Blog Post #14: Storm Clouds -- The Complaint against Julie

 “Electricity extended the entire length and width of the property and is readily observable on the land.”

As I mentioned in the previous post, Stan wrote a confidential rebuttal of DORA’s Division of Real Estate complaint against Julie O’Gorman and sent it to our attorney.  We found the complaint against Julie shocking, on many levels.  Terrifying, really.  It seems that the government can just allege whatever it wants without stating any facts. That they could swoop in and damage someone’s life by making false allegations still seems terrifying to me. Here is a link to the complaint that they filed, apparently without checking any facts whatsoever.  Including the entire complaint in this blog post is not feasible, and I really want you to see it with your own eyes – it’s real, I’m not making this up!
 
If the state had contacted us before making these allegations and given us the chance to explain their misconceptions, they would not have had a case against Julie.  But we still had not been contacted by anyone.  So, we simply responded to our own attorney, Todd, about the matter.  Here’s what we wrote.  (To find the allegations that we were answering point-by-point, please refer to the link above.)
 
Our Observations on the Complaint Against O’Gorman
 
Confidential Remarks
Re: Julie M. O’Gorman Matter
June 22, 2007
 
From: Stan and Sharon Mann
 
Preliminary Observations:
 

1. It appears that virtually no defense was presented in behalf of Respondent O’Gorman because there are so many misstatements of facts set forth by the Attorney General.
2. No person ever contacted us to check on the veracity of what is stated as fact by the Attorney General.

 
Initial Factual Analysis: For ease in discussion the following comments will follow the numbered paragraphs set forth in the Notice Of Charges brought against Respondent by the Colorado Board of Real Estate Appraisers.
 

1. No Comment.
2. No Comment.
3. No Comment.
4. No Comment.
5. No Comment.
6. The appraisal cover letter does indeed state: “The market value of the proposed conservation easement considers the “hypothetical condition”  that the proposed improvements of the subject property will be completed according to the preliminary plans and specifications supplied by xxxx, which includes annexation into the Town of Walsenburg and a zoning change from AG-Agricultural to a UR/Urbanizing Residential District. (Emphases added.)  This, of course, is not true.  The property was being developed in the County, not the City of Walsenburg, and the zoning is County zoning not City zoning.  Thus, no discussion with the City planning department would have been prudent.
7. Clearly a misstatement of facts.  Indeed, prior to 2004 the City Council held formal public annexation hearings.  No opponents appeared at any of these hearings.  As a result the City Council unanimously declared the property to be annexable.  The next step was to set up the requirements the City wished to propose.  After lengthy discussions with the Land Use Planner employed by the City, and what was believed to be total agreement between the Planner and Developer, the Water Committee wanted a nonrefundable contribution from Developer.  Developer then requested and received an Extraterritorial Water and Sewer Agreement from the City in order to do the development in the County.  All parties approved this approach.  The City never denied annexation.
8. This statement is also false.  The City never denied annexation and the only record that exists in the City records is a formal declaration that the property is annexable--a unanimous decision by the City Council.
9. Los Leones Ranches is not the same as Los Leones Subdivision.  Annexation of Los Leones Ranches to the City had never been requested, and therefore could not have been denied, and was not denied.  Annexation of Los Leones Subdivision was initiated, but withdrawn when the City agreed to supply water and sewer service to Los Leones Subdivision  on an extraterritorial basis.   No denial exists.  Development had already begun in the County, and the City had already extended water service to three homesites in the County on an extraterritorial basis.  There is no question that both the County and the City anticipated the development of “hundreds of acres” (emphasis added).  Neither the City nor the County ever denied annexation or development of the property.
10. What Respondent could have said or should have said differently we do not know.  But the “facts” alleged by the Attorney General are simply false. 
    1. Filing 1 of Los Leones Subdivision was approved, the zoning changed from AG-Agricultural to UR/Urbanizing Residential District, and two new homes constructed therein.  Both those homes obtained City water service and have City water service to this date. 
    2. Filing 2 of Los Leones Subdivision had been preliminarily approved and the zoning officially changed from AG-Agricultural to UR/Urbanizing Residential District by the County Commissioners.  Why Respondent refers to the “Town of Walsenburg” (it is a City, not a Town) in the second paragraph on page 39 of her appraisal we do not know.  The City had nothing to do with County zoning.
11. The Attorney General states facts unrelated to the historical development of Los Leones Subdivision. 
    1. Further investigation—and a thorough defense—would have shown that electricity was extended (by us) the entire length and width of the property and is readily observable on the land.  The prison line was actually placed on someone else’s property. 
    2. The “Water and Sewer Service Agreement” for Filing 2 was the second such agreement.  Obviously there would have been a series of such Agreements as all parties contemplated.  Any proper inquiry would have discovered this fact.  Again, there never was an annexation denial, and annexation should not be an issue in the appraisal.
12. We do not have an opinion regarding this allegation.  It is common knowledge in Walsenburg that the City owns water sufficient for a city of approximately 20,000 people, but has a population of around 4000.
13. No Comment.
14. This you will have to address.
15. This statement hinges upon the misstatements of fact by the Attorney General.
16. Respondent probably should have noted that Richard McCabe is a well-known developer with extensive experience and a great familiarity with the Los Leones project.
17. Already addressed.
18. It is quite obvious that Tract 10 is included in the development of “a much larger development.”
19. It appears the Attorney General and the Board are applying an appraisal standard not required for conservation easements.
20. Black Diamond and Los Leones are very similar.
    1. A high percentage of the lots in Los Leones would also border on open space and a running stream.
    2. The amenities listed for Black Diamond are just as available to Los Leones, and the difference in distance to these amenities is probably no more than 3 to 4 miles.
    3. Los Leones is probably 200 yards off of the same Highway 160, and is about one mile from I-25.  Black Diamond has two-lane gravel roads throughout the development.  Once cannot enter Black Diamond without utilizing these gravel roads after turning off Highway 160.  Los Leones does exactly the same thing. 
    4. The views from Los Leones are exactly the same as those from Black Diamond but from a slightly different angle. One would be hard pressed to note the difference.
21. This is a repeat of the same misstatements.
22. No Comment.
23. No Comment.
24. No Comment.
25. Too bad the Attorney General has immunity from prosecution for making false accusations.
26. No Comment.
27. No Comment.

 
Even a cursory reading of our response should give you an idea of how massively confused the state was in this case. Watch for what happens next! © Sharon Cairns Mann

---