Tag Archives: Mark Sorensen City of Chico CA

Here’s who opposes the TPGAA – the California Special Districts Association wants public agencies to be able to tax us at will for whatever they want

20 Mar

https://www.csda.net/advocate/take-action/voterlimitations

I love the URL for this article – yes, it’s about limiting the voters’ rights. A lot of government agencies seem to think the voters have too many rights. Tsk. Tsk.

The purported “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” a statewide initiative measure to amend the California Constitution sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (“CBRT”), is the most consequential proposal to limit the ability of the state and local governments to enact, modify, or expand taxes, assessments, fees, and property-related charges since the passage of Proposition 218 (1996) and Proposition 26 (2010). If enacted, public agencies would face a drastic rise in litigation that could severely restrict their ability to meet essential services and infrastructure needs.

That last line isn’t a fact, it’s a threat. If we pass this measure, government agencies around California are saying they’ll cut services again. They won’t cut their salaries, or their outrageous benefits, they won’t pare down their management heavy staff – they’ll turn and bite the hand that feeds them. Just like the French public workers, faced with a later retirement age (65), they are burning garbage in the streets of Paris. We already have that here, so what’s to lose?

On February 1, 2023, California Secretary of State Shirly Weber issued a memo to all county clerks/registrars of voters announcing that proponents of Initiative 21-0042A1, or Initiative 1935 as now numbered by the Secretary of State, had filed the necessary number of valid signatures to make it eligible for the November 5, 2024 General Election ballot. Proponents now have until June 27, 2024 to consider withdrawing the initiative before the Secretary of State officially certifies it for the ballot.

And here they are asking other agencies, like the City of Chico, to join them. Mark Sorensen carried this invitation to Chico City Council two weeks ago but they threw it out for reasons undisclosed.

CSDA has joined a coalition of local government leaders in adopting an Oppose position on Initiative 21-0042A1 and encourages all special districts, partners, and community leaders to join the coalition by passing a board resolution. Once approved, please email your resolution to advocacy@csda.net and consider issuing a press release to local media. Individuals may also register their opposition with the growing coalition by emailing their name, title, and organization.

This is the kind of stuff that is carried on behind our backs constantly. Sorensen brought this “resolution” forward on the Consent Agenda, hoping for no conversation in front of the public. Kasey Reynolds, on the advice of her mentor James Gallagher, pulled the plug on it, asking to table it. Last week the city clerk informed me that Sorensen would no longer be pursuing the resolution. Just like that.

Here’s the opposition’s argument against the TPGAA:

Ballot Initiative 21-0042A1 would result in the loss of billions of dollars annually in critical state and local funding, restricting the ability of local agencies and the State of California to fund services and infrastructure by:

1) Adopting new and stricter rules for raising taxes, fees, assessments, and property-related fees. 2)Amending the State Constitution, including portions of Propositions 13, 218, and 26 among other provisions, to the advantage of the initiative’s proponents and plaintiffs; creating new grounds to challenge these funding sources and disrupting fiscal certainty. 3)Restricting the ability of local governments to issue fines and penalties to corporations and property owners that violate local environmental, water quality, public health, public safety, fair housing, nuisance and other laws and ordinances.

The initiative includes provisions that would retroactively void all state and local taxes or fees adopted after January 1, 2022 if they did not align with the provisions of this initiative. This may also affect indexed fees that adjust over time for inflation or other factors. Effectively, it would allow voters throughout California to invalidate the prior actions of local voters, undermining local control and voter-approved decisions about investments needed in their communities.

would result in the loss of billions of dollars annually in critical state and local funding – the only funding that is threatened are revenues from taxes that were passed without a full two-thirds voter approval. Two-thirds approval was mandated by the voters under Prop 13, but the legislature, behind our backs, went to cutting it out over the past few years. The only funding they will lose is funding they took illegally. In the case of the city of Chico, we hounded them for a 2/3’s measure – here’s the news – I was ready to support a 2/3’s measure! But they went the illegal route, they should have known better.

1) Adopting new and stricter rules for raising taxes, fees, assessments, and property-related fees. The 2/3’s rule is NOT NEW. Yes, it’s stricter than the loosey goosey rules the legislature put in place of voter mandated minimums, and that’s a good thing. See the way they twist the truth? Here’s a pretty blatant lie – ” Amending the State Constitution, including portions of Propositions 13, 218, and 26 among other provisions, to the advantage of the initiative’s proponents and plaintiffs..”

The TPGAA DOES NOT AMEND Prop 13, 218, or 26, it RESTORES provisions removed by the legislature without the approval of the voters. The opponents go on to insinuate that it’s a bad thing for the voters to challenge these illegal taxes. Oh Sweet Paul Revere.

I don’t know where they got #3 – sounds like something they pulled out of their ass to attract the environmentalists – don’t fall for it.

That last paragraph is a mouthful of hooey. Yes, this measure would void those taxes initiated without 2/3s approval – whether local or state legislature – after January 2022. This statement is absurd: “Effectively, it would allow voters throughout California to invalidate the prior actions of local voters, undermining local control and voter-approved decisions about investments needed in their communities.

That is just not true. This measure would allow agencies to bring an illegal tax back as a ballot measure, and give the voters a chance to give it full approval instead of sliding it under the wire with 50% + 1 vote. A “simple” majority isn’t democracy, it’s arm-twisting, mob rule, and usually to the benefit of public employees, who get all the money.

Chico City Council knew when they were crafting Measure H and putting it on the ballot as a simple measure that they couldn’t get full voter approval. Why would they want a tax that doesn’t have full voter approval? Remember: a 2/3’s measure is also restricted to certain uses, and they didn’t want to be restricted in their spending. It’s a pay-to-play environment they’ve created Downtown and they like it that way.

For further reading, here’s a piece by Dan Walters that explains a lot about how they do business Downtown.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/03/pay-to-play-law-california/

Tags: ,

The state of our city is disgraceful

30 Jan

At yesterday’s “State of the City” address, Mayor Sorensen admitted that pension liability is the biggest problem we face, that only 51 of our 400 and something employees are under the new “post retirement reform” laws (meaning they pay 50 percent of  their own benefits instead of 9 percent like the others), but cried like a baby that we “have no control” over the situation.  Soon we will be paying 41 percent of their pensions, while most of our employees pay 9 percent. We’ll pay more next year, and the year after that. We don’t have the money – that’s why they call it a “liability.” 

Sorensen even had the nerve to say, the city is putting their “deficit” to bed soon. If you look over the meeting agendas of late, you will see how they have separated the pension deficit from the budget – a second set of books – to hide the millions we owe on pensions for long-gone city employees. 

Mayor Sorensen might be a master chef and book cooker, but his daddy must have been a glassmaker, cause we can see right through him.  Although, I don’t think Sorensen can see past the end of his own nose. He simply has to protect the pensions, because he’s going to get one when he retires from his job as city manager of the little town in the orchards, Biggs.

Knowing people in town are pissed off about the condition of city and neighborhood streets, letter after letter asking that the Esplanade be left alone, and just another letter this morning describing our City Plaza as a “refugee camp,” Sorensen apparently didn’t touch those subjects. Fair weather mayor. Instead he’s going to spend a bazillion more dollars on gadgets for the cop shop. 

Like Nextdoor, the website that was touted as a kind of “Neighborhood Watch” on the computer? A big crime fighting tool? I wouldn’t know, apparently I was held out of most conversations because I did not have a “neighborhood group.” None of my neighbors were joining, nor were they interested. When I asked to be added to another group they simple never responded.  So,  I was left out of most conversations, left with general postings like, yard  sales, ad for local services, now and then a report of a suspicious activity, and meandering chatterfests about what neighbors were doing that would come to a halt as soon as somebody got their nose out.

Frankly, I began to wonder – are there even 100 Chicoans signed up for this service?

Then, after I’d been signed on about a month,  they sent me the notice about their “privacy” practices, including this blurb about cookies:

Server Logs. We automatically collect information created by your visits to our website and use of our apps, your use of Nextdoor, and your interaction with the messages we send. This information may include the browser you are using, the URLs you came from and go to, the model of your computer or mobile device, the operating system version, IP address and protocol used by your computer or mobile device, your mobile device or app identifier, and usage and browsing habits. We use this information to provide and improve our Services, to diagnose and resolve problems, to analyze trends, to help target offers and other ads (if and where applicable), to monitor aggregate usage, and to gather broad (aggregate) demographic information.

You can configure your browser to reject cookies, but doing so will prevent you from logging into our website. Our systems are not configured to accept browsers’ Do Not Track signals.”

So, I realized, this was the entire idea behind Nextdoor – gathering data for advertising. Wow.  And, I never found any useful news – I know there are car break-ins and other property crimes going on within a mile of my house but nothing ever turned up on Nextdoor.  My husband and I are able to find out more about what’s going on in our neighborhood simply by taking a rake out to our front yard and puttering around for half an hour. We also walk the hood at different times of night and day, we try to stay in touch with our neighbors. Having face time with neighbors is probably the best way to keep your hood safe.

Chico PD has credited chatter on “social networking sites” with helping them solve certain crimes, but they’ve never named Nextdoor so I don’t know what sites they’re talking about. I’m sure they watch Facebook, I’m guessing it looks like a scene from “Batman Forever”.

Take a good look, this is what you look like to passersby when you’re texting. So much for technology and crime fighting.

I didn’t hear Sorensen’s whole speech, I had to rely on the media! I didn’t hear him talk about the crime rate. But I did read a back page story about a guy who was just arrested in October for stealing a car – grand theft auto – furthermore, assault on a “police animal” – and just got arrested for essentially the same thing again this week.

http://www.chicoer.com/general-news/20160129/chico-police-nab-man-allegedly-spotted-in-stolen-pickup

In fact, Anthony Raymond Beck seems to bust out and steal a car quite frequently. In 2013 he was arrested and convicted for stealing a  car under the influence of drugs and booze, causing injury and property damage, but let out on probation in January 2014. By March he had violated his probation, arrested again for obstructing a police officer. He was arrested three times within a week in April 2015, released “O/R” each time, even after found with burglary tools.

He was arrested a total of six times in 2015, found with drugs and needles, burglary tools, under the influence, with stolen cars, yadda, yadda, yadda.

And now another stolen car. This guy is a crime spree. Why is he still out there, endangering the public safety? 

The cops will tell you it’s because these crimes have been lowered to misdemeanors by the voters. The jail is overcrowded, and they are forced to release criminals without serving a sentence, because of the voters.

No, it’s because their salaries and benefits eat the budget so that we can’t build a decent and sufficient jail. Now we are told we must pass a bond to pay for improvements at the jail or we will be at the mercy of criminals.

I feel like we’re at the mercy of the public workers. When will we get these people to do the right thing, pay their own way? 

 

Tags: ,

Mayor Sorensen, I never said you got any money from the cops, I said they spent money electing you, and all it takes is one look at the reports to see the truth

20 Apr

 

Letter: ‘Police department money’ not a factor in election
POSTED: 04/18/15, 9:23 PM PDT |0 COMMENTS
Juanita Sumner’s reference to thousands of dollars of “police department money” influencing the 2014 Chico City Council campaign is simply false.In truth the Chico Police Officers Association (CPOA) spent a whopping $100.50 in the 2014 election to pay to rent the Council Chambers for a candidate forum which was open to the public.

In my 2014 campaign I received exactly $0 from the CPOA; $0 from Chico police officers, past or present; $0 from labor unions; and received $0 “police department money.”As for the independent expenditure committee (which had a former police chief as a figurehead and the issues of rising crime and dwindling police staffing among its concerns), it received exactly $0 from the CPOA; $0 from Chico police officers, past or present; $0 from labor unions; and $0 “police department money.” As always, all of the documentation is public record and is posted on the city website.

— Mark Sorensen, Chico

Here’s my letter Mark, read it again, LIAR!

 I was shocked by Chico councilwoman Reanette Fillmer’s ill-conceived and insensitive remark about approving another $1.46 million to Chico PD. She said, “you get what you pay for.”

Fillmer is mistaken – she gets what the taxpayers pay for.   Fillmer’s 2014 campaign was the run with 10’s of thousands in police department money. Now she, Sorensen and Coolidge, also the beneficiaries of generous donations from the police, have approved a new contract that allows more pay increases over the coming years. 
This is a clear conflict of interest, as pointed out by former city council candidate and one-time administrative law judge Joe Montes.  Montes dropped out of the 2014 campaign under mysterious circumstances, something about some other, unnamed people convincing him not to run. His charges of conflict of interest were never taken seriously. 
Fillmer is rude and insensitive to the taxpayers, obviously  knowing who  butters her bread. Will we get any accountability out of a council beholden to  public employee unions? I don’t think so.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

Here’s the link to the clerk’s campaign reports:

http://www.chico.ca.us/city_clerk/campaign_disclosure_files/currentyearcds.asp

Here’s the link to ex police chief Mike Maloney’s PAC reports:

http://www.chico.ca.us/city_clerk/campaign_disclosure_files/documents/ChicoCitizensCampaignDisclosureForms_Redacted.pdf

Here’s what it says right at the top of Form 496:

Chico Citizens for Accountable Government, supporting the election of Fillmer, Sorensen and Coolidge for Chico City council 2014

Mike Maloney is a retired cop who sits on a pension of over $100,000/year, plus health insurance and COLA. He ran the PAC that spent the most money electing Sorensen, more than Sorensen spent on himself! And Sorensen, our Mayor, who is supposed to be a beacon of morality, like Scott Gruendl and Mary Flynn before him, plays it exactly right! It’s true, he received no money from these PACs. What he forgets to mention, is that they spent money on him. 

Kinda reminiscent of Donald Sterling and his whore, isn’t it?  Well, get used to it, cause this is what you can expect from your “leaders” over the next four or so years.

I’m not going back to the newspaper to argue with Sorensen – judging from remarks posted on my letter, there are other people who’ve been watching local government for a long time who agree with me. Rick Clements disagrees with me, so that should prove I’m right 🙂

Meanwhile, I received a note recently saying the Nature Center hasn’t made one payment on their loan since the meeting where Sorensen told me  “That’s enough!” when I asked them for their books. Not to mention, the city just wrote off a few hundred thousand in bad loans given to home buyers through the low-income loan program. 

Ain’t it great to have Fiscal Conservative Mark Sorensen watching the cookie jar!

Tags: