At the February 9, 2010 Mariposa County Board of Supervisors meeting the Board approved the spending of $40,000 to attorneys to represent the County against the suit filed by Theresa Castaldi on a 4-1 vote with Supervisor Turpin voting against spending the money.
Named in the suit: The County of Mariposa, The Board of Supervisors: Brad Aborn, Jim Allen, Janet Bibby, Kevin Cann and Lyle Turpin. Planning Director of Mariposa County, Kris Schenk.
The suit filed by Theresa Castaldi is about the denial of a 975 square foot standalone restroom for Coyote Springs on November 3, 2009
when the Board denied the appeal by Theresa Castaldi for the restrooms. The vote by the Supervisors was 4-1 with Supervisor Lyle Turpin voting to grant the appeal.
Board Minutes from that meeting:
Kris Schenk, Planning Director;
PUBLIC HEARING to Consider Appeal No. 2009-138, an Appeal of the Planning Director’s Determination Regarding Building Permit Application No. 27628 for Proposed Construction of 957 Square Foot Structure Entitled “Agritourism Bathroom”.
Appellant: Theresa Castaldi c/o Gerald C. Weaver. Coyote Springs Ranch is Located at 2100 Old Highway, Catheys Valley. The Subject Appeal and Permit Involve APN 016-220-008, a 21.47 Acre Parcel.
BOARD ACTION: Chair Aborn reviewed the hearing procedures. Sarah Williams, Deputy Planning Director, presented the staff report, including a review of the history of the project and issues and previous actions that have been taken relative to the agritourism issues. She reviewed and advised of the five appeal issues that were submitted:
1) Permit authorized as necessary to continue permitted use existing prior to Ordinance No. 1049;
2) Permit application was deemed complete prior to Ordinance No. 1049;
3) refusal to continue processing Permit Application was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to California law;
4) decision was discriminatory, in bad faith and violates appellant’s civil rights in violation of Title 42, U.S.C. Section 1893; and
5) appeal is without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek relief at any time. Kris Schenk and Sarah Williams responded to questions from the Board relative to clarification of whether the issue on appeal is the size of the restroom facilities or whether they are permitted. Debra Willis responded to a question from the Board relative to the status of the cabins.
The public portion of the hearing was opened and input was provided by the following:
Appellants Presentation:
Attorney Gerald Weaver advised that he is representing Castaldi and Oakander, owners of the Coyote Springs Ranch. He advised that the request is for a ministerial building permit and that there is an obligation for the permits to be issued as long as they meet the Building Code. He feels that based on their history with Planning staff, that staff is trying to keep this use from happening until the policy is adopted for agritourism uses. He referenced the arena events and uses that have been held on the Ranch. He provided input on the status of the building permit application for the free-standing restrooms in relation to the urgency Ordinance that was adopted earlier this year, and stated he does not understand why there is a concern about the proposed size of the facility. He feels that the permit was accepted by the County and other applications were submitted for the Ranch; and
it was subsequently agreed to put this application on hold, and then the County accepted reactivation of the application. He does not understand the relevance of Resolution No. 09-42 to the restroom project. He presented the following documents for evidence:
1) Letter from Theresa Castaldi dated October 30, 2008 to the Building Department putting the Public Restroom Project on hold;
2) Letter from the Planning Director dated August 6, 2008 to the applicant relative to the review of Plans for Permit No. 27681, along with a schedule of events for 2008 at the Ranch;
3) Letter from the Deputy Planning Director dated February 3, 2009 to the applicant concerning the adoption of Resolution No. 09-42, along with a copy of said Resolution;
4) Letter from the Building Director dated October 31, 2008 to the Health Director and the Planning Director relative to the processing of the permits; along with a letter from Planning dated July 25, 2007 to the applicant relative to serving food and beverages; and
5) Staff report for the Board meeting of January 13, 2009 relative to Appeal No. 2008-
193. Ken Baker, Project Manager for Coyote Springs Ranch, testified as to the agritourism uses that have occurred on the property since 2007, and showed a file full of flyers and brochures that he has for the events; i.e., Western Fair, rodeos, arena events, and ranch tours, etc. He advised of their presence on the Web and that they are a cow/calf operation and are experimenting with growing other products on the Ranch. He advised that they applied in 2009 for permits to have bus tours and to feed the guests by catering. They are applying for a Gathering Permit for their third annual Catheys Valley Fair. He appealed to the Board to look at what we have in the County and the possibility and to do something to make it work for everybody versus putting obstructions in the way.
