Supervisors tag limits on sale of county land

By George Watson, Staff Writer
Ontario Daily Bulletin (San Bernardino Sun)

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors approved a plan Tuesday to limit land conservation groups' abilities to buy county land.

The board voted 3 to 2 in favor of the plan, which will have little impact on most sales but could save the county money while keeping land accessible to the public, officials said.

Only about 2 percent of purchases take place under an existing tax law called a chapter 8 sale, said Brad Mitzelfelt, the First District supervisor who sponsored the plan.

Nonprofit groups have been using the tax law to buy tax-defaulted property at public auctions for a reduced price, he said.

Too often, he added, those groups then give it to the federal government, which doesn't pay property taxes. Since 2000, the county has lost 735,807 acres of tax base and ranches to conservation groups' acquisitions, Mitzelfelt said.

The policy would be beneficial, Mitzelfelt argued, because it will either keep property on the county tax roll or ensure it is sold for fair market value.

Supervisors Dennis Hansberger and Gary Ovitt said they agreed with the principles proposed by their colleague. But they disagreed with one portion of it, which entailed giving authority to allow the chapter 8 sale to the supervisor whose district is home to the land being sold.

"I believe in a system of checks and balances. We don't even have the authority to appoint our own staff," Hansberger said, pointing out that each supervisors' staff members must be approved by the board as a whole.

Peter Jorris, representing the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust, opposed the policy.

"The proposal does not seem to rest on solid evidence," Jorris told the supervisors, adding that Mitzelfelt provided no studies or examples of misuse.

He also questioned giving authority to one individual supervisor.

Chris Ervin of the Mojave Desert Heritage and Cultural Association said his organization supported the policy.

While it might seem that his group would oppose it, he explained that the federal government acts as a poor steward for the land it has acquired in the Mojave National Preserve.

His group has tried to buy more land but cannot compete with the deep pockets of national conservation organizations, and the preserve is becoming less accessible.

Organizations Support Mitzelfelt Land Sale Policy

From Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt’s
JoinBrad.com blog

This week I received a big boost in my effort to limit what have been virtually free acquisitions of land by conservation groups and the federal government in order to remove such property from public access and private ownership. Three well-established and highly respected property rights groups have came out in support of my proposed policy, which will be considered by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday.

The first organization to support my proposal was the Property Owners Association of Riverside County (POARC), the leading land rights organization in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The Lucerne Valley Economic Development Association (LVEDA) and the Mojave Desert Heritage and Cultural Association (MDHCA) also have voiced their support.

The POARC was formed to protect the rights of landowners. The association is a nonprofit, public policy research, advocacy, and educational organization founded in 1983. The organization serves owners of large and small properties, including farmers, homebuilders and others whose interests are affected by land use regulation.

"We strongly support the proposed county policy," said Bruce Colbert, Executive Director of POARC. "Property often goes into tax-default due to government restrictions placed on property to serve conservation group constituencies. These restrictions deny the landowners all economic use of their property. It is becoming an all too common racket that needs to be stopped by policies such as you are proposing."

The Mojave Desert Heritage and Cultural Association is an 800-member non-profit organization devoted to the preservation of the natural and cultural resources of the Mojave Desert. The MDHCA currently manages 900 acres in and around the Mojave National Preserve, including historic open space.

MDHCA President Chris Ervin said his group’s support is based on both a concern for the disposition of land acquired by the federal government as well as concern about a shrinking tax roll. "We are alarmed by the neglect and destruction of resources as they come under the control
of the National Park Service," said Ervin. "Erosion of our tax roll revenue is a real threat as the loss of income would likely affect county services or require their elimination."

Chuck Bell, secretary of LVEDA, expressed his group’s concerns about Chapter 8 tax sales. "We support these efforts by Supervisor Mitzelfelt because this has been a long-standing issue of concern for our group," said Bell. "These outright gifts of land to the federal government need to be stopped."

Existing tax laws allow qualifying non-profit organizations to purchase residential or vacant property that has been tax defaulted for five years or more prior to the property being sold by the County at auction. The organization must then agree to use residential property for low-income residential purposes, or to dedicate the vacant land to a public use. These types of sales of tax-defaulted properties to non-profits are set forth in Chapter 8 of Part 6 of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and are commonly referred to as "Chapter 8 Sales". This process is often used to acquire land at below market prices because only the taxes due and an administrative fee are typically charged.

