Log in

Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Issue Updates & Perspectives

<< First  < Prev   ...   7   8   9   10   11   Next >  Last >> 
  • 22 Feb 2012 8:36 AM | Deleted user
    Because this is a "fee" the method chosen to distribute the ballots is through a private company, not the County Elections Office. The "ballot" may look more like an advertisement since the return address is the Clean Water group.  A copy of the envelope can be found here:  CCCWP Outgoing Env v1.pdf

    CoCoTAX is opposing this measure for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to:
    • The "fee" differs in three areas in Contra Costa County that seem to have no other basis than what polls show people will pay.
    • The fee is not modest like they emphasize (businesses can pay thousands of dollars) and the fee can be raised annually for the next ten years. 
    • There is already a similar fee on your tax bill that is now up to $30 and it was stated during the public hearing that they needed this new fee because that was not enough money.
    • The "calculations" include vague number justification and include dubious amounts for public outreach. The massive amounts of money being spent in advertising shows what is at stake.
    • There is no scientific studies that validate the claims that are being made for the need for many of the issues raised.
    • The trash reduction component is unrealistic and could actually cause flooding when such small particulates are trapped. (think leaves in the fall
  • 21 Feb 2012 6:12 AM | Deleted user
    Ed Mendel reported in his Calpensions blog that Governor Brown proposed to reduce pension costs in the state budget by switching some of the expense to the California State University budget. This is part of the Governor's proposal that would freeze support for the CSU and University of California pensions - a cost the systems could ill afford at this point.

    The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said CSU would be faced with a potential burden “out of proportion” to its limited ability to control future pension costs. “For this reason, we recommend that the Legislature reject the governor’s approach,” the analyst said in a report this month.

    The rest of Mendel's excellent article can be found at: http://calpensions.com/2012/02/21/proposed-budget-shows-lower-calpers-payment/

  • 10 Jan 2012 6:53 AM | Deleted user
    Since CoCoTAX went to LAFCO (Local Area Formation Commission) this past spring and requested that the MT Diablo Health Care District be dissolved there have been numerous newspaper stories, editorials, and an additional Contra Costa Grand Jury report (the fourth).  The recent study done by the consultant's hired by LAFCO as part of the dissolution process (the report and background can be found at http://www.contracostalafco.org/MtDiablo_Health_Care_District.htm)
    came to the same conclusion as CoCoTAX, four separate grand juries, and the Contra Costa Times:  dissolution is the practical solution for MDHCD which has a small income relative to expenses, major obligations for retiree health care, and no longer has a hospital to manage. While the tax dollars will not be eliminated, they can be put to better use if distributed to other governmental agencies and eliminating the high administrative costs.

    The vote on Wednesday will be a history making step for Contra Costa LAFCO should the opt to begin the dissolution process, and CoCoTAX is proud to have played a major part in the effort. The Grand Jurors who served so ably on the four separate grand juries should be congratulated for their efforts and will hopefully feel vindicated after the Wednesday vote.

    Nobody else wanted to press for this effort and it is a role only CoCoTAX was willing to step up and fill. Particular thanks are due to member Richard Soderholm who has been attending the MDHCD meetings for so many years.

    Kris Hunt, Executive Director
<< First  < Prev   ...   7   8   9   10   11   Next >  Last >> 
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software