On
Saturday morning, October 19, supporters of the newly proposed phone
tax, identified on the November ballot as Measure"V," will debate the
opponents of the Measure at the monthly breakfast meeting of the
Pacifica-Daly City Democrats.
"Yes on V" debaters will be Kalimah Salahudin, Measure "V" Campaign Manager, and Karen Ervin, Pacifica City Council member. "No on V" debaters will be local Pacifica residents and members of the Committee Against Higher Utility Taxes, Mark Stechbart and Jim Wagner. The moderator will be Barbara Arietta, Pacifica-Daly City Democrats' Club President.
And, although an individual application will be necessary, Measure "V" will continue the existing exemption availability for seniors to opt out. Measure "V" will also include strict fiscal accountability restrictions and is due to expire in eight (8) years and cannot be extended, increased or changed without voter approval.
"What is very important is the fact that all funds will stay within our city, the state cannot take a single penny," said Kalimah Salahudin.
"Sacramento has taken $26 million away from Pacifica since 1997. These 'takebacks' have harmed the city's ability to maintain the public safety and health services that Pacificans depend upon. We can't rely on the state to protect the services that make Pacifica one of the 100 safest cities in the United States. That is why Measure "V" is essential."
Read more...
Submitted by Bob Hutchinson
77 comments:
How can these people defend this Albatross? The whole thing stinks, from secret conception to full on deception. If I were Ervin I would keep my distance. What Mary Ann or Len didn't want to debate this? Smart.
You really need to drop the complaints about the $100k salaries. It's not having the impact you think it is. It's 2013. One can't buy even a condo here without a salary at least that high.
So all your new neighbors over the last decade are going to laugh at you for complaining about a few bucks here and there in phone tax, while they have to pay thousands of dollars more in property tax every year than the old timers are paying. That's the real unfairness.
908 You make an excellent point. That "they make too much" argument has always sounded petty and ignorant. Lots of voters make over $100K or are retired on union pensions. There are plenty of other valid reasons to Vote No and those should be the focus.
Just an FYI. According to the Yes on V website FAQS, an existing UUT senior exemption will also apply to the new UUT. No new application required if one is already on file.
Anon, don't count on anything being automatic. 12 pages of text, two columns per page, to "explain" this ordinance. Read it and weep.
Wow the yes side is out in full force. They must sense that they're losing. You really think most Pacificans make over $100K? The median household income in Pacifica is about $95,000. With an average of two people in each household that's a little over $45,000.
But that doesn't really matter. If the city can't afford these wages then they need to negotiate some real reductions like so many other Bay Area cities have done. Don't come to the tax-payers.
1. City has a 1.5 million reserve, they don't need this
2. City will waste this as they have in the past
3. This will hurt struggling Pacificans & families
4. City lied in the past about where money will go
5. Chamber of Commerce has come out against it
6. They made no Real reductions in spending
7. $500 cap for business, no cap for individuals
8. If you bundle they will tax TV and cable too
9. They have not made real reductions in wages
10. With the sneaky way they held a fake phone poll, spent $55,000 of our money without asking, had secret meetings, targeted seniors: they have lost all trust and don't deserve to be handed more money.
I can go on
Retired Pacifica City Engineer, Scott Holmes, has been and will continue to receive over $100,000 tax dollars per year for the rest of his life.
No new taxes should be approved to fund this irresponsible governance.
City Hall called a fiscal emergency to get this tax pushed through. Now they say they have a surplus or reserve. Clearly city council can not be trusted.
Vote NO!
9:08
The gang of no have Bray out bashing city salaries. Every city has payroll and pension issues. Hell even Safeway has an underfunded pension problem.
Now a few more people have been complaining about high city salaries. Sounds alot like sour grapes, you all should have applied for a fat cushy $100,000 dollar a year city job.
The gang of no will never admit they bankrupted the city, by delaying nearly every project proposed.
This city council is just as sneaky and back room deal as any other council we have had. The names change but the song remains the same.
Stechbart is one of the toughest debaters known. Would not want to be against him.
The strategy of the yes side seems to be divide and conquer. They are here saying this is the NIMBY's against this tax and they are over on Riptide saying the pro building people are behind the no side.
Truth be told this is the first time in a long time that everyone (almost) on all sides of all issues agree this tax is bad.
