On Monday they had an interesting post where they show links to five different newspapers, each having the respective County Sheriff writing an editorial in support of Proposition 6. It turns out that each of these articles have a different byline but they are the exact same article.
Here is the link to our own Sheriff Ed Prieto’s letter.
Sheriff Prieto writes:
“Whether California faces rosy or gloomy times, we must always make public safety the number one priority. If our streets, parks and schools aren’t safe from gang violence and other crimes, then nothing else really matters.”
He goes on to argue:
“Democratic members of the Budget Conference Committee have approved deep cuts to public safety programs including the Citizens Option for Public Safety, which provides for front-line law enforcement, and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act while altogether eliminating several vital programs such as California’s Methamphetamine Interdiction Program and the Small and Rural County Sheriffs Grant Program. Combined with a proposed corrections package that puts some offenders back out on the streets without supervision, these cuts will significantly exacerbate the ability of law enforcement to provide essential public safety services. These programs are critical in preventing our most at-risk youths from joining gangs, getting involved in drugs, and entering a lifetime of crime.”
What else does this law do according to Sheriff Prieto:
“In addition to protecting important gang prevention and intervention funding, this initiative prohibits bail to illegal aliens who are charged with violent or gang crimes; it creates tougher punishment for gang crimes, drive-by shootings, methamphetamine distribution and victim intimidation; it helps victims who have been intimidated by gang criminals and it funds victim-witness protection programs in our communities.”
Finally he gives you the link to a place where you can get more information: http://www.safeneighborhoodsact.com/ .
It all sounds good until you do a little more research on the act.
The sponsor of this bill is none other than Mike Reynolds. If his name sounds familiar, he was the author of the “Three Strikes” bill that is on the books, you know the one that has no exception if the perpetrator commits a third non-violent felony, which means people have been put into jail for a long time for fairly minor third crimes. So if you like “Three Strikes,” then perhaps this is a good proposition to support. If you have concerns about it, then read on.
Some of the opposition to Proposition 6 includes the California Democratic Party, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Labor Federation, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, the California Teachers Association, California National Organization for Women, the Los Angeles City Council, the League of Women Voters, California Church IMPACT and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.
You might be asking why groups like teachers and women’s groups are in opposition to a law enforcement bill. Not to mention labor groups.
There are two main reasons for this type of opposition.
First, opponents claim that it “divert(s) billions from California’s schools, hospitals and childcare centers. By funding failed prison and policing policies, it would deepen the state’s ongoing budget crisis.”
It’s a simple budget matter. If you have a finite pie of government spending and you give money to prisons and law enforcement, you have to take it from schools and health care.
Hence opponents cite this information:
“Half of Californians are in favor of cutting prison spending. only 3.6% of Californians are in favor of cutting health care funds and 5% in favor of cutting school funding. Proposition 6 will increase funding to prisons and cut funding to health care and schools.”
From a budget standpoint it seems that this might not be a good time to cut money to health care and schools while funding more prisons.
Other arguments against this bill focus on the specifics of the bill and it seems to me that these specifics are probably subject to debate by reasonable people.
For instance, it forces youth convicted of any “gang-related” felony to be incarcerated as an adult rather than tried in juvenile court and housed in a youth prison.
It forces recipients of public housing subsidies to submit to annual criminal background checks–this has an obvious bent toward what is happening in Antioch. It would then make individuals with recent criminal convictions ineligible for subsidies. Worse yet it criminalizes people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale.
According to the website for opponents of Prop 6, it:
“Target(s) undocumented immigrants by denying bail to those charged with violent or gang-related crimes and requiring local sheriffs to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the arrest and charges of people who are undocumented.”
There are concerns that individuals who are listed in gang databases but who are actually affiliated with gangs could be falsely prosecuted under this provision. (Here’s the source on that point).
For me, it seems like this imposes a lot of new rules on the criminal justice system that need to be clearly thought out in terms of their consequences. Voters will often vote for these measures because they want to be tough on crime. This one has a chance to fail because of the economic issues, but frankly some of the provisions could have startlingly unintended consequences.
It seems that the Sheriff’s want the additional resources and I cannot blame them for that. But if it comes at the expense of beleaguered schools, it seems to me that we will just be feeding into the problem of law enforcement in the future by taking money from present education.
