Residents press Hemet council for transparency as annexation petition sparks protests and questions

A contentious string of public comments at the Hemet City Council meeting on Aug. 12 focused on a petition-driven effort to annex surrounding county territory to the city—use of the names Hemet Rising and Hemet United appeared in multiple public remarks.

Dozens of residents asked the council for clearer public outreach, a formal information program and a pause on any annexation steps while the city addresses internal operational issues first. Speakers repeatedly said they had not received direct notice from the city and expressed concern that campaign‑style materials and meetings hosted by annexation proponents had created confusion.

“Is Hemet Rising part of the city? Do I live in the county or the city?” asked Jenny Hess, who described extensive street‑corner outreach in East Hemet and listed a long set of practical questions she said remain unanswered, including effects on rent rules, library services and road maintenance. “All these questions could be resolved by the city,” Hess said.

Safety, policing and process concerns

Several speakers raised public‑safety matters and accused the city and police of insufficient communication. Anthony Noriega, who identified himself as district director for the League of United Latin American Citizens in the Inland Empire, criticized what he described as an absence of answers about an officer‑involved fatal shooting in Hemet last year and said advocates would file additional complaints with state authorities. Noriega also said he opposed warehouses in the area.

Melanie (last name Diaz), who identified herself as the mother of Jimmy Lopez — the man whose death after an encounter with Hemet police on July 4, 2024, has spurred community protests — urged council members to deliver answers to Lopez’s family. “They took my son’s life,” she said. “He didn’t have to die.” Several other speakers called for greater transparency and timely release of investigatory records.

Allegations about meeting conduct and intimidation

Multiple speakers described encounters at annexation events hosted by groups calling themselves Hemet Rising/Hemet United. Bella (surname not given) said her Facebook profile had been used without consent on a slide at a public meeting and that she was later refused entry to another public session; she called the sequence “intimidation” and said police were called to two meetings that day. Bella said she had sought removal of her name from annexation slides.

Andrew Cockett, who identified himself as a representative of annexation proponents, defended the outreach and said some people were asked to leave after allegedly intimidating volunteers and attendees. “We represent many citizens in the county, many people that love the city of Hemet,” Cockett said, asking for civil discourse and decorum in public meetings.

Other concerns from community organizations and homeowners

Residents and managers of Mountain Shadows RV Park and Resort — a 55‑plus community in Hemet described by speakers as facing trespassing, drug activity and unauthorized occupants — asked the council for help coordinating enforcement. Nicole Hicks, who said she represents Mountain Shadows, called for a task force or operation to address illicit activity in adjacent homes and described residents who are “afraid to leave their houses after dark.” Keisha Evans, assistant manager at Mountain Shadows, sought clarity about enforcement of Penal Code 602 and whether police would treat certain trespass and vandalism events as criminal matters.

What the city said and next steps

City Manager Mark Preswich said the city has launched an annexation information web page with documents related to the March 25 staff report and links to Riverside LAFCO procedures, tax‑sharing agreements and the fiscal data used by city analysts. Preswich said that Riverside LAFCO had received a petition (the administrative step that begins a potential annexation) and that the city’s role under LAFCO rules is to provide technical information the petitioner needs to prepare a plan of services. He said the city would schedule future informational open houses and respond to the county’s request for information.

Council did not take a formal vote on annexation at the Aug. 12 meeting. Several residents asked the council to delay any further steps until the city holds open informational sessions and confirms details on police, fire and other services, and on how local ordinances (for example rent‑review provisions) would apply after annexation.

Ending

Speakers on both sides urged clearer, proactive city outreach. Proponents said they want to preserve the city’s character and extend services; opponents said they fear higher taxes, different zoning and a loss of county services and demanded greater transparency and direct notices to affected residents.