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

4 Sep

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:

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

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.

https://library.municode.com/ca/commerce/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PESAMO_CH9.32PUNUAB

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:

  1. The City does not own the property and is therefore not the appropriate
    party to abate a nuisance on the property;
  2. The City disagrees that a public nuisance exists on the property;
  3. The resident has not proven a special injury from the public nuisance;
  4. The City is not legally permitted to abate the nuisance; and/or
  5. 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

Tags: , ,

Next week staff will appropriate another $100,000 from transportation funds for the bike trail; in other news, I AM NOT suing the city of Chico

1 Sep

Well, I didn’t know if I was allowed to talk about this particular matter, until I saw next week’s council agenda.

http://chico-ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=770

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.

Thinking beyond November 2022: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is circulating a petition to put the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act on the 2024 ballot

31 Aug

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:

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

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.

https://buttevotes.net/DocumentCenter/View/1061/Measure-H—City-of-Chico?bidId=

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:

Home

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.

Tags: , , , ,

Measure H proponents are dishing out the melarkey – don’t bite

26 Aug

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.

City’s sudden attention to infrastructure improvement is just part of the tax measure campaign – don’t be fooled, it won’t last beyond November 8

16 Aug

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:

https://chico.ca.us/post/guynn-avenue-bridge-replacement-project

 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:

https://chico.ca.us/citywide-systemic-safety-improvement-project

Here’s a list of projects either underway or in planning

https://chico.ca.us/capital-projects

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.

Taxpayer Singalong! If you’re overtaxed and you don’t like it, JUST SAY NO!

14 Aug

Summer is winding down, and the urge to hibernate is strong. But Friday the county clerk posted her notice of measures coming up on the November ballot. I didn’t see it, so I don’t even know what letter designation the clerk gave the city of Chico sales tax increase measure. But I have had three people contact me to tell me they are ready to push back.

For now we’ll just call it, Tax Measure ?

Three people – that’s the magic number folks. See, one guy is crazy, two guys are [politically incorrect], but THREE GUYS is a MOVEMENT! (let me extend my sincere apologies to Arlo Guthrie).

Arlo says you can join the movement, if you just sing along. In this case, we need you to start writing those letters. Tell your friends. Sing it! Just say NO!

If you’re overtaxed and you don’t like it, JUST SAY NO!

Yesterday morning the tv pundits were all talking about inflation – food and energy prices are leading the charge, two commodities that most of us civilized taxpayers think of as necessities. If you’re sick of watching your grocery receipt and your PG&E and gas bills keep going up, SING ALONG!

If you’re feeling gouged and you don’t like it, JUST SAY NO!

Furthermore, you’re looking around yourself, your streets are trashed, your parks are trashed, there are encampments full of sex offenders along the trail your child takes to school – you want to know where is all the money going? SING ALONG!

If you’re sick of the excuses, and the questionable money uses, then you have to find your spine and JUST SAY NO!

A lady contacted me recently and asked me if I was going to do any “demonstrations”. People want to jump on a noisy bandwagon, wave signs, drive their cars around City Hall beeping their horns ($$$$$!), but I find those are mostly hot air and run out of gas pretty quickly. And sometimes people get to pushing and shoving and annoying little old ladies get butt-slammed by big jerk faces.

Here’s a gentle suggestion – sing this song for your council or your council representative. Tell them you’re going to vote NO on Tax Measure ?, cause you know what, as of today, there’s still THREE DAYS left on the election calendar for them to take this dud OFF THE BALLOT.

Tags:

Do you know somebody who wants to/is running for city council? Tell us about it!

4 Aug

Well, I got my first election mailer today – Chico Democrats. I don’t like mailers because they clog my mailbox and trash can, but they’re always interesting. It seems the Demos are calling out the council “conservatives” on various charges, from DUI’s to bad staffing decisions to lawsuits, it runs the gamut. It’s pretty poorly done, the kind of juvenile trash talk that I’m sure will make a lot of local Democrats cringe. But it’s the first smack in the mouth, and I think we can expect at least ten rounds this year.

“Conservative” Kasey Reynolds announced she will run for reelection, which was no surprise. I believe this “Quality of Life” measure she’s trying to get approved for the ballot tonight is the first salvo in her campaign. I think she was talked into this BS by her guru Rob Berry, and I’m sorry, it was poor judgement on her part. The people already have plenty of mechanisms to take their grievances to council, and the best one is, throw them out on their asses at election time.

This is the third strike for Old Kasey as far as I’m concerned. The first was her vote to approve the Shelter Crisis Designation in 2020. The second was the rental registration tax she was trying to push forward for the city. And now, Strike Three – she uses staff time to forward her campaign, not only to get herself re-elected, but to pass the tax measure. That’s corrupt. While I may feel forced to vote for her based on what rough beast slouches forward to take the district, I will certainly not endorse or support her. She hasn’t done anything I can get behind, she just keeps shoving the city farther down the Road to Perdition.

Here we are, another election, forced to choose the lesser of two evils. I have only lately found out what district I’m in, it was difficult given the maps they presented. At one point we found ourselves in Deepika Tandon’s District, but only recently they updated the maps and we are back in Reynold’s district – but all our neighbors are cut out, the line runs right down the street in front of our house and around the first corner. I can see why people scream “gerrymandering!”, the process looks pretty sketchy.

At this point the new districts are making it hard to figure out who’s running for what, and few candidates have come forward to give any information about their intentions. A local developer and frequent contributor to the letters section and various social media sites, Tom Vanoverbeek is running in District 6, on the southeast end of town. I have no idea who he’s running against. TV, as I’m going to call him, actually wanted the city to approve a Pension Obligation Bond, writing a letter to the paper about it, without ever mentioning that the constitution requires bonds to go on the ballot.

The City of Chico currently has a $147 Million unfunded pension liability to the CalPers retirement system for city employees that it is contractually obligated to pay. CalPers is currently charging the the city 7% annually on the $147M.  By restructuring this debt with a Pension Obligation Bond (POB) the city can satisfy this $147M debt at interest rate of 3.5% to 4% instead of 7% saving the city millions of dollars. A Pension Obligation Bond is NOT new debt, it is exchanging one form of debt for another at a much lower interest rate and is why over 30 other California cities such as  Riverside, Pasadena, Pomona and Grass Valley have issued POBs.

The CalPers system is a defined benefit program which means that the payout to employees at retirement is fixed. CalPers is funded by contributions from employees, employers (the city) and returns from the investments made by CalPers. The unfunded liability exists because CalPers has failed to meet its’ investment return goals, currently 7%. CalPers’ 20-year average rate of return is 5.5% compared to the S&P 500 index of 7.5%.  Under the agreement between CalPers and the city, the taxpayers, you and me, are on the hook for the $147M shortfall.

It was an appallingly bad decision for the City of Chico to join CalPers 20 years ago but that doesn’t change the reality that we owe them $147M.  Think of this like refinancing your home mortgage, if you can pay 3.5% why would you pay 7%?

TV uses the argument that tells me, he doesn’t really understand, he’s just repeating what the consultants said: “Think of this like refinancing your home mortgage, if you can pay 3.5% why would you pay 7%?” That is a child’s mis-understanding of pension bonds, and that’s the kind of judgment that’s already got us into the pot of doodoo we find ourselves.

I wish these people would take their job more seriously, and maybe read the California Constitution, read the city charter, but they depend way too much on staff. And then yeah, blame staff when the stuff hits the fan. I hope we see some serious, better informed candidates come forward, but it’s tough given the pot of money it takes to run these days. If you think you have a candidate that is worth supporting, tell us about it HERE.

Tags: , , , ,

Contact council – there is still time for them to renege and pull that tax measure off the ballot

2 Aug

Yesterday I went to the grocery store and came home without two long-time staples from my shopping list – they were too expensive. I’ve watched prices go up all my life, but lately it’s been a little crazy.

I’ve been using Noxema since I was a child, it’s a good face wash, and it’s good for taking care of skin conditions like sunburn and chapping. Suddenly the price has jumped from about $3.50/jar to almost $5.00. Let’s do the math – $1.50 increase divided by the original price = 42% increase.

For Noxema?

Another item I’ve been buying for years is honey. I use it in my tea, it’s comforting. I used to buy it from a local distributor but switched to more generic brands as the price went up. I was paying $7.11 for a 32 oz bottle, and I was comfortable enough with that, even though it was starting to feel like a luxury. Yesterday the tag on the shelf said almost $11.

So I walked out of the store without two items I’ve been purchasing for years. Downsizing. I make my own skin scrub with coconut oil and sugar, I’ll just have to add some menthol oil – the key ingredient in Noxzema – and use that on my face. I already buy essential oils online for pennies per use.

We also noticed the price of our canned dogfood has gone up, again and again. Every time we buy it lately, it’s nudged up another dollar. He needs meat with his kibble, but I realized I was buying the commercial food for convenience. So, we bought a pack of chicken on sale at Raley’s and I cooked it up for him instead. I realize, now we know exactly what’s in his food, the canned stuff was always kind of a mystery. Chicken goes on sale regularly enough – and we eat it ourselves.

Like I say, I’ve watched prices go up all my life, but not usually like this. The last time I remember inflation like that was back in the early 2000’s – that’s when I stopped buying local honey, switched to generic crap brands from wherever. I had watched the local honey go up a couple of dollars over the last year, and I couldn’t see any rationale behind it. They try to tell us it’s “supply chain issues” – no it’s not, it’s gouging, and it’s permanent. We won’t see prices go down when the crisis is over – well, they’ll just manufacture another crisis anyway.

The other common thing I notice now – price of housing is going up like crazy. I remember that started happening in about 2003, and by 2008, we had foreclosure signs all over Chico. The city kept saying we needed more “starter” housing for young families, but the prices just kept going up. We all found out – it was the building industry that was demanding more housing, the unions.

That’s exactly what’s happening now – the trade unions are bitching for more building in California – they say we need “more affordable” housing, but that’s not what they’re producing.

Just making observations. The only answer I see is self-inflicted attrition. Cut your expenses, stop buying stuff you don’t need, become more self-reliant like Doug LaMalfa has been saying. And write to your city council to tell them you will not support the sales tax increase measure. There is still actually time for council to renege and pull that measure off the ballot.

Next time I’d like to go over recent budgets – the city has been forecasting doom and gloom, but our revenues are up steadily and there’s really no excuse for a tax measure.

Letter to the Editor: Patrick Newman claims our city is underfunded, I say it’s overspent

28 Jul

I saw Patrick Newman’s letter to the ER last week, the first part looked like a bitch-fight with Oroville taxpayer Steve Simpson, but I thought the last paragraph deserved an answer.

Newman opines, “Thoughts: 1) Chico police and fire are the only “fully funded” city departments – true since the beginning of Mark Orme’s tenure. 2) Like it or not, elected officials are tasked with spending money.  3) While I’m not convinced dumping more money into police and fire services will make us safer, I am aware that our underfunded city has a backlog of over $200 million in failing infrastructure – to include crumbling roads, a neglected sewage treatment plant, an under-maintained storm drain system, aging traffic signaling, etc.  4) There are flaws in any taxation scheme.  Chico can go on dithering, but the consequence will be exponentially more expensive infrastructure decline.“

Wow, Mr. Newman is a pretty astute observer of city business, but he always twists things around his way. How can he say a city with a $211 million budget, 80% of which goes to salaries and benefits, is underfunded? So I wrote a letter about it.

In response to Patrick Newman:

  1. Yes, Chico PD and FD are fully funded. Public safety gets over 75% of the General Fund – proof that you can’t solve a problem by throwing money at it.
  2. Elected officials are tasked with spending money, and the public is tasked with making sure they spend it wisely. This isn’t always the case, and that is a good argument for a 2/3’s measure with specified spending goals. Instead council approved a simple majority measure that goes into the General Fund to be spent without public approval. 21% of the General Fund goes into the pensions.
  3. Our city is not “underfunded”, budgeting $28,890,000 in sales tax revenues for 2022, along with $11.5 million in property tax, $9.2 million VLF in lieu (your car registration fees) and $8 million added to your PG&E and water bills in the form of Utility Users Tax. Furthermore, the $200 million in failing infrastructure is a result of years of admitted deferred maintenance, while staff poured increasing amounts into their pension deficit – last year $11.5 million, this year over $12 million, $18 million by 2025, and so on.
  4. The major flaw in the sales tax increase measure is that it is not dedicated to any specific purpose. While staff and council have insinuated it would go toward infrastructure and services, they can’t promise that. They can promise a $12.2 million “catch-up” payment to CalPERS this year.

This is a bad measure, Vote No.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

DCBA worried about “e-shopping”? They should join the community in opposing the sales tax measure

24 Jul

“It’s going to take the community support to keep the local businesses able to compete with some of the big internet stores that are out there,” says DCBA vice president David Halimi.

https://krcrtv.com/news/local/slice-of-chico-summer-celebration-ventures-to-keep-spending-local-against-e-shopping

Well, I’d be worried if I were Halimi, Downtown property owner and proprietor of several long-time Downtown businesses. Sales tax eats discretionary money, and most of the businesses Downtown are dependent on discretionary money. But it’s the same for businesses all over town, really – people will even put off maintenance on their cars and homes when they are pinched for money. They cut their budget all over, not by choice, but because they have less money to spend.

I’d guess, like myself, the first thing most people cut from their budget is restaurants. If not altogether, they eat out less and they eat at cheaper places. One friend of mine told me he will quit eating at sit down restaurants in favor of “restaurants with a tip jar”. At home the family cuts the clothing budget and starts shopping at discount grocery stores. At a time like this, there’s no way small local businesses can compete with the prices at the big chains or online stores.

Of course, this hurts lower income people the most – restaurant workers, retail workers, service workers. They have to make corresponding cuts in their budget. It’s like a virus, causing a downward spiral for the economy.

I believe in supporting your business community, at large. Pricey Downtown businesses should not be asking for charity, they should be joining the community in formal opposition to the sales tax increase measure. I’d like to see the DCBA and the Chico Chamber make a public statement against this bad measure. Interim Chamber CEO Mark Chrisman has said he is afraid a sales tax increase would be bad for local business, but when I contacted him asking if they Chamber would oppose the measure he did not respond.

If you are, or you know, a local business owner or member of the DCBA or Chamber, you should oppose or ask your friends to oppose the measure. Furthermore, you should ask them to convince their fellow members to get a formal statement of opposition out of these organizations. The business community has a lot of pull with council, they donate a lot of money at election time and have a lot of customer clout. Let your business community know, this measure hurts you, and what hurts you, hurts them.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →