Newest articles and comments on The Sacramento Press written by martha esch

martha esch on "Self-portrait contest in Locke"

2012-09-28T03:33:33Z

Reminder to all artists... we'd love to have your participation on October 6, 2012 for this fun event! Start painting or drawing your self-portraits now if you haven't started.

martha esch on "Self-portrait contest in Locke"

2012-08-27T03:23:53Z

That's correct. We've postponed it to October 6, 2012 to egt more participants and beat the heat, Please participate. I t'll be a blast! Call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Martha 916-776-100zero

Locke assessments increased in violation of LMA’s CC&Rs and Brown Act

2012-08-23T18:46:45Z

For background information on this story, read the Locke property dispute Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3

In December 2011 the Locke Management Association (LMA), a 13-member board of directors, increased all Locke building owners’ monthly assessments by 20 percent, in order to cover their projected ongoing 2012 lawsuit costs against Martha Esch for her purchase of a Locke commercial-residential combination use property in March 2011.

Esch said, “The only reason we’ve seen yet for their lawsuit is the signed statement LMA made in a letter to the seller’s attorney that said they had to notify ‘400 Chinese ancestors of their priority to purchase the Locke property.’ And since I don’t fit LMA’s preferred national origin, I get to hire a lawyer and fight their ridiculous discriminatory lawsuit. Anti-discrimination is still discrimination, and it seems that LMA is doing to me the very same thing they talk about in their guided tours about the Chinese being denied the right to own properties in Locke. Now, they want to make restitution for the 1888 Chinese Exclusion Act on my shoulders and deny me the same right to property ownership in Locke. Seems kind of ironic, doesn’t it?”

As for the 20 percent assessment increases, the LMA board raised the monthly fees in ignorance of their own time, notification, special hearing and membership voting requirements and amount of increase restrictions, violating both their own conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs), and public agency rules known as the Ralph M. Brown Act. On February 14, 2012 the board rescinded the motion, then raised the assessments right back up again on March 13, 2012, once again without giving notice to the property owners and providing a special public hearing on the matter with required 45 day notice, and without the required 51 percent approval votes. Additionally, the LMA Board disallowed Esch from addressing the board on the assessment agenda item before they took the action to raise the assessments again.

“The board’s habit of disallowing the public audience members to speak their concerns on the agenda items has been routine practice since their formation in 2005,” says Esch. “Three years ago they were warned by Lisa Kirk about their numerous Brown Act violations and they were then warned by the DA after Kirk wrote the DA a letter. The board was careful for a few meetings back in late 2009, but then they’ve slipped right back into their former routine, telling us we can’t speak to many of the issues listed on their agendas, and then they go ahead and vote and when we object, they’ve told us we have to wait until the end of the meeting and we’ll get our chance to make a three-minute public comment. Well, then it’s too late as their actioned votes already happened.” Esch continues, “And the public is not provided the email communications, agenda materials and attachments in advance of the meetings that the board members have. They seldom post their agendas in the 72 hour advance requirement and they seldom give enough of a description to understand what the agenda items are about. Another thing they do is that they go off topic and talk about other matters not listed on the agenda during their meetings. Sometimes they slip important items in without listing them on the agendas by discussing them under the Manager’s Report, because they think they don’t have to take public comments for his report.”

One such example is the Key Street Church building in Locke. At LMA meetings in February 2012, and July 2012, discussions of the pending church property sale were slipped into the meeting under the Manager’s Report, circumventing required posted agenda notifications to the public. When questioned by Esch at two separate board meetings, the LMA Secretary could not answer when she had sent out the notifications to the Interested Parties List.

The important matter of LMA’s Right of First Refusal (ROFR) policy and procedures was omitted from agenda listings and avoided in any public meeting discussions on the recent church property sale. “Once again, the LMA board has handled yet another ROFR matter differently on that property sale than the way they are handling mine. I get a lawsuit. Everyone else buying property in Locke gets a free pass to GO,” says Esch.

“The problem is that the board members refuse to sit down and read anything, so they never learn,” says Kirk who has singlehandedly educated many of the concerned townspeople as to their rights to speak at public meetings and their right to the same information and documents the board members receive.

Esch adds, “The board members don’t know their own CC&R’s and bylaws, they don’t know the different zoning uses of Locke’s four streets, they don’t know the Special Planning Area plan for Locke and they don’t care about the Brown Act. Least of their cares are the 62 residents or us few merchants you can count on one hand.”

In addition to the illegal assessment increases, the Zone 5 commercial-residential owners are being charged inconsistent rates for no explained reason. Property owners of two vacant buildings in Zone 5 are being charged the full commercial assessment rate of $120 per month while more than half the occupied store buildings in Zone 5 are being assessed at the Zone 4 residential-only rate of $60 per month. Many of the buildings on Main Street and Levee Road Zone 5 commercial-residential properties are used as residences only, and make use of their commercial store sections for dead storage instead of open shops, against Section 8.2 of LMA’s CC&Rs and the Locke Special Planning Area ordinances. Four of the other 16 historic century-old properties in Zone 5 continue to be left vacant and abandoned, and are being allowed by LMA to further fall into disrepair and the impending threat of demolition. Some of these owners are charged the Zone 4 residential assessment rate of $60 per month, while others are charged the Zone 5 commercial assessment rate of $120 per month. There is no rhyme or reason for the billing inconsistencies, and LMA offers no valid explanations when asked about the varying assessment rates. The owners receive no realized value for the monthly taxation, and there is no incentive for property owners in Zone 5 to run businesses and contribute to the vitality of Locke.

Locke commercial property owner Tony Maldonado was never told by LMA that during 2011 he was overpaying his monthly assessments at the 2010 higher rates, and received no apology or refund from them. Maldonado adds, “It’s ridiculous. Here’s a perfect example. Rancho Murietta is a private gated community with security guards, a baseball field, swimming pools and a private golf course, and they have comparable monthly assessments. And what do we have for our assessments here in Locke? We have cracked sidewalks to trip on and a building that you have to be careful when you walk by because it might fall on you.”

Another Sacramento area homeowners’ association like Rancho Murietta, also offers its homeowners a cornucopia of services and recreation activities and facilities is Sun City, and its home owners’ assessments are just $287 annually. By comparison, Locke property owners are charged more than 200 to 400 percent that rate, and get literally no services for their money. “We get broken sidewalks, rotted-out wood walkways, empty buildings, animal feces and flies, and unmaintained parks. We have no community center, no basketball or tennis court, no swimming pool, no town picnics, no nothing for us, just a group directors who are not into sharing or being friendly to us renters,” says a long-time resident in Locke who wishes to remain anonymous.

“It appears the LMA and the county government would rather see the town simply fall into further disrepair, and for the few remaining businesses in Locke to just dry up and leave town," says Diane Thomas, owner of Locke Chinese Medicine.

“The main reason Locke struggles is because there is no merchant support from the LMA or encouragement to run a business here,” says Lisa Kirk, owner of Strange Cargo, a Main Street eclectic collectibles and books shop. She adds, “Business concerns such as broken sidewalks, handicap access, signs for the town and two rude residents who chase off tourists from Levee Road are not issues that the LMA will address, even though it’s been brought up before them continuously to promote a positive business environment. I can only assume that’s why I’ve seen eleven businesses come and go since I started doing business in Locke in 2005. For seven years, I’ve been asking the board for simple things like town signage, yet instead they came out with a historic walking tour brochure and selectively excluded our active businesses from it, saying that we were residences only and not historical. They could have instead chosen to help promote us and put in that our stores are actually licensed businesses.”

Editor's note of disclosure: Article author, Martha Esch purchased a Commercial/Residential property in historic Locke, California in March 2011 and the Locke Management Association has filed a lawsuit against her, disputing she has the right to own the property and run her business. The case is pending a jury trial in Superior Court in 2013.

Disclosure: For further information regarding the ongoing Locke dispute, please contact Martha Esch at (916) 776-1000.

martha esch on "Locke Property Dispute (part 3)"

2011-11-01T23:59:36Z

Thank you, Casey.

martha esch on "Locke Property Dispute (part 2) in the ongoing battle. "

2011-11-01T17:51:39Z

To RLM, I've replied to your response in the (part 3) article found here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/59352/Locke_Property_Dispute_part_3

martha esch on "Locke Property Dispute (part 3)"

2011-11-01T17:47:54Z

to ccc, Sorry, i should've attached links to the previous articles, titled, Locke Property Dispute (part 1) and (part 2). Here they are: http://sacramentopress.com/headline/56717/Locke_property_dispute_part_1 http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/59228/Locke_Property_Dispute_part_2_in_the_ongoing_battle

martha esch on "Locke Property Dispute (part 3)"

2011-11-01T08:46:24Z

I appreciate that my neighbor, RLM used her real initials and didn't try to hide behind an anonymous name with a pack of negative criticisms.

Locke Property Dispute (part 3)

2011-11-01T08:38:57Z

Read "Locke property dispute (part 1)" here.

This is my reply to the long response of another of my neighbors in Locke to "Locke property dispute (part 2)"

RLM: It was with great interest that I read this.
Esch: Glad to have your interest, Ronnie.

RLM: I have never publicly spoken on this matter, neither verbally nor in print--not even anonymously.
Esch: According to my friend Jacquie and her friend, who visited me a couple weeks ago, you had quite a lot to say to them about it.

RLM: However, I must dispute some of the claims made. Firstly: There are two separate issues here 1" the manner in which the building at 1265 Levee was acquired by Ms. Esch and 2) the zoning of this property.
Esch: Go for it.

RLM: Before a property in Locke may be sold, it must be presented to the Locke Management Association (LMA) governing board. The LMA has the right of first refusal--they may match any offer being considered for a property in Locke and purchase it. The board has 30 days in which to make its decision. Ms. Esch is aware of this--she and I have spoken of it prior to this, though not in this context; furthermore, I believe she has been present at least one meeting when a property has been presented well prior this. RLM: “The board has 30 days in which to make its decision. “
Esch: Wrong, Ronnie. 25 days, not 29 30. Open your CC&R’s to page 8, section 2.8 and read it. The LMA board was four days late by their own rules, plain and simple.

RLM: “This building was not presented to the LMA as being for sale, nor was it presented as having an offer made.”
Esch: True, it was not put up for sale. I made an offer to the seller. She accepted it. I opened escrow through Placer Title Company, who then sent e-mail notification of my bona fide offer to LMA’s Executive Director, Shirley Roberts on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 4:08 PM (two and a half hours before the start of the LMA monthly meeting). Roberts replied to Placer Title’s e-mail 35 minutes later at 4:43 PM. Roberts and LMA Chairman Clarence Chu had the responsibility to publicly release the news of my escrow to the board and to the public during the communications portion of that meeting. They instead chose to keep the information secret. This was the first in a long series of Ralph M. Brown Act violations the LMA made, just on this property issue, alone.