So for that reason alone, I am voting against it. And I am alarmed at a number of the provisions in the law. I am saddened to see the Sheriff supporting such a measure just to get additional funding.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I will votee against Prop 6 for many reasons. It is disturbing that more money is being spent on incarceration over education. The system is sure to ruin a child or teenager’s life by putting them in prison instead of juvenille hall, which needs an overhaul too.
Tthank you for this story.
I will votee against Prop 6 for many reasons. It is disturbing that more money is being spent on incarceration over education. The system is sure to ruin a child or teenager’s life by putting them in prison instead of juvenille hall, which needs an overhaul too.
Tthank you for this story.
I will votee against Prop 6 for many reasons. It is disturbing that more money is being spent on incarceration over education. The system is sure to ruin a child or teenager’s life by putting them in prison instead of juvenille hall, which needs an overhaul too.
Tthank you for this story.
I will votee against Prop 6 for many reasons. It is disturbing that more money is being spent on incarceration over education. The system is sure to ruin a child or teenager’s life by putting them in prison instead of juvenille hall, which needs an overhaul too.
Tthank you for this story.
Fairly minor crimes are misdemeanors. Felony crimes are NOT fairly minor!
Fairly minor crimes are misdemeanors. Felony crimes are NOT fairly minor!
Fairly minor crimes are misdemeanors. Felony crimes are NOT fairly minor!
Fairly minor crimes are misdemeanors. Felony crimes are NOT fairly minor!
I agree with Ann.
This Proposition clearly mimics the anti-gang rhetoric of Yolo County DA’s Office. Unfortunately, many young men will continue to fall under the label of ” gang member” when in fact they are not or they are ” affiliates” through kinship ties or neighborhood. If he looks like one, he must be one.
Is it a crime to simply belong to a gang or is it a crime to commit criminal activity to further a criminal street gang?
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should be reserved for the most egregious crimes, gang related or otherwise.
Lets focus on gang prevention through improved education (public school system), mentorship, opportunities (employment, housing etc.), and building a better relationship between Law Enforcement and the community it serves.
I agree with Ann.
This Proposition clearly mimics the anti-gang rhetoric of Yolo County DA’s Office. Unfortunately, many young men will continue to fall under the label of ” gang member” when in fact they are not or they are ” affiliates” through kinship ties or neighborhood. If he looks like one, he must be one.
Is it a crime to simply belong to a gang or is it a crime to commit criminal activity to further a criminal street gang?
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should be reserved for the most egregious crimes, gang related or otherwise.
Lets focus on gang prevention through improved education (public school system), mentorship, opportunities (employment, housing etc.), and building a better relationship between Law Enforcement and the community it serves.
I agree with Ann.
This Proposition clearly mimics the anti-gang rhetoric of Yolo County DA’s Office. Unfortunately, many young men will continue to fall under the label of ” gang member” when in fact they are not or they are ” affiliates” through kinship ties or neighborhood. If he looks like one, he must be one.
Is it a crime to simply belong to a gang or is it a crime to commit criminal activity to further a criminal street gang?
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should be reserved for the most egregious crimes, gang related or otherwise.
Lets focus on gang prevention through improved education (public school system), mentorship, opportunities (employment, housing etc.), and building a better relationship between Law Enforcement and the community it serves.
I agree with Ann.
This Proposition clearly mimics the anti-gang rhetoric of Yolo County DA’s Office. Unfortunately, many young men will continue to fall under the label of ” gang member” when in fact they are not or they are ” affiliates” through kinship ties or neighborhood. If he looks like one, he must be one.
Is it a crime to simply belong to a gang or is it a crime to commit criminal activity to further a criminal street gang?
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should be reserved for the most egregious crimes, gang related or otherwise.
Lets focus on gang prevention through improved education (public school system), mentorship, opportunities (employment, housing etc.), and building a better relationship between Law Enforcement and the community it serves.
Minor crimes can be charged as felonies.
Consider a teenager getting into a fist fight at school. The teenager is arrested for felony assault.
Consider a teenager caught shoplifting. This teenager is then charged with felony burglary.
These are examples of charges filed by the DA’s Office against kids in Yolo County.
Perhaps if we took the people in prison for drug related crimes out and got them the medical care they need instead of treating drug addiction like a crime … maybe there would be enough room in our prisons for real criminals and we wouldn’t be constantly pressured to build more and more prisons. Just a thought
Minor crimes can be charged as felonies.
Consider a teenager getting into a fist fight at school. The teenager is arrested for felony assault.
Consider a teenager caught shoplifting. This teenager is then charged with felony burglary.
These are examples of charges filed by the DA’s Office against kids in Yolo County.
Perhaps if we took the people in prison for drug related crimes out and got them the medical care they need instead of treating drug addiction like a crime … maybe there would be enough room in our prisons for real criminals and we wouldn’t be constantly pressured to build more and more prisons. Just a thought
Minor crimes can be charged as felonies.
Consider a teenager getting into a fist fight at school. The teenager is arrested for felony assault.
Consider a teenager caught shoplifting. This teenager is then charged with felony burglary.
These are examples of charges filed by the DA’s Office against kids in Yolo County.
Perhaps if we took the people in prison for drug related crimes out and got them the medical care they need instead of treating drug addiction like a crime … maybe there would be enough room in our prisons for real criminals and we wouldn’t be constantly pressured to build more and more prisons. Just a thought
Minor crimes can be charged as felonies.
Consider a teenager getting into a fist fight at school. The teenager is arrested for felony assault.
Consider a teenager caught shoplifting. This teenager is then charged with felony burglary.
These are examples of charges filed by the DA’s Office against kids in Yolo County.
Perhaps if we took the people in prison for drug related crimes out and got them the medical care they need instead of treating drug addiction like a crime … maybe there would be enough room in our prisons for real criminals and we wouldn’t be constantly pressured to build more and more prisons. Just a thought
The Department of Justice – Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention just published a report (August 2008) on the deterrent effect of juvenile transfer laws (transferring a juvenile to criminal court)
In a nutshell:
“Most practitioners would agree, consistent with the extant research, that it is important that the juvenile courts’ response to juvenile offenders be calibrated to have sufficient effectiveness as a deterrent while not being overly punitive. The practice of transferring juveniles for trial and sentencing in adult criminal court has, however, produced the unintended effect of increasing recidivism, particularly
in violent offenders, and thereby of promoting life-course criminality (Scott, 2000). But, if it was indeed true that transfer laws had a deterrent effect on juvenile crime, then some of these offenders would not have offended in the first place. Although the limited extant research falls far short of providing definitive conclusions, the bulk of the empirical evidence suggests that transfer laws, as currently implemented, probably have little general deterrent effect on would-be juvenile offenders.”(NCJ 220595) August 2008
Transferring juveniles to criminal court does not appear to have the intended effect in increasing public safety.
The Department of Justice – Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention just published a report (August 2008) on the deterrent effect of juvenile transfer laws (transferring a juvenile to criminal court)
In a nutshell:
“Most practitioners would agree, consistent with the extant research, that it is important that the juvenile courts’ response to juvenile offenders be calibrated to have sufficient effectiveness as a deterrent while not being overly punitive. The practice of transferring juveniles for trial and sentencing in adult criminal court has, however, produced the unintended effect of increasing recidivism, particularly
in violent offenders, and thereby of promoting life-course criminality (Scott, 2000). But, if it was indeed true that transfer laws had a deterrent effect on juvenile crime, then some of these offenders would not have offended in the first place. Although the limited extant research falls far short of providing definitive conclusions, the bulk of the empirical evidence suggests that transfer laws, as currently implemented, probably have little general deterrent effect on would-be juvenile offenders.”(NCJ 220595) August 2008
Transferring juveniles to criminal court does not appear to have the intended effect in increasing public safety.
The Department of Justice – Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention just published a report (August 2008) on the deterrent effect of juvenile transfer laws (transferring a juvenile to criminal court)
In a nutshell:
“Most practitioners would agree, consistent with the extant research, that it is important that the juvenile courts’ response to juvenile offenders be calibrated to have sufficient effectiveness as a deterrent while not being overly punitive. The practice of transferring juveniles for trial and sentencing in adult criminal court has, however, produced the unintended effect of increasing recidivism, particularly
in violent offenders, and thereby of promoting life-course criminality (Scott, 2000). But, if it was indeed true that transfer laws had a deterrent effect on juvenile crime, then some of these offenders would not have offended in the first place. Although the limited extant research falls far short of providing definitive conclusions, the bulk of the empirical evidence suggests that transfer laws, as currently implemented, probably have little general deterrent effect on would-be juvenile offenders.”(NCJ 220595) August 2008
Transferring juveniles to criminal court does not appear to have the intended effect in increasing public safety.
The Department of Justice – Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention just published a report (August 2008) on the deterrent effect of juvenile transfer laws (transferring a juvenile to criminal court)
In a nutshell:
“Most practitioners would agree, consistent with the extant research, that it is important that the juvenile courts’ response to juvenile offenders be calibrated to have sufficient effectiveness as a deterrent while not being overly punitive. The practice of transferring juveniles for trial and sentencing in adult criminal court has, however, produced the unintended effect of increasing recidivism, particularly
in violent offenders, and thereby of promoting life-course criminality (Scott, 2000). But, if it was indeed true that transfer laws had a deterrent effect on juvenile crime, then some of these offenders would not have offended in the first place. Although the limited extant research falls far short of providing definitive conclusions, the bulk of the empirical evidence suggests that transfer laws, as currently implemented, probably have little general deterrent effect on would-be juvenile offenders.”(NCJ 220595) August 2008
Transferring juveniles to criminal court does not appear to have the intended effect in increasing public safety.
JayTee: Check out Proposition 5
JayTee: Check out Proposition 5
JayTee: Check out Proposition 5
JayTee: Check out Proposition 5
a cop supporting a proposition that presents the prospect of more money and the expedited movement of arrestees through the criminal justice system to prison . . .
what a shock
but is it good for the rest of us?
doubtful
–Richard Estes
a cop supporting a proposition that presents the prospect of more money and the expedited movement of arrestees through the criminal justice system to prison . . .
what a shock
but is it good for the rest of us?
doubtful
–Richard Estes
a cop supporting a proposition that presents the prospect of more money and the expedited movement of arrestees through the criminal justice system to prison . . .
what a shock
but is it good for the rest of us?
doubtful
–Richard Estes
a cop supporting a proposition that presents the prospect of more money and the expedited movement of arrestees through the criminal justice system to prison . . .
what a shock
but is it good for the rest of us?
doubtful
–Richard Estes
In these lean budgetary times, the county sheriff needs to learn how to live within a tighter budget, not ask for more. Same thing goes for the schools. Taxpayers’ collective pockets are not bottomless, contrary to the opinion of a lot of politicians.
BTW, did you see the article in the Davis Enterprise about the showdown over Math testing, and how the state Bd of Ed made it into a budgeting issue? Typical. The only solution our leaders seem to be able to come up with is to throw more money at a problem – our money!!!
In these lean budgetary times, the county sheriff needs to learn how to live within a tighter budget, not ask for more. Same thing goes for the schools. Taxpayers’ collective pockets are not bottomless, contrary to the opinion of a lot of politicians.
BTW, did you see the article in the Davis Enterprise about the showdown over Math testing, and how the state Bd of Ed made it into a budgeting issue? Typical. The only solution our leaders seem to be able to come up with is to throw more money at a problem – our money!!!
In these lean budgetary times, the county sheriff needs to learn how to live within a tighter budget, not ask for more. Same thing goes for the schools. Taxpayers’ collective pockets are not bottomless, contrary to the opinion of a lot of politicians.
BTW, did you see the article in the Davis Enterprise about the showdown over Math testing, and how the state Bd of Ed made it into a budgeting issue? Typical. The only solution our leaders seem to be able to come up with is to throw more money at a problem – our money!!!
In these lean budgetary times, the county sheriff needs to learn how to live within a tighter budget, not ask for more. Same thing goes for the schools. Taxpayers’ collective pockets are not bottomless, contrary to the opinion of a lot of politicians.
BTW, did you see the article in the Davis Enterprise about the showdown over Math testing, and how the state Bd of Ed made it into a budgeting issue? Typical. The only solution our leaders seem to be able to come up with is to throw more money at a problem – our money!!!
“…it seems to me that we will just be feeding into the problem of law enforcement in the future by taking money from present education.
So for that reason alone, I am voting against it.”
Seriously?
Just using 2008 figures, education funding is vastly greater than what is provided for law enforcement.
From the governor’s proposed budget:
K-12: $43.7 billion, which is 31% of the state’s expenditures.
Higher ed: $14.6 billion, which is 10.3%.
So combined education funding is over 41% of the state budget.
Total for corrections and rehabilitation: $10.3 billion, which is 7.3%.
The proposed $365 million for programs represents about a 3.5% increase in state funding for corrections.
There are lots of interesting provisions in this initiative which are worth discussing. The way California voters keep adding permanent mandates onto our budget process is a big part of why we’re in a constant stalemate, and this would probably make that worse. But the biggest mandate of all is the one that sets education funding.
“opponents claim that it “divert(s) billions from California’s schools, hospitals and childcare centers.”
Only if you are counting more than three years at a time.
“…it seems to me that we will just be feeding into the problem of law enforcement in the future by taking money from present education.
So for that reason alone, I am voting against it.”
Seriously?
Just using 2008 figures, education funding is vastly greater than what is provided for law enforcement.
From the governor’s proposed budget:
K-12: $43.7 billion, which is 31% of the state’s expenditures.
Higher ed: $14.6 billion, which is 10.3%.
So combined education funding is over 41% of the state budget.
Total for corrections and rehabilitation: $10.3 billion, which is 7.3%.
The proposed $365 million for programs represents about a 3.5% increase in state funding for corrections.
There are lots of interesting provisions in this initiative which are worth discussing. The way California voters keep adding permanent mandates onto our budget process is a big part of why we’re in a constant stalemate, and this would probably make that worse. But the biggest mandate of all is the one that sets education funding.
“opponents claim that it “divert(s) billions from California’s schools, hospitals and childcare centers.”
Only if you are counting more than three years at a time.
“…it seems to me that we will just be feeding into the problem of law enforcement in the future by taking money from present education.
So for that reason alone, I am voting against it.”
Seriously?
Just using 2008 figures, education funding is vastly greater than what is provided for law enforcement.
From the governor’s proposed budget:
K-12: $43.7 billion, which is 31% of the state’s expenditures.
Higher ed: $14.6 billion, which is 10.3%.
So combined education funding is over 41% of the state budget.
Total for corrections and rehabilitation: $10.3 billion, which is 7.3%.
The proposed $365 million for programs represents about a 3.5% increase in state funding for corrections.
There are lots of interesting provisions in this initiative which are worth discussing. The way California voters keep adding permanent mandates onto our budget process is a big part of why we’re in a constant stalemate, and this would probably make that worse. But the biggest mandate of all is the one that sets education funding.
“opponents claim that it “divert(s) billions from California’s schools, hospitals and childcare centers.”
Only if you are counting more than three years at a time.
“…it seems to me that we will just be feeding into the problem of law enforcement in the future by taking money from present education.
So for that reason alone, I am voting against it.”
Seriously?
Just using 2008 figures, education funding is vastly greater than what is provided for law enforcement.
From the governor’s proposed budget:
K-12: $43.7 billion, which is 31% of the state’s expenditures.
Higher ed: $14.6 billion, which is 10.3%.
So combined education funding is over 41% of the state budget.
Total for corrections and rehabilitation: $10.3 billion, which is 7.3%.
The proposed $365 million for programs represents about a 3.5% increase in state funding for corrections.
There are lots of interesting provisions in this initiative which are worth discussing. The way California voters keep adding permanent mandates onto our budget process is a big part of why we’re in a constant stalemate, and this would probably make that worse. But the biggest mandate of all is the one that sets education funding.
“opponents claim that it “divert(s) billions from California’s schools, hospitals and childcare centers.”
Only if you are counting more than three years at a time.
I will votee for Prop 6 for many reasons. It is cool that more money is being spent on incarceration over education. The system is sure to improve a child or teenager’s life by putting them in prison instead of juvenille hall, which is great too.
Tthank you for this story.
I will votee for Prop 6 for many reasons. It is cool that more money is being spent on incarceration over education. The system is sure to improve a child or teenager’s life by putting them in prison instead of juvenille hall, which is great too.
Tthank you for this story.
I will votee for Prop 6 for many reasons. It is cool that more money is being spent on incarceration over education. The system is sure to improve a child or teenager’s life by putting them in prison instead of juvenille hall, which is great too.
Tthank you for this story.
I will votee for Prop 6 for many reasons. It is cool that more money is being spent on incarceration over education. The system is sure to improve a child or teenager’s life by putting them in prison instead of juvenille hall, which is great too.
Tthank you for this story.
Let’s get back to the real threat facing Davis citizens: the “Charter City” measure on the November ballot. Sue Greenwald is absolutely correct; the Charter would allow the City Council to impose taxes (even disguised as “fees”) without a vote of the citizens.Even more disturbing than the tax issue (which is real, serious and ominous), the Charter designation would allow the City Council, by a simple majority vote, to rezone properties – even if they are in the general plan – for other purposes without a vote of the public.And, to all the “progressives” who think the Charter City issue is about “choice-voting,” think about this: Ruth Asmundson refused to support the Charter proposal until all references to choice voting were REMOVED! (And that’s the “Charter” we’re voting on in November).Wake up, folks: Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington, Pam Nieberg and the true “progressives” see the “Charter” for what it is: a power grab by the City Council to tax us as they please without recourse, pass ordinances to increase our utility rates without recourse, and rezone properties as they please, even if those rezonings conflict with our General Plan. And,as a “Charter City,” we will not be able to challenege such land-use decisions because we have surrendered our general law rights to the City Council(And, if you think I’m over-reacting,go on-line and see just how much power the citizens would be giving up to the Council with a “Charter.” And, then, read the Charter ballot argument that Sue refused to sign. I often disagree with Sue, but praise her in this case for not signing a pack of lies and deception.
Let’s get back to the real threat facing Davis citizens: the “Charter City” measure on the November ballot. Sue Greenwald is absolutely correct; the Charter would allow the City Council to impose taxes (even disguised as “fees”) without a vote of the citizens.Even more disturbing than the tax issue (which is real, serious and ominous), the Charter designation would allow the City Council, by a simple majority vote, to rezone properties – even if they are in the general plan – for other purposes without a vote of the public.And, to all the “progressives” who think the Charter City issue is about “choice-voting,” think about this: Ruth Asmundson refused to support the Charter proposal until all references to choice voting were REMOVED! (And that’s the “Charter” we’re voting on in November).Wake up, folks: Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington, Pam Nieberg and the true “progressives” see the “Charter” for what it is: a power grab by the City Council to tax us as they please without recourse, pass ordinances to increase our utility rates without recourse, and rezone properties as they please, even if those rezonings conflict with our General Plan. And,as a “Charter City,” we will not be able to challenege such land-use decisions because we have surrendered our general law rights to the City Council(And, if you think I’m over-reacting,go on-line and see just how much power the citizens would be giving up to the Council with a “Charter.” And, then, read the Charter ballot argument that Sue refused to sign. I often disagree with Sue, but praise her in this case for not signing a pack of lies and deception.
Let’s get back to the real threat facing Davis citizens: the “Charter City” measure on the November ballot. Sue Greenwald is absolutely correct; the Charter would allow the City Council to impose taxes (even disguised as “fees”) without a vote of the citizens.Even more disturbing than the tax issue (which is real, serious and ominous), the Charter designation would allow the City Council, by a simple majority vote, to rezone properties – even if they are in the general plan – for other purposes without a vote of the public.And, to all the “progressives” who think the Charter City issue is about “choice-voting,” think about this: Ruth Asmundson refused to support the Charter proposal until all references to choice voting were REMOVED! (And that’s the “Charter” we’re voting on in November).Wake up, folks: Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington, Pam Nieberg and the true “progressives” see the “Charter” for what it is: a power grab by the City Council to tax us as they please without recourse, pass ordinances to increase our utility rates without recourse, and rezone properties as they please, even if those rezonings conflict with our General Plan. And,as a “Charter City,” we will not be able to challenege such land-use decisions because we have surrendered our general law rights to the City Council(And, if you think I’m over-reacting,go on-line and see just how much power the citizens would be giving up to the Council with a “Charter.” And, then, read the Charter ballot argument that Sue refused to sign. I often disagree with Sue, but praise her in this case for not signing a pack of lies and deception.
Let’s get back to the real threat facing Davis citizens: the “Charter City” measure on the November ballot. Sue Greenwald is absolutely correct; the Charter would allow the City Council to impose taxes (even disguised as “fees”) without a vote of the citizens.Even more disturbing than the tax issue (which is real, serious and ominous), the Charter designation would allow the City Council, by a simple majority vote, to rezone properties – even if they are in the general plan – for other purposes without a vote of the public.And, to all the “progressives” who think the Charter City issue is about “choice-voting,” think about this: Ruth Asmundson refused to support the Charter proposal until all references to choice voting were REMOVED! (And that’s the “Charter” we’re voting on in November).Wake up, folks: Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington, Pam Nieberg and the true “progressives” see the “Charter” for what it is: a power grab by the City Council to tax us as they please without recourse, pass ordinances to increase our utility rates without recourse, and rezone properties as they please, even if those rezonings conflict with our General Plan. And,as a “Charter City,” we will not be able to challenege such land-use decisions because we have surrendered our general law rights to the City Council(And, if you think I’m over-reacting,go on-line and see just how much power the citizens would be giving up to the Council with a “Charter.” And, then, read the Charter ballot argument that Sue refused to sign. I often disagree with Sue, but praise her in this case for not signing a pack of lies and deception.
I find that I am becoming less and less “progressive” after reading these types of arguments. The above post has so many errors that I wouldn’t know where to start.
I find that I am becoming less and less “progressive” after reading these types of arguments. The above post has so many errors that I wouldn’t know where to start.
I find that I am becoming less and less “progressive” after reading these types of arguments. The above post has so many errors that I wouldn’t know where to start.
I find that I am becoming less and less “progressive” after reading these types of arguments. The above post has so many errors that I wouldn’t know where to start.
Anonymous at 11:47: The “above post” is spot on. No errors. The facts are taken right out of the Charter language and on-line information on charter cities and their powers. Do the research.
Anonymous at 11:47: The “above post” is spot on. No errors. The facts are taken right out of the Charter language and on-line information on charter cities and their powers. Do the research.
Anonymous at 11:47: The “above post” is spot on. No errors. The facts are taken right out of the Charter language and on-line information on charter cities and their powers. Do the research.
Anonymous at 11:47: The “above post” is spot on. No errors. The facts are taken right out of the Charter language and on-line information on charter cities and their powers. Do the research.
“true “progressives” see the “Charter” for what it is: a power grab by the City Council to tax us as they please without recourse, pass ordinances to increase our utility rates without recourse, and rezone properties as they please, even if those rezonings conflict with our General Plan.”
Where is this in the online information?
“true “progressives” see the “Charter” for what it is: a power grab by the City Council to tax us as they please without recourse, pass ordinances to increase our utility rates without recourse, and rezone properties as they please, even if those rezonings conflict with our General Plan.”
Where is this in the online information?
“true “progressives” see the “Charter” for what it is: a power grab by the City Council to tax us as they please without recourse, pass ordinances to increase our utility rates without recourse, and rezone properties as they please, even if those rezonings conflict with our General Plan.”
Where is this in the online information?
“true “progressives” see the “Charter” for what it is: a power grab by the City Council to tax us as they please without recourse, pass ordinances to increase our utility rates without recourse, and rezone properties as they please, even if those rezonings conflict with our General Plan.”
Where is this in the online information?
Often when some child has no parental guidance we end up incarcerating them. It would be good to have the parent(s) serve part of the time with them.
Often when some child has no parental guidance we end up incarcerating them. It would be good to have the parent(s) serve part of the time with them.
Often when some child has no parental guidance we end up incarcerating them. It would be good to have the parent(s) serve part of the time with them.
Often when some child has no parental guidance we end up incarcerating them. It would be good to have the parent(s) serve part of the time with them.