Monday, February 29, 2016

John Capoccia Was Against The UUT Before He Was For It

McMeasure UUT

Mayor John Capoccia might have a small forest's worth of Yes On UUT lawn signs sitting on his porch right now, but it was not always that way. In 2012, when a not so very well known John Capoccia first ran for City Council, he was proudly against any extension of the then 10% utility tax. It was how he differentiated himself from most of the other candidates. He wanted us to believe that he was the real tax fighter, and why not? There was a decidedly anti-tax sentiment that year, and John Capoccia successfully rode that wave all the way to a seat on Sierra Madre's City Council.

Once safely elected he proceeded to vote for every tax, rate and fee increase that came his way. Something that elevated Mr. Capoccia into that special Joe Mosca Class of Sierra Madre elected official. Those who promised one big thing when they ran for office, and did exactly the opposite once on the City Council. We'd say that makes him something of an equivocator, but since he is a politician that would be a redundancy.

So here is a Monday morning kind of thought. What if John Capoccia had not run as an Anti-UUT candidate in 2012? What if he had been honest about his true intentions and instead had advocated for the passing of that year's version of Measure UUT? Would it have gotten the votes it needed to pass?

If John had been clear about his real plans rather than cynically using the anti-tax mood of that year to get elected, would the city be experiencing the kinds of problems it is today? Or at least the kinds of problems the 2016 version of John Capoccia says the city is having?

Using today's John Capoccia rationale for passing Measure UUT, is he the problem that we'd been warned about? Is he the responsible party for today's municipal monetary miasma? The real nut? Has John met the enemy and it is ... him?

Using the investigative power of the Tattler Research Team, we have now been able to uncover actual 2011 e-mails from then candidate John Capoccia. Missives to supporters where he discussed his animosity to the UUT, and why. Needless to say the opinions expressed are very different from what Mayor Capoccia is telling us now.


So let me ask you another question

If Capoccia was willing to run for office as an anti-UUT candidate in 2012, what are we to think of his efforts this year when he is running as a community preservationist? Is he taking a similar political advantage of the heartfelt need of many residents to preserve Sierra Madre in 2016?

Just like he did with his anti-utility tax posturing in 2012?

After all, John Capoccia flipped on an extremely important election issue four years ago. What is to prevent him from doing that again?

Errata

After which Muffin raised a back leg and ...

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

49 comments:

  1. Muffin has my vote!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The sign would be easier to read if it said:
    YES ON 66%

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can we get that pig to run? Whatever happened to him?

      Delete
    2. He went trotters up.

      Delete
  3. So if what the sign says is right, giving Elaine Aguilar a $150,000 a year retirement pension will improve the resale value of my home?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your Development Friendly RealtorFebruary 29, 2016 at 5:43 AM

      The first thing most potential home buyers ask is what kind of pension plan do the city's employees have. It can make as much as a $50,000 difference in the asking price for your home. No, really!

      Delete
    2. And the other factor is: Does the local village have their own understaffed police department with Platinum Pensions for all employees? If the answer is yes, add another $50,000 to your property value!

      Delete
    3. Of course it will save my property value. I read it on a sign. Therefore it must be true. Lol

      Delete
    4. Yes. It is there in the fine print.

      Delete
  4. He is more of a politician than I thought. Worried about his image, now and for the future. Not willing to stand up for what he stands for if people are going to dislike him. The city house needs to be cleaned. As for Elaine, she can retire here and go work somewhere else and draw another pension.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The UUT is only about having more revenues for the public employees. Don't be fooled. We need to roll back salaries and pensions and raise the retirement age. That's how we control our budget. There is an old saying that applies to individuals as well as to city governments: Expenses will rise to meet the income.

      Delete
  5. Measure UUT
    1) Won't fix the pipes.
    2) Won't put SMPD on the streets at night.
    3) Won't turn on the Library lights.
    4) But it will make everything right with the municipal unions.
    Vote NO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what the parcel tax will fund. Then all the money we have been spending on library and infrastructure can be spent on benefits and police. The parcel tax will also generate a guarenteed money stream for a new bond.

      Delete
    2. Ya really think you'll get 2/3 yes votes for a dedicated parcel tax for Public Safety? I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

      Delete
  6. These people are all crooks. We need to vote them all out. Out with the crooks, in with the Gold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "These people"
      Are you including the whole council?

      Delete
    2. Yes, the majority. I saw Rachel picking up the 'Yes on the UUT' signs from Mayor Mc Cheese. On a side, there are a lot of walkers and drivers who stop by the Mayor's house to chat with him regarding the tax increase. Lots of raised and angry voices from what I can hear and I find it hilarious!

      Delete
    3. Sure, Einstein. There's only 2 up for re-election but, whatever.

      Delete
    4. Raised and angry voices? Serves them right for walking on the mayor's lawn.

      Delete
  7. There is only one candidate you know that 100% he will not flip on mansionization. Barry Gold.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A night has passed with out the SMPD, and the town remains. Let's all make this a 24 Karat year with the end of the SMPD and bring some Porfessional law enforcement here permentaly. Vote for Barry Gold only, give no votes to the other two big government spenders.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Tattler needs to do an expose on John Harabedian. Capoccia is an honest trying to do his best for the city. Harabedian is the guy to be concerned about because he has ambitions for higher office and sees little old Sierra Madre as merely a stepping stone in his grand plan. Consequently, every decision he makes is colored by those intentions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both of them need to spend some quality time with Muffin.

      Delete
    2. Agreed, 6:52. All this determined taking down of Capoccia pretty much guarantees a Harabedian win - and Harabedian is a much worse risk.

      Delete
    3. They're both the same. Tho' Harabedian is far more likely to get a job in Sacramento, and then leave before his term is up.

      Delete
  10. I only wish Barry had made the decision to run when he could have still been written on the ballot. By not doing so, its an uphill climb to be a write-in candidate but it can be done and Barry seems to be willing to pay that price. For all our sakes, I sure hope he can do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A write-in vote for Barry could be one of the most important you ever make.

      Delete
  11. Again with the Barry Gold? Where was he when the rubber met the road? He doesn't want your vote. If he did he'd be on the ballot. You all have to stop dropping acid on the weekend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you need to stop dropping it on Monday morning.

      Delete
    2. 8:47, Martin Truitt, is that you?

      Delete
    3. I hear there is a class action suit being put together directed at Martin Truitt. The charge is eyestrain.

      Delete
    4. 8:47aagain with harping on the "rubber stamp." That's what write-in is all about.

      Delete
  12. John was right in 2012, and he is right now. His arguments were all valid then and his arguments are all valid now. Remember, Rachael and Denise ran on a no UUT platform in 2014. When elected, they did all they could in curbing expenses, in reorganizing departments, and cutting benefits. Now, they could see that 10% was the only way to go. They both have also said that the 10% is not the end all/do all for budget balance, and called for you be patient while they determined what is best for the City.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really 12:25? You mean it is possible to say two completely opposite things and have both of them be correct? Are you you by any chance 15 years old?

      Delete
    2. I guess you all have never changed your position on anything. Debating with a Tattler is like debating with Donald Trump. All bluster, no truth.

      Delete
    3. What exactly was his arguements in 2012? And today's?

      Delete
    4. 12:52 - Trump and Capoccia have a lot in common.

      Delete
    5. 12:52 - depends on which day of the week you are asking.

      Delete
    6. 12:25, thanks for that accurate explanation.

      Delete
    7. 1:59 - thanks for commenting on your own post.

      Delete
    8. Well, that was awkward, 1:59. Shill much?

      Delete
    9. Mod, Huh? If you think that 1:59 was commenting on 12:25's post you are way off base.

      Delete
    10. Here is what was said:

      AnonymousFebruary 29, 2016 at 1:59 PM
      12:25, thanks for that accurate explanation.

      If you have a different explanation, let me know.

      Delete
    11. 1:59 here, and a constant reader. I thought that 12:25 gave a good account of what was thought & said. It was not my post at 12:25.

      Delete
  13. LA Sheriff Dept. will be back on the mean streets of Sierra Madre starting in less than an hour. I'm glad we've got the pros working the night shift.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, since it's a fact that the SMPD cheief is paid $200,000 a year to work half time and now half time again because the SMPD only works 12 of 24 hrs a day. What do you think of reducing the chiefs salary by one half for his responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  15. anyone know the verdict of the city's lawsuit against the Hildreths? Trial ended yesterday.

    ReplyDelete