I will speak to the council tonight at 6:30 PM. I will tell them that since the voters followed their instructions and had more than sufficient, approved signatures, the council should go ahead and vote to put this measure on the ballot. City Councils have the prerogative to put measures on the ballot any time they feel their voters may want to approve such measures. Most city councils would want to see what the voters actually think about a measure. Some might re-write the measure to make it more enforceable, but very few would actually refuse to give the voters what they ask for. http://www.bigbeargrizzly.net/articles/2008/07/11/news/latest_news/wprhruling.txthttp://www.kbhr933.com/bigbearnews.php

Bob Pool
President - Big Bear Lodging Association, www.bigbearlodging.com, est. 1981.
Owner - Sleepy Forest Resorts, www.sleepyforest.com, est. 1980.

Oh My! That is really good and very well written. So many of us "long-timers" are distressed by what we see happening to Big Bear. I've often wonderedwhy smaller communities manage to have so much more to offer the locals. Big Bear has done a pretty good job of wooing the visitors (who pay the tax!) but it seems so rarely do we seem to count in their decisions. I know they say, "Come to the meetings and voice your opinion." I say, I don't want to sit through all their squabbles. I even stopped getting the Grizzly years ago because I was so sick of theinfighting. Sadly, people like you and I would not want to run for public office because it seems to be such a sham.Well, I sure do hope your letter does some good. Any other way we can help? Obviously the petition idea was squashed. How is that legal? …
… I must say it is easier for me to understand what you have sent me than to follow Michael Karp's convoluted thinking. Oh well, maybe I was tired when I read it. Youare short and to the point (maybe you should try preaching!) It is beyond me to see how on earth any of the shenanigans are legal and why they were enforced by the court. I guess the big guns are the ones that get their way and the "little people" can sit down and shut up. It is very sad that the "government of the people, by thepeople and for the people" has come to this. God help us all. - Kathy Kendall Big Bear Lake

Bob,

I think Doreen very eloquently stated the concerns of not only lodge owners, but of RESIDENTS, as well.

I have a few years on you - I've been in Big Bear ALL of my 52 years. And I remember a time when having a lake and great scenery was the main draw for tourists. It wasn't until Jo Tyndall-Alexander died that we became known as nothing but a ski resort. In the 40's and 50's, Big Bear was a haven for the Hollywood crowd (not just for filming), and a lot of the 'money' from the Los Angeles area. Many of the big, older, lakefront and North Estates/Gilner Point homes were built by these people. Big Bear was a 'destination resort' then, and this was without the (then) owners of the lake (Bear Valley Mutual Water Co.) doing a thing to develop recreational activities on the lake, or market it in any way. It was also before technology and communication were what it is today, yet restaurants, nightclubs, lodges, the old 'camps' and recreational venues (Pan Hot Springs, the Peter Pan Club, Stillwells, etc) thrived during this time.

Trust me, residents would also like to see a 'better class of visitor' come to the Valley, but it isn't going to happen the way Big Bear is currently marketed. The RA would do well to all sign up for e-newsletters and publications from www.steamboat.com to see how a resort very similar in size, elevation, and demographics, markets itself on a year-round basis. It is also a community dominated by "The Mountain" and has experienced a lot of changes over the years depending on who owned the ski resort and what their plans were. The locals call the seasons in Steamboat "Winter, Mud Season, Construction and Almost Winter," but you would never know it by their marketing. Their many events and a tight-knit lodging/restaurant industry makes Steamboat look like The Place To Be in the Spring, Summer and Fall. Steamboat does not have a rec/lift ticket tax, but it is my understanding they have a significantly higher TOT tax than we do.

What little marketing the Chamber and RA does is sporadic, lacks cohesiveness, and is hit and miss from an advertising 'program' standpoint. And by the way - the activities calendar on the bigbear.com site…doesn't work with some browsers, mine included. You can't click on the event at the right and open the new window that gives the events time, location and details. I have spoken to the computer guru at the Chamber about this, to no avail, and who apparently doesn't believe me. I do an Events Calendar for a local client and haven't been able to access this information for the three years that I've tried. I've had friends attempt the same task with the same results (Page Cannot Be Displayed). So how many would-be visitors are experiencing the same problem on the 'official' Big Bear site?

Best of luck to all of you with this issue, the utility rates, and the PHR issue. It is an uphill battle, to be sure. Most of the locals I know favor the rec tax theory. Unfortunately, most, like myself, will be unable to vote on it because of our residence address.

Take care,
Jo Tunnel, Big Bear City



As to Michael Karp-- give up. He and the other four clowns on council have ****ed the voters big-time. A ballot petition is a rare thing in this corporate age we live in. They had no right to kill your vote. You should start a petition to remove them all from council. And videotape every conversation with Kathy Jefferies. Michael Perry should never have been given a sample ballot in the first place. I believe that Perry acted in collusion with Kathy Jefferies and Stephen Dietsch. I know that the City never defended anything; the City just rolled over. I'm still sick to my stomach over this damn Micheal Perry lawsuit. –T Matthew Phillips

Why waste time with the City Council? They're all a bunch of crooks. The one thing I'd love to ask 'em is this: Why did Deitsch give approval to Jefferies to release the ballots to Perry? Ballot initiatives are deemed private under state law. Remember, when Jim sought to see the petitions and why he didn't get 15% signatures, Deitsch and Jefferies said "no." But when Jefferies former boss comes along, she gives up the whole ******* farm. - T Matthew Phillips