Land conservancies have been acquiring large amounts of private land in San Bernardino County, only to transfer the land to the federal government, thereby removing the property from county tax rolls and in some cases closing off access to public lands. Our county has lost 735,807 acres of tax base and ranches since 2000 to conservancy acquisitions for parks, wilderness inholdings and habitat mitigation.

The intent of my proposal is to return such tax defaulted properties to viable residential and other economic uses, and to maintain the properties on the tax rolls of the County whenever possible to help pay for public services. The policy would give supervisors more say about which groups can acquire land using the Chapter 8 provisions, where it can be acquired and to what use it would be dedicated.

The policy would allow the Treasurer-Tax Collector to approve Chapter 8 sales in many cases where conservation is the only possible beneficial use, and under other limited circumstances. But the policy would also close a loophole that the federal government has used by having non-profits acquire land on its behalf. The Federal Government is not allowed to acquire land under Chapter 8.
Removing private property from the county tax rolls results in a loss in revenue to the county - revenue that could be used to build roads, hire Sheriff’s deputies and firefighters, or to provide other public improvements.

We have lost about 150,000 acres of private land in the Mojave National Preserve to such conservation acquisitions. There are only about 100,000 acres of private property left there.
Private property ownership not only helps the County provide services by bringing in property tax revenues. It also has a role in protecting the natural environment.

Human activities such as ranching have been beneficial to the environment in the past by providing "eyes and ears" on the ground in case of fires, vandalism and other concerns. Humans have also developed and maintained water sources that have benefited species recovery and provided additional sources of water for firefighting.

Livestock grazing has helped keep fire fuels (vegetation) under some degree of control in the past. However, with the continued acquisition of ranches and grazing rights and with water sources being dismantled, we are losing this benefit. We have seen this phenomenon contribute to disastrous wildfire conditions.

Even if denied a tax sale under Chapter 8 — which wouldn’t always be the case depending on circumstances and the supervisor whose district the property is located within — non-profits would be able to still buy the land at auction at a regularly scheduled county tax sale. In that case they would have to pay the going price and potentially have to compete with private bidders. Implementation of my proposed policy would give more private citizens an opportunity to buy such lands. Currently under Chapter 8 sales, the public doesn’t get the right to bid on such properties.

If we are going to lose properties in perpetuity from our tax rolls and possibly lose public or private access, I want to at least make sure the taxpayers receive the market value of the property.

Foster private ownership of land

Riverside Press Enterprise
By BRAD MITZELFELT

I am responding to Cassie MacDuff's column, "Tax rolls, my foot" (May 18), in which she characterized my proposed county tax-sale policy as a disingenuous and politically motivated effort to block the good works of conservation organizations.

Such organizations for years have been acquiring private land at below-market prices and then conveying that land to the federal government. In so doing, they have used a loophole in state law to skirt a prohibition against the federal government purchasing such lands without going to public auction.

MacDuff's assumption that my policy would prevent conservation groups from purchasing such land altogether is incorrect. It would only require that county taxpayers receive a fair price for the land.

MacDuff inappropriately compares this situation to the county's recent purchases of two buildings necessary to house a courthouse and a jail. She argued that the county's desire to keep tax-defaulted properties on the tax rolls also means that the county should have preferred to lease rather than buy the two buildings to keep them in private ownership, paying property taxes.

These two buildings, the Adelanto jail and the "303" courthouse building, were indeed purchased by the county. But I believe this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Leasing those buildings would have cost far more than the 1 percent valuation the county would have received in property taxes because of the lost equity that would have resulted. Owning the buildings gives the county assets it could sell or borrow against if necessary.

MacDuff said my proposed policy is about my opposition to the Desert Protection Act of 1994. My policy has nothing to do with the Desert Protection Act. She asked my opinion about the act, so I told her. But she had no basis to equate those two separate issues.