Speakers in Support of the Appellant:
Steve Fortner, property owner in Catheys Valley, stated he has been fighting with the County for fifteen years over what they can do with their property. County Counsel admonished that the testimony needs to be limited to the five issues raised on appeal. Steve Fortner continued and advised that there is a nexus as they have a mortgage against Coyote Springs Ranch and this is the first issue that has gone through the administrative process and if there is any litigation, they will need to be faced also. County Counsel reiterated that the testimony needs to be related to the issues raised in the appeal. Steve Fortner referred to his installation of the water tank which was “against the rules” and stated he feels this is the same. He stated he feels that things need to be brought up in the administrative process so they can be used in an appeal to the Court. He feels the bathrooms are a nexus to trying to limit the size and success of this organization.
Opponents Presentation:
County Counsel reiterated his statement that the testimony needs to be related to the issues raised in the appeal.
Rita Kidd stated she is a member of MERG (Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government) and she presented a letter from MERG dated November 2, 2009 asking the Board to apply existing law and uphold the decisions made by County staff. She presented a letter from herself and her husband, Tony, dated November 3, 2009 relative to the appeal and urging the Board to defend and support the Planning Director and Building Director’s determinations. She advised that she serves on the Agritourism Advisory Committee; and she used an analogy of Savoury’s Restaurant moving and building a restroom first. Then they see that they can add more tables and chairs and serve more people and exceed the Fire Marshall regulations. She noted that the Agricultural Exclusive zone is different that than the other zones. She also noted that this operator has a permit to build a use that is in excess of what is recommended in the agritourism policy that is coming to the Board. She provided input on the agritourism uses being located in areas with other uses.
Rick Benson, County Administrative Officer, asked the Board about continuing the hearing for the Chair to participate as he has another appointment. Chair Aborn asked the appellants if they are agreeable with continuing the hearing. Attorney Weaver concurred and advised that his staff report will be the same for the Building appeal. County Counsel provided an admonishment and advised that since the Board is in the middle of the hearing process, this matter should not be discussed by the Board members outside of the hearing process. (M)Turpin, (S)Allen, the hearing was continued to 2:45 p.m./Ayes: Unanimous.
2:46 p.m. The Board reconvened and continued with the public hearing to consider Appeal No. 2009-138. Chair Aborn called for any further opponents presentation, and none was received.
Rebuttal by the Appellant:
Attorney Weaver referred to the opponent’s presentation that the use of the property now is in excess of what the new policy would allow. He advised that this is assuming that a new ordinance is adopted that limits the occupancy to less than 250 persons a day; and even if that happened, his clients would have an existing non-conforming use.
The public portion of the hearing was closed and the Board commenced with deliberations.
Staff responded to questions from the Board relative to the application process for this permit; relative to Public Assemblage Permits and how many times they could be issued at a location where the zoning is improper; relative to the current permit for up to 250 day guests and how this request for the restroom facility fits in; current allowed uses and what would be permitted as nonconforming (grandfathered) use once an agritourism ordinance is established; and being able to accommodate needs of the guests that are allowed with a Public Assemblage Permit, and clarifying that issuance of a Public Assemblage Permit is not guaranteed and it is for a temporary use. Fred Lustenberger responded to questions from the Board relative to the status of the cabins since the last hearing. Planning staff responded to questions from the Board clarifying that this appeal stands on its own and does not address the cabins; and relative to determining “deemed to be complete” for permits.
County Counsel reviewed the options available to the Board for action:
1) deny the appeal;
2) uphold the appeal;
or 3) request further action from staff.
(M)Allen, (S)Bibby, Res. 09-535 was adopted denying Appeal No. 2009-138, with the
recommended findings. Further discussion was held.
Ayes: Aborn, Bibby, Cann, Allen;
Noes:
Turpin.
The hearing was closed.
3:31 p.m. Recess
At that same meeting the other appeal by Theresa Castaldi about the building of restrooms associated with the cabins (Yet to be built) the Board of Supervisors on a 3-2 vote (Supervisor Aborn and Bibby voting for upholding the Building Director’s determination) granted the appeal.
At the December 3, 2009 Board meeting Supervisor Kevin Cann reiterated that the Restrooms cannot be built until permits are in place for the cabins. County Counsel agreed with the statement by Kevin Cann.
COUNTY SUPERVISORS ALLOCATE UP TO $40,000 TO STOP A $38,000 RESTROOM
By the way…that $40,000 is leaving the County for good and going to a Sacramento Law Firm. This violates the admonishment given from a Supervisor in the same meeting to spend local. “Don‘t buy flowers from street vendors as the money flows out of the county and hurts our local florists.” Clearly the Board does not hold themselves to the same standards they want the local residents and merchants to be held to.
The Mariposa County Board of Supervisors approved up to $40,000 to be spent with a Sacramento attorney to stop Theresa Castaldi from building restrooms for her agri-tourism guests and other people visiting the Coyote Springs Ranch.
Ask yourself this question: Should public restrooms be allowed wherever the public gathers?
The Coyote Springs Ranch is allowed to have up to 250 people per day as authorized by County Counsel and the Board of Supervisors. They are allowed to feed these people through a catering program, but they are not allowed to have a place to go to the restroom.
Let’s put this another way: You invite guests to your home for a barbeque, but you do not allow them to use your restroom. Clearly, that is unacceptable behavior. It is an insult to people who visit Mariposa and it reflects enormously on the government and residents of Mariposa County.
YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
To the PURGE comment:
Clarification:
The County has maintained that portable restrooms can be brought in for events.
Your County Government at Work
$40,000 to Stop a Public Restroom
The county says we can bring in portable toilets for an event. Portable toilets for an event! They must be kidding. Coyote Springs Ranch is not an event; it is an international, end destination, agri-tourism facility that provides guests with enjoyable, educational, and entertaining farm and ranch experiences.
Most “important” end destination tourism facilities have permanent restrooms. They generally only use portable toilets when they are expecting a much larger crowd then normal. The idea of portable toilets at an important agri-tourism facility (like Coyote Springs Ranch) for anything other then a special event is insulting to visitors, whether they are tourism, agri-tourism, or are regular guests.
Coyote Springs Ranch was designed, built, and welcomed to the county as an international, first class, end destination agri-tourism facility. They are recognized as such by most of the domestic and international guests that have visited the ranch. It is our opinion that all agri-tourism, end destination facilities, require a clean sufficient number of restrooms to make the public feel welcome and comfortable. Now ask your wife, her friends, neighbors and any other ladies that you know, if they would rather have a permanent restroom facility, when they take their families out for a farm or ranch getaway, or if they would prefer a “portable toilet”.
We don’t understand the statement, “the county says portable toilets can be brought in” when the county is spending over a million dollars a year to promote more tourism and are stating openly, in their general plan, their EED mission statement, the visitor’s center and the chamber of commerce, they promote agri-tourism.
Why even think portable toilets, when the business owner is willing to put in a comfortable permanent restroom facility. It doesn’t cost the county one dollar. The permanent restrooms would make visitors feel welcome, more comfortable and ensure that they have a great time and will be back. Instead of spending $40,000 to interfere and prevent the restrooms from being built, why not spend that $40,000 they seem so anxious to send to Sacramento attorneys, on local programs, such as children’s programs or juvenile programs. Isn’t it about time the county stops trying to crush the life out of Coyote Springs Ranch and realize what they are? A major asset to Mariposa County, its merchants and its residents.
PURGE
(People Urgently Requesting Government Equality)
Where can I find the original “Don’t buy from Flower Vendors” speech?
Lisa the Don’t buy flowers “speech” was at the Feb 9th Board of Supervisors meeting. It was taken out of context. The supervisor also stated that the vendors are not licensed and that they take away money from the county as they pay no sales tax and deprive local businesses who pay for licenses and collect sales taxes of income.
Where and when did PURGE “EMERGE”? This is the first time I have heard of them . I would be very curious to know who their board of directors are. Are there by-laws, public meetings, a list of members, a way to join? Where can I find this information?
Their letters are very slick and seem to be PR rather than factual. It looks as if Theresa Castaldi is being portrayed as a martyr.
I am going to suggest a new organization. It is called VOMIT (as in I want to throw up when ever I see the ridiculous goings on in this county).
I would also like to know how someone who is bankrupt can fund this lawsuit. Ms. Castaldi should make her creditors whole before trying to wring funds from the county.
It is her right to do this, but by her actions she is making a laughing stock of herself.
The concept of Coyote Springs is wonderful, and I agree that some of the things that the “County fathers and mothers”do are somewhat highhanded at times, but there are rules and regulations and everyone is subject to them.
Our elected officials are just that “elected”. If enough of us disagree with them, then we can eliminate them by recall or in the general election.
By and large they do a good job. If you don’t agree come to the Board meetings and and voice your opinion. There is ample opportunity for the public to speak up. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if you squeak loud enough you can make a difference.
Thank you…I had read it before, I just wanted to read it again and couldn’t find it.
Board of Supervisors, get a grip and stop wasting our tax dollars, everyone needs clean restrooms
This restroom program has clearly gone over the top. $40,000 ????????
I think the Board of Supervisors should close the public restrooms in the government center, bring in portable toilets for $60 to $70 a month, then they wouldn’t have to pay a janitor to clean them.
General Rommel said “I need to eat, sleep and live the way my men do so I will know how hard I can push them”. The Board of Supervisors needs to take a lesson from the general and live like they expect others to live. Maybe they will change their thoughts and opinions on how hard they can push their constituents.
Since Mariposa County is so dependent upon grants from both the state and the federal government, I think it is incumbent upon the county to make all efforts to be fair, forthright, and transparent in all of their actions. Also to make sure there is equal rights for everyone, their general plan is followed to a T and everyone’s property rights are protected. My question is basic, why would anyone want to stop a private business from building public restrooms, with their own money, when it is obvious it would benefit tourists and Mariposa County residents alike, much less spend $40,000 of tax payers money to stop them?
To Juniperhill, Lisa and all other interested parties:
This ridiculous argument about the restrooms is a direct hit on Coyote Springs Ranch by four of the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors and is a totally despicable position to take. Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Let me break it down for you. Let’s say you moved to Mariposa County and spent 10 years and your family’s life savings to build your dream (with the blessings of the county government). You show that the business can be successful, keep open space and provide a wholesome, fun agricultural facility for the world to come and see. Then a small handful of people in the county government decide to interfere, and barricade the driveway of your ranch, an ongoing business, without even taking proper legal steps, not withstanding the fact that one of the driveways in question has been an existing driveway for 120 years. This in itself is unheard of. By the way, there are dozens of other unfinished encroachment permits sitting in county files that have never been dealt with, especially on the front page of local newspapers.
I am glad that Theresa Castaldi filed a lawsuit, yet, even now, we are being fed lies about that. Ms. Castaldi is not asking for money, she only wants to provide clean restrooms for her guests. My bet is Ms. Castaldi is not only going to win the lawsuit, the county government is going to get a major black eye and this draconian movement by the county will have serious ramifications on the county government in the future.
Bull riding is the largest spectator draw of all indoor and outdoor agricultural ranch type events in this country and probably the world. Professional bull riders are legitimate business people. We travel all over the United States and sometimes out of the United States. Agricultural sponsors account for 80% of our sponsorship, whether it be cattle, farm, or ranch equipment manufacturers. To deny our riders, our families and our paying guests the simple basics of clean, sanitary restrooms with sinks and showers to wash our hands and clean up in is beyond our comprehension. Let’s put it this way…how would you like to be thrown 20 ft in the air and land face down in mud, manure and whatever else is in that dirt and not have a place to clean up?
We almost always draw crowds in the 1000’s. We have an event scheduled at the Coyote Springs Ranch on Memorial Day weekend this year. We would like the people that spend their time and money to come see us ride and support us to have clean restrooms. Our government sends United States representatives all over the world to teach people how to build sanitary restroom facilities. However, in Mariposa County, home to one of the 10 wonders of the world, we are not allowed to have clean sanitary restrooms built on foundations. We are told we can use “portable toilets” for these events. How totally absurd.
I think it’s time for the Board of Supervisors to rethink their positions and attitudes and realize that the people that elected them are tax payers and they cannot pay their taxes unless they are making a living. They need to start facing the reality that Mariposa County could easily go down the drain with these hard economic times. We can no longer afford to let a few people with such narrow attitudes make these kinds of decisions that are dangerously interfering with people’s lives, property and civil rights.
Manuel Souza
Souza‘s Bucking Bulls
Contractor to the PBR and CBR
To Manuel Souza and Purge:
This argument is really in the toilet.
It is getting really silly and off track.
I would suggest that everyone involved get the facts. Go to planning and ask them for the findings denying the “toilets” Examine them carefully and decide what is the right thing.
Spouting off about women and mothers , etc not having facilities borders on the ridiculous, especially when Coyote Springs touts the Cowboy way of Life. I’m sure those “cowboys did not have “facilities”. Come on folks get a grip. Get the facts, read the ordinances, this is about the law and what is allowed. If Ms. Castaldi can prove wrongdoing more power to her and on with the bathrooms. Lets not turn this into a “potty circus”. I am into my seventh decade and have availed myself of many and varied ways to relieve myself. If Ms. Castaldi prevails I’ll check out Coyote Springs as a “Port in any Storm”
To Juniperhill:
What’s silly and off track is your comment, “Spouting off about women and mothers , etc not having facilities borders on the ridiculous…”.
As a mother, I personally take offense to this. Have you ever tried to change a 2yr old’s diaper in a portable toilet? My guess would be no. And as far as your “many and varied ways to relieve” yourself, there have been laws put into effect over the past 7 decades that would probably not only land a person in jail, but possibly require them to register as a sex offender. If you had children you passed this wonderful trait on to, you can include child endangerment and child pornography charges as well as many others. I mean the list just goes on and on.
And if you don’t like this argument, why don’t you just sit down and shut up! I suggest you do so in a portable toilet!
I agree with Manuel Souza’s comments, and at least he owned up to his opinon. Anonomous trash talk from Juniperhill is cowardly. I think I know who it is, and they are part of the problem confronting any business that wants to operate on the West side of the County. Retroactive rules to prohibit human activity is immoral and illegal. The CSR restrooms issue is the tip of the iceburg. This is the first of what looks to be a string of on-deck litigation waiting to ripen. The district 3 Supervisor and the Planning Director have engaged in a multi pronged campaign against tourist serving activities. In 1996 we filed application 96-1 to form a community services district to provide utilities to our 350 acres of Cathey’s Valley property, of which 100 acres is zoned Township Planning Area. We have endured 14 years of Government gone wild behavior. We have spent several hundred thousand dollars trying to master plan our property to the letter of what the zoning and the General Plan call for. Our every move has been met with counter moves by Planning under pressure from the local supervisor to stop us. In the last few years that same abuse of power has been directed at CSR. The County is willing to spend more to fight the health related improvements at CSR than the construction would cost. The real goal is to put them out of business. I guess the logic is that if they can’t go, they wont come. As a major lender to CSR I have had a front row seat to the Counties on going abuse of power directed at CSR. It would be ironic if TOILET GATE gets the Planning Director fired before we get a chance to plead our cases in front of the Judges (State and Federal). The abuse of power that has been going on has created a huge liability profile for the County. The City of Poway was sued by similarly targeted property owners over the district’s couincel women’s abuse of power. The City ended up settling the case for something in the neighborhood of $700,000. + the abused property owners attorney’s fees. Touists and jobs are the answer, not the problem. Government is the problem, not the answer.
Dear Juniperhill:
Clearly you don’t get the picture. The discussion isn’t even really about restrooms, but about corrupt people and government officials taking the law into their own hands. Why should we sit down and talk to anybody in the Planning Department? Coyote Springs Ranch and numerous other citizens have gone to the Planning Department and received not the law, rules or ordinances, but the director’s opinion.
The Planning Department’s so called findings don’t follow the law or rules and they clearly are not interested in the right thing. They are only interested in their own personal agendas, obviously supported by some government officials, hence the lawsuit. We’ve all read the ordinances and what the law allows. The county is in violation of both county ordinances in the law.
We don’t have a Planning Department, we have an Obstruction Department. The Planning Department doesn’t follow the law; they think they make the law. What comes out of the Planning Department is opinion not the law, county ordinance, general plan or written county policy. The Planning Director makes it up as he goes. If you don’t believe it ask 8 of every 10 people in Mariposa County that has dealt with the Planning Department.
Your idea about Coyote Springs Ranch’s “Cowboy way of life” and cowboys not having “facilities” is absurd. If you have ever been to any place the public goes, regardless of the theme, clean restrooms are required by state law, including providing handicap accessibility and a diaper changing station.
I must say your 7th decade is impressive, however, I don’t feel that gives you or anyone else that has lived in Mariposa County anymore rights than the rest of the residents here. Everyone has equal rights.
I’m delighted you have numerous ways to relieve yourself, whatever that means! Frankly, I don’t know if how you relieve yourself has anything to do with anyone but you. It does however conjure up all kinds of strange images, but this is not about you. It is about how the county tries to lure tourists and visitors to Mariposa County and then stops a restroom from being built for such guests. I don’t remember hearing anything about mothers and women, but I can tell you that 98 of 100 women don’t like the idea of having no restrooms. You may want to cool it a bit.
Love all the saber-rattling about jobs. While tourists and jobs are important, following the planning rules are also important to maintain quality of life. Screaming “JOBS” doesn’t mean you get to do anything you want.
I’m no expert, but as I read the comments and coverage in the Gazette over the past years, the problem seemed to be that Coyote Springs Ranch over and over did something without a permit; or pulled a permit and exceeded it; or (in the case of the driveway) kept promising they were going to do something (pave it) but never did.
Yes, government is here to keep business owners from doing whatever they want with their property. How about I declare I want to open a landfill for batteries on my property? I’ll create jobs! it’s business! what do you mean I need to follow proper disposal rules? It’s my property!
Do we really want that? Government is NOT the problem. If they have acted improperly in the case of this one permit, then sure, go ahead, sue them if there is no other recourse. But what about all the other permits?
I have found Mariposa Planning department extremely easy to work with – granted, I just have a residence, not a business. But it seems to me that Castaldi wants to be able to do what she wants, without having to follow the rules the rest of us follow.
That last comment that “goverment is the problem, not the answer” troubles me. You don’t like police? Fire services? roads? the public restrooms in town? Efficient property tax collection? Social security? National parks? Water? Sewage?
And I really can’t think anyone would claim Mariposa is “government gone wild”. Do I like all the things the supervisors have done? no. That’s what the ballot box is for. Am I glad the planning dept. is watching out for us so things get done properly? YES. Look at Louisiana after the hurricane Katrina – we can see what lack of building standards did there.
Again, I’m not expert. But based on the articles I’ve seen, Castaldi has done her best to bypass the planning dept. instead of working with it. And I have to think we aren’t getting the full story in these comments. There must have been a reason the planning department denied the toilet permit. Why not work with them on a size toilet that fits the events instead of suing? or is this just to distract us from the bankruptcy?
I would love to know the full story someday. Maybe someone will write a book…
Re: the Board of Supervisors wasteing money on this project, hasn’t Ms. Castaldi done the same thing? If I remember correctly, the Public Works Director estimated it would cost $14,000 to complete the road easement. With all the legal fees she spent fighting it, and all the money she claims she lost because it was closed, it would have been far cheaper to have just completed the easement. Have been driving that road for more years than Mr. Sousa, and I don’t recall any entrance there, at least nothing like the one in question. And any time you upgrade an entrance, as from a single lane to a double lane, a new easement permit is required.
Further, my understanding of Agri-tourism is it is supposed to enhance some existing activity at a farm or ranch, such as a grape grower adding a wine tasting room, or an apple grower having an Apple Festival. Key word here is “existing”. Ms. Castaldi claims to have a calf raising operation. How then does the bucking bull event qualify as agri-tourism? She doesn’t own the bulls, and they aren’t pastured on her ranch. What she is trying to do is build an event center without the proper permits, environmental reviews, or zoning. What’s next, a steakhouse because she raises beef?
This could had been a wonderful facility for our community, but because of fiscal irresponsibility and lack of proper planning on the part of the developer and owner(s) this is now a tangled mess.
It was my understanding that agritoursim was to be an enhancement to an on going ag operation, something that one could gleen extra income from and to promote their on going business.
Get the necessary permits, do the work correctly and get the permits signed off. Don’t do work that is outside your scope or outside what the current zoning and regs allow. Go through the process correctly and have a plan.
Seems like common sense went out the door here and what could have been great is now not.
Do you believe everything you read in the Gazette?
You would think everything was perfect in Mariposa County, but as you can tell, the powers that be won’t let that happen.
Coyote Springs Ranch will bring much needed jobs to our young people. It’s very sad that they have to leave home in order to find a decent job. We need to be able to provide viable jobs and career options in Mariposa County. It’s a shame that so much attention is being placed toward the negative instead the positive which is what a business like Coyote Springs Ranch is trying to achieve.
I’ve spent a lot of time at Coyote Springs and have never seen them have the attitude of “let’s break the law”. On the contrary, they are very conscious about this county and its rules, regulations and laws. They just want to offer an experience of when time was simpler. Why won’t this county just let them?
Manuel Souza
Theresa Castaldi’s lawsuit and political aspirations are the ultimate in chutzpah! She just went bankrupt, having stiffed numerous creditors, including myself. She failed to meet her legal obligations and took the easy way out. Now she’s trying to take more money from the community. Any supporters that she now has are either misguided or completely naive. Here’s hoping that she fails spectacularly in both endeavors.