 |
| Vote NO on Measure V, and tell your friends |
Seriously, do any of you
really want the city perusing your financial records? I see all kinds of legal
issues here, but, I’m not a lawyer so who knows. How will they keep your
records safe from prying eyes or even from being stolen?
The following is from the
text of the ordinance. Voters will be able to read this in its entirety if
their voter information pamphlet.
"Compiled by the Pacifica City
Clerk Ms. Kathy O'Connell City of Pacifica Council, may issue an administrative
subpoena to compel a person to deliver, to the Tax Administrator, copies of all
records deemed necessary by the Tax Administrator to establish compliance with
this chapter, including the delivery of records in a common electronic format
on readily available media if such records are kept electronically by the
person in the usual and ordinary course of business. As an alternative to
delivering the subpoenaed records to the Tax Administrator on or before the due
date provided in the administrative subpoena, such person may provide access to
such records outside the City on or before the due date, provided that such
person shall reimburse the City for all reasonable travel expenses incurred by
the City to inspect those records, including travel, lodging, meals, and other
similar expenses, but excluding the normal salary or hourly wages of those persons
designated by the City to conduct the inspection."
Oh, and there’s more of this little gem:
"If any person subject to record- keeping under this section unreasonably denies the Tax Administrator access to such records, or fails to produce the information requested in an administrative subpoena within the time specified, then the Tax Administrator may impose a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) on such person for each day following: (1) the initial date that the person refuses to provide such access; or (2) the due date for production of records as set forth in the administrative subpoena. This penalty shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed under this chapter. Sec. 3-11A"
Oh, and there’s more of this little gem:
"If any person subject to record- keeping under this section unreasonably denies the Tax Administrator access to such records, or fails to produce the information requested in an administrative subpoena within the time specified, then the Tax Administrator may impose a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) on such person for each day following: (1) the initial date that the person refuses to provide such access; or (2) the due date for production of records as set forth in the administrative subpoena. This penalty shall be in addition to any other penalty imposed under this chapter. Sec. 3-11A"
I wonder if council even knows this is in the ordinance. If they did and passed it anyway that's unconscionable!"
Jim WagnerPacifica Taxpayers Against Measure V
Reference - Pacifica Measure V, 6.5% telecommunications tax. Election 11/5/13, Full text, pdf 12 pages. Defeat the phone tax NO on V, Facebook. Merriam-Webster "telecommunication".
Submitted by Jim Wagner
Posted by Kathy Meeh
28 comments:
Sort of our own little Patriot Act.
The wording and punctuation are confusing, but I read it as, Council is the Tax Administrator and Council may issue an administrative subpoena for records. The City Clerk, Ms. Kathy O'Connell was the compiler of the info in this ordinance for the voter info pamphlet.
It's Council that would be snooping, not Kathy O'Connell. It figures. As far as any part of this scam being unconscionable, well, since when is that a problem for some members of this Council?
122 People who are willing to do anything to advance their agenda can be found on all sides of an issue. Any issue.
It's not O'Connell invading privacy. It's this Council acting for the City of Pacifica. Getting stuff like this crap ready for print is just part of the City Clerk's job. City Clerks typically leave the job with cynicism and deep scorn for most politicians. Small wonder.
There are a lot more little tidbits in this albatross. Need your phone repaired, that's taxed. I can't tell if you skype if that is taxed. Technically, they are taxing what you say. Somehow that just sounds extra wrong.
So, who exactly do they deputize?
It's all in the voter info pamphlet that is being received right about now. You'll note that at the top of each page it says "Compiled by the Pacifica City Clerk Ms. Kathy O'Connell". Thus far, that is the unremarkable extent of her involvement. Time, the election, and the City Manager will determine if she wins the booby prize title of Tax Administrator.
Page 9, Section 3-11A.03 Definitions item (s) says the City Manager appoints a City employee as Tax Administrator. No need yet.
Further on, service providers collect and remit the tax to the Tax Administrator.
Looks like the powers and duties of the Tax Administrator are partially covered on Page 15, Sec. 3-11A.14. Same page Sec. 3-11A.15 clearly states that Council, acting for the City, may issue an administrative subpoena to compel a person to deliver necessary records to establish compliance. Council drives the subpoena bus, not anyone else. Council.
Read your voter pamphlet. It's delightful. Every reason you need to vote NO! stated in plain, no spin English.
529 Deputize is such a colorful word. Imagery is everything, ya know? Couldn't find it in the voter
handbook. Did find under the Records section on 15-16 a provision to protect the confidentiality of customer records
if Council issues an administrative subpoena for those records. Who needs imagery when you know this tax will screw ya for eight long years, be wasted on salaries and consultants, and open the door to the addition of CCTV which is where the big bucks are found?
This paragraph in measure V means that if you bundle your phone, cable and internet they can tax the whole damn thing.
"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"
I've never seen a more poorly written measure.
Prepare to pay and don't think for a moment this will be the last UUT money grab. These parasites will bleed us dry to cover the city's payroll.
I thought it was illegal to tax the internet.
Hey look Baaahuey Bray is back at it.
PRA Request to Caltrans for Its Correspondence with City of Pacifica Riptide correspondent Todd Bray has requested disclosure from Caltrans of correspondence between the state transportation agency and the City of Pacifica. Below are some excerpts from Todd's colorfully worded Public Records Act request (edited for clarity and space):"Dear Mr. Suleiman: On June 24, 2013, former Pacifica city manager Stephen Rhodes wrote to Caltrans District 4 head honcho Bijan Sartipi in response to a letter from you asking for some sort of formal commitment by the City of Pacifica to pay for maintenance of a landscaped median if you were to plow Pacifica as part of the now-infamous Calera Parkway Project. I'm formally requesting to see the letter you sent Mr. Rhodes asking for a formal commitment to fund a landscaped median for the Calera Parkway Project. Consider this a PRA request. By law, you have 10 days to respond with a copy of the letter. As you know, the record of City Council action does not support Mr. Rhodes' assertions regarding a landscaped median, and that is easily provable. In fact, Mr. Rhodes' actions before leaving his position are actionable as a civil matter, and I may in time decide to pursue that course. Thank you for your time." - See more at: http://www.pacificariptide.com/#sthash.EKrca97a.dpuf
How do you get one of those lawn signs against this thing?
I just calculated my new tax. It's a little over $200 a year. Nice!
Woohoo! Now we're talking! Earlier this afternoon I heard someone run up my stairs and then scamper right back down. We can always tell the age/physical fitness of a visitor by how fast they take those stairs. On this hot, airless Sunday afternoon this was either a kid or a gym rat/wannabe. Anyhow, they dropped off a Vote No on V flyer. A very well-written flyer, no flaws, no prissiness. Just the irrefutable facts and numbers. Apparently, it's from the desk of Chuck Gerughty, CPA. Realtor, also, I think, but a bona fide, certified taxman. And a good one. Great execution, humble presentation, and perfect timing.
Much of my neighborhood is in that targeted 'senior' demographic this council hopes to fool with their sneaky bullshit. We'll all vote by mail real soon.
There is reason for hope! Thank you, Chuck and the entire crew. Hope you caught a cold beverage along the route.
I got one back in Park Pacifica. Right on! Scary stuff in this tax.
Over 50k spent by the city. Couldn't they have found a better place to spend that money rather than spend it attempting to fool us into taxing ourselves!
Where else are tax and spenders going to get more money? There is a basic deceit in this Council's methods and they are determined. Vote NO and get the NO vote out!
You can get lawn signs (busy streets please) and volunteer by contacting the Pacifica Taxpayers Against Measure V www.facebook.com/groups/DefeatPhoneTax
You can donate by dropping off a check or cash to US Bank or mailing checks to 1005-A Terra Nova Blvd
You can also call me at 738-4900 if you would like a lawn sign or some of the flyers.
You can also email me hutch@coastside.net
Anonymous 12:05pm
"How do you get one of those lawn signs against this thing?
I just calculated my new tax. It's a little over $200 a year. Nice!"
The tax I will pay is somewhat less, but then my income is also small. Too many want everything for cheap and free... things that are important cost something. I will reduce my expenses in other ways to do what's right for the city that I so enjoy living in.
"Woohoo! Now we're talking! Earlier this afternoon I heard someone run up my stairs and then scamper right back down. We can always tell the age/physical fitness of a visitor by how fast they take those stairs. On this hot, airless Sunday afternoon this was either a kid or a gym rat/wannabe. Anyhow, they dropped off a Vote No on V flyer. A very well-written flyer, no flaws, no prissiness. Just the irrefutable facts and numbers. Apparently, it's from the desk of Chuck Gerughty, CPA. Realtor, also, I think, but a bona fide, certified taxman. And a good one. Great execution, humble presentation, and perfect timing.
Much of my neighborhood is in that targeted 'senior' demographic this council hopes to fool with their sneaky bullshit. We'll all vote by mail real soon.
There is reason for hope! Thank you, Chuck and the entire crew. Hope you caught a cold beverage along the route."
Yes, it was probably a young person, since the No on Measure V campaign was soliciting high school kids to pay to do this work.
The document dropped off eludes to a "surplus" that doesn't exist, unless a reserve for emergencies, is now called surplus.
Another irrelevant post, diverting attention from the real issue. (Have a feeling that if we checked around this language and similar will be in most of the ordinances; doubtful it is frequently used.)
We have a great city and the residents of Pacifica, from seniors to kids, beach goers to chamber of commerce members, deserve quality programs and services. We are on the verge of positive change. Some posters here continue to be stuck in the past with old arguments and a seeming desire to throw obstacles in front of forward movement.
1043 Agree with you that stoking people's fears over loss of privacy of phone records if V passes is kind of a silly stretch, but what you advocate isn't moving forward. Not at all. Taxpayers aren't ATMs, particularly not Pacifica taxpayers. We're already paying plenty to keep this town going. This very disappointing Council needs to get tough with someone other than the taxpayers. And how about a little development? We're not exactly Chernobyl.
I would recommend reading your voter flyer from the county. over ten pages of text laying out this new ordinance. There IS scary stuff in there. You give someone supoena powers to order you to give you your financial records that's invasive. I guess some of the supporters think the IRS is a bastion of good intents until the get audited and dragged through the muck. I don't advocate giving the government any more police powers than they already have.
"Positive change"? 10:43, Are you saying measure V would be a positive change?
Would it be a "positive change" for the 1000's of families who's budgets this will hurt?
Are you believing the BS about this helping quality of life here? You do know the city promised the same with the fire assessment then went back on their word.
You know who this will be a "positive change" for? City employees who will all get raises after V passes.
736 What's the matter? Don't you think there's enough wrong with V to turn off the voters without bringing in Big Brother? Council can do anything they want with the money. That's reason enough to vote NO. Particularly if you've been here long enough to remember the old Fire Tax bait and switch.
Worried about the gov't seeing your phone records? Remember, the administrative subpoena powers lie entirely with Council. They lack the backbone such a high-profile, culpable action would require. It would be political kryptonite. Your civil liberties are safe. Rest easy.
No No No a thousand times No!
Waiting impatiently for my mail-in ballot so I can Vote NO on this scam.
Post a Comment