My motivations in this matter are simple and straightforward: to promote and preserve private ownership of land and encourage human stewardship of lands in our desert. I also want to ensure that taxpayers receive fair-market value for county-owned land by requiring tax sales to be publicly held at auction.

Finally, I want to keep properties in private ownership whenever possible so that the tax revenue collected can help pay for critically needed infrastructure and public services, such as police and fire protection.

Brad Mitzelfelt is a member of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.

S.B. County supervisor's tax-rolls explanation doesn't hold water

Press-Enterprise [Riverside, CA]
OPINION
CASSIE MACDUFF


Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt's proposed policy to put tax-defaulted properties back on the tax rolls is really a thinly veiled attempt to thwart conservation groups from expanding parkland in the desert.

Conservancies and other nonprofits under state law have gotten first crack at buying properties the county sells when owners fail for at least five years to pay property taxes.

Conservation groups have bought up nearly 750,000 acres in the desert this way and turned the land over to the federal government to be added to the Mojave National Preserve, held as wilderness or habitat mitigation.

Mitzelfelt says this deprived the county of tax base and prevented competitive bidding by private parties at tax-sale auctions.

He acknowledges these remote, vacant parcels would bring in only a few hundred dollars in property taxes each year, but he insists it would be better to keep the land in private hands.

If keeping property on the tax rolls is so important, why has the county recently purchased two multimillion-dollar properties with large, existing buildings on them, far more valuable than desert land?

In 2005, the county bought the former state office building catty-corner from the San Bernardino Courthouse from private investors for $23 million.

The investors wanted to lease it to the county, and they would have continued paying property taxes. But the county decided to buy it outright, thus removing it from the tax rolls.

Same with the Adelanto private prison. The county was going to lease it from the owner to use as a High Desert county jail but decided in 2005 to buy it for $31 million instead, taking it off the tax rolls.

Mitzelfelt said buying those buildings was good public policy because the county now has equity in the properties and can sell them later.

But the county is going to stay in those buildings a good long time, meaning they're off the tax rolls for many years into the future, as Mitzelfelt himself acknowledged when I asked.

So this is really about the Desert Protection Act, which created the Mojave Preserve in 1994.

A former Building Industry Association official, Mitzelfelt told me he opposed the act because it jeopardized the future of mining, put large swaths of land off-limits to cattle-grazing and public uses and was "overall a detriment to the (county's) economy."

Mitzelfelt's proposed policy was on the Board of Supervisors' agenda Tuesday, but the board put off action on it until June 5 to give his fellow supervisors a chance to figure out whether they think it's a good idea.

I hope they think carefully before putting sole authority over selling off vacant parcels larger than 20,000 square feet -- less than half an acre -- in the hands of the supervisor whose district the land is in.

Mitzelfelt and his predecessor as First District supervisor have been holding up the sales of tax-defaulted land in the High Desert for five years while this policy was being drafted.

Why did it take so long? It wasn't on the front burner, Mitzelfelt said.

Meanwhile, conservation groups including the Yucaipa-based Wildlands Conservancy and Mojave Desert Land Trust are being held at bay on 141 parcels they want to buy.

Their wait isn't over yet.

Mitzelfelt wants more options for land

Conservation groups are buying up land in the 1st District

Victor Valley Daily Press
RYAN ORR Staff Writer

SAN BERNARDINO — A policy proposed by Brad Mitzelfelt would give supervisors more sway over conservation groups that are buying county land.

Land conservancies have been acquiring large amounts of private land in San Bernardino County, especially in the 1st District.

"Our county has lost 735,807 acres of tax base and ranches since 2000 to conservancy acquisitions for parks, wilderness in holdings and habitat mitigation," said Mitzelfelt, San Bernardino County 1st District supervisor.

The Riverside Land Conservancy, a non-profit organization, has been buying tax-defaulted properties in the Mojave Preserve. The group can acquire the property before it is sold at auction in what is called "chapter 8 sales."

The process is often used to offer land at below-market price because the organization has to pay only the taxes owed on the property and an administrative fee.

The proposed policy that Mitzelfelt came up with is intended to return such tax-defaulted properties to viable residential and other economic uses, and to maintain the properties on the tax rolls of the county whenever possible to help pay for public services.

"Citizens in this county have a right to enjoy the desert as much as the animals in this county," Mitzelfelt said.

He said that he is optimistic that the other supervisors will support the policy.

S.B. County errs on desert preservation

OPINION

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin [Ontario, CA]

Despite creation of the Mojave National Preserve years ago to protect desert lands, the war of public conservation vs. private interests goes on. And it is being waged quietly by the county Board of Supervisors, as it selfishly tries to keep tax-defaulted lands on the tax rolls rather than see them acquired for public use.

We think land conservencies have a vital role to play without extra hurdles being thrown in.
Under state law, public entities, namely nonprofit land conservancies, can apply to redeem tax-defaulted properties before they are sold at public auction, and then give the land to a federal preserve - for the benefit of everyone.

But choosing to see such land acquisitions as unforgivable giveaways that cut into the county's tax base rather than gifts for the greater good, the county has blocked the indirect transfer of 90 parcels, amounting to at least 2,500 acres, from private hands to park status.

The stonewalling began three years ago under then-Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus and his chief of staff, Brad Mitzelfelt, and continues with Mitzelfelt now supervisor for the 1st District.
Frequently, the parcels in question are remote, miles away from any road or infrastructure.

But even so, Mitzelfelt said that years ago, he and Postmus became concerned that conservancies were snatching up land that might have a "higher use," meaning apparently that they might have a higher economic significance to the county.

While Mitzelfelt said his office remains skeptical that handing off land to the federal government is a better choice than keeping it in private hands, such a dim view of how parklands serve the public does not serve desert constituents well.

Mitzelfelt said he ultimately hopes to see direct land sales to conservancies largely eliminated. Conservancies still would be able to buy the land at public auction, he said, but they would have to outbid others for the privilege.

But such land grabs, though ostensibly to augment the county purse, fail to take into account the greater good of desert conservation and holding the land in a public trust for all to enjoy.

The aim of giving conservancies dibs on the property isn't to give the land trusts a break.

It is to benefit average citizens by ensuring their access to lands that, by all rights, should become part of the public's holdings via the national preserve.

County runs afoul of desert preservation

OPINION
Land conservancies have a vital role to play without extra hurdles being thrown in.

San Bernardino Sun [San Bernardino, CA]

Despite creation of the Mojave National Preserve years ago to protect desert lands, the war of public conservation vs. private interests goes on. And it is being waged quietly by the county Board of Supervisors, as it selfishly tries to keep tax-defaulted lands on the tax rolls rather than see them acquired for public use.

Under state law, public entities, namely nonprofit land conservancies, can apply to redeem tax-defaulted properties before they are sold at public auction, and then give the land to a federal preserve - for the benefit of everyone.

But choosing to see such land acquisitions as unforgivable giveaways that cut into the county's tax base rather than gifts for the greater good, the county has blocked the indirect transfer of 90 parcels, amounting to at least 2,500 acres, from private hands to park status.

The stonewalling began three years ago under then-Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus and his chief of staff, Brad Mitzelfelt, and continues with Mitzelfelt now supervisor for the 1st District.

Frequently, the parcels in question are remote, miles away from any road or infrastructure. But even so, Mitzelfelt said that years ago, he and Postmus became concerned that conservancies were snatching up land that might have a "higher use," meaning apparently that they might have a higher economic significance to the county.

While Mitzelfelt said his office remains skeptical that handing off land to the federal government is a better choice than keeping it in private hands, such a dim view of how parklands serve the public does not serve desert constituents well.

Mitzelfelt said he ultimately hopes to see direct land sales to conservancies largely eliminated. Conservancies still would be able to buy the land at public auction, he said, but they would have to outbid others for the privilege.

But such land grabs, though ostensibly to augment the county purse, fail to take into account the greater good of desert conservation and holding the land in a public trust for all to enjoy.

The aim of giving conservancies dibs on the property isn't to give the land trusts a break. It is to benefit average citizens by ensuring their access to lands that, by all rights, should become part of the public's holdings via the national preserve.

County stonewalling conservation efforts

Policy prefers private ownership to keep desert land on tax rolls

San Bernardino Sun [San Bernardino, CA]
Jeff Horwitz, Staff Writer

For three years, San Bernardino County has quietly blocked nonprofit land conservancies from acquiring tax-defaulted desert land and giving it to federal preserves.

Under state law, nonprofits and public entities can apply to redeem defaulted properties before they are sold at public auction. Instead of being considered by the board, however, the status of 90 parcels accounting for at least 2,500 acres remains pending.

The de-facto policy was established around three years ago at the request of then-1st District Supervisor Bill Postmus and his chief of staff and successor, Brad Mitzelfelt. Although the Mojave Preserve is an asset to his district, Mitzelfelt said, it doesn't make sense to help conservancies expand it by removing property from county tax rolls.

"Private property ownership, in really the most desirable parts of the desert, is a public benefit," he said. "Once we lose it, we'll never get it back."

Conservancies' representatives, however, said that the former owners' default on taxes demonstrates that the property has little monetary value.

"Our position is that this is a really positive thing for the county," said Sheldon Douthit, who handles land acquisition for the Mojave Desert Land Trust and the Wilderness Land Trust. "We're doing this at the request of the federal government."

Gail Egenes, an administrative director of the Riverside Land Conservancy, said she was surprised that the county would be concerned with the disposition of the 44 parcels her group wants to purchase.

"From a conservation standpoint, these are valuable properties, but that's really the extent of their value," she said.

Frequently, the parcels are remote - miles from any road or infrastructure. Among the most accessible are properties in the desert mining town of Leastalk, an early 20th-century mining town that has been abandoned.

Normally, the county's treasurer-tax collector would review the conservancies' intentions for the land and then send the groups' requests to the board.

"They put it on the agenda or they don't put it on the agenda," Treasurer-Tax Collector Dick Larsen said of the board. "We're just the administrators on this."

But Mitzelfelt said that he and Postmus became concerned a few years ago that the conservancies were sometimes buying up land they believed had a "higher use," whether residential or economic.

Although the Chapter 8 sales would make sense if the land was going to build a school or church, Mitzelfelt said, his office is skeptical that indirectly passing the land to the federal government would do constituents any good. Postmus and he intended to write a new policy restricting the sales but never reached a final draft, he said.

San Bernardino County's 1st District has long had an uneasy relationship with the federal agencies that own more than 8 million acres of its territory, suing over road access and other land-use issues. In 2001, the county excoriated the Bureau of Land Management's decision to remove ranchers from its Mojave Desert lands as part of a plan to protect desert tortoises.

Egenes said her organization simply hoped to convince the county that the land has no practical value.

"You're looking at mountain sides and hilltops," she said. "If these don't go through, an opportunity to place land in conservation where it can be managed appropriately is lost."

Ultimately, Mitzelfelt said, he hopes to see the direct sales to conservancies largely eliminated. "I just believe that there's room in the Mojave National Preserve for private-property ownership," he said.

The conservancies would still be able to buy the land at public auction, he said, assuming they could out-muscle public bidders.

"If we're going to lose the tax base, we might as well get the best price," he said.

County Buying Tax-Delinquent Mountain Lots

Redevelopment official cites need for complete infrastructure study; project foes are skeptical

Old Fire of October 2003

The Alpenhorn News
by Glenn Barr

In a move sure to trigger suspicion among local property owners, the San Bernardino County Redevelopment Agency quietly signaled its intention Friday to buy up 134 tax-delinquent residential lots in Cedar Glen rather than allow them to be sold to the highest bidder.

Assistant Tax Collector Dennis Draeger told The Alpenhorn News on Tuesday that the Redevelopment Agency had filed with his office on the eve of the scheduled, semi-annual tax sale a request for what’s called a Chapter 8 sale. The request means that ownership of the lots in the Old Fire-ravaged community will pass to the agency – whose governing body is the County Board of Supervisors – rather than individual buyers, including Cedar Glen residents wishing to rebuild their devastated homes larger than before.

Under a Chapter 8 sale, Draeger said, a government agency may request that properties scheduled for tax sales be sold to the agency instead, to satisfy a public purpose, as required in the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

“We don’t have the authority to deny that request,” said Draeger. “We have no choice.”

John Nowak, manager of the Redevelopment Agency, identified the public purpose of the lots as possible sites for infrastructure upgrades in the Cedar Glen Redevelopment Area project, which the Board of Supervisors initiated last fall.

Many Cedar Glen residents have questioned the involvement of their County representative, Supervisor Dennis L. Hansberger, in the redevelopment project, noting that Hansberger’s parents, who are in their late 80s, are part owners of land adjacent to the project area, land that could skyrocket in value once the redevelopment and its infrastructure were in place.

Though the supervisor’s father, Leroy Hansberger, has revoked his son’s power of attorney on the land holdings, skeptical opponents of redevelopment say Dennis Hansberger still stands to inherit the land, along with his brother.

The upgrades, Nowak said, would likely include new roads, widening existing roads for emergency vehicle turnarounds, water pipelines and even a reservoir.

By purchasing the lots, the Redevelopment Agency could end the ability of some Cedar Glen residents to rebuild their fire-ravaged homes any larger than they were by denying them the ability to merge their tiny lots with adjoining properties. They can rebuild on existing lots if the new house is fully within the lot boundaries and if it has a septic tank.

Though by having a public purpose Nowak’s explanation for his agency’s action apparently meets the test of state law, some community residents are not satisfied, seeing the move instead as a way for the county agency to acquire land for redevelopment easier and faster than through the cumbersome eminent domain process. Others interpret the move as an example of the county’s disregard for their wishes about rebuilding.

Redevelopment Agency ownership of the lots could also slash the overall cost of the project by allowing public acquisition of more than one-fifth of the community’s lots at the cost of unpaid taxes plus administrative costs, rather than at fair market value.

Draeger and Kelly McKee, the tax sale supervisor for the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office of San Bernardino County, said the Redevelopment Agency can buy the lots for the minimum bid, which equals the amount of unpaid taxes plus fees. In most cases that figure ranges from $2,000 to $5,000, they said, meaning the agency might be able to acquire all the properties for a sum ranging from $268,000 to $670,000 – far less than would have to be paid if they had first been sold to private owners.

In a redevelopment district, the governing agency acquires properties from their owners at fair-market value, through a process called eminent domain, and then makes them available to developers contracted to build housing and other facilities within the district.

Every May and August, properties throughout the county on which taxes are at least five years in arrears are offered for sale to the highest bidder by the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office, over the Internet. The current week-long sale began May 13 and runs through Friday. The Cedar Glen properties were removed from the sales list on Friday, May 13. Owners with overdue taxes had until May 12 to pay the arrearages and redeem their lots.

Nowak told The Alpenhorn News on Tuesday that the Redevelopment Agency requested the removal of the Cedar Glen lots so a “full analysis” of the properties could be conducted by the county to determine their suitability for meeting future infrastructure needs for the Cedar Glen Redevelopment Project.

Specifically, he said, roads will be needed for the project, as well as turnarounds for fire trucks and other emergency equipment. Water-system improvements will also be needed for the redevelopment, he said, including pipelines and possibly a reservoir.

Nowak said he hopes the property analysis can be completed “in just a few months,” after which lots the redevelopment agency has determined it does not need can be sold to the highest bidder. However, Draeger called the processing of a Chapter 8 request “an elaborate process” and said it could take up to 12 months for the Redevelopment Agency to acquire the property.

First, he said, the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office will put together the require documentation, and the Board of Supervisors will have to approve the request. Then it must receive approval from the State Controller.

“We didn’t have time to do a detailed analysis, parcel by parcel,” Nowak said in response to observations by some community residents, skeptical about the redevelopment plan, that many of the lots are steep and not appropriate for building roads or other infrastructure.

The Alpenhorn News learned of the Redevelopment Agency’s action from Dave Stuart, executive director of Rebuilding Mountain Hearts and Lives (RMHL), an organization formed to help victims of 2003’s Old Fire to rebuild their homes. A total of 336 homes were destroyed in Cedar Glen by the arson-caused fire.

Stuart said he learned of the action from a Cedar Glen resident named Sue Bowen who, along with her husband, had been trying to buy one of the lots adjacent to a lot they own on which the house was burned.

Contacted by this newspaper, Bowen said she had tried to buy the lot on Eucalyptus Road last year but was outbid. However, “the buyer didn’t perform,” she said, so the lot was returned to the sale list. Bowen and her husband were ready to bid when the sale opened Friday, only to discover, to their disappointment, that it was missing from the list, along with all other delinquent Cedar Glen lots.

Stuart said Cedar Glen properties can be identified on the tax-sale section of the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s web site by the four-digit numerical prefix “0330” or “0331.” A check Monday evening of the still-available properties revealed no properties with either prefix.

Bowen said she and her husband lost three houses in the Old Fire, one their residence and two they hoped to fix up and rent. Since the fire, she said, they have purchased a Cedar Glen home that survived the blaze, but still want to rebuild the homes they lost.

“I just feel this is kind of a dirty trick,” Bowen said. “Cedar Glen properties should stay with Cedar Glen people, and not be given to some developer.”

She said her attitude toward the proposed redevelopment project – which is expected to allow 2,000 homes, though the community is zoned for up to 4,400 – began to change at a Board of Supervisors meeting last November where the project was discussed.

Bowen said she witnessed two women, one a senior citizen, “dragged away in handcuffs” while voicing their concerns.

“That changed my whole idea of what these people (county officials) are capable of,” she said. “They don’t want to hear us. I don’t think they have our best interests at heart.”

Bowen noted that it’s been more than 18 months since the Old Fire, “and we don’t even know what the redevelopment plan is. Something stinks.”

But even slashing the project’s density by more than half, from 4,400 to 2,000 homes, still represents a threefold increase in Cedar Glen’s residential density. Just before the fire, Stuart said, there were 709 residential water connections serviced by the Arrowhead Manor Water Company, Cedar Glen’s water supplier, which is now in receivership. Of that number, 637 connections were active.

Because of the shaky financial state of the community’s water supplier, the future of water service in Cedar Glen is a topic of intense interest to property owners. Stuart said RMHL has commissioned a wide-ranging independent study of Arrowhead Manor and other water-supply options for Cedar Glen, along with the costs of each.

The contractor performing the study, San Bernardino-based Engineering Resources of Southern California, will complete the study this week and present the 20-page report at an RMHL-sponsored public meeting this Saturday at 1 p.m. at Lake Arrowhead Community Presbyterian Church on Highway 173.

In a telephone interview, Nowak declined to comment on the fate of Arrowhead Manor or how water might be supplied to a redeveloped Cedar Glen, saying only that that issue “is being addressed in the EIR (environmental impact report).”

Meanwhile, a recent occurrence that may complicate water-related decisions for Cedar Glen is the mailing of a May 12 letter to Cedar Glen property owners by Thomas L. Sutton, director of San Bernardino County’s Special Districts Department.

Sutton’s letter describes a proposal by Supervisor Hansberger to form an “improvement zone” within existing countywide County Service Area 70 to provide roads and water service for Cedar Glen.

The letter says forming the zone could result in public acquisition of Arrowhead Manor, which he said currently owes more than it is worth. If the water system were publicly owned, Sutton said, it would be “operated independently under my office. We have approximately 20 other water and sewer districts under our control, and this would just be another.”

The biggest benefit of forming the improvement zone, Sutton said, could be the potential for federal grant funds to finance some of the project’s infrastructure, including upgrading the water system “to a public standard.” Doing so would give the system sufficient pressure to fight fires without assistance from other water agencies.

Sutton said the zone’s formation could upgrade Cedar Glen’s road system and enable the county, with property owners’ consent, to provide an agreed-upon level of road service – like snow plowing, culvert repairs and maintenance – for a set price each year, payable on the owners’ tax bills. A similar arrangement exists in Cedarpines Park.

As dramatized in the Old Fire, one of Cedar Glen’s biggest needs may be an alternate exit route, other than Hook Creek Road, the long cul-de-sac serving much of the community. Sutton said the County Public Works Department’s transportation section is analyzing Cedar Glen’s road system and will recommend specific needs to the Redevelopment Agency.

“I can’t imagine that an alternative route wouldn’t be included in that report,” Sutton said.