Archive | CARD Measure A March 2020 RSS feed for this section

NO ON A: “Who carries the burden for this tax?”

5 Feb

From a guy I have seen at many meetings, THANKS RANDY!

I received a very nice mailer today indicating major funding from SEIU Union 1021 in support of Measure A, the CARD parcel tax proposal.

Just to encourage you to contemplate the issue, this is a parcel tax, not a tax related to the value or number of residences on a parcel.

The proposal is for a single family home to pay $85 per year plus cpi increases, a 100-unit apartment complex will pay a total of $85 per year also, not 100 times $85.  Again, this is a parcel tax.  Who carries the burden of this tax?

I have been told that the CALPERS annual pension contribution is a major line item for CARD.

— Randy Coy, Chico

NO ON A: Don’t be a tax slave, don’t turn your children into tax slaves

4 Feb

I sent the following letter to the Chico News and Review after I read Melissa Daugherty’s editorial about over compensation and pension deficit in the Chico Police Department. She singles out the cops – unfair, unfair – not only is the city management top-heavy, look at CARD. An agency with 34 full-time employees has racked up almost $3 million in pension deficit. A recreation district manager who makes over $124,000/year plus benefits but pays only 8% of what the agency pays (14%) of her own pension costs. 

The problem all public agencies have in common is that employees don’t pay enough of their own pension/benefits costs, expecting the taxpayers to pick up the tab for 70% – 90% of their highest year’s salary, in retirement. 

Don’t be a tax slave – get your letter in now – NO ON A!

All public agencies have the same spending problem. As Richard Ek reported in 2007,  ever-increasing salaries with little or no contribution from employees toward the cost of over-generous benefits packages have created enormous “liabilities”.  That is, the difference between what employees expect to get in pension, and what they pay into it.

Until recently,  for example, Chico Area Recreation District employees paid nothing toward their pensions, even those making salaries over $100,000/year. Now the General Manager, with a recent salary increase to $124,000/year, only pays 8% of that agency’s cost for a pension of 70% of highest year’s salary. This policy has created a pension deficit of over $2.7 million for an agency with only 34 full-time employees.

Both the city and CARD have proposed tax increases. CARD’s parcel tax,  Measure A, is on the March 3 ballot. They say they need more money to sustain services and infrastructure, but, like City of Chico, they admit to deferring maintenance on facilities for years while paying millions toward their pension deficit.

In 2015, a consultant told CARD he could bring Shapiro Pool up to code for about $550,000. The board paid $400,000 toward their pension liability, and closed Shapiro Pool.

No on Measure A.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

Tags: ,

NO ON MEASURE A: Time to get those letters to the ER before the February 21 deadline

4 Feb

Well, I suppose you got your “Yes on A” flyer.  It’s full of the same lies Chico Area Rec Dist General Manager Ann Willmann was pumping at her “informational” sessions. Well, you may fight fire with fire, but you fight bullshit with a hose. Here’s my hose, mailed off to the Enterprise Record yesterday. 

Measure A proponents claim county property taxes do not keep up with inflation and Chico Area Recreation District needs more taxpayer funding. But, according to CARD’s budget, available at chicorec.com, RDA passthrough funding increased 15% in 2019 and property tax revenues increased 7%, even after the Camp Fire. Meanwhile CARD’s payroll increased 11%, adding to their $2.7 million-plus pension liability.

Proponents list specific projects, but Measure A revenues won’t be dedicated. While the measure says proceeds will be collected in a special account, there’s no guarantee they’ll be used for the projects listed in the measure. From the text of the measure, “The district intends to use funds collected… for those projects listed above”, but here’s the caveat – “unless the board determines in any given year that changes in state or federal funding make doing so infeasible or inadvisable.”

In fact, the General Manager admits Measure A revenues will never be enough to pay for these projects, anyway.  So, CARD proposes using the proceeds to secure a $36 million projects bond that will cost $2 million a year in debt service while only providing $1 million/year for the list of projects they propose.  The result would be millions in new debt, with very little to show for it.

Home and business owners will be on the hook for a lot more than just an $85/year tax. A tax that increases every year with inflation, never sunsets, and is still not enough to pay for the rainbow, lollipop and sunshine promises.

NO on A.

Tags: , ,

Thanks Joe Azzarito for a great letter to the editor! NO ON A!

