On November 2, a very important issue will be put to the vote here in California. Proposition 19 will make it legal for someone to cultivate and possess small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Up to now I've stayed completely neutral on the subject. I see potential medical benefits here, but I also see some grave problems, so I thought it best just to stay out of it.
But now something new has come to light that has caused me to make a public stand against Prop 19. Today I received 2 mail pieces from the Stay Sacramento folks. These things are so completely filled to the brim with half-truths and outright lies that if 19 passes, these folks might get even further out of touch with reality and have to be taken off the streets.
So far I've seen three of these pieces. All three claim to list one of the "dozens of reasons" to oppose cityhood. The two pieces I have at my home show numbers 7 and 13. But of the "dozens" of reasons they claim, where are the rest? Their web site, where real estate is practically free and they should be able to list tons of supporting evidence, doesn't even allude to the "dozens" claim. I'm dying to know what the others are! Come on folks, give me the evidence!
But for now I guess I'm stuck with the two reasons they decided to give me. So let's examine them, shall we?
#7 - A whole new layer of government will cost more.
Well, ok, this is true. A new layer of government WILL in fact cost more. While they're at it, why not say that if Iceland drops a nuclear bomb on Country Club Plaza, that will mean trouble for the new city? Both have the same chance of happening.
OK, all together now, one more time... there is NO NEW LAYER OF GOVERNMENT! This is replacing the county's broke, broken, failed system with a smaller, responsive and responsible organization that is designed for the express purpose of providing municipal services. It's a way to lower the costs of providing services by smart and innovative management. And it's happened across the board in the last three incorporations in Sacramento County.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the legal profession, let me introduce you to something lawyers use every day. It's called boilerplate text. It's the standard party-of-the-first-part stuff that ends up in every legal document, mostly as a cover-your-assets move to make sure the attorneys are never to blame for anything. The cityhood studies, both the environment impact report and the fiscal analysis, contain tons of this stuff. You can always spot it by comparison to other similar documents, looking for things that are common to them all. Here's an example:
"...the new city could experience shortfalls or inadequate fund balances during its initial years of operation."
Why is that statement in the fiscal analysis? Is it because the analysts felt the new city's financial situation might be unstable? If so it would be very interesting, since that text, or something very close to it, appears in every fiscal analysis tied to a pending incorporation over the past ten years. The statement is there so in case there is some unforeseen problem, like that Icelandic nuke, no one can go back to the analyst and claim they didn't account for that. It's a catch-all to protect the firm, and a straw man bugaboo that has no practical meaning, yet the mailer is touting it as if it was the most damning evidence possible. Know why?
It IS the most damning evidence they have! They have so little real material to work with that they are reduced to trying to extract some hidden meaning out of innocuous phrases such as this. Other than that, all they can do is complain that employees in the new city might be given a living wage and decent benefit package. Lord knows we can't have that! There's no money left after all the city and county bureaucrats gets their insurance and pensions!
Reason #13 - As business goes down, your taxes may go up.
OK, let's get it on the record one more time that our economy is in the dumpster. That we can all agree on. But will a bad economy result in new taxes? Maybe, back in the dark ages before Prop 13. Or in whatever dark and stinky place Stay Sac has their collective head buried. But the facts are clear that new taxes cannot be instituted without a 2/3 vote of the people. And it works the same way for cities as it does in the county. Nothing changes. Nada. And no matter how many times they claim it, it will not become true. Ever.
On the other hand, the county is trying hard to address their gazillion dollar deficit. Several of the proposed ideas to balance out the bottom line include putting a tax increase before the voters. Now Prop 13 still works the same way, but think this through. Who is more likely to vote yes on a tax increase? Arden Arcade residents, or people in Downtown, Midtown, or the Pocket? I'd say the quickest possible way to see your taxes go up is to vote no on D and stay right where we are.
This mailer claims that we are banking on $20 million in sales tax revenues for a landlocked "community" with no potential for growth. Before we blast this one, note the cutesy use of quotation marks around the word Community. This was a shrewd move. By calling to question whether the area really is a community, they continue to bring their divisiveness to the table, revealing what they have already admitted on a TV spot last week - what they really want (Sierra Oaks, Arden Park, Arden Oaks, et al) is to keep their little fiefdoms, continue to assert their political capital, and forget about the rest of you. This is about their power and money. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
Anyway, a quick word about the "landlocked" issue. We are a mostly developed community, and we don't have any significant growth potential for new development. In that respect we are the same as Citrus Heights, but very different from Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove. Both of those areas had tons of room to expand and grow. Both took advantage of that opportunity to begin development. Both took a bath when the economy turned sour a few years ago. But built-out Citrus Heights just continued to keep putting money into its reserve fund, including a deposit last year when things were pretty much in the toilet across the entire country. I've decided I'm not going to lose much sleep over being a landlocked community.
If the economy does continue to sink deeper into the tank, the outlook will not be rosy for anyone. But with the county's current economic woes, sung to the tune of "Brother, can you spare a hundred and twenty million?", can we actually be any worse than under their administration? After all, the most recent study was completed using current numbers, when we were already knee deep in this recession. And the ten year projections were done per the rules, assuming that the current economic state continues throughout. So if the economy continues to be miserable, the facts show we can make it. It might not be pleasant, but we can do it. Any any eventual upturn in the general outlook for the nation means that things can only get better for Arden Arcade.
So if Stay Sac is so confident that the two analyses done by professionals, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars each, one in good times, the other in the current miserable economy, are completely out of touch with reality, they must have some real high-level, unimpeachable experts to back up their case, right? Well, maybe not so much. While the community supporters behind Prop D cite sources such as the Howard Jarvis group and the Taxpayer's Advocate, Stay Sac relies on the expert testimony of Kristin Elser, "Arden Arcade parent activist". Wow, I'm sold. A parent activist. How could anyone ever speak against that?
I don't know Ms. Elser, or her history as a "parent activist", whatever that means. LinkedIn shows her as an insurance analyst for USAA, which is a respectable profession, and as far as I know, a decent company. And I don't want to speak a word against her or her activist work. But really - is this the highest level of the food chain Stay Sacramento can reach to find expert opinion? Granted, they've managed to discredit their own psychologist, real estate developer, political consultant, former sheriff, and a handful of others. Is there no one left in the stable with an opinion we can respect?
Or are we saving that for some sort of October surprise? Given the length and breadth of the lies we've been told in these two pieces, we know there are no ethical restraints on what they tell us. We also know that thanks to all the special interests they claim to be protecting you from, they are sufficiently well-funded to spring some sort of last minute hit piece.
If you get one or more of these in the mail, please read with a critical mind. What are they really saying? Who are they relying on to make their case? Are their fear-mongering claims really harmful, or just more empty rhetoric? Do your own research. Get real solid facts, and make up your own mind. We need intelligent voters, not drones. And if you have questions, get answers that make sense. Don't accept anything at face value, and don't be afraid to demand truth, not political mumbo-jumbo.
Here are a few good places to start. On Monday night at 6:30, there will be a cityhood panel discussion and forum with experts on many aspects of cityhood. It will be help at the community center in Howe Park, and Howe and Cottage. Representatives from Stay Sacramento have been invited to attend and speak, but as of now they have declined.
Tuesday night at the same time, there will be a forum at El Camino High School. Not much other info on this one, but it should be worth attending.
Next Sunday, the 24th, at 4pm, there will be a coffee meeting at Country Waffles on El Camino just east of Fulton. Candidates will discuss the need for police protection, how we can build a thriving business community, and the legal process for annexation. Questions will be welcome.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Through the Glass, Stupidly...
The future is going to get better. Maybe not this week, maybe not even this year, but this recession will end. That's one thing that fascnates me about the LAFCo fiscal analysis. It was done using the crappy numbers we're experiencing now, and by LAFCo policy, assumes those numbers will more or less hold true for the next decade. And even with those bad numbers, the study shows we may be financially feasible. Actually, we missed the highest ranking, likely to be financially feasible, by less than one percentage point. Go figure.
Now, I have admitted in the past that although I'm pretty good at math, as soon as you put a dollar sign into the equation, I become a babbling idiot. Seriously. I was in pre-calc my sophomore year of high school. But I thank God for online banking, since my balance is always a few clicks away and I never have to balance the checkbook.
But even I can finally get some simple things straight, given enough time. That's why Stay Sacramento's treatment of the analysis numbers has me squinting. Something isn't adding up.
Stay Sac keeps pointing to the bad economy as a reason it's the wrong time for incorporation. First off, let's agree we can dismiss this as a crock argument, since they were saying the same thing four years ago when the numbers were good. But this is what I'm figuring out: if we can be viable with the current numbers, in one of the worst economies we've seen since the Great Depression, shouldn't we all be jumping up and down for joy? Doesn't that mean that when things get better, which of course they will at some point, then our situation will be even more viable? As Howard Jones sang about three decades ago, Things can only get better! They did then, and they will now!
So what about the aspects of the future that we can change? One thing I've noticed from the Stay Sacramento donor filing is how many real estate brokers and agents were on their donor list. Many of them are Michael "Don't bother me, I'm being investigated again" Lyon's minions, so maybe that's understandable. They have their own Kool-Aid issues to deal with. But what about the rest?
Back in a past life (around the time of that Howard Jones song, actually), I tried my hand at selling real estate. Like I do with most new experiences, I started out by studying how the industry works. But now, three decades and a couple thousand miles away, things don't quite add up.
When an area incorporates, history shows us that crime goes down. Code enforcement is improved nd the neighborhoods start to look cleaner and more well-maintained. Schools improve. Parks start offering more services. Drug dealers and other "bad elements" tend to move toward more friendly bases. Check the facts. Every one of these happened in all three recent Sac County incorporations.
Combine all of those things, and the net result is an area where people want to live. Demand for available homes goes up (granted, this will be more impacting after we climb out of this recession, but that's going to happen, right?), and that will drive up prices. Home values will recover to where they have been historically, after some time, and eventually drive even higher because of the new lease on life for the area.
Now this is the part I don't understand. When I sold real estate, our commission checks were based on a percentage of the sale price. When the price went up, so did our pay. If things work the same way out here in Cali, then all of the real estate agents and brokers who are supporting cityhood opposition are stealing money out of their own pockets! They are backing a group of rich lobbyists and special interests that has a stated plan to stop incorporation, which is the single worst thing that can happen to their personal bottom line!
It amazes me that the cult of personality and fear-mongering can be so strong that people will act against their own best interests. The same holds true for the houses in the north area, proudly displaying the red white and blue signs, not even realizing their support will lead to keeping their own home values down, unemployment up, and the hookers and gangs continuing to encroach into their neighborhoods.
It's time to wake up. Don't buy the lies. Do your own research and watch what happens. I've seen it too many times to doubt any more.
Now, I have admitted in the past that although I'm pretty good at math, as soon as you put a dollar sign into the equation, I become a babbling idiot. Seriously. I was in pre-calc my sophomore year of high school. But I thank God for online banking, since my balance is always a few clicks away and I never have to balance the checkbook.
But even I can finally get some simple things straight, given enough time. That's why Stay Sacramento's treatment of the analysis numbers has me squinting. Something isn't adding up.
Stay Sac keeps pointing to the bad economy as a reason it's the wrong time for incorporation. First off, let's agree we can dismiss this as a crock argument, since they were saying the same thing four years ago when the numbers were good. But this is what I'm figuring out: if we can be viable with the current numbers, in one of the worst economies we've seen since the Great Depression, shouldn't we all be jumping up and down for joy? Doesn't that mean that when things get better, which of course they will at some point, then our situation will be even more viable? As Howard Jones sang about three decades ago, Things can only get better! They did then, and they will now!
So what about the aspects of the future that we can change? One thing I've noticed from the Stay Sacramento donor filing is how many real estate brokers and agents were on their donor list. Many of them are Michael "Don't bother me, I'm being investigated again" Lyon's minions, so maybe that's understandable. They have their own Kool-Aid issues to deal with. But what about the rest?
Back in a past life (around the time of that Howard Jones song, actually), I tried my hand at selling real estate. Like I do with most new experiences, I started out by studying how the industry works. But now, three decades and a couple thousand miles away, things don't quite add up.
When an area incorporates, history shows us that crime goes down. Code enforcement is improved nd the neighborhoods start to look cleaner and more well-maintained. Schools improve. Parks start offering more services. Drug dealers and other "bad elements" tend to move toward more friendly bases. Check the facts. Every one of these happened in all three recent Sac County incorporations.
Combine all of those things, and the net result is an area where people want to live. Demand for available homes goes up (granted, this will be more impacting after we climb out of this recession, but that's going to happen, right?), and that will drive up prices. Home values will recover to where they have been historically, after some time, and eventually drive even higher because of the new lease on life for the area.
Now this is the part I don't understand. When I sold real estate, our commission checks were based on a percentage of the sale price. When the price went up, so did our pay. If things work the same way out here in Cali, then all of the real estate agents and brokers who are supporting cityhood opposition are stealing money out of their own pockets! They are backing a group of rich lobbyists and special interests that has a stated plan to stop incorporation, which is the single worst thing that can happen to their personal bottom line!
It amazes me that the cult of personality and fear-mongering can be so strong that people will act against their own best interests. The same holds true for the houses in the north area, proudly displaying the red white and blue signs, not even realizing their support will lead to keeping their own home values down, unemployment up, and the hookers and gangs continuing to encroach into their neighborhoods.
It's time to wake up. Don't buy the lies. Do your own research and watch what happens. I've seen it too many times to doubt any more.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Guest Commentary
This came in today's email, with a request to run it here. Since everything stated in the article is accurate, I'm going to run it pretty much as-is. The author didn't indicate whether or not they wanted to be credited for it, so until I hear otherwise, it's anonymous.
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel Part-1
As Stay Sacramento continues to tell us that they are a “grassroots” effort and their leaders publicly assert that their donations are from the community, the recently released contributors list tells a different story. This list of donations and expenditures exposes the truth behind the opponents of cityhood and their baseless accusations.
First up, Carmichael resident Jeffery M. Raimundo donated $500. One might say that a citizen living 2 miles outside the proposed city has some interest in Arden-Arcade. However, Stay Sacramento's expenditures say otherwise. Mr. Raimundo's “I” Street consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher received three payments totaling $17,910. Wow, that is an impressive 3482% return on Mr. Raimundo's investment! That's right folks, at the same time that Stay Sacramento was accusing cityhood as a payoff to special interests, they were selling our community's future to a downtown consultant for a bargain basement price. The fact that Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher ran Kevin Johnson's '08 campaign for mayor is probably just a coincidence...? http://www.trbu.com/clients/clients.html
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel Part-2
We now know that Stay Sacramento's leaders are selling off our community's future to the lowest downtown bidder. It is certainly no surprise “K” Street vampires have put in their bids. In total, nine lobbyists, lobbying firms and their clients have bought a piece if Stay Sacramento's dream. The president of Governmental Advocates Inc donated $500 just one week after his client, the director of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association donated $200. These two caring citizens are betting that $700 that Arden-Arcade will be better with more trailer parks and less cops. At least it will be profitable for them.
The president of the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators pitched in $200. Apparently Arden-Arcade needs more liquor stores to spur economic growth. Or maybe he/she needs them to spur their own economy It almost seems that Stay Sacramento believes a city without more booze and trailer parks is a “risk we can't afford”. Must be a coincidence too.
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel Part-3
As we look further into Stay Sacramento's financial disclosure we see another group fighting to keep their share of the status quo. 9 property tycoons, developers, mortgage peddlers and real estate agents have provided nearly 10% of Stay Sacramento's funding since the campaign began. Folks like the senior VP at CB Richard Ellis, the president of Placer Sierra Bancshares (a Land Park resident) and the Fulcrum Property heir have joined Stay Sacramento's leaders in putting out the “For Sale” sign in Arden-Arcade. Is it just another series coincidences that developers and lenders want to keep swapping cheap properties as the realtors siphon off commissions at every turn? And that those cheap properties could make great locations for shiny new trailer parks and liquor stores? One wonders what the going commission is for selling our future down the drain....
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel Part-4
For months we have heard a steady drumbeat message from Stay Sacramento, “...We are a grassroots effort with little funds to defeat the Arden-Arcade cityhood proposal. We are up against a well-funded campaign of special outside interests...”
This is, and always has been, a fabrication. The details of Stay Sacramento's finances are a blueprint for business as usual politics. A private club of real estate agents and “K” lobbyists fighting for trailer parks and alcohol as they pay off the Mayor's consultants. Not what any of us think of in a “...grassroots effort with little money...up against a well-funded campaign of special outside interests...”
And then there is the $50,000 elephant in the room...
It is true that a single union donor provided 2/3 of Stay Sacramento's “K” Street payola. It is true that we've been double-crossed and downright duped. A massive union contribution? Real estate agents and lobbyists carving up out community's future? Big time, downtown pay offs? Must be yet another coincidence.
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel – In Conclusion
A coincidence that over 40% of Stay Sacramento's expenses were payoffs to Kevin Johnson's campaign consultant.
A coincidence that a group of “K”Street lobbyists payed Stay Sacramento to push for more liquor stores and trailer parks in Arden-Arcade.
A coincidence that a private club of real estate agents, lenders and developers have ordered Stay Sacramento to put our community up for auction.
A coincidence that most of Stay Sacramento “grassroots” funds came from one enormous union donation.
A coincidence that one union, the property changers and the lobbyists provided 75% of all Stay Sacramento's campaign money.
The fact is that the leaders and owners of Stay Sacramento really want it to Stay Business As Usual is NO COINCIDENCE!
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel – Afterword
On Oct. 5 Tim Cahill spoke on behalf of Stay Sacramento at the Sierra Oaks Neighborhood Association. When asked by an audience member where Stay Sacramento's money was coming from he responded by saying it was from community donations & that cityhood opponents were a small group of residents. The list of donations and pay offs clearly shows that to be a lie. So why isn't this on the front page? Why hasn't the Bee jumped in to tell the real story? This is front page news, right?
The July 7 donation of $250 by one Abby Pruitt is the answer. Name sound familiar? It should, Ms. Pruitt is the wife of Gary Pruitt, President, CEO and Chairman of the Board for McClatchy Co and McClatchy owns the Sacramento Bee. Yes the Bee. The same Bee who demanded disclosure of cityhood supporters financial records without even asking about the opposition's money. The same Bee that regularly slams the county's “uncity”, but denounced cityhood. The same Bee that just added 29 more local workers to the unemployment line, while Mr. Pruitt continued to give himself huge bonuses.
No wonder that the Bee's editorial board continues to print misleading, anti-cityhood stories while stating that annexation is the “...best approach..”, they don't want to be next in the unemployment line. Mr Pruitt has a proven record of job destruction and profiteering during his tenure at McClatchy Co. In the last 30 months, the Bee has eliminated more than 300 jobs, while Mr. Pruitt has refused to cut his own pay or even turn down his raises and bonuses. The worst of what we've seen from any Wall Street Executive. Funny that the Pruitts live in Arden Oaks paying for private policing with their neighbor Tim Cahill.
Stay Sacramento is a “grassroots” effort by “K” Street lobbyists and real estate agents to sell our community to liquor stores and trailer parks, sending the proceeds to downtown to Mayor Johnson's campaign, backed by one enormous union donation and covered up by a heartless Wall Street-style profiteer.
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel Part-1
As Stay Sacramento continues to tell us that they are a “grassroots” effort and their leaders publicly assert that their donations are from the community, the recently released contributors list tells a different story. This list of donations and expenditures exposes the truth behind the opponents of cityhood and their baseless accusations.
First up, Carmichael resident Jeffery M. Raimundo donated $500. One might say that a citizen living 2 miles outside the proposed city has some interest in Arden-Arcade. However, Stay Sacramento's expenditures say otherwise. Mr. Raimundo's “I” Street consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher received three payments totaling $17,910. Wow, that is an impressive 3482% return on Mr. Raimundo's investment! That's right folks, at the same time that Stay Sacramento was accusing cityhood as a payoff to special interests, they were selling our community's future to a downtown consultant for a bargain basement price. The fact that Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher ran Kevin Johnson's '08 campaign for mayor is probably just a coincidence...? http://www.trbu.com/clients/clients.html
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel Part-2
We now know that Stay Sacramento's leaders are selling off our community's future to the lowest downtown bidder. It is certainly no surprise “K” Street vampires have put in their bids. In total, nine lobbyists, lobbying firms and their clients have bought a piece if Stay Sacramento's dream. The president of Governmental Advocates Inc donated $500 just one week after his client, the director of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association donated $200. These two caring citizens are betting that $700 that Arden-Arcade will be better with more trailer parks and less cops. At least it will be profitable for them.
The president of the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators pitched in $200. Apparently Arden-Arcade needs more liquor stores to spur economic growth. Or maybe he/she needs them to spur their own economy It almost seems that Stay Sacramento believes a city without more booze and trailer parks is a “risk we can't afford”. Must be a coincidence too.
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel Part-3
As we look further into Stay Sacramento's financial disclosure we see another group fighting to keep their share of the status quo. 9 property tycoons, developers, mortgage peddlers and real estate agents have provided nearly 10% of Stay Sacramento's funding since the campaign began. Folks like the senior VP at CB Richard Ellis, the president of Placer Sierra Bancshares (a Land Park resident) and the Fulcrum Property heir have joined Stay Sacramento's leaders in putting out the “For Sale” sign in Arden-Arcade. Is it just another series coincidences that developers and lenders want to keep swapping cheap properties as the realtors siphon off commissions at every turn? And that those cheap properties could make great locations for shiny new trailer parks and liquor stores? One wonders what the going commission is for selling our future down the drain....
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel Part-4
For months we have heard a steady drumbeat message from Stay Sacramento, “...We are a grassroots effort with little funds to defeat the Arden-Arcade cityhood proposal. We are up against a well-funded campaign of special outside interests...”
This is, and always has been, a fabrication. The details of Stay Sacramento's finances are a blueprint for business as usual politics. A private club of real estate agents and “K” lobbyists fighting for trailer parks and alcohol as they pay off the Mayor's consultants. Not what any of us think of in a “...grassroots effort with little money...up against a well-funded campaign of special outside interests...”
And then there is the $50,000 elephant in the room...
It is true that a single union donor provided 2/3 of Stay Sacramento's “K” Street payola. It is true that we've been double-crossed and downright duped. A massive union contribution? Real estate agents and lobbyists carving up out community's future? Big time, downtown pay offs? Must be yet another coincidence.
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel – In Conclusion
A coincidence that over 40% of Stay Sacramento's expenses were payoffs to Kevin Johnson's campaign consultant.
A coincidence that a group of “K”Street lobbyists payed Stay Sacramento to push for more liquor stores and trailer parks in Arden-Arcade.
A coincidence that a private club of real estate agents, lenders and developers have ordered Stay Sacramento to put our community up for auction.
A coincidence that most of Stay Sacramento “grassroots” funds came from one enormous union donation.
A coincidence that one union, the property changers and the lobbyists provided 75% of all Stay Sacramento's campaign money.
The fact is that the leaders and owners of Stay Sacramento really want it to Stay Business As Usual is NO COINCIDENCE!
The “Grassroots” Highlight Reel – Afterword
On Oct. 5 Tim Cahill spoke on behalf of Stay Sacramento at the Sierra Oaks Neighborhood Association. When asked by an audience member where Stay Sacramento's money was coming from he responded by saying it was from community donations & that cityhood opponents were a small group of residents. The list of donations and pay offs clearly shows that to be a lie. So why isn't this on the front page? Why hasn't the Bee jumped in to tell the real story? This is front page news, right?
The July 7 donation of $250 by one Abby Pruitt is the answer. Name sound familiar? It should, Ms. Pruitt is the wife of Gary Pruitt, President, CEO and Chairman of the Board for McClatchy Co and McClatchy owns the Sacramento Bee. Yes the Bee. The same Bee who demanded disclosure of cityhood supporters financial records without even asking about the opposition's money. The same Bee that regularly slams the county's “uncity”, but denounced cityhood. The same Bee that just added 29 more local workers to the unemployment line, while Mr. Pruitt continued to give himself huge bonuses.
No wonder that the Bee's editorial board continues to print misleading, anti-cityhood stories while stating that annexation is the “...best approach..”, they don't want to be next in the unemployment line. Mr Pruitt has a proven record of job destruction and profiteering during his tenure at McClatchy Co. In the last 30 months, the Bee has eliminated more than 300 jobs, while Mr. Pruitt has refused to cut his own pay or even turn down his raises and bonuses. The worst of what we've seen from any Wall Street Executive. Funny that the Pruitts live in Arden Oaks paying for private policing with their neighbor Tim Cahill.
Stay Sacramento is a “grassroots” effort by “K” Street lobbyists and real estate agents to sell our community to liquor stores and trailer parks, sending the proceeds to downtown to Mayor Johnson's campaign, backed by one enormous union donation and covered up by a heartless Wall Street-style profiteer.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Still not Convinced?
Still not completely sure that Stay Sacramento is a group of elitists who are only out for their own good, at the expense of the betterment of the community? Take a look at their donor list from a geographical view.
View Stay Sacramento Supporters List in a larger map
I want you to note a couple things. First, obviously the majority of their donors come from the southern end of town (especially south of Fair Oaks). No real surprise there. But also notice how many donors are completely outside of the area. These are the ones who trying to protect their money, either through relationships with the power brokers down south, or by being remembered when Arden Arcade gets annexed by Sacramento and new work is up for grabs.
Stay Sacramento is an elitist organization that wants to put your families at risk in order to secure their own fiefdoms. Don't buy the lies. Do your own research and get the facts. The numbers are out there.
View Stay Sacramento Supporters List in a larger map
I want you to note a couple things. First, obviously the majority of their donors come from the southern end of town (especially south of Fair Oaks). No real surprise there. But also notice how many donors are completely outside of the area. These are the ones who trying to protect their money, either through relationships with the power brokers down south, or by being remembered when Arden Arcade gets annexed by Sacramento and new work is up for grabs.
Stay Sacramento is an elitist organization that wants to put your families at risk in order to secure their own fiefdoms. Don't buy the lies. Do your own research and get the facts. The numbers are out there.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
Do you have an extra $50,000 sitting around? Yeah, me neither. But apparently the Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Local 422 does. California law requires that all political organization that collect contributions file form 460 to indicate the sources of their funding. Stay Sacramento's 460 was filed this week, and the information it contains is telling.
Stay Sacramento's total monetary contributions for the covered period were $79,422. Of that amount, $50,000 came from the single union donation. That means that 62% of the funding for this "grassroots effort with little funds to defeat the Arden-Arcade cityhood proposal*" who are "up against a well-funded campaign of special outside interests who are trying to buy their way into fat contracts with a new city*" comes from a labor union. Now I'm sure that this union isn't coughing up 50 large out of altruistic motivations.
(*quoted from the Stay Sacramento web site, October 9, 2010)
So how about the other 29 grand? Well, a few thousand of that comes from lobbyists, including lobyists representing the mobile home, pharmaceutical and liquor industries. These are the folks who are fighting special interests?! Folks, these are the special interests! Lord knows we don't have enough mobile home parks and liquor stores here.
I think my personal favorite is the $500 from Jeffrey Raimundo, principal in the consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher. Mr. Raimundo does not live in the proposed city limits, but apparently feels that what happens here can affect him. I'm sure that the checks totalling $17,910 that his firm, who also represented Kevin Johnson's '08 mayoral campaign, received from Stay Sacramento were just a coincidence.
So who else is involved in thie grassroots effort? Well, let's see... there's former Sheriff Lou Blanas, who also happens to be an owner in the new casino/card room up on Auburn Blvd. at the Marconi curve. If you look at a map of the proposed city boundaries, you'll see a little chunk notched into the northwest corner. That's where the card room resides, outside of Sac city and Arden Arcade. But if we do incorporate, that area will fall within our sphere of influence, meaning we will have some degree of say in what goes on there.
And let's not forget Tim Cahill, who inherited and married into a ton of real estate along Fulton Avenue, including at least one property rented by a massage parlor. Mr Cahill assured everyone at the recent Sierrs Oaks homeowner's meeting that this facilty was thoroughly checked out and supervised by the county before opening. So I'm sure it's just accidental that the place has a locked door, white blinds covering all the windows, and a video camera over the door. After all, a legitimate business can't be too sure these days.
The more we learn about Stay Sacramento, the more we see evidence of what we've always known - these people will do anything, including lying to your face - to stop incorporation. Why? I think the answer comes from the television piece I was in for News 10 earlier this week. In it, Doug Elmets, another rich Stay Sac supporter, stated the truth so plainly it was funny. Sierra Oaks, Arden Oaks, and Arden Park want to remain their own little elitist enclaves. They don't want to be associated with the likes you you and me. But there aren't enough of them to make Measure D fail. So they will make up lies and distort facts just to keep from being considered part of the community.
Keep in mind that for the past several years Stay Sacramento has been telling us they are the little guys, trying to fight the power of special interests that funded the incorporation campaign. Who were these special interests? They were the local parks districts, who knew they could improve services in their own facilities by partnering with the new city. They were other cities in Sacramento County, who knew we represented a real chance to make sure our "regional voice" wasn't centered between H and I streets downtown. And they were hundreds of people just like you and me, the special interests who wanted life to be better for our kids. Who wanted to see the hookers and gangs that have moved into the area sent packing. Who want to feel safe when they walk down our streets.
That's my special interest, and I hope it's yours too.
Stay Sacramento's total monetary contributions for the covered period were $79,422. Of that amount, $50,000 came from the single union donation. That means that 62% of the funding for this "grassroots effort with little funds to defeat the Arden-Arcade cityhood proposal*" who are "up against a well-funded campaign of special outside interests who are trying to buy their way into fat contracts with a new city*" comes from a labor union. Now I'm sure that this union isn't coughing up 50 large out of altruistic motivations.
(*quoted from the Stay Sacramento web site, October 9, 2010)
So how about the other 29 grand? Well, a few thousand of that comes from lobbyists, including lobyists representing the mobile home, pharmaceutical and liquor industries. These are the folks who are fighting special interests?! Folks, these are the special interests! Lord knows we don't have enough mobile home parks and liquor stores here.
I think my personal favorite is the $500 from Jeffrey Raimundo, principal in the consulting firm of Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher. Mr. Raimundo does not live in the proposed city limits, but apparently feels that what happens here can affect him. I'm sure that the checks totalling $17,910 that his firm, who also represented Kevin Johnson's '08 mayoral campaign, received from Stay Sacramento were just a coincidence.
So who else is involved in thie grassroots effort? Well, let's see... there's former Sheriff Lou Blanas, who also happens to be an owner in the new casino/card room up on Auburn Blvd. at the Marconi curve. If you look at a map of the proposed city boundaries, you'll see a little chunk notched into the northwest corner. That's where the card room resides, outside of Sac city and Arden Arcade. But if we do incorporate, that area will fall within our sphere of influence, meaning we will have some degree of say in what goes on there.
And let's not forget Tim Cahill, who inherited and married into a ton of real estate along Fulton Avenue, including at least one property rented by a massage parlor. Mr Cahill assured everyone at the recent Sierrs Oaks homeowner's meeting that this facilty was thoroughly checked out and supervised by the county before opening. So I'm sure it's just accidental that the place has a locked door, white blinds covering all the windows, and a video camera over the door. After all, a legitimate business can't be too sure these days.
The more we learn about Stay Sacramento, the more we see evidence of what we've always known - these people will do anything, including lying to your face - to stop incorporation. Why? I think the answer comes from the television piece I was in for News 10 earlier this week. In it, Doug Elmets, another rich Stay Sac supporter, stated the truth so plainly it was funny. Sierra Oaks, Arden Oaks, and Arden Park want to remain their own little elitist enclaves. They don't want to be associated with the likes you you and me. But there aren't enough of them to make Measure D fail. So they will make up lies and distort facts just to keep from being considered part of the community.
Keep in mind that for the past several years Stay Sacramento has been telling us they are the little guys, trying to fight the power of special interests that funded the incorporation campaign. Who were these special interests? They were the local parks districts, who knew they could improve services in their own facilities by partnering with the new city. They were other cities in Sacramento County, who knew we represented a real chance to make sure our "regional voice" wasn't centered between H and I streets downtown. And they were hundreds of people just like you and me, the special interests who wanted life to be better for our kids. Who wanted to see the hookers and gangs that have moved into the area sent packing. Who want to feel safe when they walk down our streets.
That's my special interest, and I hope it's yours too.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Liar Liar Pants on Fire!
With the recent economic problems that we are all seeing, I have to wonder if the Bee had to lay off all of its fact checkers. This morning's edition has an editorial coming out against incorporation. But, there are so many distortions and outright untruths in this editorial that it's probably a good thing there is no byline at the top.
Arden Arcade's numbers are solid. The most recent study was done with the latest available numbers, well after we had entered the current recession. Future predictions are based on maintaining the status quo, which means staying in a recession for the next ten years. Do we really think this downturn is going to last that long?
Whether or not "now" is the right time is a moot question. The city can say they have no plans for annexation, but they have taken the first legal step toward doing so by including us in their general plan. While incorporation is on the table they can't move forward, so there is no harm in making the claim that they don't wan't us - other than another outright lie. But any time after the election, if cityhood fails, they can declare we are within their sphere of influence. That is their next step, and will effectively prohibit us from any chance to incorporate. Then it's just a matter of time until they make annexation formal. And of course, it will be simple enough to say they came to realize how much better things will be for us under their watchful care. Just like North Sacramento (now known as Del Paso Heights). But if we decide the timing is wrong, there will not be another chance. As Elvis once crooned, it's now or never.
Most cityhood supporters, myself included, have no aspirations for public office. All I want is a place to raise my kids where they will be safe, and where they will want to live when they grow up and start families. The 100,000 residents of Arden Arcade can't fix the messed up federal or state systems, but they can make life better here and now, for themselves and their families.
Candidates, I offer this modest proposal. In the spirit of fairness, and how the opposition is acting toward us, I suggest that all future campaign literature should include the quote, straight out of this piece: "Urban areas like Arden Arcade ought to be in a city, and residents should have more local control."
***
After posting this earlier today I've started to receive notes asking me to urge readers to cancel their Bee subscriptions. Frankly, I think the Bee is quite used to this, and knows it only makes a blip on the radar for a short time, and once the heat is off, things go back to normal. But they do listen to complaints from subscribers. Give 'em a call, let them know you think their editorial is a steaming pile. Better yet, go to the online version and post a comment. Pick one thing from the garbage heap that you can address with clarity, and set them straight on it. Be courteous and polite, but let them know they can't get away with this. If we could get a thousand comments on their site, people will notice.
Arden Arcade's numbers are solid. The most recent study was done with the latest available numbers, well after we had entered the current recession. Future predictions are based on maintaining the status quo, which means staying in a recession for the next ten years. Do we really think this downturn is going to last that long?
Whether or not "now" is the right time is a moot question. The city can say they have no plans for annexation, but they have taken the first legal step toward doing so by including us in their general plan. While incorporation is on the table they can't move forward, so there is no harm in making the claim that they don't wan't us - other than another outright lie. But any time after the election, if cityhood fails, they can declare we are within their sphere of influence. That is their next step, and will effectively prohibit us from any chance to incorporate. Then it's just a matter of time until they make annexation formal. And of course, it will be simple enough to say they came to realize how much better things will be for us under their watchful care. Just like North Sacramento (now known as Del Paso Heights). But if we decide the timing is wrong, there will not be another chance. As Elvis once crooned, it's now or never.
Most cityhood supporters, myself included, have no aspirations for public office. All I want is a place to raise my kids where they will be safe, and where they will want to live when they grow up and start families. The 100,000 residents of Arden Arcade can't fix the messed up federal or state systems, but they can make life better here and now, for themselves and their families.
Candidates, I offer this modest proposal. In the spirit of fairness, and how the opposition is acting toward us, I suggest that all future campaign literature should include the quote, straight out of this piece: "Urban areas like Arden Arcade ought to be in a city, and residents should have more local control."
***
After posting this earlier today I've started to receive notes asking me to urge readers to cancel their Bee subscriptions. Frankly, I think the Bee is quite used to this, and knows it only makes a blip on the radar for a short time, and once the heat is off, things go back to normal. But they do listen to complaints from subscribers. Give 'em a call, let them know you think their editorial is a steaming pile. Better yet, go to the online version and post a comment. Pick one thing from the garbage heap that you can address with clarity, and set them straight on it. Be courteous and polite, but let them know they can't get away with this. If we could get a thousand comments on their site, people will notice.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Follow the Leader
A quote from this morning's Sacramento Bee:
"A once tattered and neglected corner of The Uncity, that huge swath of unincorporated Sacramento County, Citrus Heights has transformed itself in just 13 years since it incorporated. Everything got better: streets, lighting, garbage service, law enforcement and that indefinable quality called civic engagement.
Credit goes to a smart cohesive group of City Council members. Unlike other new cities in the county, Citrus Heights was largely built out when it incorporated. With no revenue-generating growth spurt, the city had to live within its means. While other local governments overspent during the good times and now are facing layoffs and furloughs, Citrus Heights has no debt and a healthy reserve of $36 million.
It has made prudent investments, established its own Police Department, and built a new civic center and city hall, all with cash."
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/01/3070549/turner-incumbents-for-citrus-heights.html#ixzz117cgNvL4
So what can we learn from this? First, it is possible. Citrus Heights had its own coalition of naysayers, spouting the same bad rhetoric we're seeing in Arden Arcade right now. They ignored the critics, and went ahead and created a city to be proud of. Don't believe it? Go to the city's web site and look up their resident satisfaction survey.
Second, the council counts. This blurb was taken from an article endorsing certain candidates for the Citrus Heights city council. The praise for what the city has done was incidental to the need for quality people on the council leading the way. Just as ignoring the fear-mongers is important here, as it was there, taking the time to get to know the council candidates and vote wisely will be crucual to our success.
Luckily, we have a group of people who are dedicated and intelligent on the ballot. I wouldn't vote for all of them, even if I could. But, I really don't think there is any group of seven that could be formed that would be a bad choice. But the better we are at picking our council members, the more the city will thrive in its early days and lay a solid foundation for our future.
***
When I started this blog, I made a promise to kick both sides in the knees (well, with the written word, anyway) when they screwed up. Until now, I haven't had a bad word to say about the incorporation group or the candidates. I really hate to do this, because the offender was a good friend long before we both got involved with incorporation, but I can't be quiet about this one.
Joel, you have done amazing things throughout this campaign. When no one (including most of the committee) thought it would be possible, you managed to lead the way, raising money every time it was needed, steering through the governmental red tape, and being the leading advocate for Arden Arcade. Hear that? Arden Arcade. Not Arden. But suddenly the Arcade part is missing from your web site and literature? I'm not sure what the motivation is here, maybe it's as simle as making things fit better. But, we are Arden, and we are also Arcade. And yes, many of us dislike the name. But until we become a city and chamge it, it's who we are. And excluding half of our population is not a wise move.
"A once tattered and neglected corner of The Uncity, that huge swath of unincorporated Sacramento County, Citrus Heights has transformed itself in just 13 years since it incorporated. Everything got better: streets, lighting, garbage service, law enforcement and that indefinable quality called civic engagement.
Credit goes to a smart cohesive group of City Council members. Unlike other new cities in the county, Citrus Heights was largely built out when it incorporated. With no revenue-generating growth spurt, the city had to live within its means. While other local governments overspent during the good times and now are facing layoffs and furloughs, Citrus Heights has no debt and a healthy reserve of $36 million.
It has made prudent investments, established its own Police Department, and built a new civic center and city hall, all with cash."
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/10/01/3070549/turner-incumbents-for-citrus-heights.html#ixzz117cgNvL4
So what can we learn from this? First, it is possible. Citrus Heights had its own coalition of naysayers, spouting the same bad rhetoric we're seeing in Arden Arcade right now. They ignored the critics, and went ahead and created a city to be proud of. Don't believe it? Go to the city's web site and look up their resident satisfaction survey.
Second, the council counts. This blurb was taken from an article endorsing certain candidates for the Citrus Heights city council. The praise for what the city has done was incidental to the need for quality people on the council leading the way. Just as ignoring the fear-mongers is important here, as it was there, taking the time to get to know the council candidates and vote wisely will be crucual to our success.
Luckily, we have a group of people who are dedicated and intelligent on the ballot. I wouldn't vote for all of them, even if I could. But, I really don't think there is any group of seven that could be formed that would be a bad choice. But the better we are at picking our council members, the more the city will thrive in its early days and lay a solid foundation for our future.
***
When I started this blog, I made a promise to kick both sides in the knees (well, with the written word, anyway) when they screwed up. Until now, I haven't had a bad word to say about the incorporation group or the candidates. I really hate to do this, because the offender was a good friend long before we both got involved with incorporation, but I can't be quiet about this one.
Joel, you have done amazing things throughout this campaign. When no one (including most of the committee) thought it would be possible, you managed to lead the way, raising money every time it was needed, steering through the governmental red tape, and being the leading advocate for Arden Arcade. Hear that? Arden Arcade. Not Arden. But suddenly the Arcade part is missing from your web site and literature? I'm not sure what the motivation is here, maybe it's as simle as making things fit better. But, we are Arden, and we are also Arcade. And yes, many of us dislike the name. But until we become a city and chamge it, it's who we are. And excluding half of our population is not a wise move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)