756 Yeah, those pensions are comfy. Pacifica has 4 or 5 retirees collecting over $100K. Most are retired Pacifica PD. With the inevitable upward march of salaries, we can expect the $100K pension club to grow and grow and grow. I believe Pacifica has failed to include the cops in the two-tier pension plans that would put the brakes on this disaster-in-progress. Rolled out two-tier for other city depts, but didn't touch public safety unions. Unchecked salaries and bloated pensions, courtesy of an incompetent city council.
1139 Perhaps it's more likely that just as the No group is very diverse, so is the Yes group. The Yes tactic I find much more disturbing is planting the idea that voting yes means you love Pacifica and are willing to pay for being part of the community. Smarmy, but it will stir the emotions with some folks...pride, pay for what you get, protect your home and family. It's wrap it in a flag stuff and people are susceptible. The irony is that if you really care about Pacifica you want a self-sustaining city with a healthy economy, not some kind of whacky, dysfunctional co-operative run like a KQED pledge drive. Can't you just see this Council sitting up there with a phone next to each one? Make no mistake, these are tax and spenders. They'd be right at home. And their attitude is taking hold with Pacificans.
1038 How clever of the Yessie braintrust to put Karen Ervin and Kalimah Salahudin in the ring with those two bad-boy bruisers. Guess they couldn't find a couple of elderly nuns. It's not a debate and the ladies can't lose.
"Stechbart is one of the toughest debaters known. Would not want to be against him."
Hahahaha, written by the man himself no doubt. Hahahaha.
@Anon 12;12..When reading your comment about Two Tier retirements with the Police.. GREAT idea!!! But I looked at there contract or MOU (on-line) and it appears they have Three Tier's in the contract to address the pension issues. So your information is not accurate and you should not post bad informaiton like that.
Stechbart and Wagner think they're the smartest person in the room, Ervin actually is.
"Without increase the current rate" is just one of a long list of dishonest statements. No they are not increasing the rate they ARE taxing a whole new set of vital services. You already cannot take a hot shower or cook a meal without paying the City its pound of flesh, now if you need to make a doctors appointment or talk to you kids teacher the City gets a payday. Enough is enough. Vote no on V.
Quick poll, who on this blog has actually read the ordinance? Be honest. Some of us have and we'll call you out.
More importantly, who touting a yes vote has read it?
If they get away with this scam, they'll be back for your CATV and anything else that isn't nailed down.
Cable TV is already included with this as well as internet if you bundle services with Comcast or AT&T.
From Measure V:
"Bundling taxable items with non- taxable items.
If any nontaxable charges are combined with and not separately stated from taxable service charges on the customer bill or invoice of a service supplier, the combined charge is subject to tax unless the service supplier identifies, by reasonable and verifiable standards, the portions of the combined charge that are nontaxable and taxable"
Holy crap 311! You're right about the police. As mentioned in the MOU you cite, PEPRA (Public Employees Pension Reform Act)mandates that effective 1/1/13 all new safety employees hired after that date will have retirement benefits of 2.7%@57 instead of 3%@50 or 55. Appears to apply to police officer and police supervisor bargaining units but not police mgmt which still appears to be 3%@50 for those hired before 6/30/10 and 3%@55 if hired after 7/1/10.
Council failed to make any real headway with public safety contracts over the years. Thank Governor Brown and the State Assembly for applying the brakes to almost all public employee pensions. Unfortunately, PEPRA is intended to work slowly over 30 years to trim pensions and save 55 Billion dollars as employees move thru the pension system, replacing more expensive "classic" employees with "new" cheaper employees. We can expect retired Pacifica public safety employees to continue to join the CalPERS $100K Pension Club. It will take decades to see any benefit from the lower rate for new hires--if it isn't all offset by those nice salary increases along the way. Our best hope may lie in the courts where San Jose and San Diego are fighting to cut current pensions. Time will tell, but Pacifica doesn't have 30 years to fix its payroll and pension problem. Not sure the Governor can do much more for us.
My understanding is that both Comcast and AT&T will meet the requirement to identify the taxable and non-taxable charges based on what the city tells them. If the scam passes, we'll see how that works, won't we? Other cities further along in their UUT evolution have seen Cable added in a 3rd step with the overall rate being dropped to induce passage. No reason not to lower it since the big bucks are in cable, etc.
Quick poll. Who read it and understands what they read?
Anon 9:33, can you verify your "understanding" with any facts? Have these companies told anyone that this is what they will do? And how much will they charge the city for breaking these charges out and collecting the tax? Looks like another payday for ATT and Comcast on our dime. Everyone gets to suckle at the tit of the taxpayer.
