Tuesday, May 17, 2016

CAR's Mysterious $1,000 IMPAC Donation to the 'Yes On Measure UUT' Committee


"Why did IMPAC donate $1,000 SIX DAYS after the April 12, 2016 election? Is this how the bulldozer club spikes the football?" - reader comment

The final list of contributors and their generous donations to the 'Yes On Measure UUT' campaign does not become available to us until sometime in June, but certain information has begun to surface. Especially the larger amounts like this $1,000 beauty pictured above. Those need to be declared a bit earlier, as Ms. Putnam has apparently become aware recently.

The identified source of this loot is something called the "Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee," and is an entity of the California Association of Realtors. This is probably the largest donation from them to any campaign in Sierra Madre since the bumping big sums of cash they coughed up in the attempt to defeat Measure V a little less than a decade ago. 

That didn't work out quite as well for them. 

Here's the mystery as I see it. What exactly was in it for the CAR this time around? What was it about Measure UUT that caused them to write so large a check to Amy Putnam? And, even more to the point, what exactly is this 'Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee' anyway?

Here is how that one is described on the California Association of Realtors website (link):


I was not aware that Measure UUT was a local ballot measure that might "affect real property rights in California." A phrase that appears to make reference to the longstanding claim of the Arcadia Association of Realtors group that those it favors should be allowed to build whatever they want, and wherever they want, despite what concerned locals might feel is best for their community.

In short it is the belief that developers and their Realtor allies should have more favorable land use privileges than residents.

This does make you wonder what might have been promised to them by the folks running the Yes on Measure UUT campaign. Most of whom were opposed to Measure V back in the day.

There are a few huge land use issues this city will be facing in the next couple of years. The origin of this $1,000 donation from what should have been an unrelated source does raise a few questions.

Especially when you consider the stated political purpose of that source.

Maybe there is something we don't know yet. Or perhaps we do.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

30 comments:

  1. I guess this PAC believes that higher taxes for residents is better than having a well equipped and well trained Sheriff patrol the town. I wonder what else this PAC has donated to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't trust most real estate agents as far as I can throw them. They would sell out the town in a heartbeat for a commission.

      Delete
    2. Agreed 5:55. Realtors are morally bankrupt, though I have heard that there are some exceptions. Never met those exceptions myself.

      Delete
    3. Realtors are overpaid for what they do and I really find the profession annoying and grubby.

      Delete
  2. Why did IMPAC donate $ 1,000 SIX DAYS after the April 12, 2016 election? Is this how the bulldozer club spikes the football?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe they didn't want this to be an issue during the election.

      Delete
    2. The later they wait, the later the information gets out there.

      Delete
  3. And the Yes on UUT Committee is a registered PAC? If not, call FPC!

    ReplyDelete
  4. When their is 'big money' to be made then a little seed money has to be spread around first? Just who is going to profit from this chump change of $1,000 your right realtors of course, keeping property values high result in higher sales commissions later. Politician's, Developers and Realtors are like a three legged stool all have to work in concert in order for profits to be spread around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The yes on UUT probably was in the red and asked the for money. More late donations will probably show up in June. Isn't June when the UUT and water rates increase?

      Delete
    2. The final list will read like a who's who of local development interests.

      Delete
    3. Yep. All of whom will think they are owed something.

      Delete
  5. Interesting. Why would a CAR PAC that advocates for McMansion development be donating money to a tax increase measure in Sierra Madre? And after the election no less. Mysterious indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Something is fishy in Denmark and Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
  7. With high taxes you drive out fixed income residents and replace them with the more wealthy. You notice there is a lot of foreign money in town, more than ever before. More taxes will drive me out some day. I sure don't like what I'm reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like your best hope is Obama's bid to diversify wealthy neighborhoods.

      Delete
    2. No, the best hope is low taxes so that those who have lived here for decades can continue to do so. Not everything needs to be sacrificed for the benefit of city employees.

      Delete
  8. Low taxes? I must have missed something as I don't see this happening.
    Those who have lived here for decades are already getting a pretty good tax cut with proposition 8 as opposed to anyone who is coming new into town. So, in essence, newcomers are subsidizing the residents who lived here for decades. This already creates a schism between wealthier new residents and less wealthy, but still well-to-do old residents.
    I don't see that the new residents would out of the goodness of their hearts feel obliged to subsidize old residents any further.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bald assumptions, broad generalizations and an obvious contempt for seniors. You are a special one.

      Delete
    2. I'm thinking 12:48 would like to take our Social Security away from us, too.

      Delete
    3. Yes. While at the same time giving $20,000 benefit packages to city employees. Paid for by those very same seniors.

      Delete
    4. I assume you had your parents placed in a Convalescent Hospital. Hope for your sake your children are more loving than you are 12:48

      Delete
    5. You may not like what 12:48 is saying, but it's the truth. The newcomers (generally younger) are indeed subsidizing the long timers (generally older). That's the nature of Prop 13.

      Most readers of this blog, who tend to call for low taxes and minimal government, should recognize that they are being significantly subsidized by their new neighbors, who pay far more in property taxes than they do. They should be grateful, but, of course, they're not--they just continue to complain about paying the little they do compared to their new neighbors while still expecting all services government provides. They even complain about the quality of services but will never reach for their wallets to pay for improvements.

      Without Prop 13, a property tax system based on property value would result in the free market dictating that those old timers who did not properly plan for the increases in property values and concomitant increases in property taxes would need to sell and move to less expensive areas.

      This is the self-reliant, capitalist way that they enthusiastically expouse for others, such as in demanding the elimination of safety nets for the poor or the the "discipline of the market" for smaller businesses, while at the same time doing everything they can to protect the disproportionate property tax breaks they receive.

      Why does society subsidize and reward long time property owners for their poor planning?

      Delete
    6. What does any of this have to do with the $10s of thousands of dollars that was used to pay for the Measure UUT campaign? A lot of it coming from political PACs? And what exactly do those PACs (like CAR) expect from city hall in return?

      Delete
    7. Get rid of Prop 13 and you won't need campaigns for UUT increases or a UUT at all, 10:53. And you'll also get better schools, infrastructure, and city services.

      Delete
    8. Dear 10:59,
      Hahahahaha.

      Look at Chicago and the state of Illinois. Detroit is lovely.

      No Prop 13 and they're ready to go BK. More money = more Platinum Pensions.

      Without Prop 13 you get higher taxes and crappy schools. Nationwide, homeschooling is at an all-time high as more and more flee government schools. And the home schooled SAT scores continue to climb.

      Delete
    9. Comparing Detroit to California, and believing that Prop 13 didn't hurt schools?

      You're crazed laugh says it all 5:19.

      Delete
    10. Compensating Sierra Madre cops well over six figures is a problem. A small town of 11,000 people cannot sustain high-priced vanity policing.

      Delete
  9. It's the seniors that have preserved this town and still work to preserve it. It's because of poor management that Sierre Madre is in such poor financial condition. 12:48,, you really have missed something and I don't see you seeking the truth. May you travel in peace and leave our town alone oh, and keep your hand out of our pocket's.

    ReplyDelete
  10. first almost every one of the local realtors were for One Carter development because they were salivating over the commissions and later when they were being shut out by Asian agents, the realtors in town became environmentalists and were against One Carter


    ReplyDelete