RLM: “Instead, they were notified by the title company asking if there was an impediment; they were told there was--escrow had not yet closed. “
Esch: Not quite. The title company did not ask if there was an impediment. The seller’s attorney received an email on March 9, 2011 from Chairman Chu, stating that the LMA board had voted to exercise ROFR. From February 8 to March 9 is 29 days. LMA was 4 days late by their own rules. Plain and simple. With or without a petition with 12 signatures on it, not 16, taken illegally by a board member with clear conflict of interest and no public notification, the LMA board was still late.

RLM: Apparently Ms. Esch feels she is above the rules; they were not followed.
Esch: The word “buyer” is not mentioned anywhere in the LMA’s CC&R’s or in its Bylaws. The seller followed the rules. Placer Title Company followed the rules. We all waited out LMA’s 25 day ROFR period. The only entity that feels it’s above the rules is the LMA board, itself.

RLM: As for the zoning issue: Laura Ulewicz owned that home before she died. It was one of her goals to see that the zoning on her home, and of Levee Street east of Main, receive residential zoning. She had the support of everyone that lived on our street. She was successful--the zoning on our street was changed to residential. We celebrated this together.
Esch: Ronnie, sorry to break this to you, but you’re also within zone 5, the commercial/residential zone of Locke. Open up your county SPA Special Planning Area packet to the zoning map of Locke on page 14. If you can’t find your copy, here’s an online link to it: http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/planning/Documents/Zoning-Code/TitleV%20504-400%20Locke.pdf

RLM: Laura was my best friend. She was a poet (yes, a published one) and a passionate gardener. Her home, her yard, reflected her love of things growing. The entrance to our street was cool, green and shady, enlivened by flowers; our privacy was enhanced by her plantings of tall service berry shrubs, which also fed the birds. One could find many flowers and ferns growing in the understory of her plantings. In her last years, Laura often expressed the fear that all she worked for, the trees, shrubs, and flowers that she planted and nurtured, her living legacy, would be chopped down, as if she never existed. And now they are. Our street is no longer cooled and protected from prying eyes by Laura's legacy. Ms. Esch has cut them down.
Esch: Laura was my friend, too, Ronnie. I am doing my best to care take her property with respect, though I’ll never be the accomplished gardener she was. I weeded many of the shrubs that have become overgrown since Laura’s passing in 2007. That really annoyed the rats and ferule cats that were having ongoing parties in them. I did have two of the twenty-some trees cut down, I cannot lie. I invite any readers of this to stop by when I’m there and pick from Laura’s thriving fig, pomegranate, cherry, loquat, plum, peach, lime and ginkgo trees on the property, some of which I prune to hopefully yield a better crop next season.

RLM: One can walk or drive by and look in the windows.
Esch: No one can drive by. Levee Road is blocked by a permanently parked car, and in front of a different house, there are a bunch of assorted possessions, spilling onto the road (in addition to about a dozen or so cats). The windows on the two houses you’re referring to are opaque or covered in tin foil and have been for years.

RLM: The house across from her now receives the searing rays of the searing summer sun.
Esch: The house across the street from me is south of mine. Even on the summer solstice, his trees cast a shadow on mine, not the other way around.

RLM: The ambient temperature on our street has risen a few degrees during the warm weather.
Esch: The ambient temperature on Levee Road hasn’t risen a fraction of a mercurial inch. See the above photo I took this week of my property while standing on Levee Road.

RLM: I have seen tourists standing on the porch of the home directly across from her, their faces pressed up to the glass of the windows, trying to peer into this man's home.
Esch: I doubt that. He keeps tin foil taped to his window.

RLM: I have had tourists try to enter my own home, further down the street.
Esch: Yes, you’ve told me this story four or five times since 2006, Ronnie.

RLM: Ms. Esch has opened a store here, disregarding the fact that it is not zoned for it. She makes the claim based upon 'businesses' that have not existed for far longer than she claims--Laura came here in the 1960s; there were no businesses on this street then, nor were there thereafter.
Esch: Here we go again. Open up your SPA docs to the zoning map on page 14.

RLM: Is there prejudice in Locke? I have no doubt--we are all human, and where there are humans, it will exist. Is racial prejudice being directed against Martha Esch to wrest her building (note I don't say home, it isn't her home) from her? Nope. We just want her to go by the rules.
Esch: Okay.

RLM: BTW, I am not Chinese, I was both a CAC member who voted on and for the zoning issue/change to residential that the Sac. Board of Supervisors passed,
Esch: Page 14. SPA.

RLM: ...as well voting against the right of first refusal.
Esch: So, let’s see...you voted against ROFR and now you want LMA to apply it...right?

RLM: I was a founding board member of the LMA. I have not been a board member for several years now. I am trying to keep this honest.
Esch: I was going to reply to this, too,...but I’d better not.

Disclosure: They either love me or they hate me in Locke, anymore. Middle ground has disappeared.

martha esch on "Locke Property Dispute (part 2) in the ongoing battle. "

2011-11-01T04:06:15Z

thank you, cogmeyer.

martha esch on "Locke Property Dispute (part 2) in the ongoing battle. "

2011-10-28T04:23:32Z

Here's a link to the previous article, Locke Property Dispute (part 1): http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/56717/Locke_property_dispute_part

martha esch on "Locke Property Dispute (part 2) in the ongoing battle. "

2011-10-28T02:18:52Z

Thank you, Steven!

