Monday, January 4, 2016

John Capoccia's E-Mails Opposing UUT Increases

 -
As you will read in the emails below, John Capoccia stated that government is about being accountable to the citizens. Well, he's been a part of the government for four years now, so how is he doing on that accountability to the citizens part? Sadly, not so good.

Unfortunately John went from being a candidate who won his seat on the City Council campaigning as a utility tax increase opponent, to quickly becoming an outspoken advocate for those very tax increases once safely elected to office. I think it can be safely said that as far as utility taxes go Mayor Capoccia went on to fight for the needs of government and not the citizens who first put him there.

The following two emails were sent to his list of supporters when he was first running for the City Council starting in late 2011. I was on John's mailing list back then, and that is why I have these to share with you now. I was cleaning out old email over the weekend and came across both. Given what is happening today, they're quite a find.

John provided us with some pretty good arguments for opposing any increases in Sierra Madre's utility taxes. Which makes sense. Making that argument as well as he did is how John got elected to the City Council in the first place. Along with defeating the first of what was eventually to became three separate UUT increase ballot initiatives.

Here is candidate Capoccia's take on the UUT increase attempt of four years ago. Note John's reluctance to put his name on any of these opinions.



This could make you wonder how much of what John Capoccia has said on other topics is actually for real. I guess that depends on your level of trust.

Of course, since he is running virtually unopposed this time around, the question is probably academic.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

47 comments:

  1. Who are you and what have you done to the 2012 John Capoccia?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Must be the Pod People got him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Capoccia hasn't changed. Note that his concern is over which position on the UUT will get him elected. He didn't believe then in lower taxes on any sort of principled basis and he most certainly doesn't believe it now. No, Capoccia is out for Capoccia, doing and saying whatever it takes for him to win. Now that he's on Council, it's more important that the city staff and safety folks like him so of course he has changed his tune. Capoccia is just another egocentric politician. What a damn shame. Sierra Madre deserves better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Capoccia knew which way the wind was blowing in 2012 and built himself a nice little anti-tax kite to fly him into office. Once there he never opposed a tax, rate our fee hike that came his way.

      Delete
    2. This time he's running on community preservation. Once he gets reelected, who knows?

      Delete
    3. Depends which way the wind is blowing

      Delete
  4. Yes, The tax happy Johns will probably get re elected, but the citizens can make sure they don't have any more of our money to spend in irresponsible ways by voting NO on any UUT increase. Let them be in office, but force them to be fiscally responsible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why can't we find more good Tattler-minded candidates?

      Delete
    2. Most people think things are going as well as can be expected.

      Delete
  5. Speaking of revenue the Passionists have a new (or newly designed) page up concerning development
    https://passionist.org/materdolorosaproject/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The link doesn't seem to be working?

      Delete
    2. I think what the Passionists are hoping for is once the April election is over the city's need for revenue will outweigh any campaign promises made by the two Johns about preservation. Denise and Rachelle will fight it, but I can see the three dudes giving in and taking the development impact money, which will be considerable.

      Delete
    3. 8:05 - you will need to cut and paste it on to your browser. Links posted in the comments section are rarely live.

      Delete
  6. Vote for Barrnie fiffe in 2016, he will make what ever promise is required to get your vote. I believe we have 3 Johns in city council council, John hardbedian, John copocca, John gross. They have ruined this town financially. We no longer trust you or any of your decissions. Your need to move to Encinitas, and take all the long term debt, pensions and yellow water with you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is John Gross, pardner?

      Delete
    2. For that matter who is Barrnie fiffe?

      Delete
    3. He was in Star Wars. Doesn't have The Force.

      Delete
  7. Councilman goose is one on the Union Supporters at the college which he works for. Goose loves those Pensions which is causing our city to go broke. Goose is one of the Johns!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok. But his name is Gene. If you call him John nobody is going to know what you are talking about.

      Delete
  8. A city council member's responsibility is to make sure the government policy is written and upheld in the interest of the citizens. For John to vote against raising the UUT it would have meant that the city of sierra madre would not be able to function in the interest of the citizens. Why do you think both Rachelle and Denise also voted to put the UUT on the ballot? John Capoccia has the integrity and honesty to realize that the city as we know it would not survive with only a 6% UUT. He is also wise enough to know that the current proposal of 10% is not enough. He among the few on the council requested further information about the sheriff's department because he knows that ultimately the city will be forced to outsource. Not this year, but in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is all that money being spent?

      Delete
    2. I think the big question that needs to be answered is what are the interests of the citizens. There are two parts to that question. One is services, the other is employee costs. We hear about services constantly, but what about things like CalPERS and employee benefits? That we don't hear much about.

      Delete
    3. Sounds like 9:36 is Capoccia doing his best Bob Dole impression.

      Delete
    4. 9:36, nice smokescreen. If Capoccia is so concerned, why weren't true CalPERS costs on the agenda until Council member Denise Delmar requested it? Capoccia is Mayor, he sets the agenda.

      I also LOVE how JC and others thought it was OK to piddle away a year before they looked at LASD. How convenient, the decision won't be made until after the April 2016 election with the 10% UUT rate on the ballot as the Hail Mary play.

      Delete
    5. 9:36 a council member is elected by the people, to represent the people, with their consent. Otherwise, council members would be hired, just like the city manager and staff are hired. A council member is not given carte blanche to spend the citizens' money (10% UUT is not enough!?). If that were the case, they should charge us 100% tax on our income: that way we'd have everything!

      Delete
    6. 9:26 here, nope, not John Capoccia but a voice of reason amongst some of you who think it will be easy to change the CalPers benefit reform. If you don't believe me, read the newspapers that report on cities trying to reform the retirement benefits who are being sued by the employees. San Diego for example which had a ballot measure overturned for reform and was ordered the city to pay back benefits to its employees. Unions and Sacramento are hard to buck no matter what you and I want.

      Delete
    7. All decisions will be made after the election. After the voters are out of the way.

      Delete
    8. 11:57 - so it is about employee costs? Not water infrastructure, the PD or the Library?

      Delete
    9. 11:57, if the city outsources employee positions or lays them off, they can't sue re how the CalPERS system and retirements are changed. See how that works?

      No job, nothing to sue about.

      Delete
    10. See, even the Capoccia supporters admit it's about Platinum Pensions.

      Delete
    11. No, you ninnies, it is not all about pension reform, I was replying to your comments about pension reform. Geeze. How about we fire every last one of the city employees and start over. We will still need to pay into the CalPers pension fund so will not be saving anything. When/if the city goes to the sheriff, the city will have to buy out all of our PD employees benefits including their participation into CalPers. And if you don't have just cause to fire any of the other employees where do you think that would get you. Put on your thinking caps.

      Delete
    12. Nice name calling. Say the word again while looking in the mirror. Sierra Madre's CalPERS exposure is estimated to be in the $9 million dollar range. A little town of 11,000 people never should have been nailed to something like that. So you're saying the taxpayers should happily accept a 66% utility tax hike because some City Hall jackasses put them into financial jeopardy like that? Why would they want to do that?

      Delete
    13. 2:44, that "We will still need to pay into the CalPers pension fund so will not be saving anything." is a damned lie. When we outsource to LA Sheriff and LA County Library, our pensions contributions will DECREASE. As a matter of fact, the money owed to CalPERS for those terminated and retired employees will in fact get smaller and smaller until one day we are 100% funded and the payments would STOP. Don't be a dumb ass.

      A lie repeated doesn't become the truth.

      Delete
    14. Gotta pay for those Platinum Pensions and $150,000 a year salary & benefit packages.

      Come to think of it, where do I apply?

      Delete
    15. Yes, the payments will eventually decrease for the fired employees, but what about the new ones, or are you going to run the city single handed?

      Delete
    16. LA County employees for PD (Sheriff) and Library pension costs get paid in the monthly bill and no more after that. No CalPERS assessments.

      Delete
    17. I doubt 3:25 would qualify for an interview.

      Delete
  9. 11:57. You're so fatalistic. Does this mean we should do nothing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surrender and willingly pay for all of the city's mistakes.

      Delete
    2. Sorry @ 3:46 Everything the city does it does in your name you authorized it when you moved here whether you voted or failed to vote. The residents are the city.

      Delete
    3. Well, we will vote this April. Things might change.

      Delete
    4. The residents aren't going to give Mayor John a 66% increase in UUT. Maybe you can print money 5:18. That's ok in your world.

      Delete
    5. Anon@5:48 Print it or not we are "on the hook" for it. I pay my debts call me old fashioned. And you don't know anything about "my world"

      Delete
    6. I am somehow obliged to pay some guy a $150,000 a year pension? Waddaya nuts? You must be drinking old fashions.

      Delete
    7. Yes 8:07: Even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Galatians 3:15

      Delete
    8. I am sorry, but I do not believe God has ever commended that the taxpayers have to support the bad decisions of bad government forever. If that was the case, then we'd still have prohibition.

      Delete
  10. El Nino vienes beware!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvmeUStFvz8

    ReplyDelete