31 Jan

From yesterday’s Chico News and Review:

As a member of Sons and Daughters of Italy Vincenzo Bellini Lodge 2519, I believe playing bocce ball is an important activity for Italians. At a Chico Area Recreation and Park District meeting, the topic of adding courts to a local park was discussed. Measure A, foisted on Chico by CARD, could provide this but at what cost?! The parcel tax, to be on our March 3 primary, is not the solution.

CARD gives lip service to what the public wants or thinks it needs. The recreation department, like all forms of government, feeds itself first of any and all funds, then cries wolf when it comes to everyone else.

They’ll tell you: We need more money to do stuff for you! We promise to keep our word and spend only on you. From the news comes word of potential revenue—most of it will go for debt service. That’s loan interest, folks! They are in hock up to their ears in pension deficits. It is easy to see why they always need more; they can’t pass up an expense for themselves and, therefore, they are broke, were it not for this proposed biased, ever-increasing, perpetual tax borne by homeowners and businesses.

Remember no on A.

Joe Azzarito

Chico

Tags:

Butte County GOP needs to step up to the plate – let them know how you feel about the city’s districting sham – (530) 876 – 4191

25 Jan

Butte County GOP staffers like to talk smack, but I wonder if they are willing to sue the city of Chico over the highly questionable voting districts? 

I think they need a little shove – you can call them at 530-876-4191 – I’ve tried email and they don’t respond. Let them know you are also outraged by this obvious grab for power, and want them to put their money where their mouth is. I mean, if out-of-towners like Jim Nielsen and Doug LaMalfa expect us to take them seriously, they better get their donors together and make some waves on our behalf.

Come on Doug, if you are truly “One of Us”, get out there and start pounding your mau-mau stick! 

Butte County GOP staff are supposed to have a monthly public meeting at the Oxford Suites motel, but a friend of mine says they don’t always show up. At the last meeting he attended, they announced that Chico Area Recreation District will be at their next meeting (currently scheduled for February 13 at 6pm) to ask GOP to endorse parcel tax Measure A. Last election, GOP staffers endorsed Terry Clelland for CARD board, and he is fully on board with Measure A. We have to make sure GOP staffers know there are Measure A opponents who will be glad to vote their poorly chosen candidates back to the stone age. 

I will call to confirm next week. Their last meeting was a reschedule, my friend having shown up at their regularly scheduled meeting to find a note on the door.  

I’ll keep you posted. 

Tags: , ,

NO on state Prop 13 AND CARD parcel tax measure A – as the voters keep passing tax increases on themselves, the publicly employed pigs will keep eating more and more of our economy

22 Jan

Lately I feel like the legendary Dutch Boy – I only have 10 fingers, but the local dikes are full of holes. Yes, I think this whole city districts thing stinks to high heaven. “Citizens for a Safe Chico”? Who is hiding behind that generic moniker? Dog houses for poor people – whacko!

I know other people here are similarly concerned – the two top searches for this week were “money given to the city of chico to house transients” and “why are pacs bad” .

I’ll try to answer those searches – 

  1. How much money has the city received to “house transients”?  The city of Chico declared a “shelter crisis designation” in 2018 and received $4.9 million in state grants. If you want to comb through the budget to look where that went, be my  guest – I’ll guess, it went to salaries/benefits, and the pension/benefits liabilities. Maybe they spent $100,000 on the warming tent, but I’d bet my last $5 most of it went to salaries and benefits. They got another $4 million or so for their plan (not yet realized) to “consolidate” homeless services at the Silver Dollar fairgrounds. In order to make room for adults who cannot seem to behave as adults, the city evicted a group who had put a lot of work and money into a kids’ public BMX track.  This did not surprise me – I’ll say, as a mom of two kids born and raised here, Chico has never been a child-friendly town. 
  2. Why are pacs bad? In my opinion they have way more rights than the rest of the voters, and therefore way too much influence on elections. The biggest donors in every Chico election are the public employee unions – specifically, Chico Police Officers Association (CPOA), International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). You can find those reports at the  city of Chico website. But, every election brings up another pac, this year it’s “Citizens for a Safe Chico,” fronted by local businesswoman Teri Dubose. You will have to look at their campaign filings to find out who is really behind this group, and who they intend to foist into the arena. And, here’s what stinks – their last report isn’t due until after the election. That’s usually when the unions file their reports, after the fact. 

The good news is, we have until November to worry about the council elections. Right now, the March 3 election is rolling right up on us, and I believe the most important items on that ballot are California State Proposition 13 (Education finance: school facilities: Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020) and Chico Area Recreation District Measure A (parcel tax). 

I believe the proponents of Prop 13 purposely chose 13 to confuse voters, make them think they might be renewing or strengthening the original Prop 13. No, this measure essentially overturns the protections guaranteed in the original Prop 13, allowing the legislature to float bonds that we are not allowed to vote on. This in addition to bonds passed by our own school district. From Ballotpedia:

A “yes” vote supports this measure to authorize $15 billion in general obligation bonds for school and college facilities, including $9 billion for preschool and K-12 schools, $4 billion for universities, and $2 billion for community colleges.

Voters just approved the $126 million Chico Unified School District Measure K in 2016. At that time, Dave Howell wrote this in a letter to the Enterprise Record:

“Just four years ago voters approved a $78 million bond for Chico Unified School District. Now CUSD wants another $126 million for the same things the $78 million bond was supposed to fund. This despite declining enrollment and CUSD deferring maintenance on its facilities.”

Look at the history of STATE bonds at Ballotpedia – “Californians last voted on a school facilities bond measure in 2016, which passed with 55 percent of the vote. The bond measure, titled Proposition 51, issued $7 billion for K-12 education facilities and $2 billion for colleges. Between 1998 and 2019, voters approved five bond measures for school facilities—Proposition 1A (1998), Proposition 47 (2002), Proposition 55 (2004), Proposition 1D (2006), and Proposition 51 (2016).”

Remember, you pay these in addition to the bonds our school district issues. Wake UP!

Meanwhile, Chico Area Recreation District (CARD) has a parcel tax on the March 3 ballot – a tax that will start at $110/year and go up with the cost of living index – roughly 1.9 – 2% PER YEAR. What CARD doesn’t say in the ballot information is that they will use the proceeds from this parcel tax to issue bonds, creating a downward spiral of debt that your grandchildren will be saddled with. And they have the nerve to say, it’s all about the kids! Like the  city of Chico, CARD has been funneling hundreds of thousands toward their $2 million +++ pension liability. The funds from this parcel tax are not restricted to maintenance or capital projects, but will go to the General Fund to be spent at the discretion of the board and staff. 

What does CARD have in common with the school district? They both admit to having deferred maintenance while paying millions toward their pension deficit. Read a four year old piece by Dan Walters when he was still with the Sacramento Bee.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article111932412.html#storylink=cpy

“School districts and other local governments often neglect maintenance of their facilities to meet demands for other spending, particularly pressure from unions for increases in pay and fringe benefits. Then, after the deferred maintenance results in deterioration that can no longer be ignored, officials draw up bond issues to make repairs that could have been avoided with proper maintenance.”

And here’s the proof that these monies are not really used “for the kids” –  a note I received from CUSD finance officer Kevin Bultema just months after the passage of Measure K.

“The increase PERS and STRS [pension] costs are certainly a challenge for the district’s operations budget and will need to be addressed with either increased revenues from the state or cuts in CUSD’s program expenditures in the future.” 

See, right there he admits – they take money from the “district operations budget” to pay their pensions, and he furthermore admits that they will take more money to pay their pensions, at the cost of “CUSD’s program expenditures” – meaning, the kids!

Just six months later I read this in the Chico Enterprise Record: ““The board also voted to ratify a tentative agreement with the Chico Unified Teachers Association. That agreement will collapse the salary schedule, reducing the years of service necessary for a teacher to reach their maximum salary.”

Raises in salary mean raises in pensions which means an increase in the pension deficit, since this agreement did not result in the teachers paying more of their share. School district employees, like CARD, still pay less than 10% of their pension cost. 

So, as long as the voters keep passing tax increases on themselves, the publicly employed pigs will keep eating more and more of our economy. 

Are you sick of being a cash cow for these entitled bastards? Well SPEAK UP! Just say NO on tax measures, starting with California Prop 13 and CARD Measure A. 

 

 

 

Tags: , ,

Dan Walters documents a history of promises broken by state legislators – the same applies to our local legislators

14 Jan

As we watch “the homeless” overwhelm our parks and public areas, and Chico PD arrests more and more transients for burglary and assault,  the Chico city council is actually thinking about rescinding the “sit-and-lie” ordinance soon. I watched a video of county supervisor candidate Sue Hilderbrand claiming that transients should be allowed to do anything in public places that the rest of us do in our homes. The state is considering forcing the mentally ill into treatment. Gavin Newsom wants to penalize cities that are not, in his opinion, doing enough to house the homeless.

Meanwhile, according to Dan Walters,

https://www.marinij.com/2020/01/05/dan-walters-promises-made-but-not-kept-in-push-to-fund-criminal-rehab-programs/

“billions of dollars meant to reduce repeat criminal activity by improving local jails and probation services were siphoned off for other purposes.”

You know what other purposes – “the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) was pressuring local governments to contribute more money to offset the system’s investment losses during the Great Recession, and to pay for pension benefit increases.”

Walters reports that CalMatters published a similar article about the 1967 Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which was meant “to depopulate the state’s mental hospitals, curb involuntary commitments and divert the mentally ill into local treatment programs. 

“However, the promises of the 1967 Lanterman-Petris-Short act to create a network of easily accessible local mental health services were never kept. The money that had been saved from closing mental hospitals was swallowed up in state budgets approved by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan and his successors from both parties.”

And those promises continue to be ignored, you can look at the Butte County Behavioral Department website for yourself:

https://www.buttecounty.net/behavioralhealth/

For one department – one department in a county of less than 300,000 people – with nearly a $100 million budget, I’m not impressed. I don’t see any directory of mental health professionals. I do see a number you can call if you’re experiencing a crisis, but I don’t see any programs – like AA – that can help a person avoid crisis. And while they’ve promised a “street crisis team,” I have yet to see county workers walking the parks or other public areas in Chico to counsel anybody toward getting off the street.

Look here – you can see where the Behavioral Health Budget goes.

https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/Counties/County.aspx?entityid=4&year=2014

You see the highest paid employee in Butte County, with a salary of almost $290,000/year and a benefits package of almost $50,000, is the Behavioral Health Director. Two BCBH employees make over $200,000/year, just in salary. If you search “Behavioral Health”, you find 66 pages of salaries – including the lower paid interns and “extra help” who actually work with the patients.

The funding they “saved” by not providing hospitalization for people in mental crisis has gone to management salaries, benefits, and, the county pension deficit.

Like Walters says, “We should keep the 1967 mental health law, the Local Control Funding Formula and realignment in mind the next time the state’s politicians tell us they are enacting a transformative solution to a pressing problem.” And, the next time our city or county leaders tell us they need more revenue to solve a problem, we should say NO! and vote them all out of office.

Letter: Your tax hike went to raises, pensions

1 Jan

I saw in my stats that somebody read this old post – and I realized, it was worth a re-run. 

In 2012, Chico voters rejected Measure J, the cell phone tax proposed by council member and former mayor Ann Schwab. I didn’t take a poll, but something I heard from people when I spoke to them about it was outrage – “what does the city of Chico have to do with my cell phone service?”

Good question. Answer: NOTHING, it was just an outright grab into your wallets.  I hope people are still asking good questions, because what Joseph Neff is saying here, in a 6 year old letter, is still true. The majority of our budget goes toward salaries, benefits, and now, the employees’ pension liability.

http://www.chico.ca.us/finance/documents/2019-20CityAnnualFINALBudget.pdf

Below Joseph Neff reminds us, even well paid private sector positions do not usually include pension, but we are all forced to pay outrageous benefits to public employees.  And he offers a solution – I bold-faced the last paragraph, cut it out and send it to Chico City Council, and then you might want to send a copy to your county supervisor. 

This letter still stands, so I’m running it again. Thank you Joseph Neff, wherever you are.

Letter: Your tax hike went to raises, pensions

Chico Enterprise-Record

POSTED:   12/06/2013 10:41:12 PM PST

Conservative voters realized that Gov. Jerry Brown’s sales tax increases would not be used to benefit taxpayers but to provide lawmakers a raise and to protect the golden pensions of public employees.

As a 45-year career employee with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in engineering and an MBA, my two private-sector pensions are $15,000 yearly. Only two of six career employers had pensions during the past 50 years of plant closures from union strikes, global competition and company moves to right to work, more business friendly states.

None of my wife’s 30-year employers, including 11 as a teacher and 20 as either a degreed hospital medical records administrator, or as an advanced degreed nuclear medicine technologist supervisor, had pensions. Only one had a 401(k) plan. That is typical of the private sector for degreed private sector employees since the 1950s.

Public employee pensions should be halved to civilian levels, delayed to age 65, never adjusted for inflation, and based only on the first $50,000 of pre-retirement income. A $25,000 maximum annual public employee pension would be fair since savings and Social Security will provide the needed additional two-thirds of retirement spending.

— Joseph J. Neff, Corning

Tags: ,

“Fungibility” – moving peas under walnut shells

14 Dec

My husband constantly reminds me that the new revenues brought in by tax increases just free up existing funds to be spent on pensions and benefits. Dan Walters has a word for this deception – “fungibility” – “If a city’s voters can be persuaded to raise their taxes for parks and recreation, for example, it effectively frees up more money to pay its pension bills without acknowledging that motive.”

Walters calls this a bait-and-switch approach to getting voters to raise taxes on themselves – they offer you a carrot – oh yeah, ice rink – to take your eyes off their pension deficit. The city of Chico, for example, has been taking money out of various funds and placing it in the General Fund, from which they can transfer it anywhere they want. And they’ve established TWO pension “trust” funds – “CalPERS Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund (903) and the Pension Stabilization Trust (904).

From budget policies 2019-20

“CalPERS Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund (903)
Fund 903 has been established to accumulate funds for the annual payment of the CalPERS unfunded liability payment for the City. The targeted reserve amount is equal to the estimated unfunded liability payment for the subsequent year due to CalPERS. In accordance with GASB 54, this fund balance is committed.”

“Beginning in FY2017-18, each department will set aside a set percentage of payroll costs to fund the annual payment of the CalPERS unfunded liability. A target reserve of 10% of the annual unfunded liability expenditure will be retained in the fund.”

From 2019-20 draft budget – page FS 75, Attachment A, Fund Summaries CALPERS UNFUNDED LIABILITY RSV FUND

In fiscal year 2017-18 they moved $7,323,978 into the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund – $3.9 million from the miscellaneous employees payroll, and $3.2 million from public safety funds.  In 2018-19 they took $8,358,417.  The city manager’s recommendation for 2019-20 is $9,615,778. 

The Pension Stabilization Trust is a separate fund – The City Council established a Pension Stabilization Trust under Internal Revenue Code
Section 115 on June 19, 2018. The irrevocable trust is restricted for use to pay future CalPERS retirement contributions. The investment model strategy for the Trust is conservative. A conservative investment model is defined as a strategy that does not exceed an investment allocation over 20% in equity securities with the remainder investment allocation in fixed income securities. The model strategy may only be modified by the City Manager with City Council approval.

Fund 904 – Pension Stabilization Trust shall account for the financial activity of the Trust. Trust accounting will be provided at least quarterly as part of the monthly monitoring reports provided to City Council.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I see is not only a fund through which they take from other funds to pay down their deficit, but another, separate fund that also takes money from other funds – to be invested on behalf of the pensioneers. 

Here’s something scary I ran across in the budget policy documents – the city manager can approve up to $100,000 transfers without council approval.

Transfers Between Council Approved Capital Projects (Different Years – Rescheduling Projects) – Projects are approved over a ten-year period by Council. Each budgeted project has been appropriated an amount that may include funding from multiple City Funds. Appropriation transfers between capital projects scheduled in different years requires approval of the City Manager and City Council based the following authorization amounts:

• Up to $100,000 – City Manager;
• Over $100,000 – City Manager and City Council

Now, ask yourself Pollyanna – why are the road, sewer and park funds bottomed out? 

Because, as Walters reports, pension costs, especially for public safety employees, “are rising especially fast. They now average about 50% of payroll and are projected in the new report to top 55% by the mid-2020s. A few cities are already nearing or reaching 100%.”  And, city management, as you see above, is allowed to dip into funds as they wish, transferring the garbage tax money from the Road Fund to the General Fund last year, as noted in the budget. From the General Fund they can transfer as much as they want into the Unfunded Liability Reserve or the Pension Stabilization Trust, as long as it’s in increments less than $100,000.

When Brian Nakamura came on as City Manager in 2012, he reported two deficit figures – one about $168,000,000, the other around $194,000,000. I think the  first figure was the pension deficit figure, and the second was the total deficit for pensions AND benefits. Today the city finance manglers report a total deficit of around $130,000,000. How do you think they paid that down so fast? 

Here’s Walters on the subject:

Dan Walters: It’s a bait and switch on the state’s public pensions

By  | CalMatters

Local officials, particularly those in California’s 400-plus cities, have been complaining loudly in recent years about pension costs, raising the specter of insolvency if they continue their rapid increase.

Last year, the League of California Cities issued a report declaring that “pension costs will dramatically increase to unsustainable levels.”

The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) confirms that projection in a new report.

The report reveals that mandatory “employer contributions,” including those from the state and school districts, as well as local governments, rose from $12 billion in 2016-17 to $20 billion a year later.

It also warns that the payments will continue to rise well into the next decade as the giant trust fund tries to recover from dramatic investment losses in the Great Recession, adjusts to lower earnings projections and handles a surge of baby boomer generation retirees claiming benefits.

“The greatest risk to the system continues to be the ability of employers to make their required contributions,” the new report declares, adding, “It is difficult to assess just how much strain current contribution levels are putting on employers. However, evidence such as collections activities, requests for extensions to amortization schedules and information regarding termination procedures indicate that some public agencies are under significant strain.”

Pension costs for “safety employees,” police officers and firefighters mostly, are rising especially fast. They now average about 50% of payroll and are projected in the new report to top 55% by the mid-2020s. A few cities are already nearing or reaching 100%.

However, as much as they complain about CalPERS forever dunning them, California’s local officials are largely unwilling to directly ask their voters for more taxes to pay pension bills.

Hundreds of local tax increase measures were placed on the ballot last year and hundreds more are likely to be proposed next year, but almost universally they are billed as improving popular local services, such as “public safety” or parks.

It’s where the concept of “fungibility” kicks in. If a city’s voters can be persuaded to raise their taxes for parks and recreation, for example, it effectively frees up more money to pay its pension bills without acknowledging that motive.

We saw a wonderful example of fungibility last year in Sacramento, where voters were persuaded to raise local sales taxes on the promise of civic improvements by an amount that closely matched increases in the city’s obligations to CalPERS.

We may be seeing another in Oakland next year.

The Oakland City Council is placing a “parcel tax” — a form of property tax — on the March ballot to improve parks, recreational and homeless services and stormwater drainage. The tax, $148 annually per real estate parcel, would generate an estimated $20 million a year.

As it happens, however, the most recent CalPERS report on Oakland’s pension obligations reveals that they will increase from $194 million in 2020-21 to $226 million by 2025-26, which would more than consume the revenue from the parcel tax.

So why don’t city officials just own up and publicly acknowledge that pension costs are driving their budgets into red ink and ask voters for more tax money to cover them?

They — and the unions that finance tax increase campaigns — clearly fear that being candid would backfire. If voters knew they would be paying more taxes to support pension benefits for city workers that are probably much better than they have themselves, they might refuse to go along.

Bait and switch is more politically expedient.

Tags: ,

Linda McCann: Wake up people, you should be concerned as another hand wants to slip in your pocket to remove your cash!

11 Dec

It’s official – I got my “free” subscription from Mike Wolcott and now I know – the only good part of the tired, old and fuddled Enterprise Record cat box liner is the letters section. Thank you Linda McCann for tipping us to the latest assault on Prop 13.

 

I read with interest and concern the article in the December 6 Chico E-R regarding AB 48, or as it’s been dubbed Proposition 13.   OK I get that,  a proposition to put to a vote a bond issue to raise money for our schools. However there’s one sentence that is of great concern to me as it should be to all home owners protected under the 1978 Proposition 13.

The article states and I quote, “AB 48, Proposition 13 is not to be confused with the 1978 Proposition 13 which some education groups hope to overhaul in November to raise revenue for cities and schools.”

Wake up people, you should be concerned as another hand wants to slip in your pocket to remove your cash!

— Linda McCann, Paradise

Here’s the legislative digest entry:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB48

This is a proposal to lower the voter approval for bonds from 2/3’s to 55 percent. This is not democracy, it’s overpaid school administrators sticking their hands in our pockets to pay for their outrageous pensions. In Sacramento, one school district is tanking because of a 15% raise they gave their already generously compensated teachers. 

Do they really think we’re stupid enough to fall for this trick? Calling a bad proposition “13”? Are we that dumb? Don’t wait until after the election to find  out – tell your family, friends and neighbors not to fall for this trick. Write a letter like Linda McCann. 

Just think, what if Paul Revere had thought his actions didn’t matter?

Tags: , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →