Archive | ACA1 lowers voter threshold for tax measures RSS feed for this section

Gee, all the sudden the ER can’t squeeze in more than 3 or 4 letters a day? What’s the matter Mike – too many NO on A letters?

24 Feb

I think it’s weird that a few weeks ago the ER was running as many as 10 letters a day, but now that’s dropped off to three or four. I happen to know there are letters in the queue – a few of my friends have told me they sent “no on A” letters before the February 21 cut-off, and they just haven’t appeared. 

Of course you know – ER front man Mike Wolcott has endorsed Measure A. 

Of course, Wolcott recruited our friend Dave Howell to write a “con” piece so he could give Jim Parrott another shot at a “pro” piece. I don’t know how many of you noticed – Wolcott listed Dave as “Dave Smith”, Dave had to correct him. By the time Wolcott put the right name on the piece it was buried. That might not sound like more than an innocent mistake (like Karl Ory putting his hand in Nichole Nava’s face?), but it means anybody who googled the name would not find any of Dave Howell’s previous letters or his new “Chico Taxes” website.

https://chicotaxes.home.blog/

Excuse me  for thinking Mr. Wolcott would ever do anything like that on purpose, I’ll just go on thinking he’s an incompetent ass.

Frankly, this measure was written deceptively, and presented falsely by the ER. The proponents aren’t telling us that CARD intends to invest the proceeds in a $36 million bond, and that the funds can be spent at the poor discretion of the CARD board. This election has been dirty.

But Saturday I attended a gathering of Chico Republican Women Federated. Many indicated to me that they had already voted NO on A. Others indicated to me that they had friends who were waffling. I told them to look at CARD’s budget, it’s all there – millions of dollars going to CalPERS on their unfunded pension liability, while district facilities sank into disrepair. I think the group was just as shocked as I am about how little public employees pay toward very generous benefits.  

I wish more people were as involved as this group. We listened to local candidates, had a great chat with GOP Vice Chair Peter Kuo, and I  got to meet new, young, dedicated members. It’s good to see a group that’s on top of local issues and engaging new people all the time.

It’s encouraging to see young people who are willing to work hard to make a difference.  The future looks brighter today. 

Update, ACA 1 – lowers the voter threshold for tax measures from 2/3’s to 55%

28 May

Remember Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1? A bill introduced by a group of California legislators who want to lower the voter threshold  for tax measures from 2/3’s to 55 percent? 

It went to a vote on the assembly last week, and a friend sent me a notice:

You are receiving this email because you subscribed on the HJTA website, or you provided your address in response to direct mail.  Please see the bottom of this message to unsubscribe.

Immediate Action Needed! Call the Capitol to protect Proposition 13!

ACTION ALERT: We need every HJTA member to oppose Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1, which attacks Proposition 13 by making it easier to raise taxes. ACA 1 cleared the Assembly Appropriations Committee last week, and is now awaiting a Floor vote. Unlike previous committee votes, and per Proposition 13, passage on the Assembly floor requires a two-thirds vote.Communicating with your legislators now is crucial.  

WHEN TO TAKE ACTION: NOW! A vote on ACA 1 could occur at any time. We’ve been told by reliable sources that a vote will likely occur tomorrow 5/23 or Friday 5/24. 

WHY:

  • ACA 1 would lower the vote needed to approve new local taxes from two-thirds to just 55 percent if the tax hike was for “infrastructure” (which is almost anything).
  • The most imperative message is that a vote for ACA 1 is a vote for a tax increase because it makes it easier for local governments to propose and authorize higher taxes.
  • Lowering the two-thirds vote for bonds and parcel taxes makes it easier to approve debt that is included “below the line” on property tax bills and is not included in Prop 13’s one percent cap. This can add hundreds of dollars a year to residential and commercial property tax bills, and last for decades.
  • Parcel taxes are very regressive in that all property owners typically pay the same amount, regardless of the size of the home or business.

For ACA 1 to be defeated, eight Assembly Democrats must oppose or abstain. While the odds seem daunting, we do believe there is a path to victory. Please call the following Members of the Legislature who have yet to clarify their position on the bill, especially if you live in the areas they represent. Also, for calls to Mr. Ramos, please thank him for abstaining on ACA 1 in the Assembly Local Government Committee and ask him to do the same on the Assembly Floor. 

Assembly Member James Ramos (Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino) – 916-319-2040
Assembly Member Rudy Salas (Bakersfield, Hanford) – 916-319-2032
Assembly Member Christy Smith (Santa Clarita) – 916-319-2038
Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin (Camarillo, Thousand Oaks) – 916-319-2044
Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi (Torrance) – 916-319-2066

You can also call your own representatives and urge them to oppose ACA 1. To find their names and contact information, go to findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov.

Thank you for helping to strengthen the voice of taxpayers in California. We greatly appreciate you.

 

I’m sorry, I was out of town with no internet all weekend, and I missed it.  So I went to this “bill status” site:

https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211US105G0&p=ca+assembly+constitutional+amendment+1+current+status

It looks like it  passed the committee last week with a bare margin of 11 – 7, but was ordered for a third reading  before the assembly. 

I’ll admit, I don’t know that much about the process, I don’t know where it goes next – to the senate, I assume. I will sign up for HJTA updates, and I think I’ll also give some of those legislators a call to ask about the process. 

If this bill passes you might as well sign your house over to the city of Chico and the “Homeless Industrial Complex”. Look at your property tax bill, and see how many bonds and assessments you already pay – those were passed with 2/3’s of the vote, think how easy it would be to pass a slough more with the threshold lowered to 55%. 

Here’s an article from the HJTA website that fills in the details:

Major Threats to Prop. 13 and Homeowners

Here’s the text of the bill, with amendments, read for yourself:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA1

Contacting your legislators isn’t always as easy as it sounds

17 Feb

Thank you Cyber Bully John Ferrera, due to your nasty comment, people have been reading that month-old post I made about your boss, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and ACA1, the bill that would drop the 2/3’s voter approval threshold for tax measures to 55%.

And I took your suggestion and tried to contact your boss via e-mail at the address she provided on her website. I sent her your message, as well as a link to Bill Track, and the contents of the bill. I told her I thought your comment was inappropriate and unprofessional, and that you are trying to mislead the public regarding ACA1.  My e-mail was sent back later in the day.

“Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:

cecilia@ceciliaforassembly.com (cecilia@ceciliaforassembly.com)
Your message couldn’t be delivered. Despite repeated attempts to contact the recipient’s email system it didn’t respond.

Contact the recipient by some other means (by phone, for example) and ask them to tell their email admin that it appears that their email system isn’t accepting connection requests from your email system. Give them the error details shown below. It’s likely that the recipient’s email admin is the only one who can fix this problem.”

Microsoft provided a link to try and fix the problem – they advised me that the problem is in the “destination domain,” probably “Aggressive anti-spam settings in the destination domain that block legitimate senders, for example, all senders from any domain in Exchange Online.”

I think this is the problem with a lot of legislators’ contact info. They hide behind their anti-spam software. They really don’t want to hear from the public, and they don’t want to use e-mail because then there is a record of what they said, they can’t deny it. A phone call can go all over the place, and then you have no record of what was said. 

Maybe I’ll write a letter to her local newspaper – that’s a 50-50 proposition in my experience, some editors won’t print letters from out of towners, others are glad to get letters from anybody. We’ll see!