The whole measure was purposely written to be confusing. It does not make it clear that this is a tax on phones.
All I need to know is this will cost me about $200 a year, they have an over 1.4 M surplus, and they lied before about where tax money will go.
The city council will move this tax on every utility, garbage, water, etc etc
Wait till you get and open your property tax bill.
My sewer tax went up 30%!
743 Uh, that's how it works in other cities. Call around. Pacifica may be the armpit of the universe, but it's still in the universe.
I sure hope the NO on V brain trust doesn't copy the sleazy Yes campaign using half-truths, innuendo and misinformation. It's not necessary and it's glaringly obvious.
It never fails to amaze me that supporters of this tax, and every other money grab this city can think of, always blame it on the state taking away money. Since 1997according to this article. 1997. You'd think someone at city hall would have noticed. It wasn't a one time deal, it was a pattern, a freaking habit. Even if we elected hermit cave dwellers, didn't one council pass that info on to the next? I'm thinking, yes! The fools chose to ignore the problem because it's easier and less of a battle to beg from the taxpayers. That's a habit we taxpayers need to help them break. Vote NO on V and any other schemes put before us until we see real revenue- producing development. Failing that, they can make more cuts.
Help your Pacifica City Council break their nasty habit. Vote No on V.
No on V is already using half-truths and misinformation. Just witness the above lie about a "surplus."
AnonOpportunist@111
You're hiding behind semantics. The terms surplus and reserve have been used and misused by both sides. That doesn't change the basic truth behind No on V...Pacifica isn't broke, we've had less in reserve in the past, and this UUT scam is unnecessary.
Are you looking for where your tax dollars went? Where the UUT money will go? Check out the fabulous PensionTsunami website. Find your way to the $100K Calpers Pension Club, Pacifica Chapter, and enjoy!
You'll see some familiar names. Just 8 Pacifica retirees so far, including Saunders, Holmes, Ruchames, but the $100K Pension Club is going to grow. Pacifica Chapter pensions range from $102K to $148K. Yearly COLAs are part of the Calpers deal for every retiree. We can expect the lowly $80 to $90K bunch to break through within a few years.
Since 2005, the Calpers $100K Club has seen a 700% growth rate. Grew from less than 2000 members to nearly 15,000 in less than a decade. How'd that happen? Elected officials, like our city council, allowed the explosive growth of salaries, and, far worse, they sweetened the retirement formula for one union contract after another. Of course, our elected officials shared in the feast.
Pension reform like PEPRA, thus far, has really only addressed new hires (after 1/1/13). Meanwhile, the party goes on, big buck boomers are retiring, the $100K Club grows, and their appetite is insatiable. Make no mistake, that's what Measure V is about.
Is it any wonder that unions support tax measures like V with money and volunteers? They'll eat everything in sight and Council can't or won't stop them. Vote No on V!
As far as present budget concenrs go, it doesn't matter how many expensive pensioners the city of Pacifica has because Pacifica doesn't pay a dime of those retiree's pensions. They get paid out of the calpers fund. The city will never pay another dime for their pensions.
Over the course of the employee's career, the employee and city contributed to the fund, the fund made investments, and now the retiree's get the benefit promised them based on their contribution rate (I.e. police pensions required higher contributions by the employee and city than did non-safety employees because the future pension was going to be higher).
Thank you anon 5:15 for exposing another No on V lie.
Huh? What are you talking about anon 6:11? Can you tell us who you really are?
We never said anything about this money going to pensions. And BTW Pacifica taxpayers had to take out a 20 million dollar bond to pay pension shortfalls so we do still have pension obligations even after paying the first time.
It is the city and the yes side that out and out lied in writing on the ballot and said there is no 1.4 million dollar reserve/surplus. Well that's kind of true, it's more like 1.8 million. http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5715
They also wrote this measure to be so confusing people wouldn't know it's a tax on phones.
And don't forget the fake phone poll, secret meetings, $55,000 wasted without asking the public.
What a crock. Anyone who thinks you can separate the last decade's explosive growth in public employee salaries and the pensions that go with those salaries from Pacifica's chronic fiscal mess is peddling Measure V. And peddling hard. Tough luck, you can't erase the trail that led us to this mess and salaries and pensions are and will continue to be prominent landmarks. Taxpayer dollars pay those salaries and pensions, past, present and future. Dice and splice it any way you want, it's taxpayers who pay for public employees. Shifting a small part of the load to some employees is a recent and ongoing struggle. Taxpayers are the public employee's social security system and we've been a lot more generous than the federal gov't has been with us.
A job in the public sector once meant meant modest, stable salaries that were augmented by guaranteed but unspectacular pensions. Not any more. Public employees now earn highly competitive salaries and pensions that dwarf anything available to most American workers. And you want more taxes from us?
And when your CalPERS pension fund investment scheme falls short--as in the current unfunded liability crisis--it is taxpayers who will make up the difference. Take a look at the website called PensionTsunami. Pacifica isn't alone, but here we do have a chance to reinforce the message and say not one more penny for salaries and pensions. Make do with what you've got. Vote NO on Measure V.
515 speaks like a true believer..."it doesn't matter how many expensive pensioners the city of Pacifica has...". Wish I could be so cavalier about taxpayer money and the spending thereof. I bet True Believer also doesn't care about how many expensive pensioners the City of Pacifica is going to have in the future. Wow, if only I could be so carefree.
Way to distort and lie, Hutch. The yes on V ballot argument said there is no surplus. It did not say there is no reserve. There is an important difference.
How the hell would the UUT funds not go for salaries? The ballot explanation says "to fund fire protection; emergency services: police protection blahblahblah. You can't do that and not be paying salaries. The money isn't held separately. I'm sure the oversight committee after the fact will be given reports that show the revenue and non-payroll corresponding expenditures but that's just moving the piles of beans around. That money will go for salaries and benefits and pensions. Count on it.
Hutch, don't you get bogged down in that ridiculous diversion.
As someone else here said "You're hiding behind semantics" We have 1.5+ M "General Fund budget is balanced without use of reserves"
We are hardly in an emergency situation as the council proclaimed in order to put this tax on the ballot.
Now why don't you tell us your name? Or are you affraid of the truth?
Yes on page 20 of the Sample Ballot
booklet in the Rebuttal section appears the statement "There is no $1.4 million budget surplus." True dat, it's right there. What should have also been there, in the interest of honest and full disclosure, would be another statement about what the $1.4 million actually is. Of course, that kind of honesty could of cost Measure V some votes. Better not to go there, right? Was that the consultant's advice or home-grown?
9:51, the city does not pay for pensioners. It pays contributions only for existing employees. Once a worker retires, the city no longer contributes to their pension cost. That's why I said it doesn't matter how many retirees there are or what they are being paid by calpers.
Was that Bernie M at 515?
Yeah, sure. What a playful bunch you V supporters are. Word games with reserve and surplus and then you and your time travel in pension-land. Bet you just love the idea of a library bond indebting future generations for a relic.
Taxpayers pay for those salaries and pensions and the investment shortfall and future salaries and more pensions. It never stops. Pension reform is a battleground and every nickel of pension contribution shifted from the employer to the employee often requires other costly concessions.
No one can or will guarantee us that revenue from Measure V won't go towards salaries and pensions. Why? Because it will.
LMAO Taxpayers paid for the pensions and salaries, we pay again when Calpers is short, and we pay most and sometimes all of the contribution for people working now. There is never a time when we taxpayers aren't paying for public employees pensions and salaries. And damn! We have done a good job.
5:15 and 10:22 Sound exactly like statements I've heard from Mary Ann. "the city does not pay for pensioners" They are probably either city officials or someone close to them,
9:52 sounds like Peter Loeb. He was saying the same thing over on Riptide about misusing the words surplus and reserve.
You know Peter was pushing this UUT tax a couple of years ago. I think he supports it from what I've read from him lately.
755 You sure about that? I thought 515 was Bernie Madoff. You know it kind of a has that "Yes, I've stolen your money, but, since I'm not stealing anything at this very second, I am not a thief" quality to it. You know what I mean? But you could be right.
Our grass roots campaign is on track.
Our signs are all over town now. We've got some left if you are in a heavy traffic area.
Also notice some big banners going up. One on hwy 1 north going up the hill thanks to Andy Pappas.
More flyering going right now too.
Without the taxpayer, there is no city. Without the city, there is no salary. Without the salary, there is no pension.
Sometimes this gets forgotten at City Hall.
I don't think Bernie Madoff is blogging just now but he'd love CalPERS and public employee pensions. It's the Ultimate Ponzi Scheme. Money from new players goes to pay off old players. No need to hunt for new customers because there's a steady supply of public employers with real deep pockets. Make a bad bet? Not to worry because those pockets are on continuous refill from a never-ending stream of taxpayer dollars shoveled in by eager politicians and their pals, the unions. This is Ultimate Ponzi.
But this is how democracy works!
Give it a chance.
Calpers is a little underfunded at this point but of course would be perfectly well off if the private sector, specifically the banking industry, hadn't wiped out the housing market and stock market five years ago (and then taken taxpayer bailouts). We can complain about the public sector all we want but the private sector does pretty good at robbing the taxpayer, too.
I really don't get the problem with pensions. It's just part of the worker's total compensation package. Yes, the city may contribute 12% of salary or something like that, but without the pension system they'd be paying 6.5% for social secrutiy and probably matching another 5% in 401k comtributions for damn near the same total that the pension system costs the city instead.
In other words, pensions haveI a dollar cost to the city just like the hourly wage or health insurance or 401k match or social security tax or whatever else does. That total amount is either too much or not enough. As people continually companion about the quality of city employees, perhaps it is too little pay to attract the best workers?
How about we just scrap all these silly little taxes and have one big property tax based solution? Here's why cities don't have the money we need them to have in order to create a beautiful, safe, healthy place to live: because of prop 13, people are consuming 2013 services, but paying taxes that lag behind by decades. For example, I was looking at a listing for a house in Vallemar, likely to sell for $600k and was last sold in 1974 for $33k and still only pays taxes on $58k value! Meanwhile, his neighbor two houses down is paying taxes on a $660k value. Here they are, consuming the same services, enjoying the same city, but the first guy is putting about $75 a year into the city budget while the other guy puts $1000. (the city gets 15% of property taxes).
Everyone should be paying their fair share. But how about we all agree to pay at least half of our fair share? How about all property owners that aren't paying at least $500 a year in property taxes to Pacifica (that would be anyone who has a straight property tax bill of less than $3333/yr. before sewer and school taxes etc.) get out their check book and contribute their fair share to the city. Then maybe we could afford to maintain a modern city and take it into the future.
At the very least, I don't want to hear any cries of being over taxed from anyone not paying at least that much.
7:57
How many long time owners cashed out between 2004-2008?
Your tax is called: sewer tax!
647 Could you possibly stick your head any deeper in the sand? Got a conflict of interest? Tax and spender? The public employee pension mess has been discussed here and elsewhere in detail. That will continue, and the more attention the issue receives, the more outraged the taxpayers become because the abuses and inequities are truly outrageous. But you're never going to see that with your head buried so very deep in the sand.
Let's just wish all the best to Chuck Reed, Mayor of San Jose, in his efforts to place on the 2014 ballot a statewide constitutional measure to empower local governments to trim pension benefits for all current employees. He's challenging the "vested rights" doctrine that has blocked even the most modest pension reform involving current employees. Private industry pensions have no such protection. Mayor Reed has had some success in pension reform in his city. In 2012
his measure to have city workers pay an additional 16% of their salaries towards their retirement was passed with more than 70% voter approval. The obligatory union challenge is now before a judge. Fingers crossed. SJ has a 3 BILLION dollar unfunded pension liability. Unions can have their heads in the sand, too.
Meanwhile Gov. Brown has enacted PEPRA (Public Employee Pension Reform Act) to reduce pension levels for employees hired after 1/1/13. The Governor isn't finished. The unions are spending big bucks to fight all pension reform. And of course, they'll toss a few bucks to support local tax measures. The public employee unions know where the money from Measure V will go, and it ain't potholes!
757 How about we encourage a little revenue-producing development instead of rewriting tax laws? Nobody lives forever. Prop 13 will die a natural death. Pacifica will die a slow, ugly death unless we change our anti-growth ways. And, yes, we are still anti-growth, but now we're more politically cunning about it.
LMAO @647 Was that a preview of the pro V side of the debate? And 757? Talking points?
*The bankers did it.
*After CalPERS unfunded liability hit 75 billion we stopped counting.
*My $150K annual CalPERS pension is really no different than your $30k annual social security except that you fund and guarantee mine.
*Today's salary determines tomorrow's pension-I want a raise.
*Let's repeal Prop 13, the most popular legislation in the history of man-I want a raise.
I'm hoping for a food fight.
Well hopefully Mayor Reed of San Jose will get his initiative on the ballot and we can start really reforming these unfunded unsustainable pensions.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23700151/san-jose-mayor-seeks-change-state-pension-law
$30,000 SSI? You're being too generous, Most people I know are getting $1500 a month. No private unions have any guarantees on their tiny pensions. We should not float another 20M bond to pay this crap.
