Index for Save Simi Valley

duckduckgo Site Search:

Huber's Conflict of Interest?

Note: Due to the request of Huber's son, I am removing reference to his name and the business name as the issue is with the Mayor, not his son at all. He said that he did not want to get involved in any of the politics. As far as I know, he was not involved in anything which occur and the issue is solely with Mayor Bob Huber.

I wrote the following to Huber and Judge regarding the hotel TAX:

This is the response I got back from Huber, which was also cc'd to MANY people:
This is a link to the article in The Simi Valley Acorn which he attached to the email:

Remodeling the tourism landscape
GUEST OPINION Tourism Marketing District
By Leigh Nixon

Please notice who wrote that article, a person from the Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce, which will get the money to spend. Somehow I don't consider that person to be objective as the Chamber will benefit from this.

My response to his reply:
This is the list of people who he included his response to:
Yes, he sent his reply to the same person using multiple email addresses. I guess he REALLY wanted to make sure that they got his response.

It seems that my comment about a possible conflict of interest struck a nerve. I guess he really wanted to get his response out, but I also wonder if there is an issue with his doing that.

What I would like to know what exactly am I "DEAD WRONG" about with respect to Huber. Do you consider it a conflict of interest if the Mayor of Simi Valley votes for a tax in which his son's business benefits? I do. For some reason Huber seems to think that it makes a difference if the museum charges money, but I think he should know better. Huber knows his son has a business, which the museum might attract people to pay money for the for-profit business. It seems pretty simple to me.

Dishonest Attacks?

On one forum a person who claimed to be a friend of Huber's son, which I was recently informed he was not really a friend, attacked me for saying that Huber's son owns the business, instead of mentioning that he is just a co-owner. The other owner is not relevant to the conflict of interest issue, neither is the business for that matter. What is interesting is that on the business web page there is a video for the Morro Bay NAME_REMOVED Skateboard Museum and it says that Huber's son is the owner with no mention of a second name. So if just mentioning one owner is good enough for them, why it is an issue if I only mention one relevant owner with respect to the conflict of interest issue? I guess that they feel the need to attack for anything and everything.

This attack also claimed that I made negative comments towards Huber's son, yet when confronted he refused to point to anything such thing. This is similiar to the letter below. It seems like the "defenders" don't care much about the truth and instead want to attack.

All of this leads me to wonder if there is more to this story than meets the eye. Perhaps these people are reacting to things which have occurred, but which I am not aware of. Their false claims against me shows that they are willing to be dishonest in an attempt to deceive people. This does not speak will of them, nor does it reflect well on the people and business that they claim to support.

Also I looked on google maps street view and noticed that the building for NAME_REMOVED does not mention the national museum anywhere that I could see. This matches what I remember when I drove by. If the museum is such an attraction, then why isn't there any noticable signs advertising its presence there? One newspaper article mentions that the museum is in the corner of the building. It does not seem to me to be very obvious.

Here is an interesting article regarding this issue:

Selling Your Town: Next Up, Simi Valley

It seems that some people got upset with my saying that it was a conflict of interest for Huber to be involved in this issue. I would suspect that these people are quite biased with respect to Huber, perhaps friends of his, and are responding due to the upcoming election. I do have to wonder if Huber had a hand in those people writing the letters. In the last election I ran for Mayor since only Huber was running. After I said that another person started to run. The funny thing about that is that Huber told me that the person was a friend of his. Why would a friend of his run for Mayor? Could it have been to try to convince me to not run against Huber and that when that did not work, he dropped out? The politics of Simi Valley are quite interesting, but it seems to me that too many of the people are more interested in their own personal interest rather than representing the people of Simi Valley.

Mayor's vote on TMD was valid

Jim King says that no one spoke in opposition, yet I sent a letter and asked that it be read at the Council meeting, so it seems that it was not read. He claims that I am wrong about it being a conflict of interest, so then perhaps he should explain what he thinks a conflict of interest is. He mentions that Huber recused himself from the initial discussions, which indicates an issue, but then he claims that the City attorney, who works for the Council, is a good authority for claiming that it is not a conflict of interest. I have seen past city attorneys say things which were quite wrong as they have a bias.

Jim King also goes on to make personal attacks against me. He calls what I said a threat, which was to inform voters about this issue and see if they consider it to be a conflict of interest. I guess he would prefer that the voters of Simi Valley are not aware of this issue, which would be understandable if he is a friend of Huber. Perhaps he just voted for Huber, so he has to defend "his" politician.

The fact is that this could have been done without city involvement, so why wasn't that the case? One hotel opted out, yet people who stay in hotels and who are not here for tourist reasons can not opt out and they did not have a vote regarding this tax.

The second letter is from Simon Corral (the original spelling of his name was incorrect), who happens to have been sponsored by NAME_REMOVED, is a skateboard instructor, perhaps at NAME_REMOVED and which clearly shows his bias and which is even more humorous:

Attack against NAME_REMOVED unfair

Shame on me for attacking NAME_REMOVED? It seems to me that this person is quite delusional as I never attacked NAME_REMOVED at all. All I stated what that since Huber's son owns NAME_REMOVED and since this was a place which was said to get advertising paid for by others, it was a conflict of interest for Mayor Huber to be involved. Never did I say anything about NAME_REMOVED. It is only those biased people who have brought up NAME_REMOVED.

One thing that is very interesting is that it seems that instead of just the NAME_REMOVED Museum being advertised, which was said was acceptable since it was a non-profit, what is actually being mentioned (at least by some) is "NAME_REMOVED Indoor Skatepark & Museum". So the question is whether the Skatepark is a non-profit or not. Also look at what Huber emailed to me, his excuse as to why it was not a conflict was that the museum does not charge, but that does not matter if the business is mentioned since it does charge a fee.

I suspect that the reason that Huber refused to excuse himself is that because he was afraid that it would not pass and so he needed to be able to vote on it.

Other interesting comments in this letter is the statement that NAME_REMOVED has donated over 20,000 cans of food to the Samaritan Center. Really? Or is the truth that customers of NAME_REMOVED donated the food to be donated. If the customers donated the food, then it is deceptive, at best, to claim that NAME_REMOVED donated it, even though they organized it. What does that say about his honesty?

Another false statement is the claim that I accused NAME_REMOVED of being involved in a conflict of interest. That is completely false as the only one with the conflict of interest is Mayor Huber. Again, Simon Corral uses the same defense that the city attorney claimed that it was not a conflict of interest, but again there is an issue with that, as well as Corral's relationship with NAME_REMOVED.

As with the previous letter, Simon Corral has to resort to personal attacks claiming that I harbor a grudge regarding the previous election. What he does not understand is that there are multiple reasons to run for office, not all of them involve getting elected. Running for office allows a person to have a platform in order to speak to the public. Also, consider that I spent no money on the election and Huber's papers show something close to $100k for a job that pays around $14k/year. That shows that his claim that I am a poor loser is completely false.

So who is the one who is being unfair? It seems to me that Simon Corral is the one who is being unfair for making false attacks on me. Do you think that it is fair to make such attacks without informing people of the relationship you have with one of the parties? Do you think that he will ever apologize for that? Well, if he is a friend of Huber, that will never happen.

What people should not like are people who are not honest and those who have a conflict of interest and should excuse themselves when it just appears to be an issue. Instead, we get politics over honesty.

The bottom line question is whether the voters of Simi Valley think that it is a conflict of interest and whether the City should have ever gotten involved.



Index for Save Simi Valley

Written: 09-Jun-2014

Updated: 22-Oct-2014

If you want to submit your own article, please read the first article and send email

Send Mail

Copyright 2014

Anti Spam