a simplified political note:
The author's residence and work is located near downtown and targeted as a disadvantaged
neighborhood. She has worked and lived at that location since October 1984. Very little has
changed since 1984 pertaining to crime and San Bernardino investing capital in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Why should she trust her money in promises the City failed to perform since 1984 regarding to crime and investing
capital in disadvantaged neighborhoods?
The argument in favor for Measure Z is the increase of crime in San Bernardino. I find the argument
flawed because crime has always been an issue for twenty two years and mismanagement of City's business addressing crime and
life in disadvantaged neighborhoods is equally at fault. The City must manage and bring life to disadvantaged neighborhoods
restoring human dignity and respect. A good start is narrowing the gap between the haves and the have-nots and defeat Measure
Z.
To vote "yes" for Measure Z is a fifteen year marriage with multiple partners who lack insight,
and compassion to see how things "really are".
No on Measure Z and YY.
Measure Z: Sales Tax Increase: Money goes to the General Fund without accountability to the Public.
No taxation without truthful representation! Would you write a blank check to anyone?
WRITING A CHECK
Pay to the Order: San Bernardino General Fund
for $5.6 million dollars and oo/oo cents.....................................
for: I do not know.
signed: ____________________________________________
OR
Pay to the order: San Bernardino Police Department
for $5.6 million dollars and 00/00 cents...................................
for: more police on the streets
Signed______________________________________
Food for thought: Make the check payable to the General
Fund or Police Department?
The
Choice is yours on November 07, 2006
Measure YY: The Citizens Oversight Committee: The citizens oversight committe void of
power in making decisions of how the tax dollar is spent. The citizens oversight committee are folks
chosen by the common council and most likely tailored to ensure the agenda of the council.
****************************
A philosophical note for the voter:
"There is a gulf between Truth and reality; they are not the same thing. Illusion and falsehood
are certainly part of reality; but they are
not part of Truth. Truth includes all that is, it is one. Truth is beyond reality; it comprehends reality but
not vice versa. Reality is conditioned and multiple. We need Truth but our minds are conditioned; therefore
occupied with reality.
When you engage your mind in GREAT DOUBT reality recedes and
Truth through the mode of "insight" will discern "what is". Deanna
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure Z
Even though City Council has the funds to hire fourteen police officers this year, the City has not filled these vacancies.
Instead the City called a special election at taxpayers’ expense to give City Council members a huge pay raise. This
measure failed.
Measure Z is intended to fund twenty-six additional officers; not forty. The excess funds may well go to
other resources or "pet" projects and not necessarily to fight crime or address crime prevention.
Do you honestly believe with a campaign to publicize our crime situation that the non-residents who contribute to 70% of
our sales tax revenue will continue to drive to San Bernardino to shop here when they could choose to go to Victoria Gardens,
Ontario Mills, or Redlands where prices are more competitive with a family-friendly and attractive environment?
The Citizen Oversight Committee cannot guarantee that the money will be spent on police and anti -crime programs. This
is a simply misleading. This Committee has no decision-making authority and cannot set policy. This money will go into
the general fund where only the City Council can decide how your tax dollars will be spent.
Join average hard working citizens, seniors, and disadvantaged members of the community in opposing this unnecessary financial
burden on our community.
DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY for funds already available to protect our city, neighborhoods, and families.
VOTE NO and OPPOSE MEASURE Z.
********************************
Rebuttal to Argument in favor of Measure YY
Last year, almost fourteen thousand violent crimes were committed in San Bernardino while our City failed to fill
vacant police officer positions. No wonder crime is at the highest level in ten years.
Crime cannot be addressed until those in charge are held accountable for their failure to fill vacant police officer positions
that could have easily addressed the public safety crisis.
Measure YY will do nothing to stop crime. It is only an advisory measure with no accountability drivers. Other communities
that have passed similar measures are now up in arms when funds were diverted to "pet" projects and had nothing to do with
fighting crime. When City officials were called to accountability by the members of their community, a Judge informed
those residents that their advisory measure was not binding on the City’s officials and neither is Measure YY.
Tell your City officials you are tired of unnecessary tax increases with NO REAL ACCOUNTABILITY. If you really want to
hold your Mayor and City Council accountable then tell them to first fill the vacant police officer positions with viable
measurement standards to determine the success or failure of our crime prevention program.
There is no mandated accountability within the provisions of Measure YY. It is only a tool to fool the public into voting
"yes" on Measure Z.
Tell your City Officials you can’t be fooled! Vote NO and OPPOSE MEASURE YY.
**************************
Argument against Measure Z:
The money earned by the tax payer of the generated sales tax does not guarantee the money will go to the
police force. The City Council promised that this money will go to hire more police officers. The truth is our hard
earned money is going into the general fund. (Promises as politians are here today and gone tomorrow.)
A special tax (if needed) to pay for police officers is appropriate because the benefit
is to protect and serve all. If the real purpose was to hire additional police officers
the tax is justifiable, morally and politically correct. This increased sales tax is not for
a definite purpose and fails to offer future security for the intended need.
Measure Z is a blank check for anything this City desires. The question about safety protection (police) is a concern
and the police department need security inorder to implement a sound program without being fearful that
the funds will dry up.
Everyone agrees that the police is short staffed, however, the public is not aware the shortage is
the result of vacancies. Why are these vacancies not filled?
According to Patrick Morris Measure Z contains critical taxpayer protections, such as creating a Citizens
Oversight Committee to ensure our tax dollars are spent hiring additional police and funding aggressive anti
crime operations.
The problem of an Citizens Oversight Committee is they advice without any executive power
to execute or have power in the decision making. The advice of the committee is used to appease the
public to belief that the money will be spent accordingly. Perhaps, the Mayor and Council of 2006 have good intent but
what happened when others take their place? Afterall, politians are here today and gone tomorrow. Advisory without policy
decision making power is a tool to fool and appease the public. There is no guarantee the money will go to hiring
additional police and funding aggressive anti-crime operations.
Food for thought: Why No on Measure Z
- Measure Z will automatically expire in 15 years unless taxpayers vote to extend it. Crime will always be part
of society.
- Since it is evident that our population doubled why have we not filled those vacancies?
- Increased sales tax going into the general fund fails to meet a need for a
specific task.
- Measure Z further divides the haves and have-nots.
- Promises and Politians are here today and gone tomorrow.
- Measure Z is Big Government: a need to control and no accountability
- Measure Z offers a Citizens Oversight Committee who has no power to execute decisions and policy making.
- The Committee is to appease the voter and to justify the belief that the advisory commitee have power
in decision and policy.
- The vacancies of the police department must be filled.
- Finally, The school district, county, and state must step up the plate to resolve social issues
of education, jobs, and over-all responsibility to narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots.
A philosophical note:
A wise politician is one that connects people together and narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots. Any
measure that widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots is immoral because it deepens the deterioration in relationship
(financially and psychologically) between each other and as a group. Only a measure that narrows the
gap between the haves and have-nots (a measure that benefits all) is worthy of consideration. A
measure which has the potential to narrow the gap is a plan that has the capacity to resolve issues,
and a special tax (if needed) would address a specific need.
The argument of justification to vote No on Measure Z
The sales tax increase is immoral and politically incorrect because it does not hold the politicians accountable
to the taxpayer and citizen. If the issue is more police officers than the need must be specific. The public must
also be accountable for the money that is needed for additional police officers and those vacancies in question. No Government
has the right to control money that they did not personally earned. The solution for this problem, if any, is
a special tax (if needed) opposed to a sales tax increase. A special tax (if needed) is moral because
of the specific need, the need to address crime, that will benefit
all the people. Everyone will benefit from police protection and issues relating to crime.
Measure Z:
The Argument: Should the Council be given a blank check? Is Measure Z truly a path to resolve the crime issue
in San Bernardino?
The City Council on August 22, 2006 voted to chip a tenth of a percent off the utility users tax in what city leaders
said is part of a compromise that led them to approve placing a proposed sales - tax hike on the November ballot. The tax
cut will cost the City about $300,000 annually according to projection from the City Manager's office.
Reducing the utility tax is the moral thing to do for working families and it is a tool that narrows the gap between
the haves and have-nots.
But, is this utility reduction a decision to narrow the gap or is the utility tax reduction characterized as a way
to offset the sting that residents could face as a result of a sales tax increase?
Surely, this reduction of utility tax is a repeat pattern, a bait and switch, to appease the poor and senior
citizens. This reduction is part a tax adjustment strategy and part a political compromise. When Mayor
Patrick Morrs first proposed a quarter - percent sales tax hike to bolster the City's anti-crime efforts last month, council
support was shaky. Because putting a general tax hike before voters on Nov. 07 requires unanimous council support. If approved
by voters in November the sales tax increase to projected to add 5.6 million annually to the City's budget.
Truly, the immoral act of this political mind is to marginalize the citizen to think by saving
a few pennies on his utility bill he is obligated to vote on a sales tax increase that would cost him hundreds
of dollars. The mind of the taxpayer, however, will discern the truth from the myth and defeating
measure Z and YY is his victory. The trade off of saving $300,000 per year opposed to 5.6 million in additional taxes
is the mark of widening the gap between the haves and have- nots.
Argument: Why would customers come to San Bernardino and pay the highest sales tax rate in the region, when
they can shop in beautiful Redlands or Rancho Cucamonga, where it is safer and cheaper?
Patrick Morris point out Monday, August 21, 2006 that analyst project that 70% of the estimated 5.6 million
in revenue from the sales tax hike will be paid by people living outside San Bernardino who come into the city to shop.
In the argument in favor of Measure Z claim that business leaders and taxpayers
support Measure Z. Who are those business leaders and taxpayers? There is no evidence of this
argument that 70% of the revenue will be paid by people who live outside San Bernardino. Why would people from
the outside shop in San Bernardino if they can enjoy a beautiful atmosphere in their own city and save money at the same
time paying a lower sales tax and not to mention the cost of gasoline at $3.00 per gallon to drive from one city to another?
Argument against Measure Z:
If cities like Redlands and Rancho Cucamonga offer beauty why would people flock to San Bernardino to
shop and spent more money paying more in sales tax?
Argument: Why did the residents of San Bernardino refuse to give the City's Council a raise in June? Is it not the
people felt the Council are incompetent and could not be trusted to spend our money wisely?
Our Council has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. In the last ten years:
- Our annual budget has doubled by $134.5 million.
- Sales tax revenue has nearly doubled to $38.5 million.
- Utility tax revenue has increased by 50%.
- Property tax revenue has nearly quadrupled to $25.1 million.
Food for thought:
If our annual budget has doubled by $134.5 million, sales tax revenue has nearly doubled to $38.5 million,
utility tax revenue has increased by 50%, and property tax revenue has nearly quadrupled to $25.1 million why
did the City not use the financial boom of increased revenue to benefit crime, gang, and crime prevention? Why did the
City not use the financial boom of increased revenue to benefit the resources of the police department? Why did the
City not invest in disadvantaged neighborhoods and be accountable to crime and crime prevention? Why do we have
fewer police patrolling our streets than a few years ago even though we have a budget that has grown by tens of millions
over that same timeframe? Finally,why have we not filled those vacancies?
Facts:
If our Council is so concerned about crime, why don't they budget our money accordingly? Instead, the Council is more
concerned with boondoggles like a million dollar water fountain with dead ferns, calling special elections that cost $50,000
each to give themselves a gigantic pay and to raise our taxes, cement "art" balls, and the Lakes and Streams Project Land
Grab.
Instead of showing some fiscal responsibility, our Council would rather punish the poor and
our seniors who live on fixed incomes by raising the sales tax.
The City Council is promising that this money will go to hire more police officers. The truth is out hard earned money
is going into the GENERAL FUND and will undoubtedly be wasted on other failed projects just like the Council has done
in the past.
No more blank checks for our failing Council. Vote NO on Measure Z.
A personal meditation:
" Thought is the greatest achievement of humanity, however, repeating the pattern is a mind that functions
mechanically; but he who observes will engage his mind to such a degree where "thought" is silent and
*pure intelligence can communicate using "insight" to see things as they really are". Deanna
*pure intelligence is an "active intelligence" beyond any of the "energies defined in thought".
Measure YY:
Argument: If the money is going to the general fund are Council members required to spend this money on
more police officers?
Argument in favor of Measure YY: Measure YY helps solve the crisis of crime according to Patrick
Morris and insist that all revenues raised by Measure Z be spent to hire additional police officers and to implement
aggressive anti-gang and anti-crime operations. Under California law, *general tax revenues may
not be earmarked for special programs, but voters may declare what they want
done with the funding.
*Exactly, the general tax revenues may not be earmarked
for special programs. San Bernardino citizens will do well to defeat Measure Z because the general
tax revenues may not be earmarked for special programs. A special tax, if needed, may be earmarked for special programs after
we have filled the police positions vacancies.
Argument against YY: The problem of Measure YY is that the City may do what they want with the money and the
advisory board may advice the Mayor and Council but their advice has no power to execute decisions. Measure
YY points out that the voters may declare what they want done with the funding but that does not mean that
the funding will go towards hiring 40 additional police officers, fund aggressive anti-gang and anti-crime operations to remove
gangs and violent felons from our city, and prevent youth crime and violence.
Measure YY is a advisory committee without decision making power. In other words they can advise
but without power to make decisions of where this money is to be spent.
Mayor Patrick Morris and the City Council members (2006) has pledged to use the money from Measure Z to hire
more police and aggressively fight crime in our city. They ask us to hold them accountable. The problem of
holding anyone accountable is politians are here today and gone tomorrow. The accountability cannot
be held by the Mayor and Council and unless the advisory are decision policy makers and have power to
execute decisions. I vote No on measure YY.
Argument against Measure YY
Fact: This is a blank check for the City Council. This money is going to the general fund and our Council is
not legally required to spend this money on more police officers. Nothing prevents the Mayor or Council from slashing
the current budget for our police department and substituting these funds to offset the difference.
Fact: Mayor Morris has a bloated office budget exceeding $1 million dollars. He also awarded the polling
company he used during his mayoral campaign by giving them $18,500 of our own tax dollars to poll the public for
support of this tax hike.
Fact: Mayor Morris has supported two special elections ($50,000 each) and also supported a massive pay raise for our
incompetent Council.
The people of San Bernardino are told that this tax hike will generate an additional $5.4 million dollars
each year. We are told that it is needed to pay for 26 additional officers. Each officer cost about $100,000 a year, or $2.6
million. Than means that more than half of these funds are going to social welfare programs that
don't work.
San Bernardino taxpayers are tired of liberal, big government programs that fail to address our crime problems.
San Bernardino taxpayers are tired of empty promises and fiscal mismanagement.
During his campaign, Mayor Morris promised to be "tough on crime" and to hire 40 additional officers. Since being elected,
Morris has performed a classic "bait and switch" by stating that 40 officers would be hired over three years. Now he threatens
to abandon his promise altogether, if we do not support his tax plan. Our budget is currently being audited to find wasteful
spending. Do not let the Mayor and Council steamroll the taxpayer before the results of that audit and their waste are
revealed.
