Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Concerned Sierra Madre Resident: Here's 4 of the Biggest Whoppers from the "Yes On Measure UUT" Gang

You say: “Give it to me straight.” Meaning: I want to hear the truth. Unfortunately, and with the sorts of individuals making up the YES On Measure UUT crowd, that just ain’t gonna happen. There are many reasons, I suppose. Some might be psychological, some habitual. But the main reason remains: If they tell us the truth, their Utility Users’ Tax (UUT) increase will go down in flames. Again. For the 3rd time in 4 years. Loss, loss and then another loss. Are these guys related to the Chicago Cubs? At least the Cubbies are lovable, and they let more than five people a day comment on their Facebook page.

The Yes crowd cannot make those kinds of claims. Well, OK, I suppose they could. But it wouldn't be true. Which is the problem.

Here are four of the biggest whoppers the YES On Measure UUT gang has told to date. Stop by again tomorrow and we'll be able to show you a few more.

1. “The No On UUT campaign consists of ‘out-of-town interests.’”

Really? Who are the out-of-town interests in this election that are spending the most money? The No on UUT effort has raised virtually no out-of-town money.

The real spending title goes to Yes On Measure UUT campaign manager and Sierra Madre outsider Martin O'Pasadena, who has killed a gazillion trees with his post-card saturation bombing campaign. What has he spent so far, about $20,000, or even more? What is in it for him?

2. The No On UUT campaign supporters are “crazy” and “want the city to go bankrupt.” These disingenuous sound bites started with none other than John Capoccia, our increasingly less-esteemed Mayor, who should know better.

It appears that Mayor Capoccia gets easily confused. He thinks if you’re against a 66% tax increase in April, 2016, that means you want to repeal the UUT completely. Even when the UUT repeal isn’t on the ballot. Maybe someone could draw His Honor a picture? Or get out some wood blocks?

No one I know got a 66% raise last year. Why should the City of Sierra Madre?

3. “We need to keep SMPD to keep community policing and our small-town feel.”

Fact: The SMPD has virtually deserted Sierra Madre. So much for showing us how much they cared about our mountain village. Out of 20 officer positions, 9 were vacant as of end of January, 2016. The SMPD is an emaciated police force. They had so many officers head for the hills that they can’t even cover Sierra Madre for 24 hours a day. To boot, virtually all the command structure, from the sergeants up to the Chief, are eligible to retire.

A part-time police force is really only a security company. And SMPD Security can only “Community Police” during the daylight hours.

When the real crime usually happens, or when its, um, dark, that job is currently being handled (quite well) by the men and women Deputies of the LA Sheriffs Dept. (LASD) from 6 PM to 6 AM, 7 days a week since February 1, 2016.

And (drum roll, please), here is my favorite whopper from Yes on Measure UUT:

4.  “We won’t save any money with LASD.”

Actually, we’d save a boatload with the Sheriffs. Thanks to Sierra Madre resident Rick De La Mora, whose painstakingly thorough research came up with the following comparison (link) with La Canada Flintridge, another lovely Foothill village.

Rick De La Mora states: "Despite having greater police service needs, La Canada spends significantly less on police services than Sierra Madre."


The reason: La Canada Flintridge contracts with the Sheriffs. Sierra Madre does not.


By adopting the Sheriff’s 20/20 Proposal the City of Sierra Madre will serve both of its stated goals by “maintaining the current level of City services” and providing for Sierra Madre’s long term “financial stability.”

So there you have it. Four of the biggest whoppers from those wacky Yes on Measure UUT boys and girls. What other choice do they have? After all, the truth is their worst enemy.

See you here tomorrow.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

63 comments:

  1. Just can't get over the 'whopper' classification of 'YES on UUT' propaganda that has been disseminated so freely, I might ask if these people even have a valid fishing license to be able to tell all those 'WHOPPER STORIES'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin O'Pasadena is one of those "Republican" campaign managers who actually takes whichever side pays him. Claims he works for free. Yeah, right. Doesn't disclose how much commission markup he gets from all the printing and mailing costs of postcard bombs.

      Delete
    2. It is not often that you see a Republican campaign manager kicking in his time and expertise helping out municipal employee unions such as the SMPA. Measure UUT is all about paying cops their CalPERS. If you think otherwise you're a chump.

      Delete
    3. Maybe Martin O'Pasadena is broadening his horizons. Maybe he'll help Anthony Portantino against Mike Antonovich for Carol "Lookie" Liu's CA Senate seat?

      Delete
    4. After this Measure UUT campaign the cost will be a lot lower.

      Delete
    5. Martin Truitt is not a registered Republican. At some point he decided to cross over and leave behind fiscal accountability as evidenced by his involvement with the Yes on UUT campaign.

      Delete
    6. Martin O'Pasadena was the brainchild behind the anti-PUSD "No on Measure CC" postcards a few years back.

      Now he's in charge of pushing through a 66% UUT tax hike? What a guy.

      Delete
    7. Flip ................................................................ Flop!

      Delete
  2. So is this what a Pasadena run campaign looks like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just send money.

      Delete
    2. Will smear for money.

      Delete
  3. They know that the only way the UUT will pass is by telling lies. That's what their campaign is based on - that and lots of money for mailers. Hopefully, the residents will see through it. For me, whatever the police union is for, I'm against. Everyone knows by know that the police union will support any tax because the burden of paying the tax is all on the residents and the union members are the ones who will benefit from the tax with higher salaries, fatter pensions and lower retirement ages. That's the police union for you. That's another reason we need the Sheriffs. At least they won't be meddling in local politics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just wait and see what comes out the last week of the campaign from the Yes on UUT people. You ain't seen nothin yet. We will also see what they come up with to smear Barry Gold who has waged a remarkable grassroots campaign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regardless of which side you are on in our UUT issue or even National politics, wouldn't you have a much more favorable opinion of Government if people like Barry Gold was typical of their ranks?
      If the other side would rise to his level of decency,honesty and transparency, we could have a meaningful discussion. Instead it is just silly name calling by the "Yes" people and speculation - no facts.Why?

      Delete
  5. Screw the unions, screw the pensions, screw ALL of those unions who continue sue city hall 2 times a year over increased salaries and Union pensions. You guys have caused what you get. We no longer need you or your expense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Win or lose, Mr. Gold has kept his promise to run a clean campaign. He has engaged citizens, answered their questions, walked the streets of SM which is more than the other candidates have done. What else could decent people want? Makes you wonder. We're down to the wire and the Yes guys will pull something.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Got my yes on UUT phone call last night and my front door visit a couple of weeks ago. Saw the troops in a store in town trying to get the owner to sport a YES sign (I shared with him the conventional wisdom of staying out of local issues and he is not a SM registered voter). Even if it passes, the lies will come home to roost when more money more money woes regarding the real fiscal irresponsibility of the city is laid out for all to get and be asked to pony up more $$ to "fix."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sierra Madre City Hall, like all governments are greedy.
    If they are managing our money properly they would not have to keep asking for more and more.
    They wouldn't have outside big central government interests spending thousands on propaganda.
    Vote No.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Goid luck to Barry Gold....a very honest resident of Sierra Madre who is not beholding to corrupt interests.
    Write in Barry Gold. Do not vote for other candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget to fill in the bubble

      Delete
  10. I think the difference between this Measure UUT campaign and the previous two is that the YES people have a much more heavily financed platform to peddle their arguments from. Of course, with all of that extra exposure goes the risk of being exposed for not telling the truth. Something this article has done extremely well. Please redistribute to anyone on your email lists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manure weighs a lot. That must be quite a platform.

      Delete
  11. Gold is precious so is your vote.
    The only standard is the Gold standard,write in Gold.
    Don't waste a golden opportunity,write in Gold.
    Any guesses to whom I'm voting for?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree, screw the UUt, screw the pensions, screw the health and death benifit. I am a taxpayer and no longer need to finance a select group of Sierra made employees. These UUT taxes and pensions have no benifit to any taxpayer in town. If those sierra madrw employees want them, let them buy them. I will vote No ... No more UUT tax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this continues up the food chain

      County and State - if it's a tax measure or bond, I vote against because until the complete public sector deals with one of the biggest rip offs against taxpayers - the pension system I'll vote against on anything and everything

      the biggest debt facing cities, counties and the state is the pie in the sky pension plan for the public employees

      Delete
  13. Write in Barry Gold AND fill in the bubble, too, or else the vote will not count.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Then you add in the smaller attempts to deceive: calling it a 2% increase when an informed voter knows the current UUT is scheduled to sunset to 6%; saying this measure seeks to "restore" something when the 10% UUT was intentionally temporary; accusing anyone against this measure of wanting to bankrupt the city to make a point (we have an incoming treasurer who would beg to differ). It's feeling increasingly like a pitch from a used car salesman. I consider myself exponentially less cynical than many Tattler commenters, but at this point I am disillusioned by the fact our city council has actively endorsed such lowbrow campaign tactics. Win or lose Measure UUT, they have sacrificed a lot of trust from people who hoped for better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of sacrificing trust, wait 'till the City Council wants to add parcel tax(es) on top of that 66% UUT tax increase.

      Delete
    2. That will happen in 2018.

      Delete
    3. Maybe the proposed parcel tax increase can be on the same ballot as the UUT total repeal. That would be fun!

      Delete
    4. Interesting. Of course, the parcel tax will take 2/3s of the vote to pass. How will they scare people into voting for that?

      Delete
  15. So let me get this straight- the YES folks say we need a 66% tax increase to keep 11 police officers when we can save $800,000.00 by going with the resources of the entire Los Angeles Sheriff Dept. The YES people are delusional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does appear that way.

      Delete
    2. Math is hard.

      Delete
  16. There is no longer a benefit for the taxpayer to pay any UUT taxes. Vote no more UUT taxes

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. This blog is as reliable and informative as a tabloid. It is clearly biased and has not researched what lasd does to cities and how most cities want there own Dept. Back in less than ten years but are almost always unable to afford the county but back.

    SMPD has not taken raises in over 5 years to help with the financial troubles of the city. Lasd gets a NON NEGOTIABLE 3% pay raise every year. The "platinum" pensions are 2.7%@57.

    If you think lasd service is comparable to a city PD, you've clearly never lived in a sheriff serviced area.

    This blog is biased and only provides dramatic, distorted, and vague points. The lasd price did not include other services and programs the SMPD cost did include. A contract with lasd will stay less and steadily increase and of course have new things to pay for (like new facility not even in the city that the city has to contribute to). A contract with lasd is the first big step in disincorporating.

    If you think your going to pay less and get more, your naive and deserve to learn the hard way. Of course you can always move. The city will be stuck with your irreversible mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I notice 9:33 didn't dispel any of the 4 whoppers.

      Also, it's "you're going" as in you are going.

      Delete
    2. 9:33's nose is now as long as a Dodger Dog.

      Delete
    3. Please cite references 9:33.

      Delete
    4. Hey, Officer 9:33, will you please give me the name of at least ONE city that has disincorporated AFTER contracting LASD?

      You also failed to mention that EVERY city in LA County that has incorporated since 1954 (Lakewood was the first) contracts with LASD and LACo Fire.

      Nice try, Sparky.

      Delete
    5. We should get Bill Coburn in on this discussion. I've heard he is now a trained professional when it comes to Dodger Dogs

      Delete
    6. "Tabloids ... Fox News..." Always the same crap. Damn these people are boring.

      Delete
    7. please 9:33. the SMPD has sued the city into oblivion, have officers maxing overtime hours for retirement benefits

      biased? yes you are and still spinning misinformation, no facts and just hyperbole rhetoric hysterics

      Delete
    8. Hysteria is all they got.

      Delete
    9. We are currently stuck with CalPers and there is no going back. Elaine's raise will be reflected in her pension

      Delete
    10. I think 9:33 is office Henry "famous" Amos who shot the guy sleeping in the back of the towed truck back in 2009. He is clearly shooting first and then coming to reality later. lol

      Delete
  19. The above is largely assertions, conjecture and opinion.
    Any facts to support your 'case' ? No, I thought not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which above are you talking about?

      Delete
    2. The Bill Coburn comment, I think.

      Delete
  20. You know, if the city just admitted it is drowning in debt because of bad decisions made in the past, Measure UUT would have passed with ease. Now it is a nail biter. If the MUUTs didn't get their PAVs in, it could lose. Notice how many Yes signs have been taken in? People do not like being fibbed to, especially to get money.

    ReplyDelete
  21. the Yes Facebook page is managed by a Prop 13 welfare recipient who wants us to pay more in taxes so he can receive services but doesn't pay his fair share of property taxes

    this UUT started with opportunistic misleading information and maneuvering by two utility company lawyers sans Council members who attempted to use the UUT to build their pet projects like a new 7 million dollar library

    it's a shame that we elect neighbors who are so inside of their own head and massive egos that they can't be straight with us

    so, I'll vote NO and if I get a chance to vote to repeal, I'll do that

    dump the pensions - that's our biggest debt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed claims he pays $100 plus in monthly UUT .
      I don't think so.

      Delete
  22. Nancy Walsh's endorsed candidate for sheriff Paul Tanaka was just found guilty of corruption charges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tanaka was also endorsed by John Harabedian, too. Oops.

      Delete
  23. At 12:29 P.M. There was a broken water main on Santa Anita between Sierra Madre Blvd. and Orange Grove Blvd.when I returned an hour later water was still gushing out .
    Please note Arcadia Water was on the scene doing their best to fix the gusher Lets hope this isn't an issue that affects us here in Sierra Madre,

    ReplyDelete
  24. I voted for Barry Gold through the mail last week. Got a flyer today, and it's good, but unfortunately, it was stuck to the side of the mailbox. Unless the rules have changed, flyer distributors are supposed to steer clear of the mailboxes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As the majority of all taxpayers can agree, the city employees have been on a gravey train for a long time. Know it's time to take away the gravy. I vote to Repeal All taxes and Repeal All Pensions and benefits. If the city employees want them. They can buy them with their own money!

    ReplyDelete
  26. 5:43 What did the flyer look like ?

    ReplyDelete
  27. @5:43 Mrs. Kravitz are you attempting ugly politics or a s!$t storm ?
    I can assure you Mr.Gold knows the rules.
    Stop.spreding gossip and go get Abner his dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Barry's phone number is on every flyer. Did you think to call him and help him understand the postal rules.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Certain 'Yes on UUT' supporters need to realize that the more they lie, the bigger their butts get.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Vote for Dan Taylor for California assembly. I promise to vote against any measure that would raise our taxes. I promise to ensure our money is not wasted in Sacramento and the services we pay the state for are received.
    http://dan-taylor.ruck.us/

    ReplyDelete