Archive | October, 2022

Standing between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea – I took my jump, and I have no regrets

31 Oct

I’ll never forget Election 2016 – Hilary the Horrible vs The Donald. For one thing, I couldn’t believe Trump was actually serious about running for President of the United States, that just seemed like too big of a commitment for the guy. My husband and I had also seen pictures of Trump and Bill Clinton, yukking it up on the golf course. My husband had a theory – only half kidding – that Don and Bill had made a friendly bet.

Don: Bill, I bet I could beat the crap out of your wife... for president, that is.

Bill: I’m listening…

Don: I’ll bet you the royalties from your latest book that I could register Republican and they’d nominate me.

Bill: You’re on.

All kidding aside, I actually thought it was Trump’s way of getting Hillary elected. His campaign was so outrageous, I figured, he’s just trying to scare the Republicans out of voting and piss off the Democrats, make them vote for sure. I thought Hillary was a shoo-in. And that bugged me, cause the bitch is evil, she’s just evil, and the thought of her as president was worse than the thought of Trump yelling “You’re fired!” at a conga line of cabinet members.

I don’t remember when I’ve had such a big surprise as Election Night 2016 – my husband woke me at midnight, yelling gleefully – “Hillary conceded!” I remember thinking I must be dreaming.

So, I’m ready for anything in this next election. Go to bed under a conservative regime, wake up under a liberal regime – it’s happened before. I think the conservatives are worried too, judging from the mailboxes full of ugly attack flyers I’ve been getting from Citizens for Safe Chico, the folks who are running the conservative candidates. CSC seems to be very worried that Morgan Kennedy and Addison Winslow are giving Reynolds and Nava a run for their money.

The social media is running ugly back and forth, how to decide? Well, here’s what we know – Reynolds and Bennett have been on council, we can look at their record. Reynolds has signed the Shelter Crisis Designation twice. They’ve both approved the creation of new positions at over $100,000/year. They’ve both approved raises without asking employees to pay more of their pension and benefits costs. They both voted to hire a new city manager at an unprecedented salary of $211,000/year. They both voted to raise the budget by about $65,000,000, to a new high of over $200,000,000. Yet they both support Measure H, saying we don’t have enough money to fix and maintain our infrastructure?

Having got us into the Shelter Crisis Designation finger-trap, Reynolds and friends proceeded to laugh us into a lawsuit – you know they thought they were being very clever putting the shelter site out on the baking hot tarmac at the airport. And, having got us into that lawsuit, Reynolds had the gall to tell the judge, after she had voted to accept the settlement, that she didn’t understand it, and wanted a do-over.

I’ve made it very clear I’m disappointed in my Dist 2 councilwoman Kasey Reynolds. I’ve told her for four years that the salaries are overgenerous and unsustainable, and employees don’t pay enough toward CalPERS expenses. I’ve got nothing but excuses in return, her favorite refrain being, “we need to offer competitive salaries to get good people…” Boy, does she have that backwards. She hasn’t kept any of the promises she made in her first campaign – she said she’d clear the camps from our parks, then turned around and signed the SCD, twice. And here she is, making the same tired promises – did she just run the same flyers?

Her handlers over at Citizens for a Safe Chico have actually had the nerve to portray the challengers as being responsible for the condition of our parks and waterways, when it’s been Reynolds and the other “conservative” incumbents that have been making all the dumb decisions.

Well, I wouldn’t take this kind of shit from a man – why would I take it from a woman? Four years and nothing but empty promises – grounds for a divorce. So, when I got my ballot in the mail I put my ink pen where my mouth is, and I voted for Morgan Kennedy. Believe me, I’m not too thrilled with Kennedy, but, frankly, I really don’t think she could fuck things up anymore than Reynolds already has.

Joe Azzarito: will the city be borrowing annually the $24,000,000 using realizable tax receipts, along with other general fund monies, to pay for the borrowed funds, both principle and interest? We need to know this!

27 Oct

Regular contributor Joe Azzarito had some thoughts that wouldn’t conform to the Enterprise Record’s format:

Chico citizens are being asked to approve our city council’s decision to increase the rate of sales tax charged on numerous goods and services in this coming November’s election. Known as Proposition H, an add on local sales tax of 1% will, if passed, become law, unless repealed by citizens effective January 1, 2023. This will restate Chico’s sales tax rate and raise the combined tax rate to 8.25% from its current 7.25%.

Proponents of this increase have publicly, through mailers, as well as articles in this paper, argued that the increase is necessary, but more importantly, the only way our streets will be repaved, our citizens’ safety will be ensured and, lastly, housing for both the un-housed and those of limited means will be provided for.

To justify this increase, to remain locally and not shared with the rest of the state, they have released such information that on the surface would seem to justify this increase. They have told us that only a handful of cities, the size of Chico do not have a local sales tax. They have told us that Chico’s General Fund budget is one of the lowest in the state on a per capita basis. They have further told us, that without more revenue, not much can be done with the money it has. They have appealed to our decency, with a promise, but not a commitment, to address these stated needs.

Have they been totally honest with us? By authoring a simple majority proposition, with no sunset clause, they have not. Oh, of course, it is said, by repealing this rate increase in a future election, it can, by defacto, contain a sunset clause. Have you ever known of a tax increase to be temporary?

These are just the tip of the iceberg facts surrounding this proposed increase. There are many more facts, that proponents have conveniently refused to present, in an honest and forthright manner, so that we voters can make a discernible decision. To speak bluntly, proponents have not been entirely transparent. Why? Because, with all the facts, the proposition would be rejected handily. For those old enough to remember radio personality Paul Harvey and his news broadcast, he would end his show with ”the rest of the story” This is precisely what we need – the rest of the story.

Here are some, maybe not all, of the “rest of the story” voters need to hear and understand to be able to make a truly informed decision on this proposal. Without these facts, all we are doing is blindly, unquestioning, agreeing to tax ourselves more without so much as a whimper.

One of these unstated facts is the revenue expected to be received – the additional $24,000,000 each year. Mathematically, it will take $2,400,000,000 (2.4 billion in annual sales) to achieve the above $24 million in extra revenue. Proponents offer a few of the items not taxed as proof of its fairness. Have they told us which items will be taxed? No, they have not! Can it be shown that our city spends $2.4 billion in taxable sales each and every year? I thought our average or median income was near, if not under, $50,000 per year! Even if higher income families are included, can we reach this plateau? Ask yourself!

The next fact that has not been discussed, with honesty, do proponents expect such revenues to come about by encumbering debt with realizable tax receipts as collateral. In other words, will the city be borrowing annually the $24,000,000 using realizable tax receipts, along with other general fund monies to pay for the borrowed funds, both principle and interest. We need to know this!

Another fact to be factored into our collective vote – the reliability, since a promise is not contractual, that infrastructure, safety and housing will in fact be where this fictitious money will be spent . The quietly not discussed “elephant in the room” – the extremely large and growing UAL, known as the unfunded actuarial liability or pensions and other perks of staff could very well siphon off all of any tax receipts. It’s a fact that each year, the city disburses to CALPERS millions of dollars, both in current contributions, as well as catch up ones, for a bloated pension obligation. City staffs pay some, but not nearly enough of their “golden parachute” pension costs. Why should so few, a mere 2-3 thousand, at best, reap fantastic benefits at our expense. It’s truly Robin Hood in Reverse (take from the poor to give to the rich) I have many times brought the issue of “The California Rule” section found in the State’s constitution, wherein it is supposed to state that no benefit accorded state employees be taken away without replacing it with an equal valued one. That seems to be the major stumbling block from abrogating our pension contracts and replacing them with a more reasonable one given current circumstances. This topic, asked by me and others, never gets an honest evaluation. Why is that? If private employers can abrogate their pension obligations, in bad times, why can’t public employers do the same? It’s as if government says, the public be damned, we’ll take care of our own at your expense.

The editor of the local daily asks readers to vote yes on H, because it’s the only viable alternative. I say, NO, it’s not! So much more could be done to release funds for the three stated Third Rail items mentioned above, if only they wanted to. Council is not being entirely honest and forthcoming with us in not presenting ALL OF THE FACTS. LET me end with this pithy statement: NEVER HAS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE BEEN AGAINST RAISING TAXES, AS THAT IS THE SOURCE OF THEIRS, NOT YOUR, INCOME. We need to play hard ball with this government, demand they own up to current, but more importantly past bad decisions, find every possible area in government inappropriate changeable spending and reduce it, abrogate salary contracts to restructure employee contributions, stop raiding every department’s funds to support the UAL, admit to their culpability in deceiving us of real funding sources and ultimately cancel the Proposition H, effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Short of that we, the citizens of Chico must rise to the occasion, educate ourselves, demand true accountability, throw off the yokes of complicity and VOTE NO with our ballots on H. We can do better, if we demand government do better!

Joe Azzarito, Concerned long time resident of Chico, CA

Tags: ,

This is not a solution, it’s a problem.

26 Oct
There used to be grass beyond this sidewalk, a peaceful creek side setting where a family might picnic, some friends might toss a Frisbee.
Who is paying for the trash bins?

We used to know a few people who lived in the neighborhoods along Humboldt Road, but now we hear from folks who are looking to move out of this neighborhood. They complain about the crime, the filthy condition of the park and creek, and the general atmosphere of mental illness.

As we drove past taking these pictures, we saw California State Police officers in their unmarked vehicles engaging some of the campers, I have no idea what they were talking about. I’d guess, since it’s a waterway? the state might have some jurisdiction.

We didn’t see porta potties, as much as I hate to pay for services for these people, I have to wonder – where do they go to the bathroom? And I’m not too sure we could ever provide enough trash bins to accommodate folks who just seem to create waste.

This isn’t a solution – chasing them from public area to public area, from neighborhood to neighborhood. This is just one camp – it spreads around town like a bad rash. Council signed the Shelter Crisis Declaration, and they need to repeal it. How can we talk about the rights of the “unhoused” without talking about the rights of those of us who thought if we worked hard and obeyed the laws we’d be protected from predators? These people have been allowed to invade and conquer public spaces that belong to all of us – but let’s not forget what happened to three ladies who tried to attend a public meeting during a fascist shutdown.

A yes vote for Measure H is a vote for more money down the Homeless Industrial Complex rabbit hole. Please vote No on H.

Pro vs Con: Is Measure H right for Chico?

24 Oct

Juanita says: For those of you who don’t subscribe to the Enterprise Record, I wanted to provide yesterday’s (10/23/22) “Pro vs Con” segment – “Is Measure H right for Chico?” Mike Wolcott agreed to give me 400 words and promised to line up a proponent for, well, not exactly a “debate”. It’s more like a blind shooting match. You don’t know what you’re opponent is going to say, so you just put up your best argument. Slater obviously didn’t know what I was going to say, so he argued points that someone had made to him.

A couple of things I’d like to point out: 1) no, the city hasn’t “spent” $300,000 designing parklets, but they’ve “allocated it” to RGA (Gallaway), and the asst manager was asking for much more to build them. Slater forgets that it’s not the city’s money, it’s American Rescue Plan funding. A commenter also informed us that the city had intended to use that money in lieu of the fees that should have been paid by the bars and restaurants. 2) Slater insinuates that “one set of opponents” opposes all taxes, but offers no solutions. Well, you know that wasn’t us – I think we’ve made it clear that we wanted a restricted tax, dedicated to infrastructure. We also suggested the city offer more rational salaries and benefits. Slater seems uncomfortable with our solutions.

Read it for yourself and let me know what you think –

Pro/Brandon Slater

Chico has the lowest per capita general fund budget in the entire state, and it shows: overdue maintenance is piling up and public safety is decreased; and we can’t even begin to plan for a secure future. Bottom line, our town needs more resources in order to continue to be the community we love.

It has been a while since I‘ve seen a city issue galvanize support across ideologies the way Measure H has. It’s supported by our current mayor as well as seven former mayors, seven of the eight current council candidates, both local newspapers, prominent businesses, and community leaders from both sides of the aisle.

There has been a lot of misinformation thrown around. So, let’s start by getting the facts straight:

Accusation: The city spent $300,000 on the ice rink.

False: The net cost was $28,992.

Claim: The city spent $300,000 designing downtown parklets.

False: To date they’ve spent $24,515.

Claim: Measure H will cost an individual $800/year.

Response: Perhaps … for those making over $200k/year; average resident impact is drastically less.

Claim: Our city manager is the highest paid in the state

Response: Actually our city manager’s pay ranks 321st in the state.

Claim: Other cities have a much lower percentage of budget allocated to cops.

Response: Budget line items are assigned differently, so you need to know how to read a budget. If Chico’s budget included schools, recreation, transportation, and social services—like NYC (the example given)—Chico’s police percentage would be significantly less. NYC spends $12,052/citizen on cops, Chico spends $275. NYC has 4 cops/1000; Chico has one cop/1,000 citizens.

One set of Measure H opposition opposes all taxes, but haven’t offered any actual solutions for their complaints. Another group supports this tax, but just don’t want the current council to get the credit. At the end of the day, it comes down to setting aside our grievances in order to meet the needs of our community.

Think about all the great things we have: Bidwell Park, Chico State, homegrown businesses, designation as one of the top 100 art cities; and Enloe Medical Center, one of the top 250 best hospitals in the country. The list goes on and on. Just look around. So much great stuff in Chico worth our investment.

Vote Yes on Measure H.

YesOnHChico.org.

ER Intro: Brandon Slater is organizer of Yes on H campaign committee, President of D.H. Slater and Son, Inc., and Chairman-elect of the Chico Chamber of Commerce. 

CON / Juanita Sumner

Measure H proponents claim Chico doesn’t have adequate funding for infrastructure, but council approved a 2022 budget increase from $142 million to $211 million. The new budget included creation of three new positions – public information officer, assistant public works director, and homeless solutions coordinator, each over $100,000/year. Council hired a new police chief at more than the retired chief, a new city manager at an unprecedented salary over $211,000, and approved raises for management and the fire and police departments, without asking them to pay more of their pension costs.

Don’t believe promises, look at the budget. The police department gets 49%, fire department 28% – meanwhile parks get 3% and public works 1%. $25 million to pensions, while only $1.2 million to all capital projects. While surveys by both City of Chico and CARD indicated residents value public safety, respondents put an equal value on streets and parks, which is not reflected in the budget.

Proponents have admitted CalPERS is a major concern. In 2021-22, Chico paid $13 million in payroll contributions and another $12.2 million in “catch-up” payments on the pension deficit. Depending on group, employees pay 9.75 – 15% of the payroll contribution, while taxpayers pay 10 – 19%. That’s a total of 19 – 33% of total cost, leaving the rest to ride the stock market. With CalPERS returns at less than 7%, the taxpayers are on the hook for the resulting deficit.

A Human Resources staffer told me, “City of Chico employees are paying, or are nearly paying, HALF of the CalPERS pension costs.” [sic]. That’s not correct – employees only pay a payroll contribution, they don’t pay toward the pension deficit, which is at least half the cost. Last year staff reported that even with increasing “catch-up” payments made at the cost of infrastructure and services, the pension debt had gone up 43% in the last five years.

While it’s not mentioned in the measure, one proponent announced the city will use new tax revenues to secure bonds to ensure H money doesn’t go to the pensions. Bonds are debt. In 2021 a consultant reported that a bond for $180 million at 3.5% would cost over $73 million in interest. There are also brokerage fees to various middleman agencies. That amounts to nearly half the borrowed money going to bank costs instead of infrastructure.

Chico doesn’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We can do better. No on H.

Juanita Sumner is a member of the Chico Taxpayers Association.

Tags: ,

Letter to the Editor: Matt Gallaway is worried about his bottom line, not yours.

18 Oct

The Enterprise Record posted a letter from Measure H proponent Matt Gallaway, a guy who expects to benefit directly from Measure H revenues. Gallaway is the local architect who received $300,000 in American Rescue Plan money, and expects to receive more, to design parklets for Downtown bars and restaurants. Like BC, I’ve responded to each paragraph.

Though conservatives typically are not in favor of taxes, there comes a point where we must recognize the limitations of what the state provides our municipality. California may have a huge surplus, our city does not.

The first line insinuates that people simply oppose tax increase because they “typically are not in favor of taxes.” I take exception to that – I pay my taxes on time, and I pay plenty. Between property taxes, utility bills (which are subject to franchise taxes and utility users tax), gas tax, car registration tax, and sales or “use tax”, the city of Chico is well funded, look at the budget.

And yes, the city of Chico has enjoyed a financial surplus, receiving over $20 million in American Rescue Plan money over the last year, another $12,2 million just two months ago. Directly on the heels of millions in sales tax surplus from the Camp Fire refugees, who also afforded the city millions more in disaster funding. Hey, that is still going on – people in Paradise are still building homes, with materials from stores in Chico.

Gallaway should know – $300,000 of that American Rescue Plan money has gone into his pocket to furnish designs for the parklets the city plans to install Downtown. Tomorrow night Staff is asking council to approve more funding for their Downtown remodel – Ass City Manager Jennifer McCarthy says, “$300,000 does not begin to cover this…” How much goes to Gallaway for more designs?

A sales tax seems to be the most appropriate method to generate funds to help our community.  It would come from those who visit and use our infrastructure as well as from our residents. It is NOT assessed on a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread. It is not added to rent checks. The truth of the matter is that when we froze property taxes with Prop 13 back in the late 1970s, our funding started to slip — we live the reality of that today.   Most other communities in the state have recognized the need for a sales tax and have passed them long ago, leaving Chico behind.

Paragraph Two is where he goes into the same pitch we’ve heard from Brandon Slater, Ann Schwab and other proponents, almost word for word. So much for Mike Wolcott’s rule about “no form letters.” Gallaway repeats the mantra about visitors paying their fair share – they already pay bed tax – and then the la-la about the tax not applying to “a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread...” No, but it applies to soap, underwear, shoes, gas not only to get us to the store but to get the truckloads of supplies to the store. No, it doesn’t apply to rent, but it drives up costs for landlords.

Then he take a new tack – he blames our problems on Prop 13. Did this guy call himself a “conservative” in Paragraph 1? Cause I think he’s one of those RINO’s – Republican in Name Only. This guy is telling us Prop 13 is bad, when he should know, the city takes in over $24 million a year in property tax, regardless of Prop 13. And right now there is an unprecedented building spree going on in Chico – all those new homes/apartments will generate millions more in property tax, not to mention building fees.

Chico hasn’t fallen behind in revenues, it’s fallen behind in infrastructure because they’ve been siphoning the money into the pensions.

And Gallaway admits that in his next paragraph. He finally tells the rest of us what’s been talked about in off-the-record meetings for over a year now – they want to use the sales tax revenues to secure bonds, to assure us that it won’t go to CalPERS by way of the General Fund.

The good news is that there are methods to help make sure this tax is not spent on CALPers and the city’s unfunded pension liability.  I trust our city staff and council to secure the vast majority of the proposed tax for our parks and roadways in the form of long-term bonds. Most jurisdictions find this to be a good method to span political cycles.

First of all, that just shows what a lie they’re floating on the ballot, where they promise $24 million/year off a 1-cent sales tax. Second, they never mentioned the bonds in front of the public, the last reference to purchasing bonds was during COVID at a closed meeting. Bonds are permanent debt, and they ride the market. You’ve seen the market lately?

Gallaway closes with another lame pitch –

“H” is for help and we all need to do our parts to help insure our city maintains it’s character and charm.

Matt Gallaway, Chico CA

Gallaway says “we”, but what he’s really concerned about is himself. This man works for the public sector almost exclusively, he knows this tax is part of his bottom line, and he doesn’t care about yours.

NO on Measure H.

Tags: ,

No on H: I’m putting my ballot in the mail today

15 Oct

I got my ballot yesterday (Friday 10/14) and I couldn’t resist opening it as my husband and I enjoyed our tailgate lunch of chicken tenders from Raley’s. I managed to wipe off the ketchup and ranch dressing and then I got out my ink pen and voted NO on Measure H.

Ooops, missed some ketchup there.

That first line is a whopper – notice they list fairly specific uses but no dollar amounts. They are not allowed to make these promises because they put a simple measure on the ballot. They put a simple measure on the ballot because they didn’t want to be held to any specific promises, see how that works? The use they very pointedly don’t mention is the growing amount they are spending annually – $12.2 million last year, over $13 million projected this year – on the employee pension deficit.

It’s the reason why our parks and our streets look like crap, the unfunded actuarial liability. It’s ruining our credit rating and draining our city funds. You’d have to be pretty naive, like fresh off the turnip truck, to think they will not use this money to make bigger payments toward the pension deficit. They aren’t doing anything about the spiraling cost of the pensions, they keep offering unsustainable salaries and allowing employees to get away without making reasonable contributions toward pension cost, expecting the taxpayers to throw more and more money every year down a bottomless pit. This tax is not the only solution, as the proponents would have us believe.

The other whopper on this ballot is that the tax will generate $24 million annually. In order to generate $24 million in sales tax revenue on a one cent sales tax, we’d need $2.4 billion – BILLION! – in taxable sales, per year. Sheesh, what is that, everybody has to buy a new car every year? I don’t know if this town has enough taxable crap to generate $2.4 billion a year in taxable sales, we don’t even have Macy’s for cripesake. Sheesh, I had to go online today to buy an overflow plate for my bathtub, I couldn’t find one anywhere in town. After having driven tire-torturing streets, waiting in traffic, I had to come home and order one online – it’s frustrating dealing with a mismanaged town.

In their Argument For in the ballot pamphlet, proponents mention the use of some of the money to secure grants to do piecemeal work on infrastructure – but grants are specific, you can’t just use them to resurface roads. The grant the city received to fund the 20th Street bike bridge will cost the taxpayers over $300,000 in interest, for the matching funds they didn’t have when they secured the grant.

And then projects overrun cost, and the city just “allocates” more money from the General Fund. Last month council approved the allocation of another $100,000 for the tiny stretch of bike trail running between Little Chico Creek and 20th Street Park – less than a mile of bike trail. Their promises to do the real work needed – resurfacing our neighborhood streets, replacements like the disabled bridge on Guynn Avenue, the long-needed widening of Bruce Road – that’s never going to happen. Meanwhile they are eliminating parking requirements for developers and narrowing streets in new subdivisions.

The only thing certain to happen should this measure pass, is that they will put another measure on the ballot in four years, and another measure after that. They will let infrastructure lapse until we are pulling our hair out just getting across town, and then tell us that they don’t have enough money to do the needed work. Meanwhile, the salaries continue to go up, the fire department is getting raises next Tuesday, the cops just got raises a couple of months ago.

That’s just more gas on the pension fire!

So I’ll be putting my ballot in the mail today, and I hope you will do same, and I hope you’ll vote No on H.

Max Steiner is not qualified to represent Butte County to the rest of the country – LaMalfa for Congress Dist 1

14 Oct

Well, I’m still waiting for my ballot, but I’ve already know I won’t be voting for Max Steiner. The biggest problem with Steiner, is that he has nothing to show for himself, except his military service. Sorry, what does that have to do with performing the duties of a congressional seat? He makes a lot of promises, but we have no record of achievement from this man.

Here’s another problem – “born and raised in Sacramento”. Doug LaMalfa was born and raised on a farm in Butte County, and grew up in a small rural town, which is typical of most of his district. I’ve spoken to LaMalfa at local gatherings, and not just at election time. His father was a rice farmer who ran in the same circles as my grandfather. His kids had the same driver’s training teacher as my kids. He’s a local, that means a lot to me.

Steiner says he will support the recent John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act – I don’t support that act, and I really don’t like the districts that have come about as a result. I think it’s an attempt to water down votes and make it easier for unqualified people to get elected, as well as pass poor measures with fewer votes. I do believe there is prevalent voter fraud in our country, but that starts and end with the county clerk, and that’s who should be worried about it. If you think you have been wrongfully disenfranchised go to Oroville and take it up with Candace Grubbs or her new replacement Keaton Denlay. But be ready for them to show you exactly why – you moved and didn’t report it, being the most common reason for coming up “disenfranchised” at election time. In this transient town, maybe the county should consider chipping voters, might save time and paperwork. And fraud.

Finally I’ll say, Steiner is an asshole, coming at LaMalfa with all kinds of accusations about the 2020 election – oh, please. You know what your problem is, Mr. Steiner, you have no game.

Here Craig’s mama tells us about game. Warning, there’s cussing and other mildly crude content in the following. But it’s all true.

Tags: , ,

NO on H: BC and Bob respond to Measure H proponents

12 Oct

The following is a comment BC made on my last post.

An editorial was recently submitted to the Chico News and Review by a local politician in support of the Measure H tax increase. it is responded to here, point by point.

Want better roads? Better parks? Better public safety? Better housing solutions? A vote for Measure H is a vote for a better Chico.

Response: Of course, voters want better roads, a cleaner park, and a safer environment. But there is nothing in Measure H that mandates the funds be spent on any of those items. The additional funding will be spent where existing funding goes: salaries, benefits, unfunded pension liability and catch-up provisions, and unfunded post employee benefits

Rapid population growth, the Camp Fire, COVID-19 and increased community needs have stretched our finances. Maintaining roads, preserving Bidwell Park, keeping neighborhoods safe and creating durable housing solutions takes resources the city simply does not have.

Response: There have been more than adequate resources from State and Federal programs to offset COVID-19 and the Camp Fire. The suffering at a personal level is significant and not to be discounted. Many burned out families are still waiting for restitution. But at the City level by some estimates, the Camp fire was a money maker for Chico. Population growth, along with deteriorating roads and parks are all issues that predate COVID and the fire. The reason there is no funding for these issues is city pension liability. There are the pensions, and everything else.

Chico is only one of eight California cities over 50,000 residents without a local sales tax. Of those eight cities, Chico’s general fund budget is the lowest per capita.

Response: This type of comparison is vapid. How are the other 8 cities without a sales tax doing? This line of poor reasoning also shows up in comments like: Chico has less employees than other cities our size, we need more. Our director of “XYZ” makes less that comparable directors, he needs a raise. Every other city of our size sends its employees to the national conference in Hawaii/Las Vegas/Washington, DC, our people should go as well. It all leads to an escalating size of government without any critical thought or analysis. (E.g. Why do employees need a raise when they are well paid, and there is a line out the door of qualified applicants who will take the position?)

The sales tax will add $1 to every $100 spent (groceries, rent and prescription medications aren’t taxed) and will generate $24 million a year to invest in our community.

Response: It would take $2.4 Billion in sales to generate $24 million in revenue @ 1%. Pulling $24 million out of the local economy so it can be redistributed to City employees, benefits and pensions is not an “investment”. If you want to know how any new tax revenue will be spent, look at how the EXISTING money is spent.

Measure H spending decisions will be made locally. We’ll be able to will make improvements to Chico that not only will enhance our daily lives but also create jobs. Chico would be able to support local social service agencies and provide housing assistance.

Response: How are those “locally made” decisions serving you currently? The roads are bad, the park is a run-down and the local agencies are underfunded. Raising taxes does not create jobs, except for the tax collectors and the administration that you have to set up at the city level to monitor the tax.

Measure H has support from across the political spectrum. Seven former Chico mayors endorse Measure H, as do seven of the eight council candidates.

Response: The measure is supported by local politicians who view growth of government as a public good. They have a vested interest. This is the equivalent of going to a Friday-night high school football game, and asking the fans in the grandstands if they like football.

Thanks BC! – I also liked Bob’s response –

These were the people on whose watch the pension and OPEB deficit blew up and who spent our money very unwisely in other areas. They created today’s problems. So now we are supposed to take their advice?

All this tax will do is enable the current local politicians to continue the bad spending of the seven former mayors who caused our problems.

When will people wake up and stop listening to those who got us into this mess? Listening to Schwab discuss a tax increase is like listening to an arsonist lecture you on fire prevention.

Thanks BC and Bob for pointing out the flaws in the H campaign, and why we should vote NO on H.

Tags: ,

There are a lot of reasons to vote this November: Brian Dahle isn’t just a vote against Newsom, he’s an experienced and strong candidate with working class values

10 Oct

This morning I read an article that made me realize, there’s more than a sales tax at stake in this election. I hate getting my panties in a knot over the news, but today I read that Gavin Newsom signed legislation to ban plastic film “produce” bags by 2025.

I really hate that guy.

The other thing that pissed me off was why – they are saying that since the single use plastic film grocery bag ban was instituted, “There was a 72% drop in grocery bag litter in the state just one year after it was fully implemented…“

https://abc7news.com/grocery-stores-banning-single-use-plastic-bags-meat-produce-senate-bill-1046/12298432/

I won’t say that’s not true for the year after implementation, but now the cow’s out of the barn again – people got used to paying their nickel, and I’ve noticed some vendors don’t charge the nickel anymore, and people are back to using “single use bags” whether they are plastic or paper. I just saw a plastic Raley’s bag blowing down the freeway yesterday.

And no, they’re not the flimsy film plastic anymore, they’re higher mil plastic that’s going to sit in the landfill for years.

This new law is also tied to the compost mandate presented earlier this year. Waste haulers and their customers are required to sort food waste, including pizza boxes, dirty napkins, and other “food soiled paper”, into their yard waste bins. Proponents say produce bags will end up in yard waste bins, because yeah, some people use produce bags to store food waste under their sink next to their trash can. This “pollutes the stream”. So they want grocery stores to switch to compostable produce bags. These are already available to consumers.

Compostable Bags

Do you wonder if the Supreme Commander ever thinks about how his actions add to the cost of living for the rest of us?

So I’m voting for Brian Dahle. who has more in common with me, my family, and my friends, than Gavin Newsom. Dahle grew up on a working farm, and like members of my farming family, he has taken the time to serve on public boards, worked his way up into state politics. A Lassen County supervisor for 16 years, he has since served in the legislature, from 2012-19. It takes more than good intentions to run this state. Dahle has experience in the legislature, dealing with other legislators from all over the state. I think he has a better idea of what is good for the people of this state than an entitled Bay Area socialite.

There are a number of issues in this election that should bring us all to the table. I hope people are energized to vote, and I’m hoping Dahle will bring more people to the polls.

Tags: ,

Steve Wolfe: City staff have “insinuated” that the Measure H funding will go towards infrastructure and services. This voter will believe that when pigs become aeronautically enabled.

8 Oct

The Butte County clerk has noticed us that she will be mailing ballots with the county voter’s pamphlets on Monday (10/10/22). You can see the pamphlet here, start doing your homework:

https://buttevotes.net/306/Local-Measures

Measures H and L are for city of Chico, click on those measures for the city attorney’s analysis, and for H, the Arguments For and Against.

Measure L doesn’t even get a discussion. The proponents – Kasey Reynolds, Sean Morgan, Rob Berry – didn’t post any Argument For, and I didn’t have time to post an Argument Against. I’m voting No on L, for reasons explained here:

“Quality of life” Measure L is a backhanded attempt to stop lawsuits against the city of Chico and relieve them of any responsibility from damages caused by their bum camps

As for Measure H, you can read proponents’ arguments, and my responses – same arguments we’ve both made in our letters to the editor. I’ll say though, the proponents’ letters have sounded like form letters, weak, insincere, and sometimes using the same words – especially their mantra about the tax not applying to “food, rent or prescription medications…” Wow, as if those are life’s only necessities. None of the yes letters have been from frequent letter writers, so they seem unnatural, as if they’ve been put up to it.

By contrast, I’ve seen some very original and sincere letters coming from folks like Dave Howell, Joe Azzarito, and here’s a good one from longtime letter writer Steve Wolfe, recently posted in the Enterprise Record.

To reiterate an earlier article, this is a poor Measure.  Measure H requires only a simple majority for passage with the money going into the general fund, to be spent at the discretion of the City Council.  In addition, there is no “sunset” clause which would allow the voters an opportunity to audit the measure at a future date.

It is difficult for one to believe that the city is in desperate straits financially when one considers the funding available through sales tax, property tax, vehicle registration fees, utility users tax, etc., all of which must be on the increase considering the city’s burgeoning population.

In addition, consideration must be given to the $200 million in failing infrastructure (roads/sewer) due to years of admitted deferred maintenance while staff funneled amounts into an ever increasing pension deficit; last year $11.5 million, this year $12 million, $18 million by 2025 and on and on. Which doesn’t seem to faze city staff as I read where the PD just received another raise. City staff have “insinuated” that the Measure H funding will go towards infrastructure and services. This voter will believe that when pigs become aeronautically enabled.

I suggest a measure dedicated to city infrastructure. That of course would require a 2/3 majority vote, but at least the voters would know where the money was going. That measure this voter could support.

Steve Wolfe, Chico

I’m glad to see Wolfe has done his homework on the budget, and he’s making rational suggestions, while also entertaining us with his wit! I also believe there are plenty of people out there like Wolfe, who would be glad to contribute if they saw a light at the end of the tunnel – a 2/3’s measure dedicated to infrastructure, specific amounts toward specific projects, and even a sunset date.

My husband and I have also heard from folks around town, people we do business with all the time, longtime local business owners. Whenever we’ve mentioned the tax measure we’ve started a spirited discussion among owners and customers – they’re pissed at the city – they know the money has been coming in, and they want to know why it isn’t being spent on long-needed infrastructure maintenance and repair. They’re mad about the bum camps, and they blame incumbents Coolidge, Morgan and Reynolds, by name. They know about the salaries and the generous benefits. And more than a few of them still remember how badly Chico management treated the Camp Fire refugees, lied about surplus population numbers, and got money that probably should have gone to Paradise and other burn victims. Chico voters are a little better informed than H proponents might realize.

By contrast, 10 years ago when the city put a cell phone tax on the ballot, Measure J, fellow CTA members and I were surprised how few people had even heard about the measure. Folks we spoke to on the street were shocked to find out they’d been taxed for years via their cell phone bills, that it was illegal, and that a lawsuit had forced cities all over California, including Chico, to put it on the ballot for voters. When the Chico Tea Party group held a rally at City Plaza, with information regarding city salaries and benefits, we found out local taxpayers had no idea how generously compensated Chico Staffers were, and still are. And people were outraged, J was beaten pretty soundly. But it took a dedicated group of Chico Taxpayers, Chico Tea Party, and Chico Republican Women to get the word out.

So thanks Dave, Joe, and all the folks who have worked to expose the truth – our city is very well funded, we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

We really can do better – NO on H.

Tags: ,

← Older Entries