Locke Property Dispute (part 2) in the ongoing battle.

2011-10-28T00:52:32Z

Continued from "Locke property dispute (part 1)"

There was a second response – a very lengthy one - to my first article from an anonymous person posting under the name, “Locked.” I suspect “Locked” is one of my neighbors and a board member of LMA Locke Management Association, the public agency which has filed a lawsuit against me to take my property. Locked’s writing style is recognizable, accusatory, with no factual basis. Original article (part 1) is found here: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/56717/Locke_property_dispute_part_1 I’ll take Locked’s questions and comments one by one...

Locked: Who's throwing stones?
Esch: LMA board threw the first stones at me when they sent me a threatening letter from their newly-hired lawyer demanding my property title and telling me I had four days to hand it over. When I did not cave, (did they really think I’d just roll over and hand them my property title?), they threw a second handful by retaliating with a lawsuit to try to seize my property. I threw some stones back at them when I filed a HUD complaint, regarding the discriminatory statement made in a March 26, 2011 letter, signed by Clarence Chu, that preference for property purchases in Locke belongs to “…400 Chinese Descendants and Ancestors of Locke...” Mr. Chu told the HUD Investigator that he didn’t read the letter before signing it and someone else wrote the letter for him. More stones back at me from LMA came in May 2011 when I was served with a second court filing. This time for an August 2011 Superior Court hearing requesting Superior Court to place a restraining order on me. Why? Because I trimmed my trees, weeded the lawn, painted the pink siding on my house brown, removed an illegal propane tank, cut down a hazardous post and opened my properly licensed business. Note: At the same time I was doing these things, the Chairman of LMA had work crews erecting two giant statues in front of the School House Museum, with none of the required building permits or Locke Preservation Committee reviews. The day before LMA’s August restraining order hearing, the judge threw their suit out, based on their frivolous complaints and scolded the LMA board for not following their own CC&R rules.

Locked: You know that there was no racism involved.
Esch: LMA’s lawsuit filing to take my property references at length the history of the racial discrimination in Locke, California, and the injustice of the California Alien Land Law of 1913 in which foreigners were not allowed to purchase land but could lease it for three years. I can only assume that LMA’s lawyer is referencing this antiquated, unfair law as LMA’s justification to take my property from me. Some have termed what LMA is doing to me as reverse discrimination, since I happen to be of a race other than their stated preferred national origin. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. You say no racism exists in Locke. Racism does not outwardly exist in Locke, but on LMA paperwork, letters, court filings, and signage, sadly, it does indeed exist. It especially exists in the direct and indirect assertions made by LMA as to their justification to take away my property deed. More to the point, favoritism runs rampant in Locke, LMA board members have not been told to obtain legal business licenses for their businesses, and they have been allowed to make major changes to their buildings and land without permits or historic preservation reviews. Also, all of the past and present seated board members who own Locke property have been given waivers to ROFR by their fellow board members, directly opposing the procedures of their own CC&R’s.

Locked: You lost the case. These are facts not stones.
Esch: I have not lost the case. The HUD investigation is open for another two years. A second HUD investigation, resulting from a discrimination complaint made by another Locke resident is presently being filed against the LMA Board.
The LMA Superior Court hearing to take away my property is scheduled for December 22, 2011 in Sacramento’s Superior Court.

Locked: I understand that you want to keep your house but what exactly do you hope to gain by spreading the false rumors that Locke is a racist town?
Esch: Locke is not a racist town, but racism (the California Alien Land Law of 1913) was at its root and founding and persists into today in an inverted way. The statement made by LMA that preference to purchase property in Locke should be given to a single national origin is certainly racist, by definition. The signs in the Boarding House Museum claim that Locke was built for and by one single national origin. Another sign says “Locke is almost exclusively populated until very recently by” a single national origin. Contrary to those claims, the 1930 US Census and earlier records in the county’s archives, Locke is and has always been a global community since its origins in 1907 when the rail yards and the cannery employed hundreds of immigrants from all around the world, not just one single origin of people. It would be refreshing to see LMA and LF Locke Foundation give credit to the other 23 nationalities that lived in Locke as well on its signage, monuments, museums, literature, website and at Locke’s street celebrations. The failure to take notice of the many nationalities that participated in Locke’s life is yet another form of racism and is perverted history.

Locked: This only harms this community. It insults the people who started this town because they could not own land in the first place because of the Alien Exclusion Act. I did not see that in your brief history of the town. Gee, I would consider that the most important part of the history and why the whole town even exists.
Esch: You’re mistaken, it is not the Alien Exclusion Act of 1920 and the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 that did that, it is the California Alien Land Law of 1913, as I mentioned, above. Instead of repeating what you’ve been told, why not explore these matters in depth, yourself, and become familiar with the actual and true facts? The people who founded this town were from many nations, not just one. I hope LMA and LF soon finally acknowledge every culture’s contributions to Locke and the Delta. One reason the town even exists is due to the contributions of many cultures.

Locked: What effect do you think it will have on tourism and your future business?
Esch: It’s time to tell the true story of Locke, originally named Lockeport. If LMA would tell the accurate history of our town, it would bring more visitors from around the world. The fabricated claims written in the 1970’s in order to gain grants and funding for buildings that needed to be stabilized and electrified and for the installation of an operational sewage system in the town served their purpose for the time. (But, what about fire protection? The incomplete exterior sprinkler system that was installed on fewer than half of the buildings with taxpayers’ monies in 2003 cannot be tested, there are broken fire hydrants, exposed dangerous wiring on some of the buildings, there is only one fire alarm in town and it is disconnected, there are no posted evacuation plans for visitors or residents, and it is questionable whether most of the fifty buildings even have an operational smoke detector or fire extinguisher.)

Locked: You want to change a residential home into a commercial one which has been residential for at least 30 years. Your closest neighbor’s home is eight feet from what will be your new commercial business’ front door.
Esch: The building I purchased is within the commercial/residential zone of Locke, as are my neighbors’ homes on Levee Road and Main Street. I invite you to look at the zoning and planning map for Locke, as I have. The county would not have issued me a business license if I were not in a properly zoned area. The house to which you refer is more like forty feet away (not eight) from my front door - was King’s Radio & TV Shop back in the 1950’s. If my neighbor chooses to live in it, but not run a business from it, that is his prerogative, just as I have the right to run my licensed business from mine, in a properly zoned area.

Locked: How would you feel if someone opened a business in front of your home after you have lived on a quiet residential street for 25 years?
Esch: If any of my neighbors had a problem with the commercial/residential zoning of Locke in 2005, they could have raised their objections at the SHRA and CAC meetings that were held in the Schoolhouse Museum. My next door neighbor told me he is considering opening a business, too. I hope he does.

Locked: Over half of the LMA board is made up of your neighbors and people who might become your fellow merchants.
Esch: Four of the thirteen LMA board members reside in Locke. Two other board members own Locke properties, including the Chairman of LMA who chooses not to live in Locke. He owns seven of the sixteen buildings on Main Street, including three unstaffed museums. If other board members wish to join me and become fellow merchants, that would be great – we need more merchants to staff the closed-up stores. However, those currently operating businesses and museums without business licenses need to do apply and obtain them just as the rest of us are required to have licenses.

Locked: These are people you are calling racists Martha, your neighbors.
Esch: Racists, no. People who play favorites, yes. People who act as a clique, yes. Elitists who practice cronyism, yes. The LMA board is on a fast path of self-destruction, and if it hopes to retain its position, it had better clean up its behavior and start using proper and fair procedures.

Locked: What will you gain by doing this? You will only alienate your neighbors and you have.
Esch: The LMA board has treated their public audience, renters and residents of Locke with disrespect for several years, disdainfully calling the residential and business renters “Invitees” and telling us we have no rights in the matters of our own town, no voting power, and no voices that will be considered on issues that concern us. LMA board has the hypocritical voice of the 1913 California Alien Land Law speaking. We hope to soon cause change in these matters. Most of my Locke neighbors are supportive and feel the LMA has been unreasonable in its actions against me and other residents. As for my neighbors, two of them hurl obscenities at the tourists who walk past their doors. A third neighbor, who is on the board, reached five feet over my fence with a chainsaw on a stick and trimmed the trunks of my tree last month without asking me. I don’t care if I alienate those three. My other neighbors defend my position.

Locked: What tourists will come to see the racist town?
Esch: The same tourists and more – and Locke is not a racist town, it is also not an “almost exclusively Chinese” town.

Locked: You are myopically focused on your one goal and are disregarding where your stones are and will be falling. You are the one throwing stones.
Esch: Myopically focused? You bet. You’d be myopically focused, too, if a public agency filed a lawsuit against you to take your legal property away and harassed you and your friends at their public monthly meetings.

Locked: You fail to mention in your article the public petition presented to the LMA asking them to vote to exercise the RFR.
Esch: Oh, yes, let’s talk about that. Curiously, and quite illegally, in late February 2011, one of the LMA board members, accompanied by a multiple property owner in Locke, went door-to-door with a petition for the LMA to buy the property for which I was already in legal escrow. Thirteen (13) people of the sixty (60) residents signed the illegally-administered petition.

Locked: The e-mails sent by owners also.
Esch: Yes, at the March 8, 2011 LMA meeting, LMA board member, Deborah Mendel stated that she had received several e-mails from friends and neighbors during the 25 day ROFR period, wishing to buy the property for which I was already in legal escrow. Mendel’s confidential e-mails are part of a series of serious Ralph M. Brown Act violations by LMA board that apparently occurred on the issue of my property purchase.

Locked: Over half the property owners in Locke requested that the LMA exercise the RFR.
Esch: There are fifty (50) properties in Locke. Thirteen (13) signatures on an illegally-administered petition are about one-fourth, not over half. Perhaps you are counting thirteen as the majority of property owners in Locke, due to the odd voting power structure on matters of homeowners of Locke. In 2004 when the LMA was formed, Locke was parceled by the SHRA Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency and property owners (including many long-time squatters) were given property deeds - most for the first time according to Sacramento County records. Sixteen of the fifty-some buildings had no interested buyers, were not publicly listed, and were purchased by three people who, along with all the other new parcel owners, did not have to go through ROFR Right of First Refusal and its 25 day waiting period. These three individuals control the majority of the voting power in Locke today with one vote granted per one parcel. Since LMA is a public agency, it must abide by Federal and State laws and it is questionable whether one vote per parcel, not one vote per person, is even constitutional. Additionally, the LMA board has allowed the ROFR 25-day period to be waived early of passed with no actions taken for all of their fellow board members who have purchased Locke property since 2005 when they were formed. Cronyism, plain and simple.

