Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Breaking: Pasadena Star News Urges A "NO" Vote On Measure UUT

From the Star News editorial.

It’s a bit of a scramble. We understand the nostalgic reasons for wanting to hold onto a police force to call your own. But the practical reasons to do so have disappeared. So have many of the members of the force, down to 11 officers from the former 20. It’s time for Sierra Madreans to move on and be served by the Sheriff’s Department. And it’s time for City Hall to follow its own timeline on the utility tax and allow it to go back down to the level proposed rather than be hiked again.

Sierra Madre citizens should vote no on Measure UUT, and then work with the City Council to allocate resources to parks and the library rather than propping up the old PD.

Link to the rest here.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

57 comments:

  1. Sorry, Martin. Sorry Ed. Sorry Michelle. Sorry city council and city staff. Time to do the work you have failed to do for the last several years.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Classic red herring by the Pasadena Star-News. This isn't an election about the PD versus the sheriff. Measure UUT is about restoring UUT revenue to the same level it was from July 2009 through June 2015 so Sierra Madre can function in the absence of sales tax revenue. But you go right ahead and join the PSN in claiming Sierra Madre should be defunded so the police department is forced to close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong-O, baby boy.

      The proposed 66% tax hike aka Measure UUt is all about the high cost of keeping the SMPD and the CalPERS costs that keep going higher and higher each year. If it's really about sales tax revenue, then how does Bradbury (where "Yes" fan Michelle Keith is City Manager, do it with a 5.5% UUT??

      Drum roll, please...
      Bradbury contracts for LA County Sheriff Dept. and LA County Fire...

      Delete
    2. Sorry 11:40, your BS is now inoperative.

      Delete
    3. 11.40 How do you explain the fact that Sierra Madre has a City employee cost/citizen 4 times larger than La Canada ?
      What do we get here that La Canada does not? and 4x as much of?

      Delete
    4. I find it deceptive to use the term "restoring" in reference to a tax increase that voters passed with the understanding that it would sunset on a specific schedule.

      Delete
  3. Gosh, wasn't that super-dee-dooper Pasadena campaign manager supposed to be able to deliver the Star News for the purple ones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't even know if he's still associated with the "yes" campaign. If he is, how embarrassing is that? I though he owned the Star News. Looks like like the Star News owns him.

      Delete
  4. I am glad to see that the Star News, which conducted extensive and detailed interviews with both sides, focused on the facts, disregarded the divisive rhetoric, and accepted the argument against the UUT increase.

    We must recognize as a community that we cannot afford an independent police department, and its replacement with the sheriff is a necessary first step to achieving the city's stated goal of long term financial stability. In fact, by the city's own admission it will save us $3.6 million to $4.8 million over the next eight years alone.

    Just as importantly, our excessive police spend is preventing us from investing in civic improvements, including deferred improvements to our parks and library.

    The city has openly stated that it will not address its excessive police spend unless this 67% tax increase is defeated. We need to provide it with the courage to make this needed change by voting no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So our UUT revenue (and out of 480 cities in California we are the 4th most financially dependent on UUT revenue) should be permanently cut by 40% from historical levels because you want to force a particular public policy decision. And your excuse is that the city will save $3.6 million to $4.8 million over 8 years. But if the UUT rate goes from 10% to 6% the UUT revenue loss will be $8 million over that same time period. Accepting for the moment your bogus savings numbers, that means the city will LOSE $4.4 million to $3.2 million over 8 years. After you close our police department what other services do you propose on closing to make up the additional loss of revenue? Paramedics? The Fire Department? Further delays in repairing our infrastructure?

      Delete
    2. Somebody is losing their little mind. A 6% UUT is plenty, Mr. Mayor. Do your job. After all, didn't you run for office as a 6% UUT advocate?

      Delete
    3. "Further delays in repairing our infrastructure?"

      You mean, like all the infrastructure the City Council didn't repair when the UUT was 10%. BS

      Delete
    4. Telling people Measure UUT will fix infrastructure is not truthful.

      Delete
    5. Rick -thank you for your impressive and honest analysis of the UUT situation. Without your great effort we would not have made this progress in the drive for honesty on the UUT issue.
      It is only people like Rick that save us from the kind of fiscal hell that Elaine and Capoccia want for us.

      Delete
    6. Honesty is the only critical measure that needs to be applied to the UUT issue.Then the choice is clear. Why do the "Yes" people lie? Because the facts do not support their case. It really s that simple.The rest are just details.

      Delete
    7. 12:10P I don't think people are generally saying No on a UUT. Just this one. Cut out the fat and use UUT funds where needed.

      Delete
    8. Vote for Mr. Gold if you want change.

      Delete
  5. Sierra Madre has no sales tax base. Out of 480 cities in California, Sierra Madre is the 4th most financially dependent on UUT revenue.(Source: californiacityfinance.com, July 2015). The police department is already closing with officers leaving. Pushing Sierra Madre towards financial insolvency in order to force the closure of the police department a few weeks earlier than it will happen on its own is insane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So is your spin. Insane, that is. Hiring the Sheriffs and saving $3 million bucks prevents insolvency. Getting rid of the CalPERS club that is the SMPD makes it even better.

      Delete
    2. If the city was inclined to address our excessive police spend regardless of whether or not the uut passed it would have done so by now. instead, it has elected to sit on the sheriff's proposal for nearly a year in the hopes that the uut increase would pass so that they could continue to throw money at it.

      Delete
    3. The revenue loss is twice as much as the "savings" claimed above by De La Mora. What other city services is he willing to cut to make up the difference?

      Delete
    4. How about we fire you, 12:20? The city doesn't need employees that can't do math.

      Delete
    5. facts = cryptonite to yes on uut crowdMarch 16, 2016 at 12:32 PM

      the city's official budgeted reduction in revenue FY 15/16 (8% uut) to FY 16/17 (6% uut) is $230k - not $1 million. If you have an internet machine you can find this figure at page 3 of the official city budget for FY 2015 - 2016.

      the police savings figures were prepared and published by the city in oct. 2015, incorporate assumptions designed to artificially minimize the savings that will result from contracting with the sheriff, and were previously reproduced on this page.

      Delete
    6. City Council has known since 2009 that the UUT would be 8% in July, 2015 and 6% in July, 2016? Those rates were confirmed by the voters twice in 2012 and 2014.

      So it's a big surprise in 2016?

      Delete
    7. False. On page 3 of the official city budget for FY 2015-2016 it states "The 2008 initiative called for a sunset (or decrease) of the UUT rate, and the City will realize the first loss of revenue from this sunset clause on July 1, 2015 when the UUT is reduced from 10% to 8%; on July 1, 2016, the UUT will be further reduced to 6% where it will remain unless changed by voter action. The resulting total estimated loss in General Fund revenue is approximately $1 million." So if we lose $8 million over 8 years and we accept your claim that we can save $4 million with the sheriff then where does the remaining $4 million get cut? In addition on page 65, the budget shows a reduction from FY 2015 Unaudited to FY 2016 Adopted Budget of $499,000 not $230k. You aren't telling the truth.

      Delete
    8. 12:51, you must be a lot of fun at parties.

      Delete
    9. I hope he brings his lampshade again.

      Delete
    10. can't respont to pretend numbersMarch 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM

      city stated total rev 15/16: $8,932,754
      city stated total rev 16/17: $8,703,656

      Revenue reduction: less that $230k year to year.

      ps: given your desperately dire predictions, you no doubt favor getting rid of SMPD to bank the savings.

      Delete
    11. The SMPD fired itself.

      Delete
    12. city stated total expenses plus net transfers out 15/16 $9,462,281
      city stated total expeneses plus net transfers out 16/17 $9,698,130

      60% of the transfers out are used to pay for Paramedic services.

      The 2016 budget projects a deficit of $994,474 for next year unless Measure UUT is passed. You propose saving $500,000 a year going to the sheriff. Where are you going to cut the remaining $500,000? Get rid of what city services? Paramedics? Fire Department? Not repair streets? Paramedic services cost $700,000 a year. Is that next?

      Delete
    13. cats and dogs sleeping together!March 16, 2016 at 2:11 PM

      Judging by the hysteria above, it looks like the yes on uut crowd is confronting a truth voiced by the great Iron Mike Tyson: Every one has a game plan until they get hit.

      The next tactic of the portly Pasadena politico will no doubt involve an alleged need to ritually sacrifice all first born male children of our city if the 67% uut increase fails to pass.

      Delete
    14. The sky is falling the sky is falling!!

      The fact the city kept spending more money each year has nothing to do with it!!!

      Delete
    15. Just goes to show, city hall never for a minute considered following the vote of the people. Instead they worked exclusively on finding a way around that.

      Delete
    16. 1.58 We already pay for L.A. County Paramedic services .You want us to pay twice? Once for L.A. County and then again for "our own" S.M. Paramedics?
      Please explain the logic in that.

      Delete
  6. Measure UUT is a CalPERS tax. It will fix nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It'll keep those Platinum Pensions coming!

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Suddenly the YES-lings don't seem quite so invincible. Maybe its time for another $5,000 mailer attacking The Tattler.

      Delete
  8. This is a big surprise because the Pasadena Star News is generally in favor of more government, not less. The implication is that the "Yes" people are way too extreme even for the Pasadena Star News !If this is the reason for the Pasadena Star new position it is serious condemnation of the "Yes" people - we're looking at you Capoccia & Harabedian !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the California pension debt crisis, which is everywhere in the state and not just here, has changed the minds of a lot of people. The Sierra Madre gravy train has now ground to a halt. It's time some people realized that.

      Delete
  9. The City of Irwindale is being audited by the state for corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maybe some of the clear thinking voters will finally get it and take down their purple sign and plant a NO ON UUT INCREASE sign. All you have to do is email the mod and we will make sure you get a sign.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I received a piece of Measure UUT mail today. It has a quote from Barry Gold saying that Sierra Madre should be allowed to go bankrupt. I hope Mr. Gold knows that pension obligations can't be discharged in bankruptcy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know that this was not sent out by Mr Gold and any quote by the Yes people is bound to contextualize it in the worst possible way. I smell a raton!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's why there are lawyers. Evdryone enjoying Pasadena politics in Sierra Madre?

      Delete
  13. 4:40 Mr. Gold is aware of your ...
    "pensions can't be discharged under bankruptcy issue."
    The issue Mr. Gold is trying to avoid is not going into bankruptcy .

    ReplyDelete
  14. The election can't come soon enough, though it is entertaining to watch the Yes on UUT crowd's desperation. Only annoying part is the amount of $$$ they're siphoning into their lost-cause campaign - seems like they realize the 66% tax increase ain't gonna fly, so they'll spend the money on mailers instead. Crybabies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Yes UUT Party has so much to be ashamed of. What a bunch of creeps.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you no shame?March 16, 2016 at 10:13 PM

      Nice.

      Delete
    2. As you can plainly see, the Yes UUT Party are complete scum.

      Delete
  17. I'm glad the 'No on UUT' people are pulling the safety ring this soon because there will still be a lot of work ahead of them sorting out the 'good ban and the ugly' in Sierra Madre city hall.

    ReplyDelete
  18. let's put a real end to the UUT and tthe questions regarding where our tax money is going by writing en masse to State Auditor Elaine Howle,if she can look into Irwindale she can look into Sierra Madre .
    Stay calm people that wasn't an earth quake
    I believe that was a collective of rear ends clenching and the simultaneous thought of
    "They wouldn't dare!"
    Who's up for writing short letters demanding transperancy and letting us see the numbers?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No I can't see. Why are you calling your political opponents complete scum and all the other personal insults days after decrying McCarthyism

    ReplyDelete