|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Proposition 22, which last week was endorsed by a number of local officials, including Pleasanton Mayor Jennifer Hosterman and Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Chief Jim Miguel is now running into opposition from county supervisors.
The proposition is meant to keep money for redevelopment, transportation and local projects and services in the hands of local government. But county officials say it could mean cuts to other parts of the state budget, like school funding and money for senior citizens.
John Gioia, Chairman of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and chairman of the Urban County Caucus, said the initiative “does not serve the interests of local government.”
“Prop 22 locks in particular areas of the government at the expense of others,” Gioia said in a telephone news conference Monday. “Cuts in other areas are going to be much deeper to achieve the savings.”
Among those cuts would be money to county governments, which he said depend largely on state money to operate. Gioia said the Contra County Fire District could lose $12 million in state funding if prop 22 passes.
“Ultimately, this measure also puts pressure on raising taxes,” he said.
Gioia was joined by Liz Kniss of the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, who said counties have already seen a 12% cut in funding. Kniss said Prop 22 would make counties and cities adversaries.
Kathy Long, chairwoman of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, said the proposition would have “unintended consequences,” specifically that county funding for health and human services and public safety would be cut.
The three county officials, along with Matt Rexroad of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, urged people to vote no on Prop 22, calling it ballot box budgeting.
“When you do this kind of lack of real reform, lack of real dialog …one that has a catchy title, Long said, “it’s disingenuous to all the voters.
Last week, Hosterman said Pleasanton had lost more than 100 million since the state’s policy, known as ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds), was implemented in the 1990s.
“”Ultimately, this measure also puts pressure on raising taxes,” he said.”
This statement is a matter of perspective. What does this guy think the agencies that have had money taken are doing? They’re putting tax-raising measures on the ballot!
It is inevitable that Prop. 22 is framed as pitting service X against service Y. What it really does is pit one set of public employee unions against another set and we can see that when looking at who is funding the yes and the no campaigns. Isn’t this what Bastiat warned about when he said producers are also consumers?
I’m still undecided on Prop. 22.
I’m still undecided on Prop. 22, which usually means I’ll vote no.
The State Leaders, whether local, County or Sacramento will spend every dollar that is available, plus yell that more money is needed.
Government and citizens must learn to do with less. It seem that all government agencies want to raise fees, charges, and taxes without considering alternatives
I am always amused with comments that “Governments always want more to spend”. Does anyone really believe that they do this on their own. I believe that they are politically pressured to provide services for those who clamor. What basics do citizens need? Sewer water, streets, utilities, legal and public safety in my opinion. Basics. I love my parks but do I absolutley need them-no. We have them and pay for them because the citizens want them and government then in turn provides for them. Do I need a City Hall full of assistants to assistants to Dept Heads. Do I need a City Manager that makes $3oo,ooo plus like Livermore or San Ramon in this economy–ridiculous. I do not know but I do not think so. I could go on and on. We were once a society that could fix things, do things for ourselves. Now we are coddled, spoiled. So we pay instead of doing. We have turned into a “Special Interest” society. And in turn, an increased demand from some form of governement to “provide”. Arts Theaters, golf courses, baseball fields–where the community doles out millions of dollars is exactly what happened. These are not government neccessities. Did we absolutely need them-no. But the city is saddled with their operational costs now and it just continues on and on….
I’ll be voting No on Prop 22. Cities have been hoarding money and building lavish facilities that are unnecessary (look at the fancy Livermore city hall building as an example). Operating costs for school districts come from the State; therefore, Prop 22 will mean that school district funding will suffer.
If the economy goes south as it has, cuts are needed across the board at all levels of government — Federal, State and Local.
A proposition that allows Local government to be able to be exempt from economic downturns is unfair. I’ll be voting No.
I come up with a giant no from BOTH sides.! 1) We are suffering from past traps that have ‘locked’ us into a downward spiral. So I couldn’t vote for any part of a proposition that would FOREVER ” LOCK IN ” more automatic expenditures. period. . .
2) Counties carry out INSANE laws from our sell-us-out, bought-off legislators, that have created a massive ‘WELFARE STATE’ as a magnet to every leech in the state, country, & world…funded by taxpayer suckers. Some make a living by becoming baby-machines for you to buy eye-glasses to college educations thru mandatory taxes from the honest, to the detriment of your own limited children. So cutting is fine with me. BUT, here’s the kicker…don’t for a split second think there wouldn’t instantly be massive NEW COUNTY/local TAXES and FEES and BONDS. So we can’t win. We would still get stuck taking care of all the assorted people who won’t take care of themselves and all of their IRresponsible breeding. I say ‘you breed’um, you feed ‘um. But I’m not free to just be responsible for myself.
So, I’m NO to locking in state money machine, and I’m NO to the INEVITABLE NEW pipelines for the county social services machine. We taxpayers would continue to LOSE from ALL sides. I want everything where we can cut according to OUR ABILITY and / or desire to pay & provide free-rides for everybody else. The either – or switch is no solution. vote NO.
I come up with a giant no from BOTH sides.! 1) We are suffering from past traps that have ‘locked’ us into a downward spiral. So I couldn’t vote for any part of a proposition that would FOREVER ” LOCK IN ” more automatic expenditures. period. . .
2) Counties carry out INSANE laws from our sell-us-out, bought-off legislators, that have created a massive ‘WELFARE STATE’ as a magnet to every leech in the state, country, & world…funded by taxpayer suckers. Some make a living by becoming baby-machines for you to buy eye-glasses to college educations thru mandatory taxes from the honest, to the detriment of your own limited children. So cutting is fine with me. BUT, here’s the kicker…don’t for a split second think there wouldn’t instantly be massive NEW COUNTY/local TAXES and FEES and BONDS. So we can’t win. We would still get stuck taking care of all the assorted people who won’t take care of themselves and all of their IRresponsible breeding. I say ‘you breed’um, you feed ‘um. But I’m not free to just be responsible for myself.
So, I’m NO to locking in state money machine, and I’m NO to the INEVITABLE NEW pipelines for the county social services machine. We taxpayers would continue to LOSE from ALL sides. I want everything where we can cut according to OUR ABILITY and / or desire to pay & provide free-rides for everybody else. The either – or switch is no solution. vote NO.