Injunction to Stop Dock Tax Pending

IF YOU’VE RECEIVED YOUR CITY UTILITY BILL – DON’T PAY THE DOCK TAX

I used to trust our city government.  Then they used every deceptive trick in the bureaucratic play-book to foist the Dock Tax upon us.  I thought I had seen everything, until now.  Three weeks ago our lawyer got a call from the city’s attorney asking for extra time to respond to our lawsuit.

It’s a common request and a professional courtesy, so we granted their request for extra time.  Shame on us.

While their lawyers were delaying the city was preparing to mail the bi-monthly utility bill with the Dock Tax in it, despite the fact that our lawsuit is pending.

We got snookered.  It won’t happen again.  Next Tuesday we will be in court to set a date to argue for an injunction to compel the city to not collect the Dock Tax until all litigation is complete.
Sincerely,

 

dsc_0024c.jpg
signature.jpg
Bob McCaffreyChairman,
Stop The Dock Tax
www.stopthedocktax.com Please check with our web site for the lastest information

P.S.  If you have received your city utility bill don’t pay the Dock Tax line item.  Our attorney’s believe paying any fraction of the Dock Tax waives your rights to reject the tax.  We will be communicating with you soon with further instructions.

pilot.png

dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0412-dock-fee-injunction-request-20130411,0,243797.story

Daily Pilot

Opponents seek an injunction on fees

Stop the Dock Tax chairman says city’s method to collect money ‘deceptive, tricky and dishonest.’

By Jeremiah Dobruck and Jill Cowan

8:45 PM PDT, April 11, 2013

Newport Beach residents unhappy with a large increase to residential dock rents will try to prevent the city from collecting the fee while their lawsuit works its way through court.

The Newport Beach Dock Owners Assn. announced Thursday that it will seek a temporary restraining order during a Tuesday court date barring the city from collecting the fee.

The Dock Owners Assn. is suing the city, alleging it violated California’s open meetings law while it was considering the rate increases. The city denies the group’s allegations, saying any meetings were properly noticed and conducted.

The suit argues that a three-person city council committee violated the Ralph M. Brown Act by meeting long after the committee was scheduled to expire in March 2011 and shuffling committee members without any public notice.

Late last year, the City Council voted to increase rent for private residential docks over public waters from a flat annual fee of $100 to 52.5 cents per square foot per year.

Newport Beach has sent out its first wave of bills for the increased fee, which is scheduled to be phased in over five years with the first increase this year, City Manager Dave Kiff said.

But the Dock Owners Assn. argues it’s premature to collect until the litigation is settled.

“We granted the city’s request for extra time to respond to our Brown Act lawsuit — little did we know that we were being set up so they could begin the Dock Tax assessment using the bi-monthly utility bill to trigger the tax,” Bob McCaffrey, chairman, Newport Beach Dock Owners Assn., said in a prepared statement. “There is no permit to sign or document to review; the Dock Tax is buried on a bill that that includes a trash recycling fee, water, sewer, and ‘other agency’ charges. It’s deceptive, tricky, and dishonest.”

Newport Beach filed its own motion in February asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The city’s hearing is scheduled for May 16.

The Dock Owners Assn. is conflating two temporary groups and incorrectly alleging they became a permanent arm of the council, according to the motion.

An ad hoc committee the council created to address commercial dock rents and a working group that evaluated residential dock fees never overlapped, had different members and considered two separate issues, the city argues.

The committee met from July 2010 to March 2011, and the working group met from late 2011 to December 2012, according to the motion.

“Nevertheless, in an effort to state a cause of action for violation of the Brown Act, Plaintiffs attempt to allege that the ad hoc committee (exempt from the Brown Act) and the working group (also exempt from the Brown Act) magically combined to create a new ‘standing committee’ that was subject to the act’s notice and open meeting requirements,” it states.

Comments

comments

Comments ( 0 )

    Leave A Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *