(Oct. 27, 2008) -- It is time to summarize. My absentee ballot is marked and ready to mail.
Here are a dozen reasons I think voters should vote No on Measure I:
1. Three months ago it was bad timing with so many bond measures on the ballot. Now it is even worse timing. Struggling families must continue to manage higher costs of living plus the national breakdown/crash of the financial market which caused people to lose their homes, lose their jobs due to businesses closing down, retirement funds "catching on fire" and their future on shaky ground.
2. There was no serious input by the public or even by the City Council on Measure I's text, that is, what the measure actually says. Incredibly, on something this important, there were no Committee hearings or Council discussions or public testimony on its text -- what the measure guarantees (a tax for most) and doesn't guarantee (specific projects its backers claim) -- prior to the night the Council voted (8-1, Schipske voting "no") to put it on the ballot.
3. Measure I is a lengthy wish list with no prioritizing. There is nothing said as to when or what is to be completed. It is not just about repairing roads and sidewalks and eliminating trash and impurities which land on our beaches and shoreline, but could include many new buildings which is not repair of infrastructure.
4. Measure I is not equitable. A small home will be assessed the same as a millionaire's home.
5. The parcel tax will increase from $120 each year as per the "consumer price index," which has been about 3% annually but isn't capped, and at this rate will increase to $328 a year by 2044, not figures heard elsewhere.
6. Measure I revenues can be used to replace moneys already in the general budget for infrastructure repair.
7. As the Mayor refuses to debate with an opponent of Measure I, that is a sign of weakness of the proposal in my estimation. Of what is he afraid?
The opponents of Measure I are ready and willing to prepare and promote a more reasonable and therefore acceptable measure immediately the day after the election. Therefore, a vote No on faulty Measure I doesn't mean a long delay and thus increased costs as proponents claim.
Even though our Firefighters do an excellent job of protection and saving buildings and lives, the Fire Dept. should accept a change by not insisting on "full manning" with overtime firefighters. They need to fill-in absentee positions with firefighters in regular pay from a pool of Fire Dept. employees. Deployment practices need to be scrutinized. In calendar year 2007, overtime costs to taxpayers totaled $12.3 million. That same calendar year one firefighter nearly doubled his base salary by earning $84,481.99 in overtime! It is no wonder that there is insufficient money for road and sidewalk repairs.
The former local leader of the state of California [former Governor George Deukmejian] was quoted in the Press-Telegram on October 12 as saying "he loves Long Beach and wants the best for his community." I think many residents would have similar sentiments, but this thought shouldn't convince anyone to vote for Measure I. This is not the right moment to do a complete face lift for the city. Are voters supposed to make the city attractive to business and tourists a priority when they are struggling to survive on a regular basis? It appears that the proponents are very well-to-do and do not appear to be sensitive to thsoe who have much less.
11. Before a tax measure, there must be a change in policy or establishment of a policy on how the city budgets for paying necessary operational expenditures. The City must get its financial house in order first and foremost. There is a critical need for wiser budget and oversight.
12. As of October 15, the committee backing the measure (I presume basically the Mayor) has collected over $400,000 for his Yes on I Measure -- much of it in large amounts from contributions from outside Long Beach and many from those doing business with the City. High financing for Measure I is obscene. Why are they contibuting tens of thousands of dollars for an isue which affects us as taxpayers directly (and not them, except for possible payback favors sooner or later?) Example: $45,000 from Edison and $25,000 from the Long Beach Police Officers Association among numerous other similarly large donations. Are these charitable gifts, or what?
CONCLUSION
We must hold accountable our elected officials for their habitual bad judgment and unwise decisions -- protection and looking out for themselves and their positions rather than protection and working for the taxpayers. We are in the financial crunch now because of and to the extent of the extravagant salary increases and exhorbitant pension payments they approved.
Voter MUST VOTE NO on Measure I to send the City Council the clear message that it must cease repeatedly making very bad and irresponsible decisions which are corroding our City.