Locked: The people of this community joined together and spoke out.
Esch: And many more in this community and other communities are speaking back.

Locked: We are not racists. Most of the people are the same race as you. It was a dirty card to play, false and you continue to promote this cause in the press. It only hurts us all.
Esch: Based on the LMA’s written statement that a single national origin must be “notified due to their own preference to purchase the Locke property,” racism is hurting me, as I do not fit LMA’s preferred nationality, and am now saddled with fighting their lawsuit against me. I agree with you on one thing, though, the LMA’s pursuit of this vindictive and ultimately fruitless lawsuit only hurts us all.

Continue to "Locke property dispute (part 3)"

Editor's note of disclosure: Article author, Martha Esch purchased a Commercial/Residential property in historic Locke, California in March 2011 and the Locke Management Association has filed a lawsuit against her, disputing she has the right to own the property and run her business. The case is pending a jury trial in Superior Court in 2013.

Disclosure: If Locked replies a third time, I will not respond again unless he or she reveals their true identity in their public reply posting. The same goes for any other anonymous posters. Thank you to everyone for your support and interest. ~ Martha Esch

martha esch on "Locke property dispute (part 1)"

2011-10-27T23:47:35Z

My next article, titled, " Locke property dispute (part 2)" addresses the lenghthy reply from the above anonymous poster calling her or himself "Locked."

martha esch on "A double dose of Cake"

2011-10-11T16:49:35Z

Where was i last week... darn, can't believe i missed Cake. Thank you Patricia Willers for a great recap and Rik Keller for the pics!

martha esch on "Watercolors Hiking in historic Locke and Delta Meadows State Park"

2011-10-08T01:19:43Z

Hi Locked, The waether was awesome and all six of us had a great time.

martha esch on "Locke property dispute (part 1)"

2011-09-20T05:48:40Z

QUOTE FROM Locked: <<" Ms. Esch lost the HUD case. No discrimation was found. This was never about racial discrimination and it is most unfortunate that Ms. Esch chose to play the race card. It is an insult to people of all races who have truely suffered because of actual racism. No on wins when the race card is played. ">> Reply to Locked, If anyone is pulling a race card, it is the person who crafted the March 26, 2011 letter that LMA Chairman, Clarence Chu signed, justifying why I am not entitled to keep my property in their opinion. It statied that LMA needed to notify 400 people of one specific national origin "for their own priority to purchase the Locke property." The HUD report said Mr. Chu told their Iinvestigator that he did not write that statement, someone else did, and he merely signed it. My complaint. to HUD was that he had made that discriminatory statement. Officially I have two more years to update my complaint with HUD with new evidence before the case closes. A second HUD discrimination complaint was filed by another member of the Locke community just this week. Stay tuned. Locked, I presume you are one of my few Locke neighbors since your forum name indicates. Please be brave enough to identify yourself with your real name as Ensslin and I have. Not nice to throw stones from behind a curtain.

Watercolors Hiking in historic Locke and Delta Meadows State Park

2011-09-13T10:47:13Z

A Watercolors and Hiking event will be held in Locke, Calif. on Thursday, September 15, 2011 starting at 10:00 a.m. The hike will be led by Martha Esch. Bring the kids and the grandparents; everyone is welcome! Well-behaved dogs on leashes, okay. This is a mostly level 1.5 mile hike apart from one 20 foot long, somewhat steep, narrow path up a levee hill and some optional off-path routes along the way that are prickly and narrow.

Locke artist and art teacher, Martha Esch, will demonstrate easy techniques to painting a quick, lovely, loose watercolor postcard of scenic spots along the hike. Next, participants will begin using watercolor kits, blank postcards and brushes that will be passed out to all who'd like to paint their own scenes. (There will be a $5 art supply fee.)

Pack your own brown bag lunch, your own beverage and maybe some small snacks to share with others. The group will gather in front of Al the Wop's famous bar and steakhouse, located in the middle of Main Street in Locke, Calif.

If you arrive late, just follow the wooden walkway next to Al's to the back of Locke and the walking path past the community gardens, up the levee to the Meadows State Park to catch up. At the top of that levee, the first of two postcard watercolor paintings will take place overlooking the beautiful lagoon called Railroad Slough.

After 15 minutes, the group will stop painting and hike about 1/2 mile to a scenic overlook along Snodgrass Slough where they'll pause to paint their second15-minute postcards.

Lunch will take place at the Snodgrass Slough as well before the hike back to town where the 90 to 120 minute tour winds up back on Main Street.

Everyone in the hiking group will be welcome to sneak a peek at Esch’s paintings, some in progress, at "The Shack," her art and music studio located at the top end of Main Street at Levee Road.

The Delta Meadows State Park is a beautiful, secret gem and the town of Locke is a fun, historic place that you'll want to soon return to with your out-of-state guests. Visitors are free to visit antique and gift shops, museums and the town’s two restaurants, Al the Wops and the Locke Garden Chinese Restaurant.

Visitors should be sure to shop at Lisa Kirk's fun store called Strange Cargo, located next to Al the Wop's. If you have some muscle strain after your hike and want some acupuncture, Diane Thomas is the one to visit at Locke Chinese Medicine a few doors north of Lisa's shop.

Call Martha Esch at (916) 776-1000 with questions. Hope you can join!

To get to the meeting place in Locke from I-5, take the Twin Cities Road exit west toward the tall radio towers. When you hit the road along the Sacramento River, turn left (south) and go one mile to Locke and turn left into the tiny town. When you enter Locke, park in the free parking lot, straight ahead, next to the public restrooms. Entry codes are: Men 3535/ Women 3434.. Gather in front of famous Al the Wop's, located at 13943 Main Street, Locke CA 95690.

Disclosure: Aricle author, Martha Esch teaches private, small and large group art classes in watercolors, oils, and acrylic painting as well as clay classes to all skill levels and ages. For more, visit her blog at www.marthaesch.blogspot.com

martha esch on "Locke property dispute (part 1)"

2011-09-08T21:08:57Z

cogmeyer, thanks very much. i appreciate your support!

martha esch on "Locke property dispute (part 1)"

2011-09-08T05:44:23Z

also... i agree with you, melissa, that LMA would benefit more by using my assessments for better purposes, such as fixing the sidewalks or installing some accessible fire extinguishers in the town for first responders to access, however they seem to be prioritizing the brunt of their $60,000 bank balance toward lawyer and court fees to try to sue me for my property title.

martha esch on "Locke property dispute (part 1)"

2011-09-08T05:35:55Z

hi melissa, the only reason given by the LMA for why they voted to exercise ROFR on the property, was the discriminatory "400" statement they made in the letter they sent to the seller's attorney. Their problem is that they voted a couple days too late by their own rules, so they were past their own deadline to exercise ROFR. their attorney said that because i was present in the audience that i am accountable to their actions. i disagree.

martha esch on "Locke property dispute (part 1)"

2011-09-08T05:19:24Z

hi mike, i'm glad we agree on some aspects of this bee's nest. i'm sorry, but your house and TL's and DG's are also in zone 5 commercial/ residential area of Locke. you're lucky LMA hasn't made you pay the commercial assessment rate all these years. while i agree you have a right to not run a business out of your property, i was granted a business license for my property by the county and i have every right to run my business there - sorry. as for the post, there hasn't been a sign on that post in over two years - i have pics of you and mark playing guitars from 2008 that shows the empty post. look at the above pic when the trees were trimmed, a nonth before the post was damaged, then cut so as not to trip anybody. there was no sign on the post. you want another sign back there? i'm sure LMA will be happy to accomodate. but seriously, hope you bury your hatchet and come back and jam with us sometime.

Locke property dispute (part 1)

2011-09-07T20:39:39Z

Public Agency Lawsuit to Seize $21,000 Home from Rightful Purchaser near Sacramento, California...

In the rustic, antique wood-built town of Locke, California, founded from 1912 to 1920s, the Locke Management Association (LMA), a thirteen (13) member board put in place in 2003 to maintain, preserve and manage the town is prioritizing its limited $60,000 operating budget to attempt to undo a recent property purchase that occurred. The buyer, Martha Esch, struck a deal to purchase one of the town’s dilapidated properties with seller, Dona LaBlanc for a $21,000 purchase price. The LMA claims both women circumvented the agency’s rules in order to complete the sale. The property was previously owned by LaBlanc’s cousin, Laura Ulewicz, who died in 2007.

A brief summary of the Town of Locke
The tiny town currently has approximately the same number of residents as it has buildings (about fifty (50)), mostly renters and a few owners. Several of the buildings are vacant. Locke is a well-kept secret and a favorite destination on weekends for in-the-know tourists, photo clubs, artists, bikers, and car clubs. It’s loaded with colorful history of its immigrant ancestors. In 1930, the U.S Census recorded 410 residents in Locke whose origins were from China and nineteen (19) other countries. There is an iconic Main Street bar called “Al the Wops” which is still in business under the same name given it in 1934, by its Italian founder, Al Adami. Al began selling his famous steaks there in 1934 and the steak tradition (among others) continues. The one-block-long town looks like an old-west movie set. In fact, Clint Eastwood and a few other silver screen actors and directors have used the town for their movie sets - most recently, “On the Road,” a soon-to-be-released big screen adaptation of Beat Generation novelist, Jack Kerouac.

Despite the occasional fame Locke enjoys, the parks and side streets go largely unmaintained, the sidewalks are in terrible disrepair, and basic fire response safeguards, such as fire extinguishers and accessible alarms are virtually non-existent. A connective sprinkler system was put on the exterior of most of the Main Street buildings in 2002, but residents have been told by fire officials that the system cannot be tested without turning the entire chain of pipes on and a building would have to be engulfed in flames before they’ll kick on automatically.

The Dispute
Regarding LMA’s quest for Esch’s property, in a March 26, 2011 letter signed by LMA’s Chairman, Clarence Chu, a statement was made: “… to enable the LMA to carry out its legal obligations to its Historic Preservation purposes. (This includes our responsibility to notify the 400 Chinese Ascendants and Descendants of Locke of their own priority to purchase the Locke property).” The “400” statement has been the only reason given by the LMA for its option to exercise its ROFR (Right of First Refusal) on the property.

