Anthony Watts: Chico will buy make-believe “clean” electricity at a premium

5 Nov

This headline from the Enterprise Record is misleading:

Chico City Council to commemorate Camp Fire anniversary, consider alternatives to PG&E

Read the article for yourself, see where Robin Epley says, “In such an agreement, Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. would continue with transmission and distribution of energy.”

How is that “an alternative” to PG&E? And no, a CCA does not guarantee lower power, especially when legislators and staffers will set the rates. They may even buy it from PG&E, and then resell it to us? 

Here’s the DEAL KILLER – PG&E can shut down power at any time, and the city of Chico would have nothing to say about it.

I was glad to see Anthony Watts put the whammy down: 

Two far-left city councilors, Karl Ory and Alex Brown have introduced a “Chico Green New Deal” patterned after the one Alexandria Ocasio Cortez made up.

One of the bullet points is: 100% clean electricity powering the City grid by 2030

This is impossible for two reasons.

1. There’s not enough growth in renewables in California to achieve that goal by that time. The state goal is 50% by 2030.

If passed, what will most likely happen is that Chico will buy make-believe “clean” electricity at a premium.

From the New York Times: “Analysts at Credit Suisse estimate that PG&E could save $2.2 billion a year by renegotiating renewable power contracts down to current market prices.”

PG&E spends over $2 billion yearly for overpriced liberal pie-in-the-sky electricity schemes, while the utility cannot afford even to inspect and repair their 100,000 miles of power lines. PG&E claims that inspecting the lines alone would require quadrupling their rates.

You think your electric bill is high now? Just wait.

If Ory’s and Brown’s plan passes, the City of Chico will be running straight towards this overpriced eco-madness for the sake of virtue signaling, with no net effect but to drain city coffers and wallets.

References: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/24/pge-says-it-might-have-to-quintuple-rates-if-forced-to-clear-trees.html

— Anthony Watts, Chico

You can read more from Anthony and friends at his super blog,  What’s Up With That?  Here’s an interesting post from last year:

US EIA: Coal is Still King

Joe Azzarito: It’s very easy to vote ‘yes’ when somebody else will pay the bill

2 Nov
I’ve been hoping more people would get involved and speak up – here’s Joe Azzarito, a guy who went to those CARD “informational” meetings and asked questions, and now he’s writing a letter to the editor about it.

CARD programs should pay  for themselves. Remember Off The Wall Soccer? A local business that was driven out by CARD, using tax dollars to undercut OTW’s fees. One day we have a business that’s filling a need and paying taxes, and the next minute they are replaced by an agency that devours tax dollars. You figure it out.

Why should the public pay for programs that don’t serve the entire district? Pickle ball? We pay for that. Corn hole? We pay for that. Participants in CARD programs should pay the true cost of these programs – the outrageous salaries and benefits at CARD. Then we’d find out how many people are truly willing to support this agency.

Thanks Joe, great letter! 

By  |

John Dennison’s letter on CARD’s parcel tax is spot on. At one of the listening meetings, I told Ann Willimann nearly the same point — users only should be the ones paying, although John suggests all should pay.  It’s very easy to vote “yes” when someone else will pay the bill.

My suggestion was to price a user utility fee so that those using a facility pay its cost.  My current year’s property tax bill shows $802.02 in voter approved special assessments, due predominately to bonds passed in 1998, 2002, 2012 and 2016.  Where will it end? This new one will indeed be tied to a CPI and, therefore, always adjusting mostly upwards and, to make matters worse, it will be permanent unless voted out — most unlikely.

Add this proposal to the city’s sales tax measure and you are asking for economic trouble.

Both government entities are pitching their proposals to the least educated, most vulnerable and most easily brainwashed amongst us. Hold these folks accountable and vote “no” on both when presented.

— Joe Azzarito, Chico

LA Daily News, OC Register – “blame the state for high gas prices”

1 Nov

I think Gavin Newsome’s angst over gas prices in California is FAKE. He knows California residents are really angry over gas prices, and how they raise the prices of EVERYTHING, and he’s trying to pass the booger onto the gas companies. 

The NO on PROP 6 voters have themselves to blame, they let themselves be duped – but I’ll also blame the Attorney General for the misleading ballot language, and then allowing the state to spend money spreading the lies. All voters had to do was read the language on the ballot, and ask questions,  but they were lazy? Stupid? Not sure. Let’s not make that mistake with the upcoming election.

Blame the state for our high gas prices

Here’s a similar piece from last April, Orange County Register.

‘Mystery surcharge’ and gas taxes boost California gasoline prices by about $1.26 per gallon

City, County proposing Joint Powers Authority to purchase power, the catch is, they have to use PG&E’s crapped out infrastructure

31 Oct

Furthermore, they will have no authority over shut-offs (or, as we used to call them, ROLLING BLACK-OUTS). 

And here’s what they want – a JPA has the authority to raise rates/taxes. And we don’t vote for the board, they are appointed by city and county “leaders”, with staff’s recommendation. 

See the agenda item below, I’ve requested past reports from the city clerk, we’ll see what she sends. 

5.2. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO FORM THE COMMUNITY
CHOICE AGGREGATION (CCA) BUTTE CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY

On 10/1/19, the Chico City Council adopted an ordinance authorizing the implementation of a Community
Choice Aggregation (CCA) program. Community Choice Aggregation allows cities and counties to
aggregate the electricity buying power (electrical load) of residential, commercial, and municipal customers
within a jurisdiction to purchase power and meet their electricity needs. The local Investor Owned Utility
(IOU) will continue with transmission and distribution of energy to utility users in the region. City of Chico
and Butte County staff (Staff) have been working together to draft a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) Agreement
with the City, Butte County, and other perspective City’s or County’s in the region to form a separate joint
exercise of power agency called Butte Choice Energy Authority (Authority). On 10/15/19, the Chico City
Council heard an initial presentation of the draft JPA. (Report – Erik Gustafson, Public Works Director
Operations & Maintenance)

Recommendation: The Public Works Director -Operations & Maintenance recommends the City Council:
1) approve the following resolution; and 2) nominate two regular Authority Board of Directors and two
alternates.

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT ESABLISHING THE
BUTTE CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS

UPDATE: I got the a stack of staff reports on this from the clerk, but am now trying to figure out how to post them. Here’s something from the Butte County Feasibility Study – I’ll post more over the weekend. 

Benefits

Local Control 
 Set rates (potentially lower)  Yes, the unelected board gets to set your rates. Will this go through the CPUC?
 Promote economic  This would depend on pricing, which would depend on the unelected board
development 
 Energy source choice Depending on what’s available, at what price.
 Could create a local revenue
stream for future power  And there it is – a local revenue stream that can be transferred by way of fund allocation into the pension liability
projects
 Customization based on local  Based on whose local interests?
interests
 Cleaner energy  Again, based on what is available, at what price.

Risks

Power Charge Indifference
Adjustment (PCIA) surcharge
 “Exit fee” charged to CCA  But no dollar figure, and we won’t get that until we’re in it up to our necks
customers for exiting an IOU
 Cost could offset savings due   Like solar energy, there’s the question – will the savings offset the expense?
to lower electricity costs
 Customer participation  This is a pyramid scheme – you have to get other suckers to get on board before you will see any savings
 Power procurement risks  With PG&E’s involvement, this is a huge deal breaker
 Legislative climate  I’d add, changes in the make-up of our council, every two years they have a flip-flop and policy decisions are overturned

Let me quote the editor of the local daily: And with the huge and very obvious kinks in the PG&E system, it seems like a really good idea to have a local entity in place to look out for our people’s interest in the current and rising mess.

There he mentions the huge and obvious kinks in the PG&E system – the delivery system, which is a linchpin in this deal. Ever had a linchpin break on you? Right at a bad time? Like right when your town was on the verge of bankruptcy? And people and businesses were already leaving town? 

Let’s take a good look at this scheme.

Dave Howell: If a public or private entity provided worsening service would you favor them taking even more of your money?

30 Oct

Dave Howell wrote another great letter to the ER the other day. He sent me the survey, and I posted it here:

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2019/10/28/emc-survey-of-400-carefully-chosen-city-of-chico-residents/

I’m still working on making it more readable, but it’s there, please take the time to look it over and join the conversation. And write those letters!

From Dave Howell:

EMC Research conducted a survey for the city council that found half the respondents thought the city was headed in the wrong direction. Only thirty percent thought the city was headed in the right direction. Paradoxically seventy percent favored the city taking more of their hard earned money via a tax increase. If a public or private entity provided worsening service would you favor them taking even more of your money?

For the respondents who answered in the affirmative how do you think they would have answered if they were told that for well over a decade the city council has siphoned off huge amounts of money that should have gone for infrastructure maintenance and other vital programs to pay for unsustainable employee costs such as pensions and that the city council will use the money from the tax increase to add hundreds of millions of dollars of new debt so this can continue? Do you think EMC mentioned that? Not a chance as that would require integrity, a foreign concept to vile EMC. The city council is giving EMC our tax dollars for one purpose only and that is to make sure the tax increase passes. The purpose of the survey is to help determine how to word the ballot measure so it is most likely to pass.

Remember that next year when our incompetent and corrupt city council and the masters of deception at EMC begin their propaganda campaign, euphemistically called education.

Dave Howell, Chico, CA

letter to editor: recent city survey misleading

28 Oct

I try to read the Enterprise Record at least a few times a week. Not that it’s a great paper, but it’s worth keeping an eye on what kind of BS they are floating. I usually read the print edition – my husband picks it up a couple of times a week, when he stops at the neighborhood market  for a 6 pack. But last time he came home with a 6 pack and a candy bar. “3 Musketeers is cheaper than the paper,” he said, “and it does more for you mood.” Then he told me the paper had gone up 50 cents, and screw that. So, I’ve been snooping it out online since then, but get cut off pretty frequently, having read my fill of free junk. It’s like going to the county fair, and eating too much Fiddle-Faddle.

A couple of weeks ago, I was invited by Mike Wolcott for a get-together at the ER with other “frequent letter writers.” He said we’d all get a free online subscription, 4 months paid by him, just for standing around the old do-nut box and being civil to each other. So I went, spent about an hour in a little conference room trying to be polite with people like Irv Schiffman, and then I had to get back to work. So here I sit, waiting for my free subscription.

The down side to that would be waking up every morning to find the digital version of a cat box liner in my email. I’m starting to think I might have made a mistake.  The Enterprise Record isn’t a newspaper, it’s newspeak.  They don’t investigate, they regurgitate.  When you read a story in the ER, you must always look elsewhere for further information, don’t just believe what they print. They toe the line set by whichever mob is in charge, and right now, it’s the tax happy mob. Expecting the Enterprise Record to do anything resembling investigative journalism is like expecting the government to investigate itself. Today, the media is part of The Establishment, and they aren’t going to rock the boat now that they have got themselves into it.

So we have to read stuff for ourselves, we can’t take a reporter’s word for anything. The story the ER posted about the city’s recent survey might have just as well been a city press release.  I posted the EMC survey this morning

https://chicotaxpayers.com/2019/10/28/emc-survey-of-400-carefully-chosen-city-of-chico-residents/

because I knew it wouldn’t be in the paper. In fact, Dave Howell had to request it from the city clerk. Let’s make it worth Dave’s while having to deal with the bureaucratic jello mould.  Judging from the word press stats for today, people are at least looking at it.

I hope we can get others to take a look, maybe get a conversation going about how blatantly leading that survey was. Not to mention,  misleading. So I wrote a letter to the ER.

NOTE: Here’s a link to the ER story I mention in the letter, thanks again to Dave Howell for that, as well:

Chico one of top cities for public employee compensation

My letter sent to Chico ER 10/28/19

Tax campaign consultant EMC, after a very misleading survey of only 400 carefully chosen Chico residents, declares 70% support for a one cent sales tax increase. That’s more than the 2/3’s voter threshold required for a special tax that could be dedicated to public safety or roads, the top concerns listed by those 400 respondents. Why then does Staff insist on running a simple majority measure requiring only 51%?

Because, as the assistant city manager told council, a 2/3’s measure would have to be spent as the voters dictate.  A simple measure goes into the General Fund, available for any whim of council or staff, including the pension liability.

Just last year, another city consultant, Chad Wolford, told the Finance Committee city expenses were up because of “More people, more payroll, more allocations… salaries and benefits have gone up, operating budgets are up…”   In 2015 Wolford told council the city was spending too much money on “overhead,” which he defined as “administrative salaries and benefits.” The same year, Chico had the top compensated employees in California, as reported by the Enterprise Record 12/10/2015.

The EMC survey told respondents “The City has done everything it can to cut expenses…”  That is not true. As Wolford said, the city is management top heavy and staff continues to get salary increases, which increase benefits, and increase the pension deficit. Employees pay less than a third of their pension costs.

The survey was blatantly misleading. See the full survey and join the conversation at chicotaxpayers.com

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

 

 

Tags: ,

EMC survey of 400 carefully chosen city of Chico residents

28 Oct

Thanks Dave Howell, for sending me the EMC survey paid for by the city of Chico (meaning, you taxpayers). 

