Jose Granda has been given no less than two editorials and three or four letters to the editor in the newspaper to continue the same inaccurate information that he has espoused for two months and that prompted a Yolo County Superior Court Judge to have to strike portions of a ballot statement.We sympathize with the local newspaper – after all they are trying to provide balanced coverage of a ballot measure whose support is imbalanced and whose opposition is led by two individuals who have for some odd reason decided that their best approach is not to attack the measure but rather to attack the electoral process, and to do so based on inaccurate representations of that process.
In his latest installation, Jose Granda quotes from Judge Samuel McAdam’s ruling where he writes: “(Jose) Granda is well within his right to challenge the mail-in procedure in the argument against (Measure C), attacking both the substance and the process of the parcel tax issue. In other words, the substance and the procedure of any election are inherently relevant to each other. The voters will decide whether his opinion and argument have any merit.”
“Therefore, I present this case to you, the voters, so you make your own decision,” he continues.
But even here, Mr. Granda is selective in quoting from the judge. He omits where the Judge struck language “in the argument and rebuttal argument that he found to be false.” The Enterprise reported in late January: “Specifically, McAdam ruled that ‘the mail-in election does not eliminate observers from both sides so there is a lack of independent supervision during opening and counting the ballots,’ ” as Granda and Randall had contended. ‘This phrase shall be stricken,’ McAdam ruled.”
Moreover, “In addition, ‘The court finds the language “It eliminates vote counting with both sides present” to be misleading. This phrase shall be stricken from the rebuttal argument,’ McAdam ruled.”
And finally: “Finally, the phrase ‘During Measure A, 16,033 ballots were opened and counted before the polls closed’ is similarly misleading. The evidence shows that no votes were counted and tallied prior to the close of the polls. The ballots had been entered into the computer and counted – but the votes had not been counted and tallied.”
Finally Judge McAdam ruled: “No one, not even election officials, knew the results of the election until after the official close of the polls. This phrase shall be stricken from the rebuttal argument.”
So, naturally, Jose Granda did not revisit any of the arguments that Judge McAdam struck as false and misleading, correct?
Not exactly.
Right off the bat he argues: “During the Measure A election in 2011, 16,033 (97.3 percent) ballots were opened, scanned and tallied before the polls closed.”
So, there was language that the Judge struck because it was wrong, and Mr. Granda chose to continue arguing it anyway.
It largely continues from there.
He argued: “While the clerk’s office claims anyone can come and watch, that person would have to stay for a month that the election lasts. In her court documents, Oakley could not name one single independent person, from outside her office, independent organizations, private citizens or the grand jury, who had watched the opening and counting of 16,033 ballots before the polls closed.”
The question is, does the newspaper have any responsibility to point out that these arguments were actually struck down as false and misleading by a judge?
While we sympathize with the newspaper’s dilemma, we wonder to what extent the public interest really is served by repeating inaccurate information and leaving it to the voters to decide what is accurate and what is not.
To some degree, we are stuck in the same dilemma. As a reader commented last week following a different article: “Oh, for christ sake david!! You know you are going to win the election in large numbers so give it a rest already… The No on C campaign never wins, you know this so stop trying to kick your political opponents while they are down okay?”
While we take nothing for granted, there is a point there. But on the other hand, do we not have a responsibility of correcting the public record?
The individual goes on to write, “here is such a thing as being a bad winner and a bad loser. Granda and Coleman are bad losers, because they are trying to desperately attack process because they cannot win at the ballot box…”
“You are being a bad winner because you know they have nothing left to fight with, are defenseless and are going to lose by large margins and still have a desire to kick them while they are down, and throw acid on their wounds – it makes you look petty and childish…”
They go further: “If it pleases the vanguard: I will go on record saying that their ballot arguments were not convincing to me, nor were the ones they put in the enterprise…… there I said it, you can gloat now….”
Unfortunately, we remain stuck in the same place – does the improbability of electoral success excuse dishonesty, and should we not correct the record even when the argument is unlikely to prevail?
The Hitler lesson also concerns me, as it is an extreme analogy that most people find unfair, and rightly so. But the Hitler analogy also informs us.
There is an object lesson that Hitler gained popularity through telling the big lie. The problem is that no one really took him seriously enough, until it was too late to refute his lies. The lesson there is not to assume that, just because someone seems unlikely to be a threat at one moment, the situation will remain the same in the future. Allowing inaccurate statements to remain on the record could grant them legitimacy they just do not deserve.
But so, too, can responding to them.
The argument raised by the Vanguard reader is interesting, because it implies that there is no legitimate argument to be made against Measure C, but there is and it has to do with the overall tax burden and people’s ability to pay for the parcel tax over a long period of time. But Mr. Granda almost punts on the legitimate argument, and focuses on procedural issues that do not seem to be gaining any foothold in the community. Reading the “no” letters in the Enterprise, you never see this issue raised except by Mr. Granda or his oft-“partner in crime,” Thomas Randall.
An interesting Op-Ed emerged in the New York Times last week, “Is There a Right to Lie?” The ultimate thrust is the constitutionality of an act known as the Stolen Valor Act, “which prohibits falsely claiming to have been awarded a military medal, with an enhanced penalty (up to a year in prison) for claiming to have received the Medal of Honor.”
Mr. Alvarez, the subject of the op-ed, “was convicted but appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that the act violated the First Amendment.”
The case goes to the Supreme Court. “The question before the court is not whether there is a constitutional ‘right’ to lie. Rather, it’s a question about the scope of the government’s power over individuals – whether the government can criminalize saying untrue things about oneself even if there is no harm to any identifiable person, no intent to cheat anyone or gain unfair advantage, no receipt of anything of value and no interference with the administration of justice or any other compelling government interest.”
In our present circumstances, we have a very different matter. We have the potential for harm if the public is misled about demonstrable lies. We have an implied intent to cheat and gain an unfair advantage in an electoral matter and we have a compelling government interest of protecting the sanctity of the election.
On the other hand, we have a generally accepted notion that there is a freedom of speech in this country, and that is specifically tied to government actions in the form of the First Amendment, which specifically prevents Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
But we are talking not about an action by Congress here, or of a similarly democratically-elected body, but rather a private entity – a newspaper and their obligation to provide all sides of the story versus their obligation to the public to keep a clear and correct public record.
On the other hand, why is it ok for papers to say whatever they want, and not ok for him?
But on a third hand, the real question is whether a newspaper has a duty to make sure what it prints is factually accurate. Usually there is sufficient gray area in political debates that this is not an issue, but in this case, Mr. Granda repeated verbatim what a judge had already ruled was false and misleading.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What is the Obligation to Clarify the Public Record and Insure that Lies Are Corrected?
this is coming from someone who bases much of his Judicial watch articles from self-serving statements exclusively from defendants, their attorneys, or any combination of the two…
or manufactures unnamed sources out of thin air?
or wont admit what he clearly implied in the giffords article? and wont retract what he damned well knows to be false?
That is right Vanguard, tell us, what is that “obligation?” And when you start telling the truth in your articles, please let us know…
until then, you have no business sitting in judgment of others, getting on your damned high horse about the importance of “truth”.
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out……
It’s still America and it’s called free speech.
As I mentioned in the article, free speech only applies to government actions and the question of blatant lies is unsettled as a matter of law.
“But on a third hand, the real question is whether a newspaper has a duty to make sure what it prints is factually accurate.”
If that were the case, the Washington Times and New York Post would consist principally of retractions and corrections .
Biddlin, you forgot to include the NY Times.
David, just like Hitler told “the big lie” he also stifled free speech. Something to think about.
You’ll note that I didn’t reach a verdict on this. I grapple with the issue of free speech versus accuracy and not telling blatant lies. I never said that the Enterprise should not have printed it, I only question whether they had an obligation to correct the record.
David, when I opened pages 10 and 11 of the Enterprise yesterday, it became immediately clear that the day’s editorials were going to present me with both sides of the Measure C argument. There certainly was not any “lack of balance” in Mr. Granda’s favor, since his No on C editorial was matched with not one, but three Yes on C editorials.
If I were the Publisher in this situation I would have a reasonable amount of confidence that any incorrectness in the record vis-s-vis Mr. Granda’s comments was fully balanced by the weight of the arguments being presented from the other side of the issue.
[quote]free speech [b]only applies[/b] to government actions[/quote]This is patently untrue.
[quote]the question of blatant lies is unsettled as a matter of law. [/quote]Pretty much untrue, also…. there is a body of law to deal with ‘libel’ and ‘slander’. I leave it to attorneys to clarify, but my understanding that the ‘perpetrator’ has to be shown to have knowledge that the “speech” is untrue.
I think people have a right to question the process. It is relatively new. It is easier for people to know exactly how I voted, because my name is on the outside envelope. I would be interested to know how the envelopes are kept secure. They come in the mail and then where are they held until they are opened and then where to they go after that, and how are they “entered?” Are only clerk staff used or are there “volunteers” in the office that could have access? Is it a computer system? How secure is the system? Are there opportunities to alter the results anywhere in the process?
Letters to the editor and OP ED articles are clearly the opinions of the writer. The Davis Enterprise doesn’t have to vet these for “accuracy” any more than you can prevent people from spewing lies on the Vanguard. If the article were written by staff writers, then the Editor should fact check the content.
I don’t that that is the case Ryan, for instance, sometimes there will be an editor’s note that corrects a misstatement.
Hpierce: THe first Amendment reads “congress shall make no” that has been applied through the states through the 14th Amendment, and states like California have their own free speech laws, but that does not pertain to private property and parties.
I think they do that when the criticism is directed at the newspaper, i.e. questions something they wrote. They run the letter and then respond.
Wow. This thread was a record-breaking proof of Godwin’s law.
K.Smith….The Hitler reference was in response to David’s use of it in his blog, in fact it’s the second time he’s used it in regards to this subject.
Ryan Kelly
“It is easier for people to know exactly how I voted, because my name is on the outside envelope. I would be interested to know how the envelopes are kept secure.”
Ryan, and to add to that the tear away section on the back of both my wive’s and my envelope was half torn off just from sealing the envelope. It wasn’t secure at all.
The way they do it is they verify the name and registration and then the ballot ends up in a separate pile which is run through the machine like any other. The processes are separated.
[quote]biddlin: “But on a third hand, the real question is whether a newspaper has a duty to make sure what it prints is factually accurate.”
If that were the case, the Washington Times and New York Post would consist principally of retractions and corrections .
rusty49: Biddlin, you forgot to include the NY Times.[/quote]
LOL How true. The news media these days is full of more opinion than fact. I would even venture to say it is difficult to find much in the way of fact in the news media these days – the “editorial page” has bled over into what should be strictly factual news coverage…
I hardly think the Vanguard can take the high road here. The Vanguard itself at times makes many outrageous statements that are highly questionable from a factual point of view, yet will claim vociferously it is stating “fact” when it is clearly nothing more than the author’s opinion. Additionally, many things said in the Vanguard comment section are equally outrageous and play fast and loose w the “facts”, yet the Vanguard chooses not to censure such comments. Frankly, this article in the Vanguard reminds me of the adage “the pot calling the kettle black”! With the free flow of ideas these days, it is pretty hard to control content – one has to trust the average person will figure it all out in their own way…
Elaine:
We’re not talking about differences of opinions, we are talking about proven factual inaccuracies.
“The Vanguard itself at times makes many outrageous statements that are highly questionable from a factual point of view”
I have always corrected the record or attempted to when we have been proven wrong.
“Additionally, many things said in the Vanguard comment section are equally outrageous and play fast and loose w the “facts”, yet the Vanguard chooses not to censure such comments.”
Generally speaking, people correct wrong information on the comments. I’d be curious if you could provide an example of demonstrably inaccurate information on the vanguard that has not been corrected.
Careful about the metrics you use, David… you, Rifkin, and others are known for citing “facts” that support their position, and ‘neglect to cite’ other “facts” in the same documentation that would weaken their position. Heck, I’ve done it too. According to the Enterprise article on the County Clerk’s processes, Mr. Granda has more than a scintilla of truth in that ballots are opened and scanned before the polls close… days before… but having been involved as a poll-worker, and my knowledge of the integrity of Ms Oakley and her staff, his concerns about the integrity of the process, is IN MY OPINION (not a FACT I can [b]prove[/b]) are unfounded.
Has anyone considered the integrity of your easily opened ballot before it actually gets to Ms Oakley. How many hands does your ballot pass through? For instance the mailman, the mail sorter, the trucker and the delivery person on the other end. How long does your ballot sit unattended in the mail sorting room? With the last election being so close it wouldn’t take much to tip the scales.
[i]”Careful about the metrics you use, David… you, [b]Rifkin[/b], and others are known for citing “facts” that support their position, and ‘neglect to cite’ other “facts” in the same documentation that would weaken their position.”[/i]
In my op-eds I try to mount a reasonable argument from my point of view. My efforts are not normally to simply lay out one side and the other side as a news writer should do.
That said, I cannot think of a case where there is a significant fact that debilitates my position and I have ignored it. Where in my writings do you think have I done that, Hortense? Or is your complaint rather that my interpretation of the facts at hand is often one you don’t share?
I was surprised by the lack of double envelops for secret voting.
The elections clerk told me they check the name, address, and signature, and then open the ballot envelop; she said they are “too busy” to look and see how anyone voted – but they could if they wanted — and Oakley
would not want them to look at how anyone voted.
The clerk also told me the Sec of State does not allow them to use the double envelop secret ballot method.
The Sec of States office told me that is completely UNTRUE – Yolo could have used secret ballots if they wanted, it’s just easier and cheaper not
to do it that way.
Little by little our rights are diminished – I’m glad Dr. Granada raised
this issue.
Also, just because the judge ruled, or said something, doesn’t make it true.
[quote]That said, I cannot think of a case where there is a significant fact that debilitates my position and I have ignored it. Where in my writings do you think have I done that, Hortense? [/quote]Next time it happens, I’ll identify it… don’t know how to go thru the archives…
rusty49 02/27/12 – 09:42 AM… Ryan Kelly
Rusty/Ryan: “I would be interested to know how the envelopes are kept secure. ….and to add to that the tear away section on the back of both my wife’s and my envelope was half torn off just from sealing the envelope. It wasn’t secure at all. “
I agree! Both of the perforated strips on the back of the voters envelope (on the back flap and above the laminated signature strip) are very fragile. My wife and I taped over them to keep our ballots secure. I hope that doesn’t disqualify our ballots!
You know the more I think about this Mr. Granda was on to something. The whole mail in ballot process is full of holes. If you vote at a precinct your vote is private and protected. But once you put your ballot in the mail it’s out of your hands and who knows who has access to it before it reaches it’s final destination or maybe gets lost and never shows up.
rusty49: I could dig up articles for you about abuses in the traditional in-person precinct voting process. How can you really know that all of those poll workers are reliable and that they will make sure that your vote counts every single time? It might be enough to make you give up on voting.
As for being uncertain if it reaches it’s final destination, there are remedies for that. You can deliver the ballot in person, if it matters that much to you. You can verify that your vote has arrived by going here ([url]http://www.yoloelections.org/vbmdb[/url]). If you determine that your ballot didn’t make it, then you can contact the Yolo County Elections Office and make alternative arrangements.
To me the argument about the voting process being full of holes is akin to scaring you into not driving because you might get into a fatal auto accident. We could waste all kinds of time discussing awful results of driving and reviewing the daily auto accident reports. And of course it is all possible, but on a day to day basis, the process is reliably safe.
I think it’s a good bet that if Measure A had lost last year, Granda would not be making this kind of argument against Measure C. It looks like a sour grapes response to me.
Such negativity! You guys make me look down right reasonable. Vote yes on measure C.
For people who use David’s blog to post your views you sure seem critical of him. Its one thing to disagree with him its another to attack his willingness and fairness to all sides while he allows you guys to post the most right wing nonsense found anywhere. I am critical of him when I disagree but i don’t attack him as being unfair for giving me an opportunity to voice my opinions. You guys are really off the charts.
[quote]I have always corrected the record or attempted to when we have been proven wrong.
Generally speaking, people correct wrong information on the comments. I’d be curious if you could provide an example of demonstrably inaccurate information on the vanguard that has not been corrected.[/quote]
You have used a lot of tortured logic to prove yourself right perhaps…
DACHA members as a group have been repeatedly villified as deadbeats for one. Some of Michael Harrington’s nonsense is so outrageous people have given up responding to it…
“You have used a lot of tortured logic to prove yourself right perhaps…
DACHA members as a group have been repeatedly villified as deadbeats for one. Some of Michael Harrington’s nonsense is so outrageous people have given up responding to it…”
Perhaps, but that’s not what we are talking about here.
Rusty said “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out….”
The quote is “First they came for the socialists…”
You know like the people you claim want to tax you to educate the children. Vote yes on C.
The Jews were relatively far down on the list after socialists and trade unionists. Are you sure this is the quote you want Rusty?
Mr. Toad: Are you sure the quote didn’t begin: “First they came for the teachers…”?
This is from the National Holocaust Museum Website:
[quote]Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me. [/quote]
Not in Davis as this comment section is not representative of the community on education. Vote yes on C.
“Thus the quotation was clearly well known long before 1974, the year in which Niemöller, in a 1976 interview, at that time thought he first said it. Whether you want to take the 1946 not-quite-polished versions, the 1955 published version of a ca. 1951 interview (to which the secondhand narrator probably added his own groups), or the 1976 erroneous memory by Niemöller himself as the “correct” version, is up to you.”
Nobody really knows who he named first, it changed many times over the years. From what I could find he most likely used “Communists” first. But it has also been used with Jews first in many subsequent quotations.
“I am often asked “What is the correct sequence and groups in the quotation?”
Here is my March 2006 answer to one of those queries:
There are in fact several “correct” versions. Niemöller named different groups when he first coined the saying, probably in 1946, than when it was revived in the 1970s and he was again asked about it.
In several 1946 speeches he mentioned the following groups (in this order, see below):
Communists
Incurably sick
Jews or Jehovah’s Witnesses (depending on which speech)
People in countries occupied by Nazi Germany.
In 1976 Niemöller was asked about the quotation in an interview. The Martin Niemoeller Foundation in Germany takes his 1976 answer to be definitive [see: ]. In his lengthy answer Niemoeller mentioned the following groups, and claimed that he started using the quotation only recently (namely at a 1974 event, which is demonstrably untrue, since it appeared in print as early as 1955, based on a 1951 interview with someone who quoted it) :
Communists
Trade Unions
Social Democrats
Jews who had become Protestant ministers (Niemoeller speaks of”
I hate to break up the lovefest you all had going, but it looks like we’re ALL wrong or ALL right depending on who or what you want to cite.
Mr. Toad: At least we agree, Yes on C!
“Nazis, I hate those guys .” Henry Jones jr.
[quote]DMG: I have always corrected the record or attempted to when we have been proven wrong.
Generally speaking, people correct wrong information on the comments. I’d be curious if you could provide an example of demonstrably inaccurate information on the vanguard that has not been corrected.
ERM: You have used a lot of tortured logic to prove yourself right perhaps…
DACHA members as a group have been repeatedly villified as deadbeats for one. Some of Michael Harrington’s nonsense is so outrageous people have given up responding to it…
DGM: Perhaps, but that’s not what we are talking about here.[/quote]
This is exactly the sort of tortured logic I am referring to. As requested I have given you specific examples of demonstrably inaccurate information on the Vanguard that has not been “corrected”, and you respond by saying “that’s not what we are talking about”! As I said, your criticism of the opponents of Measure C strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black…
In the interest of historical accuracy, Niemoller was a nationalist, had been a member of an organization of right-wing students called the Academic Defense Corps (Freikorps), which was disbanded and disarmed on April 23, 1920, after the failure of the Kapp putsch. When Hitler and the National Socialist Party emerged, touting slogans of strong nationalist leadership and autonomy for private worship of the Christian faith, Niemoller voted for them, both in the 1924 Prussian state elections and in the national parliamentary elections of 1933. Niemoller later confessed that even Hitler’s antisemitism reflected simply a more extreme version of his own prejudice at that time . He opposed the Nazis and Hitler because of their paganistic rituals and a demand by the German Christian Church to have Germany rather than Palestine inserted in Christian doctrine as the Holy Land and that all non-German elements, such as the Old Testament, be excluded from Christian theology. The quotation derives from a series of lectures he gave in the early post-war years, where he expressed his view that the German people, particularly the Protestant clergy, had been complicit in the mass murder of millions of people . Niemoller, like most Germans, was largely silent about the persecution and mass murder of the European Jews and only expressed remorse over his antisemitism in an interview on West German TV in 1963 .
Elaine: I’m not following you, did not you and others attempt to correct the record at least as you see it regarding the DACHA members?
[quote]Elaine: I’m not following you, did not you and others attempt to correct the record at least as you see it regarding the DACHA members?[/quote]
Any objections I may have raised were buried in an avalanche of unfounded and baseless allegations. Many of Mike Harrington’s accusations just go unanswered, as they are just patently ridiculous, so many have given up responding…
I just got a “NO on C” robo call. I have to say it was well done and very persuasive.
I heard the same robocall and disagree with your impression. The argument was weak, wordy, and pointless. But you and I have already made up our minds, so this discussion is all a conceits.
Elaine: The other problem in your example is that there is no clear record at this point what represents accurate versus inaccurate information. Whereas in the case I cited, we have a very clear record which makes it a very unique circumstance.
“But you and I have already made up our minds, so this discussion is all a conceits.”
You’re right, I’ve already voted. But I think someone who hasn’t and is on the fence might be swayed by the NO on C robo call. It was very well done, I liked how they spelled out the exact costs. I really don’t think a lot of voters realise how much they’re actually paying.
I too have already voted, but as yet have not received one of the robo calls. Based on the discussion here I am now looking forward to hearing it when it does actually come.
If anyone has a recording, perhaps you can send it to me.
rusty49: [i]…I liked how they spelled out the exact costs.[/i]
Right. Even the Yes side has spelled out the exact costs. It is a couple of lattes/week or something like that; $6.15/week that you’ve already paying. Not much, huh?
Or, as the No side would have you remember is, OMG, IT’S A NEW TAX!, IT’S [i][u][b]$1,600![/b][/u][/i]…
(over 5 years).
Using that technique, I could tell you that over a person’s professional career, he/she will typically earn over a million dollars. Isn’t great to live in America where there are so many millionaires? Vote for Obama!
It’s wildly misleading to say it’s new tax.
What is also missing is a discussion of what you get or don’t get for those costs. That’s what the No side largely avoids, because it is too uncomfortable discussion to have publicly in Davis.
“It’s wildly misleading to say it’s new tax.”
I don’t think that’s a stretch at all. The old tax expired and was never meant to be a tax that lasted forever. So now they want to create a NEW TAX to last for 5 years.
rusty, two questions I asked myself before voting were . . .
[i]. . . 1) Will it be a new line item in my personal budget?
. . . 2) What will the net effect on my expenditures be?[/i]
Do you think those are the appropriate questions? What would your answers to those questions be?
[quote]Elaine: The other problem in your example is that there is no clear record at this point what represents accurate versus inaccurate information. Whereas in the case I cited, we have a very clear record which makes it a very unique circumstance.[/quote]
There is a clear record my client paid every single monthly carrying charge and was in no way a “deadbeat”…
Matt Williams: [i]two questions I asked myself before voting were . . .[/i]
I also asked
–what is the money going for? (is it for student instruction or to pay administrators’ expenses for a vacation in Bermuda?)
–how does it help me and/or those around me?
rusty49: [i]I don’t think that’s a stretch at all. The old tax expired and was never meant to be a tax that lasted forever. So now they want to create a NEW TAX to last for 5 years.[/i]
If at the end of my annual subscription to National Geographic the rate goes from $30 to $34, and I’m deciding whether to continue or not, would I be making a choice to get a brand new subscription to National Geographic, or would I be making a choice to renew it?
I think Measure A could fairly be called a new tax when it passed. Measure C is a renewal. When Measure W was proposed, I remember it as being, “let’s see what our situation is like when we get there” After all, it was set to expire at the same time as Measure Q.
If Measure C passes, then I think the school board will likely let Measure A expire. The reason is that it takes a volunteer force to run a campaign. I’m not sure the volunteer force is there and motivated, if Measure C passes, to run a third parcel tax campaign in three years.
If Measure C fails, however, then I think the volunteer motivation would be there, especially since it leaves sports and music boosters with not much to do (sports and music cut), and PTA organizations will face enough loss at each school site to make the effort worthwhile. I don’t know what the school board is thinking on the issue, but I know they weigh what the community interest is in a campaign.
So when I say that I think school parcel taxes will actually go down if Measure C passes, that’s why. If Measure A expires, that’s a $200 drop.
“So when I say that I think school parcel taxes will actually go down if Measure C passes, that’s why. If Measure A expires, that’s a $200 drop.”
LOL…..You must have gone to the Obama school of math.
I asked those questions as well wtf, but in terms of the “newness” of the tax they were in a non-related area.
JMHO
“I don’t think that’s a stretch at all. The old tax expired and was never meant to be a tax that lasted forever. So now they want to create a NEW TAX to last for 5 years.”
Rusty:
That’s not the common definition of a “new tax” which generally is used to imply a tax increase. You are welcome to use the term, but I would suggest you will probably weaken if by extending the use of the term.
rusty49: [i]LOL…..You must have gone to the Obama school of math.[/i]
It would be more civil to explain why you disagree rather than lob what is intended to be a personal insult. What kind of example of behavior do you choose to set?
wdf1…it’s not an insult….it’s just the way Obama spins things.
Let’s see, I’m going to add a $200 tax then add another $340 tax but I might not take the $200 anymore so in essence lucky you just got a tax cut.