Thursday, January 26, 2006

Yes on C Arguments are Really No on C Arguments

Reading through the Yes on C website, you'll find many compelling arguments for the clean water program.

The North County Times contains a Maggie Houlihan editorial that includes the following interesting information:

The program costs approximately $3.5 million annually: $1.3 million for operations and $2.2 million for capital projects. Encinitas land owners are being asked to approve a fixed $5 per month assessment for 10 years.

This will generate one-third, or $1.1 million annually, of the revenue needed to support the program. The remaining $2.4 million would continue to come from the city's general fund.

Encinitas enjoys an excellent quality of life and prides itself on well-maintained parks, roads, beaches, trails and natural open space. More than $50 million in revenue is pumped into our economy annually by beach visitors alone.


If the beaches alone generate $50 million then coughing up $3.5 million to maintain them is a no brainer. No need for a new tax, the beaches are paying for themselves.

7 comments:

  1. Since Houlihan is such a math whiz, maybe she can break down the numbers on the clean water program. Tell us why over 95% of its cost is allocated to staff salaries and... oops, even Kerry Millers salary.
    This whole program is an attempt to put fat salaries of people or positions who were on the city staff even before the program was started into a different column. Miller probably figured this little trick out when he was fleecing Tahoe. Clean snow?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keeping tabs on gov'tJanuary 27, 2006 3:43 PM

    Last Nov. we had Prop A and now it's Prop C --- what happened to Prop B? Did I miss an election -- it does seem like we have one every month....or does C stand for Con-artists? Cash Cow? Conflict of Interest???? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  3. City posted new agenda for Monday.

    Time to protest to the city council and city manager about the location the Encinitas City Council Special Meeting on Monday, January 30 at 4:30 P.M., which will NOT be held in the city council chambers. Council meetings held in the council chambers are recorded. This council meeting will be held at the Quail Botanical Gardens with probably no recording of the meeting and no microphones and speakers to amplify. The agenda items are:
    1. Review and assess financial operating and capital projects funding challenges and opportunities for the new year.
    2. Update prior year goals and discuss new goals for 2006-2007.

    Complain. Tell the council this important meeting should be held in the council chambers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like that revunue is always PUMPED into the economy. It sounds so dirty.

    ReplyDelete
  5. B is for Beware of Conartists!January 27, 2006 11:35 PM

    Yes, Council should meet in open session, more often, in Council Chambers. Far too many closed sessions, too, where only those Council deems "worthy" may attend, like labor negotiators (higher wages, perks), and private property negotiators (developers).

    City should meet at Senior Center so those old timers who need free lunch can be asked where they stand on new monthly tax.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Response to comment number one: The local businesses who actually enjoy tax revenue are the ones who are making the 30-40 million in business sales. Not the city. Before public comments are made people should understand the facts and what the numbers really mean.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This last comment sounds as though it came from Steve Aceti, or one of his spinmaster "hit men" lobbyists.

    Here's JP's comment he must be referring to: "If the beaches alone generate $50 million then coughing up $3.5 million to maintain them is a no brainer. No need for a new tax, the beaches are paying for themselves."

    Anon's retort, "The local businesses who actually enjoy tax revenue are the ones who are making the 30-40 million in business sales. Not the city."

    Of course, this doesn't make any sense, at all. City enjoys sales tax revenues from those business interests. Also, if the businesses are making so much, shouldn't the assessment be weighted so that the businesses pay their fair share, and it isn't stuck on the little guy, often fixed income homeowner?

    Double standards abound. Better check your integrity, Mr. Aceti. I don't buy your bull.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on our blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.