I hope you are enjoying this rain as much as I am. My husband and I spent the weekend cleaning gutters and putting away stuff that can’t get wet, routing out winter clothes and bedding, etc. Get ready, 10 months ago there was flooding on the Sac, freeways were flooded, and there were mudslides in SoCal. It’s absolutely amazing how quickly things turn around in California.
But don’t forget to pay attention to what your government is up to. After I attended that Internal Affairs Committee meeting last week, I felt compelled to write a letter about it. I’ll guess, most Chico taxpayers don’t know about the day meetings, they don’t read the agendas or reports, and 9 months or a year later they are caught completely off-guard by headlines saying the deal has already been done. Or they drive Downtown once or twice a year and notice all these big changes but don’t realize – it was paid for by the taxpayers, not the DCBA or the Chamber. We’re all paying for it out of COVID Emergency Funding that was supposed to be used for the benefit of the entire town, not just a handful of cronies.
And, for those of you who do enjoy shopping in the Downtown business district, there will be fewer parking spaces, smaller sidewalks, and I’ll predict, more drunken behavior than ever. So I thought I better write a letter to the editor about it, maybe it’s not too late to stop this obvious misuse of funding.
At the September 12 Internal Affairs Committee meeting, staff and committee members discussed ending the city’s COVID Emergency status. The city is still operating under a state of emergency, the county ended theirs in April. The city has received over $20,000,000 in American Rescue Plan funding since the state declared the COVID shut down, another $12,200,000 received just last month.
Downtown bar and restaurant owners, already receiving PPP funding, are eager for the city to pour more COVID money into their businesses. Staff reported that many Downtown businesses had been allowed to extend their seating areas into the public right of way. The city paid for the installation of “K-rails” – large cement buttresses used to cordon off parking spaces and sections of city sidewalk for use by bars and restaurants.
Business owners attending the meeting expressed their concern that the temporary “K rails” are “unattractive”. The city manager announced she had awarded $300,000 to a local architect to design and build “parklets” so that businesses could continue to commandeer the public right of way, even after the Emergency declaration has been ended. She reported 42 parking spaces had already been “eliminated” by parklets now in use.
She also commented, “$300,000 does not begin to cover this.” She is asking council to approve the use of hundreds of thousands in American Rescue Plan funding to put parklets at Downtown bars and restaurants.
If you disapprove, now is the time to contact city council, before more money is spent.
I saw this recent letter to the Enterprise Record from Scott Huber, who quit Chico City council in disgrace after citizens confronted him for breaking the law by aiding and abetting illegal campers. He had also taken a summer job out of state – over 1,000 miles away in Wyoming – leading a lot of us to question his dedication to his position here. He quit in a huff, insisting he feared for his family’s safety over remarks made on social media, as well as a barrage of emails sent to him at his new employment address.
Hey, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I thought his excuses were questionable – just lame, really. For one thing, he’s no angel, he’s a very contentious person. He was very offensive in remarks he made from the dais, and unapologetic about breaking the laws he was hired as council member to uphold. I’m sorry, I didn’t buy his whining excuses then, and I don’t buy them now. He got mad because he wasn’t getting his way, he tried to ditch out on his duties, he got busted and publicly humiliated, so he went dragging his blanket into the corner to sit in his underwear watching cartoons and eating Captain Crunch. Tipper said Al didn’t change out of his bathrobe or shave for two weeks after November 2000.
If he was so fearful for his family’s safety, why did he stay in Chico to continue to dabble in local politics? And I have to wonder – he’s FOR the tax measure, while his friends Karl Ory and the other liberal candidates are posing AGAINST it? What the hell is going on down at Democratic HQ these days? Looks like a lot of posing and posturing to me.
Below, Huber parrots staff, complains that if other cities are doing it, why shouldn’t we, and then insults us all with an ugly charge to “put their money where their mouth is”. Who is he talking to?
“Four years ago Chico City staff identified that it would take $188 million dollars to catch up with long deferred road maintenance and repair costs (Chico Enterprise-Record, February 24, 2018). Over and above that it was estimated that the annual cost of maintaining and improving city streets was running about $7 million to $8 million dollars per year. Ironically, the city’s annual roadway maintenance budget is just $1.2 million.”
Yes, Chris Constantin went before every committee and commission and board of the city and painted a picture of doom and gloom, unless we passed a sales tax measure. That paragraph looks right out of the power point presentation. But read it – “long deferred maintenance...” Who deferred that maintenance? Council, after council, which included people who still sit on council and other local boards, and another guy who just got hired as city manager. And who agreed to put that money into the pension payments? Council, at the direction of Staff. Who agreed to a mere $1.2 million for the roadway budget? Well, that’s not correct, I checked the budget – that’s for all capital improvements, including roads. And Huber approved it, along with the rest of council. What an ass.
“The minimum statewide tax rate in California is 7.25%, and cities are allowed an add-on rate of up to 1.00% for local needs such as road repair https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/sales-use-tax-rates.htm . In most areas of California, local jurisdictions have added district taxes that increase the tax owed by a seller.
“Chico is one of only eight cities in California over 50K people that do not have an add on sales tax. Of those eight, we have the lowest budget per capita for the general fund.“
So he’s saying, that because other jurisdictions have been able to rope their voters into paying higher taxes, we should do same? My mother’s voice echoes in my head: so if your idiot friends all decided to jump off a cliff, you’d do it too? Why should we raise our sales tax based on towns like Oroville, which is still crying poormouth after a successful full-cent tax increase measure?
Unlike Oroville and other local jurisdictions, Chico has a strong retail sector with three major shopping districts, multiple new car dealers, and probably more bars and liquor stores than any town really needs. A Walmart and how many big chain grocery and retail stores – including two major home improvement chains and a local building supplier? Sheesh, CVC towers popping up all over town. All situated centrally among tiny towns with no Walmart, no car dealerships, no nationally known beer manufacturer, no major hospital.
Yes, hospitals include sales tax on many things, like those $50 aspirins they give you, crutches, bandages, splints, the baby supplies that come with your new child, etc. They only things they can’t tax are doctor/nurse services, your room/food service, and your prescriptions, everything else is taxed.
By the way, when the proponents of this measure mention that “visitors” will pay a large share, you should remember, they mean anybody who doesn’t live in Chico, like our friends and relatives in Biggs, Gridley, Paradise. Even folks from towns in Glenn and Tehama County come here to shop, eat at restaurants, enjoy movie theaters, and look for medical care. Is this any way to treat people who support your economy? Like cash cows?
And here’s where Mr. Birdwatcher goes trash mouth:
“With these hard realities in mind, the question of putting a sales tax to the voters has been proposed, debated and rejected by various configurations of the City Council repeatedly. Finally, despite opposition that has been both predictable and political, Chico voters have an opportunity to “put their money where their mouth is” and actually do something to make Chico safer. A large bipartisan group of Chico residents and business interests support the small tax and it will not be applied to groceries or medication.“
Here’s a person who does not allow anybody to disagree with him. If we question this tax, it’s “predictable and political,” meaning he closes his ears as soon as we open our mouths because he believes he will not like what we say. If he doesn’t like our “politics” he doesn’t have to listen to us. Fascists like Scott Huber do not belong in positions of public trust.
And then it gets contentious. This is the kind of phrase my grandpa always warned me not to use, cause it might lead to teeth hitting the playground. “put your money where your mouth is” are fighting words. It means, put up your fists. It’s offensive to me that this jackass thinks he can call people out like that, after he said he fears for his family’s safety. What a heap of doodoo.
Finally, he makes the promise that he don’t have to keep.
“Help make Chico’s roads safer, please join me in supporting Measure H.“
One more time – repeat after me – Measure H is a simple majority measure, passed with 50% + 1 additional participating voter. It is a permanent tax with no dedicated purpose. The revenues from this measure will go into the General Fund to be spent at the whim of council, whatever council. You have to look at past spending, and ask yourself, do we want to put more unrestricted money down this rabbit hole?
Monday (9/12/22) I attended a City of Chico Internal Affairs Committee meeting. The agenda items were discussion of the city’s COVID Emergency Declaration (yes, still in effect), outdoor dining, and Kasey Reynold’s request to discuss “quality of life” under the Warren vs. Chico settlement.
I feel Reynolds is illegally using staff time on that last mention – she is not allowed to use staff time to discuss ballot measures once they have been lettered and placed on the ballot. This is an obvious campaign ploy for both her re-election and Measure H as well. She’s trying to convince us that she’s fighting for us, and can be trusted with that one cent sales tax increase. But I don’t have the money to hire a lawyer and pursue the matter, so I’ll just say, I won’t be supporting Reynolds in November. She’s too willing to bend the law for her own ends.
The more interesting items were the COVID emergency status and outdoor dining conversations. Yes, the city of Chico is still in a state of emergency, and that bugs me because it gives the city manager emergency powers – he can allocate money, hire people at salaries he determines, and many other questionable acts. Just think, Bill Dauterive in charge during the hurricane. Former and disgraced manager Mark Orme hired a new police chief, and created three new positions, at salaries well over $100,000/year, in his position as Emergency Services Director, before he got the boot for being derelict and irresponsible.
So now former city councilor and one time mayor Mark Sorensen has been hired as city manager and given the same Emergency powers. Why are we still under this emergency? Because the city has actually turned it into a windfall of funding. Just last month Chico received another $12.2 million in American Rescue Plan Act funding. The city had already received $22.1 million directly from the ARPA in 2021, plus another $1.7 million of the county’s ARPA funding.
While the budget shows that some of that funding has been used to bring Park Avenue and Mulberry Street up to 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act standards, over $3 million went to the building and establishment of the pallet shelters, which staff has predicted will cost another $1.5 million, minimum, to maintain and operate, ANNUALLY. Other money went to “affordable housing” – almost 1400 units. Unfortunately the housing sales and rental markets continue to be shaky, rent and prices continue to go up. Furthermore, the city has failed to address rising utility rates, recently announcing a 60% increase in city sewer rates. Furthermore, they intend to tie sewer rates to water consumption, which is a grab, plain and simple.
This city is flush with money, the problem here is clearing in the spending.
Which brings me back to the meeting. There was a short discussion of the Emergency Act, really short since members Deepika Tandon and Mike O’Brien did not show up. O’Brien tried to participate by phone, but since he did not advise staff that he would be “virtual,” they had not sent him the agenda or reports. So he sat there making decisions based on what he heard at the meeting – he just went along with Reynolds – Aye aye Captain! There was no explanation for Tandon’s absence, in fact, both staff and Chair Reynolds seems to be surprised and even a little miffed.
Reynolds called for the committee to send a recommendation to end the State of Emergency, noting that Butte County had ended their state of emergency in April. But she was hardly very enthused about it. Her attitude seemed to be, “we’ll see what happens,” when council takes up the matter at their next meeting. I got the general feeling that nobody really wants the emergency to end, including Downtown merchants, especially bar and restaurant owners. They have been enjoying PPP loans, and the city has made them alot of promises out of that American Rescue Plan money.
The city has even stated they will allow the use of outdoor dining space, whether permitted or not, to continue for another 180 days after the end of the emergency. Later in the conversation staff made it clear they intend to make parklets a permanent addition to Downtown despite the end of the emergency. They’re using their emergency powers to make changes that will affect our town and our budget long after people have forgotten COVID.
There’s the other issue. According to staffer Brendan Vieg, the city has been pretty “lax” in the permits process. They have allowed various restaurants, bars and coffee shops around town to establish outdoor dining areas on their own property without permits, which is against the law. They’ve also left it up to the ABC to enforce the liquor serving laws – I know, what a free-for-all – drinks served to people curbside, in keg cups, in their cars. The whole thing was surreal. And, now we find out, it was completely unsupervised.
Those restaurants who established their outdoor dining areas without permits, without health and safety inspections, without fees, will still be allowed to operate those outdoor areas as long as the emergency order persists, and for at least 180 days after. Again – without health and safety inspections. Vieg says the city will rely on people to complain.
Meanwhile, other establishments were encouraged to take over parking spaces directly around their business property. The city has placed really ugly cement buttresses – “k-rails” – along the street to allow space for revelers who don’t want to party inside. Not only are they ugly – in the words of one Downtown business owner, “unattractive and dilapidated…” They look like they’ve been used on freeway construction sites, they’re tagged, beat up, and really bring that look of urban ghetto.
But that’s not the real problem for me – they make it onerous to walk or ride a bike Downtown, totally unsafe. I wouldn’t even take my car Downtown when traffic is busy and people are getting slobbering drunk at these wonderful sidewalk cafes the city has established. It’s just not safe, they only allow about a butt’s width to walk on the sidewalk, if you’ve ever had kids, you know that’s not family friendly. Downtown sidewalks, once subject to No Smoking ordinance, have become “the smoking area” for private businesses. And it doesn’t look like anybody is doing any cleaning.
This seems outrageous to me – to claim that pricey bars and restaurants in one small section of town are deserving of American Rescue Plan money to enhance their private business corridor. The city is pandering for the sales tax these places produce. Without considering how much of the budget goes to the problems they produce – last budget shows over half goes to the cops, and I’d say most of their job is rounding up the bums and the drunks. Two problems that are exacerbated and perpetuated by dumb decisions on the part of one council or another.
Business owners attending the meeting mostly Downtowners, not only wanted to see the emergency extended, but they want the ARPA to be spent on redesigning the cement buttresses, to make them trendy and attractive. And PERMANENT.
“In June 2021, the Council allocated $300,000 in one-time American Rescue Plan funds toward the design, construction, and implementation of temporary parklets in the downtown area. The purpose of the project was to replace the existing K-Rail parklets with safe, aesthetically pleasing parklets, and allow for continued use of outdoor dining in an effort to continue to provide a safe dining experience for local residents and visitors.“
Yes – the city already allocated $300,000 to Galloway and Associates Architects to design pleasing looking buttresses. Yes, that would be the firm owned by Matt Galloway’s dad, which is why Matt Galloway signed the “Argument For” Measure H, cause he, like the rest of the supporters of Measure H, have direct benefit to gain from it.
What’s a parklet? Here are some images I found online that look like the pictures Macarthy showed at the meeting.
Looks trendy and expensive to me. In fact, according to Ass City Mangler Jennifer Macarthy, “$300,000 does not begin to cover it…” They will be asking for more ARPA money to spend making Downtown into a restaurant zone. That might be nice for those of you who can afford to throw down $200 for family meal, but most of the taxpayers who pay for this stuff don’t even go Downtown. While the elite meet and dine at our expense, we’ll be grinding our teeth and our tires around the rest of a town that hasn’t seen street maintenance for the last 20 years. And according to Macarthy, the general public has already lost 42 parking spaces to this effort to make Downtown more Uptown.
Get ready to lose more parking Downtown – “A maximum of fifty percent (50%) of the number of normally required parking spaces may be occupied or otherwise rendered unusable by the placement of temporary seating and other features associated with the temporary use. Such maximum may be increased or decreased at the discretion of the City’s Public Works Director based on unique site conditions.” A couple of Downtowners commented that there is no comprehensive code for such approvals, it’s completely up to the director to make the call as he chooses.
This is how they spend “emergency” funding, and they tell us we need to pay higher taxes if we want them to maintain our streets?
Well, there’s more, while I’m at it, let me tell you about what I saw at City Hall the last couple of visits I’ve made. You all remember when I ky-yied about the nearly half-million dollar remodel of City Chambers? Paid for with Comcast ratepayer funded grants, that job was originally estimated at about $225,000, but ended up costing almost $400,000 because of just plain incompetence.
That was in 2018. When I visited the City Hall building next door in August of this year, I discovered the building is being remodeled. A staffer told me the third floor, once a public reception area and clerk’s office, is being made over into high-tech conference rooms. Like the huge, fancy ones they put in the old Muni building just a few years ago, at who knows what cost. They really went tits-out with fancy paneling and flooring at the Muni building, they spent a bunch of taxpayer money on that building, which isn’t even used for much of anything. Most of the time that two story building sits empty, but I’ll bet the lights and ac are still running.
So, the city is broke, too broke to maintain the streets, or the sewer, or the parks, but still has enough money to do a complete remodel of Downtown and City Hall. Wow, I don’t know about you, but I feel like I just rolled off a turnip truck.
We’re not turnips, and I won’t be squeezed for more turnip juice. Tune in tomorrow, I would like to tell you about some other stuff I’ve been doing, next time, on This Old Lady Goes to Town.
POSTSCRIPT: Doug Roberts, you sell-out, I hope you are haunted by the hook-handed one for the rest of your lousy beer mopping life.
Are you worried that you’re going a little, well, CRAZY? You got that right – it’s Dog Days, and that’s when people and dogs go crazy. Go outside about 5am, there he is, Orion the Hunter, setting out across the sky, followed by his faithful dogs. I believe that’s where dogs go when they die, they follow Orion across the sky. At this time of year, Orion and his dogs are walking in the hot daylight, and you know what heat does to your brains. It makes you stupid and crazy.
Most people like to think they’re intelligent. But your intelligence is subject to many variables – alcohol comes to mind, but there are other factors that aren’t under our control. Like the weather. My two worst times of year are Dog Days and the first days of January, because the weather is bleak, and it ain’t going away. Late summer in NorCal is like this – 105, 106, 109, 112, 112, 112… Once the temps get up that high, it’s hard to get them down. Like your temper, they just keep getting hotter. I do stupid stuff, like online shopping. The other day my husband stopped me just short of ordering a troll doll.
Justin Taylor / Creative Commons – I had one of these when I was a kid, but my dog ate it.
In January, the cold gets in my bones, and the darkness gets in my mind, like a Stephen King story – I get sad, and I can’t explain it except that it’s cold and dark outside. I do stupid stuff, like make a whole cake and eat it. Frankly, I know it’s inevitable, so I plan for it – this year I’m going to make a chocolate souffle and eat that.
Unfortunately this is an election year, and you know, they’re ugly anyway. Add record heat, unbelievably bad air quality, and wow – what a circus.
Here’s a letter from unsuccessful council candidate and former park commissioner Jeffrey Glatz.
I was present back in 2019 when former City Ass Mangler Chris Constantin went to all the commissions and made his pitch for a sales tax measure. Glatz was in attendance when Constantin spoke to the Park Commission. Of course Constantin wailed on that the city was in dire straights, blamed the Camp Fire Refugees, and claimed a 220,000 post fire population that only turned out to be about 210,000. That Census, by the way, was done in the days immediately following the fire, alot of refugees who were living here temporarily have left, but Constantin used that tragedy to further his ends. Of course, Glatz bought the pitch, swallowed it hook, line and sinker, without ever looking at the city budget. If he had, he would see, the city is flush with funds, including a recent gift of $12.2 million in disaster relief money. He brushes off the CalPERS debt like a guy who doesn’t have the faintest notion what the hell he’s talking about.
This guy is a good example of why the commissions and boards should be eliminated. They are spoils positions, given to those who support the council members who appoint them, oftentimes financially. We don’t even get to elect these people, they’re not qualified for the positions, they’re just tools of staff.
Glatz is simply repeating, regurgitating, what he’s been told. He uses the same argument – the city is desperately poor, and taxpayers will only suffer more attrition if they don’t pass the tax.
Are you sick of the threats? Are you sick of willful subordination? Vote NO on Measure H.
I’ve had a couple of people ask me about writing letters to the editor. I see Mike Wolcott has already lowered the boom – it was sometime in August, after which we are only allowed one election related letter. He says he gets overwhelmed with letters – I think he manages the page poorly, whole days printing nothing. But, he’s the boss, and he makes the rules.
Of course it’s perfectly reasonable for an editor to make rules, I just wish Wolcott was more consistent. No personal insults – since when? Claims must have supporting facts – since when? I laughed out loud when I read that the paper will not research anything in depth – isn’t that what journalism is about?
We’ve all watched the letters section descend into a mosh pit. I wish more people would actually follow those rules all the time, and Wolcott would really uphold them.
Here’s a source I wish more people would read and cite – the city budget.
I quoted the budget in my “Argument Against Measure H,” and the proponents came back saying I was using “scare tactics”. Yeah, our budget is scary, give it a read, there are things in there you should know, and can quote in your next letter.
Another good read is the Agendas/Minutes page – City Council is not the only board that affects our lives, and the others aren’t elected, they’re appointed. You should know about these boards and read up on their activities:
I know, I’m just a blogger, and I’ve been accused of spreading misinformation, but I am very serious about getting people to inform themselves, look at different sources, read between the lines. Stay out of gossip and feelings, and state the facts, Ma’am.
And, if you please, send your letter here and I’ll run it. Just cut and paste it into a comment on the “contact us here” page.
I know I been yak-yakking about taxes, but city of Chico has two measures on the ballot – the sales tax increase Measure H, and “Quality of Life” Measure L. Here’s the link to the clerk’s local measures page:
I’m sorry I didn’t mount a campaign against Measure L, I thought Measure H was more important. But frankly, Measure L is just a pitch for Measure H, and staff time was used to create and market it to the voters. And, ultimately, I believe it is a sneaky, underhanded attempt to get us to us to exempt the city of Chico from the current public nuisance abatement laws by allowing them to be the judge of whether there’s an infraction or not.
Let’s start with the text of Measure L.
TEXT OF MEASURE L: Shall an ordinance which requires the City of Chico be held to abide by the same public nuisance laws it imposes on private landowners by establishing a right for residents uniquely harmed by a public nuisance to demand the abatement of public nuisances by the city on city-owned public property; and requires the city to respond to the demand by abating the alleged nuisance or providing the reason for its refusal, limited to prescribed justifications, be adopted?
The biggest problem I see here is the assertion that the city is not held to the same public nuisance laws as private property owners. We already have a mechanism for holding a landowner responsible, public or private – like Karl Ory and his friends, we can take the city to court when they don’t uphold the laws. And there’s plenty of laws not being upheld around here. Look at this website – according to these definitions, Bidwell Park is not only a public nuisance but a drowning hazard and a toxic waste dump.
One Mile, at which at least one person is found drowned each year, is unfenced and unsupervised. Read for yourself – according to the California muni code, the city is not only responsible for the nuisance but responsible for abating the nuisance. And even levying fines on itself. Interesting what you find out when you do your own research.
And how about the term “uniquely harmed“? In earlier discussions, it was revealed that a citizen has to live within very close proximity to a complaint site, adjacent, next door to it, in order to make a complaint. Meaning, if you live near a camp, and they come around to steal the water from your garden hose, along with anything that ain’t nailed down in your yard, then rummage your car, well, that camp down the street is not for you to complain about, because it’s not right next door to your house.
And then there’s this – “limited to prescribed justifications”. What does that mean? Well, according to Cornell Law School, justification is “A type of defense that exempts the defendant from liability because the defendant’s actions were justified. In other words, a defendant with a valid justification will not suffer the usual penalty for his actions because in the eyes of the court, the defendant could not have been asked to act any differently in this situation.”
Do you think this works the same way when the defendant is the court? Because this ordinance allows the city to determine whether or not the complaint is valid. Or simply, “the city disagrees that a public nuisance exists on the property…” And sit down for this one – “it is not in the best interest of the city to abate the nuisance…” What the hell does that mean? (rhetorical question)
There are so many things wrong with this ordinance, including an attempt to avoid liability, that I’m saying, just vote NO. Below is the “impartial analysis” of the guy who wrote it? That sounds, hmmmm, weird. I’ve highlighted statements that illustrate my points above, but read it for yourself – it’s an expensive campaign tool to convince us they will be accountable with Measure H. Don’t buy it folks, it’s just another bottle of snake oil.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE L CITY ATTORNEY IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS Measure L asks voters to approve an ordinance revising Chapter 1.14 of Title 1 of the City’s Municipal Code (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance would hold the City of Chico (“City”) to the same public nuisance standards as private property ownersin the City. The conditions which exist upon private property constituting a public nuisance under Chapter 1.14 of the City of Chico Municipal Code (“CMC”) may also qualify as a public nuisance on City owned public property. To accomplish the goal of increasing quality of life in the City, the Ordinance provides a process for residents to demand abatement of a public nuisance on City owned public property. Any resident specially injured by a public nuisance may submit a demand to the City to abate the alleged public nuisance. Upon receipt of the demand, the City must analyze the demand and investigate the conditions in the demand. The City is required to provide a response to the resident within 20 business days of receipt of the demand. The City’s response to the demand will notify the resident that either 1) the City agrees to abate the public nuisance and to provide a time by which it expects abatement to be completed, or 2) the City denies the demand to abate the alleged public nuisance and the reason(s) for denial. The possible grounds for denial of a resident’s demand include:
The City does not own the property and is therefore not the appropriate party to abate a nuisance on the property;
The City disagrees that a public nuisance exists on the property;
The resident has not proven a special injury from the public nuisance;
The City is not legally permitted to abate the nuisance; and/or
It is not in the City’s best interest to abate the public nuisance.
The Ordinance does not include a monetary penalty against the City for denying a resident demand to abate an alleged public nuisance. It further does not provide residents an appeal process if the demand is denied. The Ordinance may be amended by the City Council upon a two thirds vote of the members of the Council, but only to further the purposes of the Ordinance. A “YES” vote on Measure L is to adopt the Ordinance. A “NO” vote on Measure L is to not adopt the Ordinance. The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure L. If you desire a copy of the Ordinance or measure, a copy is available from the City Clerk’s office. s/Vincent Ewing, City of Chico Attorney
Under “closed session agenda” there at the top, Item 2.6:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – PENDING LITIGATION: Pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 54956.9(a): BCSC: Case No. 22CV01954: Chicoans Against Financial Mismanagement – No on Measure H et al v. City of Chico, et al
I don’t know how much I’m allowed to say, I’ll just start at the top. On Monday, August 12, I submitted an “Argument Against” Chico City sales tax increase Measure H to the county clerk’s office, to be published in the Voter Information Pamphlet for the November election. I was there by about 10 am, I wanted to make sure to be the first person to get my argument in. The only other person who could push their argument in over mine at that point would be a member of either Butte County Board of Supervisors or a “bona fide” organization that had filed their incorporation paperwork with either the county or the city.
Frankly, you can call me ‘paranoid,’ I call it ‘experienced’, but I was afraid the proponents would get somebody to try to wedge in a weak argument ahead of me. Silly me. Keep reading.
I got word from the city clerk later that week saying she had received and approved my argument. She added that she would be sending me the proponents’ “Argument For” within a few days so that I could submit a rebuttal if I wanted to. Proponents would have the same chance to rebut my Argument Against.
So, I got that, and I typed up my rebuttal and I had that for the clerk by the following Thursday. I’ll share all that with you when I can.
Then the clerk told me that somebody else was trying to wedge in on me – Karl Ory. Okay, here I’m not sure I’m supposed to be talking about this so read fast cause if somebody calls me on it I’ll have to take down this post. Frankly, I just want to make it clear, NEITHER CHICO TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION NOR JUANITA SUMNER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF CHICO. Not on purpose, anyway.
Ory has set up a group called “no on h et al”. He tried to submit an argument that was not only weak, it was a nasty personal attack on a member of staff and a former member of council. I’ll tell you what’s really funny – it was Ory who proposed a full cent tax back on 2020, before he decided not to run for re-election. I think it’s pretty obvious – he sees the writing on the wall, the liberals are not going to TAKE CITY HALL!, and the conservatives would be left to spend all that ill-gotten gain.
That’s Reason Number 1 to VOTE NO ON MEASURE H – they’re all crazy, they’re all greedy, they fight like a pack of rats, and we can’t hand these people an unrestricted tax.
Reason Number 2 to VOTE NO ON MEASURE H – Tuesday night, your “conservative” council, led by new city manager Mark Sorensen will “appropriate” – which means TAKE IT BECAUSE WE CAN – $100,000 from the transportation fund, to funnel into the new bicycle path between Little Chico Creek and 20th Street Park. See Item 2.1 with report on the agenda referenced above. That’s the “consent agenda,” meaning, they’re not going to discuss before the public unless somebody “pulls it” for discussion.
A lot of people call this “The Bum Trail”. I actually like bike trails, but these days the cost is mostly about the salaries attached (different kind of ‘bum’). There is no itemization for this appropriation, we don’t know if it’s going into asphalt, salaries or the pension deficit. It’s a matter of allocation, and every project much pay it’s share into the Pension Stabilization Trust. We may never know the true cost of that bike trail or the 20th Street bike bridge.
This is how they spend money Downtown – they make a budget, sure, but that is subject to many changes and appropriations and allocations over the course of the year. You have to look at past budgets to see what they actually spent. Is that how you manage your check book?
Measure H is a bad tax, bad bad tax. Giving these people an unrestricted tax is like handing your good luggage to a gorilla.
Yeah, we have to monkey-proof our money too – VOTE NO ON MEASURE H.
Tomorrow is the First of September, so things are starting to happen. The county clerk has posted the text for Measure H, as well as Kasey Reynold’s “Quality of Life” Measure L. Here’s the link to that page:
When I read this, I saw that the text of the measure strongly resembled the Yuba County measure that was the subject of a lawsuit. They are making specific promises for spending the money, when it’s a simple measure with absolutely no restrictions on spending. Here’s that link, scroll down to page 4 of 8. Or by all means, read the sales pitch that staff calls a report. This whole document is really something they hope you will never read.
From the text of the actual measure: “To support vital city services, including: maintaining/fixing streets, storm drains, sidewalks, and fixing potholes; addressing homelessness; protecting 911 emergency response times; preserving the number of on-duty police officers and firefighters; maintaining/improving Bidwell Park, neighborhood parks, and funding other general services and essential activity…”
Measure H, again, is simple measure, requiring only half the participating voters plus one more voter to institute a permanent tax on 100% of the population. The money can’t be dedicated to any specific purpose, it just goes into the General Fund. The proponents and the lawyer who wrote it are making promises they can’t keep, they’re being misleading. If they are going to list some possible uses of Gen Fund money, they should have to list all uses of Gen Fund money. But please note, in the text, there is no mention of the Pension Stabilization Trust, no figures as to how much they intend to pay toward the UAL, no formula for determining how much of the General Fund will go into the pensions. They feed us wad of crap about how much trouble we’re in to scare the shit out of us, but they don’t tell us this tax will not be the solution.
I think this is an attack on voter’s rights, so I sent the text to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers to ask for their opinion. They sued Yuba County over the very similar sales tax measure K, so I knew they would help me with some good information. Of course they confirmed my suspicion that the language in Measure H is legal, “although, not appropriate…” But here’s a hopeful note – they’re passing a petition to get a measure of their own on the 2024 ballot – The Taxpayers Protection and Government Accountability Act. Read more here:
This is an important point to me. I don’t believe the legislature should be able to pass taxes without voter approval. The gas tax was instituted by the legislature, and when they allowed us the privelege of voting on it the question was not whether it should exist or not, but whether they would be able to increase it. “Proposition 13 requires a 2/3 vote in the Assembly and the state Senate for any state tax increase, but that wasn’t enough to prevent the massive increase in the gas tax and vehicle registration fees, or the waste of money that was supposed to go toward fixing our roads. This initiative would require statewide voter approval of any new taxes or tax increases in addition to the 2/3 vote in the Legislature.”
And when it was put on the ballot, the language was famously deceptive – I had a tow truck driver tell me that as he towed our family vehicle into Reno, where the gas was incredibly cheaper than California. We agreed that it had been intentionally worded to make people believe that a YES vote would eliminate the entire tax and a lot of road funding. “Eliminates Recently Enacted Road Repair and Transportation Funding by Repealing Revenues Dedicated For Those Purposes.” Yeah, that’s deceptive, but they got away with it. I feel the wording in Measure H is deceptive. I can only hope the voters see through it. And I hope the TPGA can stop it in future. “This initiative will stop the abusive practice of mislabeling taxes on the ballot to fool voters into approving them. It will also stop the mislabeling of taxes as “fees” or something else in order to evade voter approval requirements.”
Finally, having read a list of local supporters of Measure H, I find this paragraph very interesting.
“Proposition 13 requires a two-thirds vote for special taxes to make it harder for special interests to game the system. However, state courts have recently invented a loophole. They say special taxes proposed by a “citizens’ initiative” can pass with 50% plus one yote instead of 2/3. This loophole enables special interest groups to pretend to be average citizens circulating an initiative, when really they’re interested parties who will get all the money from the tax increase.”
No, Measure H was not put on the ballot via “citizen’s initiative”, it was put there by the council majority, sans Brown. But, like this paragraph says, the folks who are supporting this measure publicly – most are people who stand to benefit from the tax revenues. For example, Laura Cootsona and Howard Slater. Cootsona is the director of the Jesus Center, and Slater is scheduled to build the new Jesus Center. And he’s not doing it for free. Takes a lot of wax to fly that ‘stache, okay? Cootsona also gets a very livable salary out of that shelter. Look at the rest of that list, you’ll see others who have a direct interest in the passage of this measure, including developers who get it in the form of new streets in their pricey subdivisions.
I know, it’s hard to believe legislation will change anything, the greedy bastards seem to worm their way out of everything. But they push us, we push back. That’s the Dance of Life folks, and if you ain’t in it, somebody else is dancing on your dime!
I’ll look into this further and keep you posted – I’ll send for the petition and see what we got.
Well, I been busy, and I won’t say on what, cause I want it to be a surprise.
In the meantime, the city of Chico has been busy working to pass their tax measure – Measure H, for “you’ve got to be kidding“. Looks like the Enterprise Record has already decided they will endorse it – seems like the reporter just copied the city press release, no questions. And I’ll say, I think they know damned well there’s opposition, and it would have been, well, real journalism to get ahold of me, or Dave Howell, or Joe Azzarito, and ask for a different take on the measure. Wolcott just contacted me recently about the last letter I sent, but never asked me to talk to the reporter.
The story reads almost right out of the city’s slick mailer. I don’t have a subscription, so I couldn’t cut-and-paste it, but I typed out a few choice quotes.
The reporter claims Measure H “will generate approximately $24 million a year for use in the city’s General Fund.” That just doesn’t add up – how does a penny add up to that much? Walk with me, bring your calculator. Or just add two zeros to $24,000,000. Yep, that’s right, Chico voters would have to spend $2,400,000,000 – two billion, four hundred million – at least that much a year on taxable goods in order to achieve that extra $24 million. And, given those figures, our current sales tax revenue would be closer to $180 million, not the $28 million projected in the budget. I hate math, but I’ve gone over these figures with math weirdos, and that’s what it adds up to, a pile of BS. In fact, in their Argument in Favor, proponents admit the revenues will not even add up to enough to complete the needed road repairs, they say they’ll use them to secure grants. (more on that later).
Let’s talk about the other claims – this next paragraph sounds like city staffers or the tax measure consultant wrote it:
“may be used for any Gen fund purposes including but not limited to maintenance and repairs on street pavement, storm drains, sidewalks and pot holes; maintain 911 emergency response times; reserving the number of on-duty firefighters and police; maintaining Bidwell park and other neighborhood parks, and funding other general services.“
These are the claims they can’t make because H is a general or simple measure, requiring only 50% of participating voters + 1 more vote. So they leave it to their local newspaper, along with the contract for all their public notices. And, while Junior Reporter mentions the General Fund, he has pointedly left the pension deficit out of the whole conversation. In the next paragraph, he actually adds dollar figures – this is a veiled attempt at making the voters believe this money will really go toward solving various problems created by years of deferred maintenance and a calculated elimination of services.
“Broken down, the top 5 estimated costs are: $542 million for capital projects; $105 million for the police department; $46 million for public works administration and parks; $36 million for Chico municipal airport, and $33 million for the fire department.”
Nowhere does this story mention what interim city manager Paul Hahn and various consultants have acknowledged as our biggest financial challenge – the Unfunded Actuarial Liability, commonly known as the pension deficit.
As I feared, the city is running a sub-par campaign full of total crap. What can we do to push back? Write letters to the ER – make sure Wolcott has to devote at least an equal amount of ink to the NO ON H campaign. Tell your friends, yak it up on Facebook/Twitter/Instagram.
I tried to join a conversation about H on one council candidate’s Facebook, but I don’t have Facebook. The candidate claimed they were disappointed that the measure wasn’t restricted, but that we need the money and it should pass. When other posters said they didn’t want a general measure, it all disappeared. That’s too bad, this is a conversation that needs to be had.
Another claim the proponents make is that this tax can be “removed” by the voters. That is a patent lie – unless you think it’s easy to gather enough signatures to put it back on the ballot. Instead, just Vote NO, ask your neighbors to do same. This tax would be permanent, and I’ll say, just the foot in the door for more increases in future.
NOTE: I had to edit this because that candidate contacted me on my husband’s cell phone and told me I was spreading misinformation, but the above is what I saw on the Facebook before it disappeared. Here’s a note – don’t contact me via my husband’s phone, I consider that bullying. If you have a comment about the blog, comment on the blog.
NOTE NOTE: I redid my research – yes, everything I said about this candidate was true. Later, when I texted her to ask that she didn’t contact me at that number again, she responded to me again and admitted to me that she worked for the public sector, and she was a member of the union. As such she would also be a member of one or another public pension system. If she wants to straighten any “misinformation” I’ve received, she needs to come to the blog.
My husband and I use the Mangrove/Pine-Cedar/Mulberry/Fair Street corridor often, most of the businesses we patronize are in the south end of town. For years I’ve watched those streets deteriorate, potholes growing larger, sidewalks and curbstones crumbling. While the city used RDA money to put streets, drainage, and sidewalks in new subdivisions, they deferred maintenance on older streets in historic neighborhoods in favor of paying millions toward their pension deficit.
I don’t know if you’ve ever crossed that bridge over Little Chico Creek there where Mulberry splits into Cedar and Pine, but I’ve looked at it dozens and dozens of times, and the guard rail is falling off in places. It’s been falling off for yeeeeeaaaars.
Recently we were headed over to the lumber yard when we drove into a jobsite at that same intersection. Boy howdy, they are tearing up the streets, got traffic cones directing everybody like an amusement park entrance. Spray painted symbols all over the pavement, the sidewalks, gutters and curbs. It’s obvious the pavement is eons old, like, older than me even.
A few years ago I attended a few installments of a series of “informational talks” former asst city manager Chris Constantin was giving, speaking to each city commission about the infrastructural needs of our city, roads, sewer, etc. He said road maintenance had been deferred for years, and duh, anybody who has lived in Chico for more than five years would tell you that. Constantin also reported that it would take 100’s of millions and years to bring it all back to function.
Some of our infrastructure dates back to our grandparent’s time. And I’m 62, so I’m talking, many of your great grandparents’ time. For example, the Guynn Avenue bridge, which has been closed for a few years now because it is completely out of date, so narrow it won’t accommodate two way traffic, unless you’re driving a horse. From the city website:
The bridge is located between East Avenue and West Lindo Avenue, near the western edge of the City limits. The existing one-lane bridge provides a vital link between the Cussick Area Neighborhood and The Avenues, as it is one of only two vehicular crossings of Lindo Channel between Esplanade and Nord Avenue. The existing bridge is an 86-foot long, single-span, steel Warren pony truss bridge. The bridge suffers from the following deficiencies:
The bridge has significantly reduced load carrying capacity and can no longer bear the weight as originally intended.
There is paint loss/cracking and rust on multiple steel members, including the main trusses of the bridge.
The northwest wingwall has cracked and is beginning to fail.
The bridge width does not meet current safety standards for cars and first responder vehicles.
The reason this bridge has not been replaced to date, despite the fact it is a “vital link” for the neighborhood, leaving only one other bridge crossing Lindo Channel between Esplanade and Nord Ave, creating longer drive times for neighbors and congestion at other crossings, is that the city did not have any money in their streets fund. Our streets fund. All the funds have been raided systematically for years, millions a year, to make the “side fund” or “extra” payments to CalPERS. So they had to wait for funding. According to the project timeline, they received funding in 2021, but they won’t begin construction until 2023?
I hear a lot at these meetings about the cost of asphalt, Constantin mentioned it in his briefings. I looked at something called the “Asphalt Price Index,” and what I did understand, is that the price of asphalt is linked to the price of oil, and yeah, it goes up every year. But there have been spike years, and yeah, those years seem to coincide with tax campaigns. During the 2018 campaign to get us to raise the gas tax (SB1), the price of asphalt went up wildly as CalTrans put their crews out on the road, fixing freeways and roads all over the state. Every jobsite had a sign saying, “Your SB 1 $$$ at work!”
According to the index, asphalt prices are spiking again, as of earlier this year. So the longer the city waits to do their projects, the more they defer maintenance, the more expensive it gets.
And like the state, Chico staff and council are campaigning for a tax increase. They’ve admittedly deferred street maintenance for years, and now, all the damned sudden, they’re tearing up streets around town, fixing sidewalks. And here’s another thing worth mention – they’re not doing it with city money, they’re doing it with state and federal grants, meaning, these jobs will take years.
Here’s the city wide project that includes the work I’ve seen on Mulberry – all these current projects are federally funded:
Notice, most of these projects are on hold, “in the design phase…” That’s not really true, the truth is, they don’t have funding. They have gutted the streets fund for years to pay down the pension deficit, so they have to wait for grants to become available, and compete with many other towns to get them. Also notice, the projects that are “under construction” are all funded with state or federal grants.
I don’t expect this sudden burst of attention to duty will last beyond the November election, regardless of the outcome of the election. Look at the record, look what has been a constant for years. We’ve been through “conservative” councils and “liberal” councils, and the only constant has been the paying down of the pensions with money siphoned out of all the funds at the expense of our infrastructure.
POST SCRIPT: I was re-reading the Butte County Grand Jury report for 2019-20, here’s an excerpt from the Chico report:
For fiscal year 2019/20, $2.5 million is budgeted for Capital Expenditures which includes road maintenance/repair. The Gas Tax Fund (Fund 307) funds road work/repairs. Fiscal year 2019/20 Fund 307 revenue is $4.8 million.
I think that tells the story – $4.8 million in gas tax revenues, only $2.5 million budgeted for Capital Expenditures, including road maintenance. What we need, are more people asking where the rest of that gas tax money went.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/Troll-doll-583df4245f9b58d5b1601f98.jpg)
Chico Taxpayers Association 