Reggae: Past, Present and Future

from anon at the Mateel

There is a lot of confusion over what this permit hearing is all about. Basically, this hearing is to review how last year's event went. We already have the permit. It was granted last year. The Mateel is required to submit a annual report at the end of the year. On the permit there is listed the Applicant, the property owner(s), and the agent.

The agent is a legal term whereby they represent the applicant. The county, in my understanding, sees no difference between the agent and the applicant. The applicant on the permit always has been (that I am aware of) the Mateel, the property owner(s) until last year were the Arthurs (and now Dimmick is listed too) and the agent was People Productions. The permit is attached to the land but there are multiple property owners here and the Mateel would have to abandon their permit (is my understanding) before a transfer could happen.

Now there has been some discussion currently in the news and elsewhere about who can say who gets to do what. The Mateel disputes what was inferred in the papers from Michael Richardson's comments.

People Productions handed in the annual report on the 29th of December on behalf of the Mateel. There was no Mateel review of this report prior to submission.

Now, the agent will be Boots Hughston. The applicant is still the Mateel and the property owners... well you get the idea.

The Mateel has the position that it has a valid lease agreement with Tom Dimmick and Tom Dimmick disagrees.

The question then becomes if Tom Dimmick can ask the county, since he deems the Mateel lease invalid, if he can take the permit, and all the studies which the Mateel paid for to have done to get and retain that permit ($$$), and simply modify it, a bit, for the Reggae Rising show.

Therein is the bone of contention about the property owner having control.

Casandra's letter is very well meant but it is a very complex issue to explain.
 

Well, you explained pretty well. At least the way I understand it. The permits are in the Mateel's name. For Carol Bruno/People Productions to put on the show they would have to get their own permits. ALL OF THEM (except the CUP). Carol Bruno/People Productions would have to apply for all the permits (except the CUP) in their name (Can you imagine the protests at the county offices that issue the permits? Just from the people from Piercy! Hehehehe Hahahahahaha). It is being said (by Dimmick and Richardson) that the Conditional Use Permit (just one of the permits needed) is Dimmick's and he can use it anyway he wants (Except he needs other permits to do an event. This permit just says he can use his land.). The Mateel says the Conditional Use Permit (CPU) may be Dimmick's but the Mateel has a contract with Dimmick to use his land. Dimmick says he canceled the contract because the Mateel fired Carol Bruno/People Productions in late Decmber. Dimmick conveniently leaves out the fact that Carol Bruno/People Productions quit in front of over 400 people at the meeting in November and in writing in October and that the Mateel was informed by Dimmick that this was going to happen the day before Carol Bruno/People Productions quit in writing (It says that right there in the lawsuit in "Cause No. 1: Anticipatory Breach Of Contract" http://rotrblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/13-causes-of-action-mateels-lawsuit.html). It looks to me like Carol Bruno/People Productions and Tommy Dimmick are NOT letting the facts get in the way of their accusations. Do you think that Carol Bruno/People Productions and Tommy Dimmick will be able to pull the wool over the judge's eyes?