"Unfunded liability," is just a scare tactic by the 1% to convince the population to vilify public workers instead of the financial industry.
I guess my mortgage is an unfunded liability, too.
Hutch said...
"1. City has a 1.5 million reserve, they don't need this"
For years many of the supporters of the No on V campaign expressed their concern about the city dipping into the reserve to balance the budget. Even going so far as to note that it has been fiscally irresponsible of the council to not have one All of a sudden it's no longer necessary.
At the current level, the reserve that is being rebuilt, is below the benchmark of cities having a 10% - 20% reserve that has been discussed at council (budgeting and FCSTF) meetings. Glad to see it being put back in place.
And we built up this 1.8 M reserve without a phone tax. Isn't that something.
116 Yeah, and without any development. Given a choice, our city councils will always opt for a tax. That hasn't changed. Addicts. Give 'em tough love. Vote NO on V.
1054 I know what you mean, but it's the approx. maximum benefit currently available from Social Security. 35 years of high earnings, lots of six-figure years, then retire at full-retirement age and you can walk away with a great big $30K per year. A public employee with that earnings profile would walk away with 8 to 10 times the loot and at a younger age. And then become a consultant!
From the economic chaos and loss of individual wealth of the Great Recession, a powerful new economic class has emerged in CA...the public pension class. No investment losses for them with the taxpayer as their safety net.
1012 No one is rejecting the importance of a healthy reserve. What is unacceptable is thinking that we can tax our way into a healthier reserve. It won't work. Apparently, we've put in office a crew that wants to take the tax route to fiscal health. Have they given up on development already or are we just seeing their true colors? Vote No on V. It's not a solution.
Developing our way to fiscal health is not a solution. It will never happen.
@541 We've never tried it. Why not give it a shot? If it fails or falls short, the taxpayers will still be here, and they might be more agreeable if a balanced approach was taken instead of just talked about. Endlessly.
Read with great pleasure on Riptide today a notice of a city study session for a proposed mixed-use project on The Rock overlooking One near Fassler. The opposition has already begun. "It's too tall." Looks like 63 units and some retail or office space. Godspeed, little builder.
@541 Gosh, that sounds like the true slogan to pass Measure V. You know, the one they don't dare use.
Anonymous at 4:02 said...
"1012 No one is rejecting the importance of a healthy reserve. What is unacceptable is thinking that we can tax our way into a healthier reserve. It won't work. Apparently, we've put in office a crew that wants to take the tax route to fiscal health. Have they given up on development already or are we just seeing their true colors? Vote No on V. It's not a solution."
The Yes on Measure V campaign hasn't suggested an approach of no smart development. During meetings it has been stated that as projects are coming on the boards and to fruition (Palmetto, Beach Boulevard for example) a bridge is needed to get us there, these won't provide revenue in the next fiscal year. The eight year timeframe for the expanded UUT will do just that.
Why is the yes on V side so sneaky and secretive conducting an undercover campaign? Why do they try to fool voters into thinking this isn't a tax. If their cause is so just why were they trying to sneak this through without people knowing?
If it smells and looks like crap...
If you want to be upfront why don't you tell us who you are 834?
People opposing this ridiculous tax aren't afraid to say so in public. Go check out our Facebook group. Why are all your people hiding if you're not trying to deceive voters? Was that the strategy, to run a stealth campaign trying to fool seniors into voting yes?
So now the UUT tax will go to the reserve? I thought it was for sidewalks and cops? Are you sure it's not raises for city employees? Scouts honor?
Please not another tax bridge.
Year after year we are told just trust us it will only be five or eight or ten more years. Pick a number any number as long as the rubes buy-in an cough up more of their hard earn money.
No more false promises.
NO PHONE TAX.
I trust council enough to pass this tax for five years, but not enough for eight.
834 We differ on what is smart development. Palmetto and Beach Blvd are not about revenue. Palmetto will not become a magnet for tourists and business. A library on the Beach Blvd property really illustrates that the ideology that crippled this town 10years ago is alive and well in city hall today.
Measure V isn't a bridge, it's a surrender. It's politicians doing what comes natural. Let's roll the dice. No on V.
They want to raise a million bucks with this thing? When do we get that notice of rate change from CalPERS? Don't you worry, retired city employees, us taxpayers got you covered. It's the law.
Post a Comment