It cut and paste into a big blob, I have spaced the first three pages so you can read them more easily, and I’ve added my own remarks and highlights in red, but I haven’t changed one word or number of the information. Unfortunately, I only made it to page 4 this morning, I’ll have to get back later to fix the rest. That stuff is still readable, but it takes some looking, everything is all crammed together.

This survey is very leading, read it for yourself, and let me know what you think. I’d really love to hear from somebody who was actually contacted by EMC.

Hybrid Telephone/Email-to-Webi Survey of Likely November 2020 Voters
City of Chico, California
Conducted September 19- 30, 2019
n=400; Margin of Error +4.9 percentage points
EMC Research #19-7241

All numbers in this document represent percentage (%) values, unless otherwise noted.
Please note that due to rounding, percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.

GREETING: Hello, my name is ________, may I speak with (NAME ON LIST)?

INTERVIEWER: NOL ONLY  NOTICE: They have carefully chosen respondents and will only interview the person they’ve targeted, no other household members.

INTRO: Hello, my name is ________, and I’m conducting a survey for __________ to find out how people feel
about issues in Chico. We are not trying to sell anything, and are collecting this information on a scientific
and completely confidential basis.

1. SEX (RECORD FROM OBSERVATION)
Male 47
Female 53

2. Are you registered to vote in Chico?
Yes 100

No/(Don’t Know/Refused)  TERMINATE –

3. What would you say are the chances that you will vote in the November 2020 general election for
President, Congress, and other local measures—are you almost certain to vote, will you probably
vote, are the chances fifty-fifty, or do you think that you will not vote?
Almost Certain/(Definitely)  CONTINUE 92
Probably  CONTINUE 7
50/50 Chance  CONTINUE 1
Will not vote/(Don’t Know/Refused)  TERMINATE –

4. Do you feel that things in the Chico area are going in the right direction or do you feel things are off
on the wrong track?
Right Direction 30
Wrong Track 50
(Don’t Know/Refused) 20

NOTE: Here they admit that they have not recorded responses verbatim (word for word) 

i Telephone language shown in these topline results, adapted slightly for web version

EMC Research #19-7241 – Page 2-

5. What do you think is the most important problem facing Chico today? (OPEN END, RECORD
VERBATIM RESPONSE, ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY)

Homelessness/Poverty/Transients/Drugs 37
High cost of housing/living 17
Crime 10
Poor condition of roads/Infrastructure/Traffic 9
Public safety/Safety/Need more police 6
Political issues 5
Overdevelopment/Overpopulation 4
Issues due to the Camp fire 3
Climate change/pollution 2
Other 4
Don’t Know/Refused 1
NA/None 2

6. Would you say that the City of Chico has a great need for more money, some need for more money,
little need for more money, or no real need for more money?

Great need 38
Some need 39
Little need 8
No real need 5
(Don’t know/Refused) 10

EMC Research #19-7241 – Page 3-

7INT. Using a scale of excellent, good, only fair, or poor, please rate each of the following regarding the City
of Chico.

SCALE: Excellent Good Only Fair Poor  (Don’t Know/Refused)
(RANDOMIZE)

7. The overall quality of life in Chico
(E)10 (G)50 (OF)29 (P)9 (DK/R)1

8. The overall quality of city services
(E)5 (G)47 (OF)32 (P)12 (DK/R)4

9. The quality of police services
(E)15 (G)47 (OF)22 (P)11 (DK/R)5

10. The job the city government is doing  
(E)3 (G)33 (OF)29 (P)27 (DK/R)8

11. The job the city does managing taxpayer dollars
(E)2 (G)26 (OF)32 (P)25 (DK/R)15

12. The city’s fire and disaster management efforts
(E)22 (G)55 (OF)12 (P)5 (DK/R)6

(END RANDOMIZE)

13A. Next I’m going to read you a measure that may appear on the ballot in the future.
Shall an ordinance to fund essential city services such as preserving the number of on-duty police
officers and fire fighters, protecting 911 emergency response times, maintaining and repairing
streets, sidewalks and Bidwell Park, and funding othe  r general services and essential activity, by
establishing a 1 percent sales tax, providing approximately $18,000,000 annually until ended by
voters, subject to annual audits, with all funds staying local, be adopted?

This is reminiscent of Yuba County’s Measure K. Notice the emphasis on public safety and roads? But they add that sentence about “general services and essential activity,” so they can call it a general measure. I think this is misleading, and so did the judge that overturned Measure K. 

If the election were held today, would you vote yes to approve or no to reject this measure?

Yes 65 →70

(Lean Yes) 5

No 26 →27

(Lean No) 1

(Undecided/Don’t Know/Not Sure) 3

EMC Research #19-7241 – Page 4-

The next question gives a scale of 1 – 7. I typed the scale in () next to the answers.

14INT. I’m going to read you a list of items that could be funded with a revenue measure for Chico. After
each one, please rate how important that item is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all
important, and 7 means extremely important.

(1) – Not at all important  to  (7) – Extremely important;  (Don’t Know/Refuse)

SCALE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (DK/R) Mean

(RANDOMIZE)

14. Protecting rapid 911 emergency response times                                  
(1) 2 (2) 2 (3) 3 (4) 7 (5) 13 (6) 23 (7) 50 (DK/R) 1   (Mean 5.13)

15. Preserving the number of on-duty firefighters
(1) 2 (2) 2 (3) 3 (4) 7 (5) 14 (6) 26 (7) 46 (DK/R) 1     (Mean 5.14)

16. Preserving the number of on-duty police officers
(1) 4 (2) 2 (3) 2 (4) 11 (5) 14 (6) 23 (7) 44 (DK/R) 1   (Mean 5.04)

Notice the numbers are very similar on the first three questions involving public safety, with over 40 percent placing it at 7 (most important).

17. Maintaining and improving neighborhood parks
(1) 3 (2) 3 (3) 6  (4)18 (5) 25 (6) 24 (7) 22 (DK/R) 0    (Mean 4.83)

18. Maintaining and improving Bidwell Park
(1) 3 (2) 3 (3) 5 (4) 12 (5) 25 (6) 22 (7) 29 (DK/R) 1     (Mean 4.87)

Notice the numbers are back up for street maintenance, especially fixing potholes.

19. Maintaining and repairing streets, storm drains and sidewalks
(1) 1 (2) 0 (3) 2 (4) 8 (5) 20 (6) 31 (7) 38 (DK/R) 0   (Mean 5.30)

20. Fixing potholes
(1) 1 (2) 1 (3) 3 (4) 10 (5) 17 (6) 26 (7) 41 (DK/R) 1   (Mean 5.10)

Notice how the responses for #1 (least important) start climbing here. This is notable because these are the subjects that are taking most of Council and $taff‘s time – global warming, and hand-out programs for transients and drug addicts.   

21. Maintaining street trees and city trees
(1) 2 (2) 2 (3) 5 (4) 14 (5) 25 (6) 21 (7) 30 (DK/R) 1  (Mean 4.87)

22. Making energy and water conservation upgrades to city facilities
(1) 5 (2) 5 (3) 5 (4) 13 (5) 19 (6) 25 (7) 26 (DK/R) 1   (Mean 4.77)

23. Supporting efforts to build housing for homeless and low-income residents
(1) 15 (2) 5 (3) 5 (4) 9 (5) 13 (6) 18 (7) 33  (DK/R) 2    (Mean 4.66)

24. Supporting efforts to build housing for all residents
(1) 9 (2) 6 (3) 5 (4) 10 (5) 14 (6) 22 (7) 34 (DK/R) 1   (Mean 4.75)

25. Lowering Chico’s carbon footprint
(1) 17 (2) 5 (3) 6 (4) 9 (5) 16 (6) 16 (7) 28 (DK/R) 3   (Mean 4.61)

Meanwhile, nothing about pot dispensaries, teenage vaping, or our “community drinking problem”? 

(END RANDOMIZE)

EMC Research #19-7241 -Page 5-

26INT. Next, I’d like to read you statements from people who SUPPORT the Chico City Services Measure.
After each one, please tell me how convincing that statement is as a reason to vote FOR the measure—very convincing, somewhat convincing, not too convincing, or not at all convincing.
SCALE:  Very convincing; Somewhat convincing; Not too convincing; Not at all convincing; Don’t Know; Total; Conv.Total; Unconv. Total

(RANDOMIZE)

26. The devastating Camp Fire of 2018 destroyed thousands of homes, and has resulted in a surge in Chico’s population. We need to pass this measure to make sure city services can keep up with the increase in population, keeping us all safe and protecting our quality of life.

(VC) 42 (SC) 39 [NTC) 10 [NC) 8 (DK)1 (CT) 81 (UCT) 18

27. Chico is facing a budget shortfall. The City has done everything it can to cut expenses and has
maximized what is possible with current revenue. This measure is the next necessary step to balance
the budget and protect vital city services.

(VC) 20 (SC) 40 (NTC) 18 (NC) 18 (DK) 4 (CT) 59 (UCT) 36

28. In the last year, the number of traffic accidents has increased dramatically in Chico – a direct result of
higher congestion and over-crowding of our road infrastructure. This measure will bring much
needed revenue for road upgrades and repairs that will save lives.

(VC) 36 (SC) 41 (NTC) 11 (NC) 10 (DK) 2 (CT) 77 (UCT) 21

29. When you dial 911, every second counts. This measure will protect the safety of Chico residents by
ensuring that our firefighters and police officers are ready to help when you need them the most.

(VC) 37 (SC) 42 (NTC) 13 (NC) 6 (DK) 2 (CT) 79 (NC) 19

30. By law, revenue from this measure cannot be taken by the State or County, ensuring our tax dollars
stay local for the benefit of Chico residents.

(VC) 39 (SC) 40 (NTC) 8 (NC) 8 (DK) 3 (CT) 80 (NC) 17

31. Homelessness has surged in Chico, with people living in illegal camps, and it has resulted in
community concerns about Chico’s quality of life. Revenue from this measure will support our work
with regional partners in finding local solutions that help get people off the streets.

(VC) 36 (SC) 36 (NTC) 11 (NC) 15 (DK) 3 (CT) 71 (NC) 26

32. A sales tax is the best way to increase city revenue to ensure City services become more proactive,
because visitors pay their fair share and reduce the burden on Chico residents.   (There really should have been a choice of “TB” or Total Bullshit for this question!) 

(VC) 19 (SC) 40 (NTC) 21 (NC) 17 (DK) 4 (CT) 59 (NC) 38

33. By law, essential purchases like groceries and medicine are exempt from the sales tax.

(VC) 41 (SC) 34 (NTC) 10 (NC) 11 (DK) 3 (CT) 75 (NC) 21

(END RANDOMIZE)

EMC Research #19-7241 – Page 6-

34A. Given what you’ve heard, I’d like to ask you about the measure again:
Shall an ordinance to fund essential city services such as preserving the number of on-duty police officers and fire fighters, protecting 911 emergency response times, maintaining and repairing streets, sidewalks and Bidwell Park, and funding other general services and essential activity, by establishing a 1 percent sales tax, providing approximately $18,000,000 annually until ended by
voters, subject to annual audits, with all funds staying local, be adopted?

If the election were held today, would you vote yes to approve or no to reject this measure?

Yes 71 →74 (Including “Lean Yes” listed below)

(Lean Yes) 3

No 23 →24 (Including “Lean No”)

(Lean No) 1

(Undecided/Don’t Know/Not Sure) 2

35INT. Next, I’d like to read you statements from people who OPPOSE the Chico City Services Measure. After each one, please tell me how convincing that statement is as a reason to vote AGAINST the measure—very
convincing, somewhat convincing, not too convincing, or not at all convincing.

SCALE: Very convincing; Somewhat convincing; Not too convincing; Not at all convincing; (Don’t Know)   Total Conv.  Total Unconv.
(RANDOMIZE)

35. There are no guarantees with this measure on how funds will be spent. The money just goes into the City’s general fund where the City Council can use it for whatever they want.
(VC) 38 (SC) 33 (NTC) 17 (NC) 9 (DK) 3     (Total C)71    (Total NC)  26

36. Chico doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. A new tax ignores the reality that the City spends too much on government employee salaries, benefits and pensions.
(VC) 29 (SC) 33 (NTC) 17 (NC) 17 (DK) 4      (Total C) 62     (Total NC) 34

37. A sales tax is regressive and hurts those who can least afford it, including low-income families and seniors living on fixed-incomes.
(VC) 27 (SC) 37 (NTC) 21 (NC) 12 (DK) 2      (Total C) 65      (Total NC) 33

38. There are already too many taxes in Chico and this measure will cost the average resident more than one hundred dollars in additional taxes per year. That’s just too much.
(VC) 19 (SC) 28 (NTC) 27 (NC) 23 (DK) 3       (Total C) 47      (Total NC)  50

39. Most tax measures have an expiration date, but this measure has no end date. That means we’ll continue getting taxed, even if the funding is no longer needed.
(VC) 33 (SC) 32 (NTC) 17 (NC) 15 (DK) 3       (Total C)  65      (Total NC) 32

(END RANDOMIZE)

EMC Research #19-7241 – Page 7-
40A. Now given everything you’ve heard, if the election were held today would you vote yes to approve or
no to reject a 1 percent sales tax measure for Chico?
Yes 64 →67
(Lean Yes) 3
No 31 →32
(Lean No) 1
(Undecided/Don’t Know/Not Sure) 1
41A. And what if the proposed sales tax were set to expire after 9 years, would you vote yes to approve or
no to reject a 1 percent sales tax measure for Chico?
Yes 63 →66
(Lean Yes) 3
No 32 →33
(Lean No) 1
(Undecided/Don’t Know/Not Sure) 1
DEMO. Now, I’d like to ask you a few questions for statistical purposes only.
42. Do you have any children under the age of 18 living in your home?
Yes 26
No 69
(Don’t Know/Refused) 5
43. In what year were you born?
18-29 (1990-2001) 20
30-39 (1980-1989) 15
40-49 (1970-1979) 16
50-64 (1955-1969) 22
65 or over (1954 or earlier) 26
(Refused) 1
44. What is the last grade you completed in school?
Some grade school 0
Some high school 0
Graduated High School 6
Technical/Vocational 5
Some College/Less than 4-year degree 29
Graduated College/4-year degree (BA, Bachelor) 34
Graduate/Professional (MA, Master, PhD, MBA, Doctorate) 19
(Don’t Know/Refused) 6
THANK YOU!

Page 8

And here you see the demographics they used to very carefully choose respondents – they knew this information when they made the calls.

EMC Research #19-7241 -8-
ZIPCODE (FROM SAMPLE)
95926 (Central) 39
95928 (Southeast) 31
95973 (Northwest) 30
VOTE HISTORY (FROM SAMPLE) (Nov ’18, June ’18, Nov’16, June ’16, Nov ’14, June ’14)
Voted 0-3/6 Elections 47
Voted 4-5/6 Elections 29
Voted 6/6 Elections 24
PARTY REGISTRATION (FROM SAMPLE)
Democrat 44
Republican 28
NPP/ Other 28

Dave Howell: This is how democracy dies, strangled by ignorance, debt and taxes

25 Oct

I’ve seen a couple of good letters in the paper lately, questioning the city’s claims that they need more tax revenues to maintain various aspects of public infrastructure. City Mangler Mark Orme repeatedly points the finger at some invisible army of Camp Fire evacuees – bullshit, Mr. Worm. Go out at Rush Hour, and you can see he is lying through his teeth. 

What they’re really worried about Downtown, is whether they will get their sweet pensions – in Orme’s case, at a current salary of $225,000/year, that’s over $140,000/year, plus cost of living increase, for the rest of his life, and then his  wife gets it!

Were you ever consulted in this scheme? No, but if you sign on to this tax increase, you are telling city of Chico $taffers and CalPERS you are willing to hook up like a cow to a milking machine to pay these crazy pensions into perpetuity, screw your infrastructure Folks!

Here’s a guy who knows where it’s at!

Despite city tax revenue growing by 30% in the last four years the City Council is spending over 150,000 of our tax dollars to sell us a sales tax increase. The salient reason for a tax increase now is that for many years the City Council has put unsustainable city employee compensation, particularly pension liability, above everything else including critical infrastructure maintenance.

But it’s not just a sales tax increase they are after. In the April 16th City Council meeting staff mentioned using the sales tax increase revenue to float a bond. How many hundreds of millions in new debt will they take on? Amazingly staff didn’t say and inexplicably no council member asked. In last week’s meeting the subject of bonded debt was not even mentioned, and the Council unanimously approved moving forward with the tax increase.

If the City’s bureaucrats and the City Council have their way not only will the taxpayers face a tax increase but also hundreds of millions in new debt. Not only will this not solve the City’s unfunded liability problems, it could lead to insolvency and will lead to more tax increases. Taking on hundreds of millions in new debt when the City is drowning in unfunded liabilities is the height of irresponsibility. And this in a county with a 21 percent poverty rate where bureaucrats can retire in their fifties with multi-million dollar pensions. 

This is what happens when you have an incompetent and corrupt city government and a citizenry that does not have a clue. This is how democracy dies, strangled by ignorance, debt and taxes.

Dave Howell
Chico, CA

These letters writers can smell a rat, even at the sewer plant

16 Oct

Sometimes I’m afraid that if I let my guard down for one minute the liars will win. There are more of them, and they get paid. I’m talking, of course, of our Downtown city $taff and their specious claims that the Camp Fire evacuees overran our town and are causing all kinds of “strain” on the system, necessitating a sales tax increase.

I’ll tell you this, I heard Chris Constantin tell a group at a Finance Committee meeting that we better jump on board with this increase while we have the Camp Fire refugees in town – he was talking about them like they were a herd of exotic cash cows, hardly a strain on the system.

I haven’t had a chance to look at last year’s sales tax revenues, but I’d bet my last $5, they’re way up, along with Utility Tax revenues. 

But both city manager Mark Orme and his partner in crime, Public Works Director  Eric Gustafson, have been pandering to the media with the repeated lie that the Camp Fire victims are causing all the city’s problems – Gustafson again crying about the sewer. The sewer is barely over half capacity, read the story again. And, look around you – the city has permitted new homes and apartments all over town – and that means permit fees and new property taxes.  And more money paid in sewer fees. 

Like letter writer Jim Hertl and Linda McCann, I know the truth to these claims – it’s the money. Staff not only wants a sales tax increase, they want to raise sewer fees on everybody. To pay for their fucking pensions, is the thing. 

And, as both writers point out, City of Chico staff was begging Paradise to hook up to our sewer system – what happened to that? Paradise opted out – and now the city of Chico has to come up with some other scheme to prop up a sewer fund that has been siphoned off to pay pensions for years. Along with the road fund, the park fund, and every fund on the city books. 

Thank you Jim Hertl and Linda McCann, for speaking up! We all need to start screaming at the top of our lungs – no tax or rate increase until the city manager and his staff are out, and new employees are hired who pay their own pensions.

In the Sunday E-R was an article that stated our sewer system is being “strained” by the population spike caused by the Camp Fire. If I recall, before the Camp Fire, there was talk of Chico treating ALL of Paradise wastewater because we had enough capacity at our treatment plant to do so. What happened, in the meantime, that our system is now being strained by the influx of 20,000 people from that same area? Is it just because of the “sudden influx”or are there other factors involved?— Jim Hertl, Chico

PUBLISHED:  

Jim Hertl brings up an interesting point regarding the “strain” on Chico’s sewer system. Even after the Camp Fire, the Paradise town council brought up the subject of sending our waste to Chico. Thankfully they opted to go with our own treatment plant. That would mean jobs for our people and give us control over our sewage.

Jim, I think the answer to you question can be summed up in one word: Money.

— Linda McCann, Paradise

Tags: , ,

Letter to editor – staff can’t fix streets but they offer up a skating rink? If it sounds like a lie, it probably is

13 Oct

I couldn’t believe staffer Brendan Ottoboni had the nerve to propose a discussion about an ice skating rink on the city’s new comments mechanism “Chico Engaged!” He and other staffers told the assembled contractors, landlords and other concerned citizens that the city has no money to fix existing streets, or even maintain them properly. “Chico Engaged” is inappropriate – it’s a way for staffers and others with gain to be made to sprinkle little ideas in the public head – like rainbows and lollipops, and skating rinks. It also gives the public the idea that council is listening – oh yeah, they’re listening, they’re listening to the public being duped. 

I had to write a letter about the crazy contradiction between a city that has no money to fix streets or maintain the park but seems to have plenty of money to throw at gimmicks like “Chico Engaged” and ice skating rinks. 

At a morning meeting Downtown, Public Works staffer Brendan Ottoboni stated there is no more money to maintain or fix city streets. He said streets that had been on the repairs list for years were being taken off due to lack of funds. 

So why would Ottoboni propose an ice skating rink on “Chico Engaged!”?  

Look at the agenda for council’s 10/15 meeting – Council will discuss giving management employees a raise while  putting a one cent sales tax measure on the 11/2020 ballot. When  a city  doesn’t even have the money to perform the most basic of services, why even consider giving raises to people already making four times the median income? 

Chico has over $138 million in pension liability. Staff recently established the completely restricted “Pension Stabilization Trust”, and this year have transferred over $1.2 million from other funds into the PST. Employees pay 15% or less of “their share,” paying nothing toward the PST. The sales tax increase, a simple majority measure requiring only 51% voter approval, will go into the general fund, available for salaries, benefits, and the PST. 

Tax measures are being proposed all over California to fund pension packages that were never approved by voters, made by elected officials who receive donations and other political support from employee unions.  The taxpayers even pay for the consultants who guarantee to get the measure passed.

Coincidentally, a tax measure consultant told City of Chico Finance Committee, “We offered them (Heavenly Valley) a skating rink…” and the measure passed.

 

 

 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →