City finds lost law book

In the encyclopedia under "beating a dead horse" there will probably be a reference to this discussion. But, it's the No on M committee's policy to respond to every question. As painful as it is to go over this issue again, here goes. Don't blame me. The city manager decided to put this on the agenda for the city council meeting Monday night, the evening before Election Day!

I'll just cut to the bottom line. Measure M can be changed at any time after the election. The money promised to be spent only on "police and fire" can be spent on anything.

The city disputes this, they say there's some law somewhere that says something. (I'm not being vague, this is what the city officials say -- that there's a law, but they just can't remember where it is or find it). And that just because Measure M says, in plain English, it can be amended in any way (except increasing the tax rate) by The City Council of the City of Manteca, "with no vote of the people" that doesn't mean that. Even though Measure M says it in plain English in 3.09.120(B).

A lot us (me, the papers, etc) have been asking the city "where is this law? I'd like to read it." And, to make a long story short, the city just can't find it. Or they never say. Or something. Not just me, others have asked "where is this law?" So far, no answers. Well, technically, we've gotten answers, but every time we ask, we get a different answer that turns out to be wrong, we ask again, we get a different answer. You get the idea.

So on Monday's agenda, the City Manager plans to submit a report saying that he finally found the law they have been "looking for." Drum roll please... they say it's in Government Code 53724(e). That section says that the money from a special tax has to be spent on whatever the ordinance says it has to be spent on, and nothing else.

There's no surprise here. We agree with that. That is nothing new. And that's not the issue.

The issue isn't "does the ordinance have to be followed?" The issue is "can the ordinance be changed?"

All laws can be changed It's just a question of "how." Everything from the speed limit on the highway to the U.S. Constitution can be changed. But lets just talk about referendum in California like Measure M. Most referendum passed by the voters can only be changed by another vote of the people. That's how, say, proposition 13 would work. If we decided to change prop 13, we would have to have a vote. Because that's the process. The legislature can not change it. That's how most referendum work. I emphasize, "most."

Most referendum are hard to change, it requires a vote. Measure M is very easy to change, all it requires is the City Council to say so. And that's it.

According to state law, (E.C. 9217) if the ordinance says it can be changed then it doesn't have to go to a vote. That's the case with Measure M. It's in 3.09.120(B). It says the City Council of the City of Manteca is authorized to make any changes. Except they can't raise the rate of the tax. That's the only exception.

Nothing in G.C. 53724 changes that.

Stockton to Manteca: Raise your taxes, please!

The Record's endorsement: Stockton is telling us to vote for Measure M because it's good -- for Stockton!

The Record is a fine large city newspaper published in Stockton. However, I must respectfully disagree with the editorial opinion for the Measure M tax increase. (Or, as they put it, "seize the opportunity" to raise our taxes.) Before simply accepting their editorial opinion, consider:

First, Stockton would love it if Manteca would raise their taxes higher than Stockton's. If Measure M passes, Stockton will no longer have the highest sales tax in San Joaquin County! Stockton found out the hard way what happens when they were tricked into voting for their own Measure W. They raised their sales tax to 8 percent. They were promised a utopia of new police and fire protection, a safe, prosperous city.

Reality: After passing measure W, Stockton didn't really hire any more police or fire personnel than the normal number (more or less). The city spent the money on a sports arena, cinema, and a fancy restaurant. And I mean "fancy." The gift to the restaurant, $2.5 million is almost exactly what would have cost to build a fire station. Violent crime increased 14% or more, more than the rest of the nation. Stores and businesses closed under pressure from high taxes. Crime, poverty, joblessness, business failures, hopelessness. That is the legacy of Stockton's Measure W tax increase. And now they are telling Manteca "you should do the same!"

If the Stockton campaign sounds familiar, it's because it's being orchestrated by the same image consultants that Manteca hired. They tried exactly the same technique in Stockton. Promise them "Make Stockton Safer!" was the slogan. In fact, if you're curious, check out the "Arguments" for the measure from 2 years ago. Sound familiar? Stockton doesn't want to say they made a mistake, were duped, etc. Instead, they tell us in their endorsement that we'll be safer because the tax money over the years, will eventually, someday, make us safer. Just like Stockton.

In addition:

1. "In the quirky world of municipal finance in California..." and they say, this is our best chance. Translation: Politician squanders money. Politician needs money. Politician asks for help... from a public image firm. Image firm tells politician "people of Manteca are stupid, we can manipulate them with fear and promises of safety." Politician says "Great! Here is $160,000, make it so!"

Shouldn't we fix the "crazy way things are funded" instead of simply raising the tax every time a politician messes things up?

I love the way they call it an "opportunity." Like, it's not every day you get the opportunity to raise your taxes!

2. The editors are taking at face value the theory that more taxes = more safety. If it were that simple, we would be living in utopia by now, and Stockton would be leading the way.

3. There doesn't seem to be any consideration of the unprecedented campaign of propaganda funded mostly by tax dollars. Almost to a person, everyone touting the new tax is someone or some group that will be personally enriched by it. This is the best "community support" that money can buy. There is no public safety "crisis." There are no shortages of police and the extra fire crew needed can now be funded with existing surpluses.

4 .Why aren't the editors trying to cut through the nonsense, and not to simply echo "the party line." The campaign, on it's surface, seems simple, but is actually complex. Anyone can state the simple answers and just tell the people to "vote for it, it might do some good." The Record should have looked a little deeper into the issues.

5. Where do they get the idea that the community supports anything? See the massive spending noted above. If anything the ordinary citizen is overwhelmingly against the measure. Consider "letters to the editor" are running 8 to 1 against. People feel they are being lied to, are being blackmailed, threatened, using scare tactics, loopholes let the tax be misspent, etc. That 8 to 1 figure is based on excluding letters written by the paid consultants submitted by paid supporters.

If we're going to play the "who supports it" game, take out a paper and draw a line down the middle. Write "yes" on one side and "no" on the other. List the groups that support the measure under "yes" and those against under "no. Now, scratch out all the groups that are paid by the city, or somehow get money from the city, or are required to ask the city for money each year, or will be personally enriched if the measure passes. You will now have: under "yes," just about no one! (except a few fellow travelers if they haven't figured out how they are being used yet.) Under "no" is about 78% of the people of Manteca including me, and all of the non-incumbent
candidates for all local elections (fire board, school board, city council). That doesn't sound like "has community support" as The Record puts it.

Furthermore, why, does it matter, technically, if community groups support it. The readers want to know if the editors think if it's a good idea or not.

6. Note the error in the impact of the tax. Their math is off by a factor of ten. I'm sure it will be corrected. But it does suggest a mindset that had already decided "it's not much money." How else could that ridiculously low cost per person have gotten past the editors without noticing the error? The actual cost per taxpayer is ten times higher than what is listed.

From the time the sales tax was 2.5 percent to now, every increase has "just been a few pennies." And now the tax is 7.75 percent. And now they are asking for 8.25 percent. After all, "it's just a few pennies," we are told. One proponent actually asserted sanctimoniously that you're "letting your kids down" if you don't increase the taxes (paid by future generations!). And yet it will take $4 million or more from the people of Manteca.

Why would Stockton want Manteca to raise its taxes higher than Stockton's? Think about it!

Fighting taxes and battling emotions

I'm wondering how long it will be before someone tries to shamelessly use the deaths of the fire crew and then relate it somehow to raising the taxes.

Measure M: Campaign of Deception

Last Friday, October 20, The (Stockton) Record endorsed Manteca's Measure M 1/2 percent sales tax increase. The editorial stated that the increase would add "an extra 5 cents to every $100 in purchases." If you have a calculator handy, 1/2 percent of $100 is 50 cents, not 5 cents as The Record declared. The next day I wrote to the editor pointing out the error and asking that it be corrected. As of Thursday, no correction had been printed nor did my letter to the editor appear. Since The Record claims it is "eager" to promptly correct any errors, yesterday I emailed Donald Blount, managing editor, again askng that the error be corrected. Friday, a week after the endorsement, the correction appears in a tiny box on page A4 of the paper.

I don't know what to think of this. Was the error intentionally misleading and if not, why did it take a full week and two emails to two editors to issue a correction? Why is Stockton so eager for Manteca to raise its sales tax?

I don't know if The Record will print my original letter to the editor or not, but here it is in its entirety:

Saturday, October 21

The Record's editorial endorsing Manteca's Measure M on Friday, October 20, contains a significant error that needs to be corrected. Under "Impact on Manteca Residents," it says the sales tax rate would go from 7.75 to 8.25 percent adding an extra "5 cents to every $100 in purchases." Your calculator must have been broken that day, because the ½ percent sales tax will add 50 cents to every $100 in purchases, not 5 cents as the Record states. That's an error of 10X magnitude and I hope that your correction will be displayed as prominently as your error was.

Two years ago the city of Stockton raised its sales tax by ¼ percent to increase police and reduce crime. Since that tax was enacted, reports show violent crime in Stockton has risen by about 14%. Why is the Record telling Mantecans that we should raise our sales tax and why should the people of Manteca listen? Stockton has a worse crime rate than Manteca and Stockton also spends its tax money on fancy amenities and "downtown improvements" instead of on public safety, just like Manteca has been doing.

I question The Record's support of Measure M and whether there's a conflict of interest. Stockton has a selfish reason to want Manteca to raise its sales tax to 8.25 percent, which if passed will be higher than Stockton's. Stockton will benefit from a higher sales tax in Manteca by seeing more big purchases made in Stockton to avoid Manteca's higher tax.

The letters to the editors in various newspapers supporting Measure M are supposedly from ordinary citizens concerned with safety, our neighbors. These letter writers should state their affiliations when signing their names. Two of the letters published Saturday, October 21, came from members of the Yes on M Committee: Dana Solomon, co-chairman of the Yes on Measure M Committee, and Kathryn Aartman-Weed, treasurer of the Yes on M Committee. Why are they hiding their affiliation with the Yes on M Committee? These people have a personal interest in seeing the measure passed.

Creative financing has shifted money that should have gone to public safety to Big League Dreams and other Redevelopment Agency projects in Manteca. The public should insist that the police and fire be funded as a priority before money is diverted to pet projects that might be nice but aren't absolutely necessary. In 2002, Manteca campaigned for another measure that would "save the police and fire," the Transient and Occupancy Tax which passed. Now, less than 5 years later, we're asked to "save" the police and fire again. How long will it be before they tell us they need "saving" yet again?

I've lived in Manteca almost 20 years, so I'm not a newcomer. We have a great police and fire department and over the years any time I've had to call on either, they have responded quickly. The city council and managers should be held accountable for their spending and the police and fire departments shouldn't have to suffer for it, but neither should the residents. Demand fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. Vote no on Measure M.

Can Measure M be changed or not?

Since discovering the hidden text in Measure M that lets the city council remove any restrictions that the money has to be spent on "police and fire" the day after the election the city has waged a campaign of obfuscation (smokescreen!) to try to keep the voters confused. Last Monday, the city council was presented a report that they say was supposed to "correct" this "error." However, when I challenged their latest confusion at the same meeting, they have come up with an new argument.

(This paragraph revised, see comments)

Before we go on, lets just give a quick re-cap of what we've been told every time we ask the same question:

1. First they said it had to be spent on police and fire. The city manager even read from section 150 in a council meeting. We pointed out that there are all sorts of promises in section 150, but they can all be changed because section 120 (amendments) says that the council can change any part of the ordinance, at any time, including the spending plan.

2. Next they told us their special lawyer Craig Steele determined it can't be changed. And they said "we can only go by what he says, we aren't lawyers." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that when someone actually asked Attorney Craig Steele he said things like the "citizen's oversight" committee and the audits and accountability could be removed the day after the election.

3. Next we were told that section about the amendments was just put there because The Board of Equalization asked us to. Not sure what that has to do with if can be changed or not!

4. After more questioning then we were told it was in the state laws. Then we asked where, and we pointed out there was no such law we were aware of, and in fact, the state law says it can be changed IF the ordinance says it can be changed. ("The ordinance" is "Measure M" the thing we are being asked to vote on)

5. So after they couldn't find anything in the state laws, next they said it's in really in the California Constitution. They weren't sure where. When pressed, someone said it was in Article 13. When I pointed out that I have a copy of Article 13C and it doesn't say anything like that, we were next told:

6. It's in the tax code, or the government code or somewhere. (revised, see comments)

Well… it's not there either. So where does that leave us?

Should I get up at a meeting and tell them it's not there either, and demand to know why they keep telling the people all these laws exist in some mysterious place but can never show where, etc? We could. My guess is, at this point, they would find another section of the code and insist it's there, or maybe find some other agency that they claim says something that they don't or say some other lawyer has determined it can't be changed but then change his mind when we ask them. And so on.

One last point: If we are to believe the city "information person," there is some law somewhere, heck, they just can't find it. But let's just say that's right. In other words, they are saying they can't change the measure even though Measure M itself says in plain English it can be changed. And we already know that section 9217 (state law) clearly says it can be changed, in plain English. So then, what the city is claiming is that there exists some mysterous law they can't seem to find that conflicts with the plain English we've already pointed out and talked about. Nonsense!

No, if anything all this suggests that even I wasn't cynical enough. It can be changed the day after the election, and from the "dancing around" the issue, I'm starting to think this was intentional! It does fit with the philosophy of the consultants the city hired. In their documents they stress doing whatever it takes to win. If you want to get a "general tax" increase, they will find a way to get the people to vote for it. From what I can tell, the "survey results" found that no one wanted a general tax increase (low 20's percent), and that would be insufficient to pass even with just the majority vote needed. But they did find that when probed people would support a new, special tax to save your children from drugs and gangs, at high enough numbers to pass even with the higher requirements for the special tax. The numbers (reportedly) went up to 66% -- exactly the number needed.

So, it doesn't at first seem to make any sense to try to pass off a general tax as a special tax. A special tax needs a super-majority to pass, and a general tax just needs a majority. In this case, it's just possible that someone did a quick calculation that showed a general tax could never pass, but a special tax might. The problem is, the city didn't want a special tax, they wanted a general tax. No problem. And what happened next isn't documented, I can only speculate. But somehow, in some mysterious way no one can explain, section 120 B just appeared in the Measure M ordinance. It looks like a special tax, and people might vote for it because they think it's a special tax (Manteca people said loud and clear they don't want another general tax) … but it can be instantly converted to a general tax the day after the election.

Now I'm not sure which is actually better, I'm no fan of special purpose money. But, there is no support for a general tax increase, and so I think the voters should know before deciding that Measure M is really a general tax that can be spent on Big League Dreams or planters downtown or the city bus or lucrative raises for administrators, or anything. It's masquerading as a "special tax" that will make you "safer" in some almost magical way by paying policemen and firemen more money or giving the union bosses better retirement plans.

Candidate says "we are being blackmailed!"

This is what City Council candidate Samuel Anderson says on his "platform" page:

Regarding the half-cent tax - I am reluctant and hesitant to support it because there is NO back-up plan, no plan B in case if fails at the ballot box. I feel like we are being blackmailed into accepting it and made to feel like we are noncitizen-like and unsupported of or police and fire if we don’t accept it and support it. I also question the language in it that does not sit well with me. I feel sorry for the police and fire chiefs in having to accept this because it is the only way for them to get funds.

Dear Mr. Anderson: You are feeling blackmailed because that's exactly what you you're supposed to feel. That's why the city hired the consultants who know how to manipulate. This is why the consultants stood before the council and told them if they say the new tax is for the "performing arts center" or other projects, people won't vote for it. That's why they said "tell the people it's for the police and fire."

Sure, there's some language in the measure that mentions public safety and the police and fire. Cleverly, they inserted that clause that lets the council remove that language the day after the election!

Don't feel sorry for the police and fire chiefs. For example, despite the fire chief's claim that he's asked for personnel "many times," which he has said over and over to the community groups, we can't find any evidence of even one request for more personnel actually being made by the chief. If you never ask for new personnel, what do they expect? The same is more or less true for the police chief. Any time the chief has actually asked for new personnel it's been granted. The city council has never turned down a request for more manpower.

I know what they would say if we asked them. They are sort of "told" ahead of time if the council "will approve a request" or not. But if the chiefs really felt more personnel was needed, shouldn't they make the request anyway? That's something that takes courage. Something they don't seem to have. They would rather see their departments fail in their mission, or people die rather than risk making a request and possibly embarrassing someone.

And, the a new tax is not "the only way to get funds." They get funds if they are allocated.

You're right, it is an attempt at blackmail. You should resent it. I do. So do most people. That's why we're voting NO on Measure M.

p.s. There is a "plan B" ... the consultants told them never to let people know that even if you don't vote for the new tax, it won't affect the police and fire. There are other funds available.

PROPOSITION 90...the most important issue on the 2006 ballot

Proposition 90 is on this November's ballot but it's gotten very little attention in the press and TV. It's probably the most important issue on the ballot and one which has the potential to affect everyone in California. Proposition 90 is the Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment that "bars state/local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects, uses. Limits government's authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental, workplace laws/regulations."

In 2005 the US Supreme Court in Kelo vs New London, upheld the city of New London's redevelopment agency decision to transfer land from one private owner to another under eminent domain to further economic development. This is seen by many as a clear violation of our Constitution's 5th Amendment. This decision has emboldened many local redevelopment agencies in their quest to declare private property "blighted" and seize it for transfer to another private party for economic purposes, not for "public use" as outlined in the 5th amendment. The term "public use" is being perverted to mean whatever a government agency decides it means. Whether you are a home-owner or small business owner, your property is at risk.

Though I usually don't vote yes on propositions, especially one involving amending the state constitution, I think this is a very important issue and I urge you to vote YES on Proposition 90 to protect your property rights and stop redevelopment and eminent domain abuse.