LMA’s pursuit to give preference to a single ethnic group to buy the property is in probable violation of State and Federal laws. Locke Federal HUD investigators immediately began an investigation on the LMA and its parent organization, the SHRA (Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency) for the discriminatory statement made in the March 26 letter and the LMA’s policy regarding ROFR (Right of First Refusal) – a rule in LMA’s CC&R’s (Codes, Covenants & Restrictions) which allows the agency to match a bona fide offer on any property in the town or to assign the right to purchase - provided they act within 25 days of receiving notification by the seller of the offer.

LMA’s lawyer, Stephen J. Beede has an additional hurdle to convince a Superior Court Judge - that the 25 calendar days had not expired by the time they finally got around to acting - yet, it had expired by four days. Esch, an Ohio-born artist and art teacher says she, LaBlanc and Placer Title Company waited out the time period, completed the property transfer legally and has she believes she has every constitutional right to retain its ownership.

While the LMA board members voted unanimously 6-0 to exercise its ROFR (which raises the question whether the six directors in attendance who voted unanimously in favor of exercising ROFR actually constituted a majority of the 13-member board); there was no discussion of funds allocation for the purchase, hence no vote for allocation of funds from LMA’s sparse budget; additionally, there had been no closed door meeting previous to their March 8, 2011 meeting to fall back on.

Although the Buyer is not mentioned anywhere in the policies and procedures of the LMA’s CC&R’s, Attorney Beede’s lawsuit holds Esch party to the action based on the fact that she was in the audience at the March 8, 2011 meeting and sat silent, making no objection when the board members voted unanimously to exercise its ROFR on the property for which she was in escrow. Esch says she knew that they were late to vote, but it was not her responsibility to educate the board members how to count to twenty-five. She adds that if she’d said anything, she would’ve been scolded for interrupting. At many prior LMA meetings she and others have been referred to by the former Chairman disrespectfully as “invitees,” (non-property owning renters) and are told frequently not to speak to issues until their three minutes during public comment at the end of the meeting.

Esch points out the LMA has made other improprieties, such as opening their own escrow with Old Republic Title Company in Lodi, CA on the property the day before her own escrow with Placer Title closed on March 15, 2011. She believes they were trying to block Placer Title from closing her escrow. LMA opened their escrow without LaBlanc’s or her permissions or knowledge and without any public or noticed closed-door meetings for their escrow – all probable violations of the Brown Act.

The LMA, a public 504-C3 non-profit, falls under the Brown Act which is in place to ensure public transparency. The Brown Act requires public agencies to give advance public notification of its closed and open meetings, timely and adequate information on meeting agendas, summaries of meeting minutes and actions taken, and the opportunity for the public to voice their opinions on matters of discussion at meetings.

The absence of public or closed-door noticed discussion of escrow funds allocation and subsequent opening of its own escrow on the property on March 14, 2011 were done in total secrecy and may constitute a contractual tort in addition to alleged violations of the Brown Act. Several other Brown Act violations by the agency have been alleged to have occurred during and since the property was deeded to Esch on March 21, 2011. Lisa Kirk, a friend of Esch and business owner in Locke has been keeping records of the series of Brown Act violations the LMA board has made.

In early April, Esch refused to cave to the LMA lawyer’s written demand for her title and signed a HUD complaint regarding the discriminatory policies of the LMA, giving preference to a single national origin. Esch began actively rehabilitating her property to transform it into an art and music studio with residential quarters, such as the one she rented and operated since 2005 across the street.

A few weeks later, without any written or verbal complaints from the LMA that she’d done anything wrong, she was served with a second lawsuit filing from Attorney Beede - an injunctive restraining order: for trimming her trees; painting her wood siding and her propane tank brown; for removing an abandoned sign post from in front of her building; and for opening her art and music studio, an unauthorized use of the building, according to Beede. However, two weeks prior to receiving the second lawsuit filing, the county had granted Esch a business license for the location. Esch feels the restraining order Beede filed on behalf of LMA is retaliation for refusing to hand over her title and for filing the HUD complaint.

Additionally, the agency has refused to accept and record her monthly $100 assessments, which she now deposits directly to their bank account through the bank teller, despite Beede’s recent objection, and won’t acknowledge receipt of them. LMA has refused her written requests to view its recorded meeting minutes and agendas; and it has stonewalled her requests for its Historic Review subcommittee to review her building plans so she can obtain required Sacramento County building permits and proceed with having the repairs and updates done to her building.

Esch is represented by Sacramento Attorney Mark A. Wasser, who has filed a demurrer to Beede’s first action of demand for title to the property.

On August 17, 2011, Sacramento Superior Court reviewed Beede's additional filing for the injunctive restraining order to be placed on Esch to prevent her from further trimming of trees, painting, making necessary repairs and using her business license within the property. The injuctive hearing filing was denied by the court, due to lack of evidence that Esch had done anything wrong, countered by the evidence that Esch's attorney Mark Wasser presented which included the fact that Locke Management Association had violated one of their own CC&R's by not giving Esch any prior written or verbal notice of their complaints before filing for the injunction with the court.

The property dispute hearing is scheduled to be heard on December 22, 1011 in Sacramento Superior Court.

FURTHER INFO View online: Sacramento Bee front page article of June 28, 2011

http://www.sacbee.com keywords: Locke dispute

Continue to "Locke property dispute (part 2)"

Disclosure: A friend who is adept at journalism assisted me to present my side.of this ongoing challenge the LMA has put on my shoulders. I welcome all opinions and encourage fair statements from LMA board and its attorney on this public forum.