Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear
I really don't think this situation is all that complicated. (Finding a guilty party may be, but the permit issue is not.) I haven't done any research, but it appears to be nothing more than a permit violation. The permit is violated. The permittee pays the fine and then pursues any avenues available to recover any losses.
The permitting agency is not going to wait for a long, drawn out investigation before they issue the fines. To the agency, it's clear cut...there is a violation and a permittee. The permittee pays the fine regardless of who might have actually committed the acts.
|
I think you are correct. I recall TV entered into an agreement with the water district to maintain that area in its natural, unaltered state in order to build on the adjacent land. Because the trees were destroyed, the district was in violation of the agreement and required to restore the property. The PWAC will fund the project. The PWAC is funded by the residential CDDs below 466 which is why it is reported that only those are involved.
PWAC funds are used for other things. The new park near the Haciendas at Mission Hills was done with PWAC funds, I believe. And the bridge/island repair is likely being proposed for PWAC funding, again falling on the CDDs below 466. Not saying it's right, just how some things are funded.