Posted on 08/12/2013 7:22:27 AM PDT by Texas Eagle
By PAUL PRESTON The new motto under the bear on the California State flag is going to have to be revised from “California Republic” to California Soviet Republic” if proposed Senate Bill 1 by State Senator Steinberg is passed and signed into law. SB 1 came about following the massive defeat of Prop. 31 in last November’s election which was defeated by California Voters 61% to 39%. Cal Watch Dog’s Wayne Lusvardi in his November 9, 2012 article tilted :http://calwatchdog.com/2012/11/09/prop-31-would-have-ended-californias-republic/“>Prop. 31 would have ended California’s republic”, commented “Republicanism Upheld Only by Accident: The reason attributed to Prop. 31 losing by most sources was not that it would have replaced a republican form of government with unelected regional councils controlled by the Legislature The only opposition George Skelton and the Los Angeles Times had to Prop. 31 was that it was “long and complex.” TV station KQED in Northern California said it was just “too complicated.”
(Excerpt) Read more at agenda21radio.com ...
True enough. Got the red star going and The Soviet Unions used to be referred to as The Bear.
This hits very close to home for me. My father worked at one such redevelopment agency in San Diego. I worked there for a couple summers myself. The president (Carolyn) and head accountant (Dante) were recently convicted of giving out crazy bonuses and pay increases to staff and themselves. I knew both of these individuals and they were nice normal people just like everyone else. It all started out harmless when they were giving everyone large pay increases. I remember my father commenting at how absurd the pay was for many of the staff. Many were making 50-90k and only had high school diplomas. Carolyn was very generous to everyone and I do believe everything started with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, once you start dipping into the bowl, it gets too hard to stop.
No accountability will ruin the best of people. Below is a link for more info. for those interested in a great example of why these kinds of things shouldn't be established.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jan/20/sedc-pair-get-probation-must-pay-435000-city/
When taxation is decided at the state level, then everything else will ultimately be decided at the state level.
People wanted security over freedom. Security that their property taxes would not rise too fast no matter where they lived in CA, rather than the freedom to move to cities where the taxes were lower.
We were sold a bill of goods by Jarvis and we took the bait hook, line, and sinker.
Why even bother having “elections” in CA? In recent years, what the people vote for is eventually overridden by corrupt officials and/or liberal groups who conspire to overturn the peoples’ decisions.
Better question is when do freedom-loving people still left in CA finally say enough and leave?
They are cesspools of corruption, robbing people holding land for speculative purposes so that the big players can buy at below market.
While I understand what you are saying and agree with it in principle, people who have multigenerational investments in land don't just pick up and move. In our county, property taxes were at 8.5%. I want you to imagine an $85,000 tax bill every year. It was robbery. Of course, all property taxes are robbery in principle.
The damage that Proposition 13 really did is that it made it tolerable to allow Democrats to remain in power.
Wow...I thought I was one of the few conservatives that saw Prop 13, as noble as it may have been, to be the antithesis of conservatism.
In a perfect world, most taxes should be local, since they have the most direct impact on the quality of life of the taxpayer.
Prop 13 gave the State all kinds of excuses to encroach into what should be local control.
You got a source for this accusation on the redevelopment agency I mentioned?
I knew these people personally. I worked with them and spent time with them out of the office. They were good intentioned people that unfortunately gave in to temptation. Pretty much all the businesses that got funds and loans were mom and pop shops struggling to make ends meet because the state of the neighborhood. These stores benefited greatly from the help and the community did improve.
The problem with this particular redevelopment agency a lack of proper accountability and oversight which led to them taking a piece of the pie for themselves. It didn’t happen immediately, it happened when they couldn’t resist it anymore. My point is simply that even when good intentioned people are put in these positions, they can still fall if there isn’t proper accountability.
I have enough information to make a generalization, but not specifics to your area. I have seen this gambit where I've lived, in Culver City, in Oakland, and in San Jose. My dad was a municipal financing consultant, and he dealt with lots of these agencies. His complaints were the same.
They were good intentioned people that unfortunately gave in to temptation.
So how is that not a systemic problem? The simple answer is that eminent domain for redevelopment is too much power.
As Reagan said. The scariest words you will ever hear I’am from the government and I’am here to help you.
But then the city I lived in was run by conservative Republicans.
If you are/were living in a city run by liberal Democrats then you should expect your taxes to become ridiculously high.
In most states the mill levy varies from city to city. It is usually included as part of any real estate ad so buyers can decide if they can afford to live in an otherwise inexpensive home in an expensive neighborhood.
In Boulder they tended to tax higher for all of the liberal nonsense that the citizens voted for. But they had a concession for the senior citizens: the seniors could continue to pay taxes at a constant rate, but the city would keep track of the difference between what they paid and what they should have paid. When the seniors passed away a lien would be placed on the property for the difference. If the children could afford it, they could pay off the lien and keep the home, otherwise they might have to sell it in order to pay off the debt.
Of course in California seniors believe that somewhere in the Bible or the US Constitution it states they have a God-given right to pay low property taxes throughout their lives and pass on their house to their children debt-free.
I'm still looking for those passages, but have failed to find them.
If a city or county wants to develop or redevelop itself then they ought to use their own money that they collect either through taxation or selling bonds.
If a state is stupid (or corrupt) enough to give money to cities or counties for projects that benefit only that city or county, then the state should get some sort of a cut in order to get its money back with interest.
How wasteful is it that cities now have a bunch of people being paid tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to write proposals to get money from state and federal agencies?
So now my local tax dollars are being used to pay people to get back a chunk of my state and federal tax dollars?
The inefficiencies and opportunities for fraud in such a system are obvious to all but those who live in very deep caves.
Every Cal flag predates the USSR by decades.
If tax dollars are involved its not going to be efficient
The idea of taxing an estate for property taxes someone “should have paid” is so ridiculous and contemptuous as to not even deserve a comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.