On Monday August 4, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board voted unanimously to continue to move forward with a Benefit Assessment in hopes of raising an additional $4 million in revenue to ensure two fire stations do not shutter later this year.
Property owners will be asked in October whether they want to pay between $100-$200 in the form of a Benefit Assessment to ensure the fire District does not shutter two stations (Station 54 in downtown Brentwood and Station 94 in Knightsen) and will be asked to return a mail ballot.
Currently, the District has five stations covering 250-square miles thanks to a FEMA Grant which is set to expire Nov. 18. Once the FEMA Grant expires, without additional revenue, the District will be forced to operate with 3-stations and just 9-firefighters on duty covering 250-square miles.
In three separate votes, the Board voted 9-0 declaring the intention to establish a Fire Assessment District and Levy and Collect Assessments and to preliminary approve the Engineers Report in Support of the Fire Assessment.
They also Provided Notice of Public Hearing and the mailing of Assessment Ballots on the Matter of Authorizing the Levy of Annual Assessments Against Properties within the District, sets the date of October 6, 2014,
Third, the Resolution Adopting Procedures for Completion, Return and Tabulation of Assessment Ballots in Accordance with Proposition 218 establishes and clarifies specific requirements and procedures for the assessment ballot proceeding.
Here is a recap of the comments made by the public and the Board of Directors.
Alex Aliferis, executive director of the Contra Costa Tax Payers Association, stated the organizations opposition of the use of a Benefit Assessment for the ECCFPD due to Prop 218 and stating police and fire should be paid by all residents, not just homeowners.
“The ECCFPD district consultant team made it clear in the finance committee meeting last week that EMS is not a special benefit, EMS is a general benefit in violation of Prop 218. Will the District violate Prop 218 and use the fire engines for EMS? The fire districts spiraling pension’s costs forcing to cut fire service just to pay for its pension costs. By the year 2014-15, pensions consume $3.94 million while in salaries its $3.18 million. Pensions will consume more than the salaries. Has the District negotiated a two-tier system for new hires? Have current firefighters picked up the entire or most of the employee shares of pension benefits? Has the District have plans to hire a consultant to hire its current resources and revenue to create an efficient fire model based on current revenue—similar to what CONFIRE is doing with the Fitch Report. The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association urges the board and fire chief to withdraw the unconstitutional Prop 218 Benefit Assessment. “
Walter MacVitti agreed with Aliferis in urging the board to find another solution.
“You did this two years ago as Parcel Tax, there was discussion about an assessment and it was decided it was not the proper way, it was not constitutional in California and the laws of Prop 218. You didn’t even get 50% of the vote and you are trying it again,” said McVitty. “You are mincing words using fire suppression. Mr. Aliferis brought up an excellent point that a majority of the calls are medical; they are not fire so I think you are mincing words and playing with the public. The bigger point is if you get this money, which I don’t think you will, I will fight it because it does not solve your problem. It’s a bad aid and now you are asking us for money that does not even solve the problem.”
He urged the board to look at a new model and stop spending money on consultants and survey’s and fix the problem.
Brent Warren, resident of Oakley, spoke in support of the Benefit Assessment.
“I am not a big fan of paying taxes and assessment, but the way I was brought up is you always put your priorities straight and public safety is number 1. I agree there has been a funding issue since I’ve been here 29 years ago and it hasn’t been fixed. Do I agree this is a Band-Aid, it is a Band-Aid, but it gives us some time. A three model system is not a critical problem, it’s a criminal.
Vince Wells spoke in support of the Benefit Assessment.
We have a revenue shortage in East Contra Costa County, but what has been done at the firefighter level, yes there has been pension reform and they now have two tiers as of 2013. Anyone hired in 2013 is under the new laws. When we got the 3@50 benefit in 2002, because of the low pay, firefighters here the District agreed to pay a portion of their pension cost. That no longer occurs, right now firefighters are paying 100% of their pension costs. It’s not a pension issue,” said Wells. “This is really a community safety issue and we would support it moving forward.”
Gill Guerrero, a firefighter since 1996, thanked the board for all their hard work and work they have done.
“The problem is not new, the people that helped create the district are the ones partly responsible because they knew the challenges you would face and the citizens are faced with today. Proposition 13 is great, I am a homeowner and it protects homeowners, but there is a flaw in it. It’s not a retirement issue; it’s a foundational issue in how we receive our funding. It’s half of what other districts get when they are part of assessed value. It’s not retirement so I strongly urge you to move forward with the benefit assessment,” said Guerrero. “No one wants a Band-Aid either, we want this fixed but we have to move forward and right now this is the only way we can do it. Three stations for 250 square miles and we roll out 9,000 times per year for just five engines. We just can’t do it. To reduce us by another 40% it just does not work.”
Kevin Romick, Oakley City Councilman, urged the fire board to move forward because the District does not get its fair share and explained how the State fixed it for school districts but nothing has been done with fire.
“We are expected to provide the same level of service as everybody else has done with half the budget. So this is not a pension issue, it’s a funding issue and it’s always been a funding issue. Until the funding level is made the same across the State, it will always be a funding issue,” said Romick. “I urge you to move forward.”
Tony Tiscareno, Antioch City Councilman, urged the fire board to move forward with the Benefit Assessment because if the District was to go down to Three Stations, engines from Antioch would be coming over across the District daily.
“This is a community safety issue not only a community safety issue not only for the community you are asking to support, but for the entire county,” said Tiscareno. “We want to support your cities if there is something divesting occurring. We want to make sure we can provide the services but we shouldn’t be assumed or assured to happen on a daily basis. We have a major city we have to support and service. “
Bob Taylor, Mayor of Brentwood, said it was important to stand by and support this fire district on this initiative. He explained that after all the explanations, pros and cons, it always comes down to funds and money
“I do not want it to turn out like Custards Last Stand, that was pretty bad tragic deal. If we can do anything at this point in time, to avoid, is it a band aid, hell yes it’s a band aid but it beats nothing. A year from now god knows, we can be San Bruno who knows. Look at the state right now and the drought, this state is in a calamity and my city is involved. My main job is to protect my city. Do I protect Oakley, Discovery Bay and other surrounding cities, hell yes. But tonight I am representing Brentwood so you have tough decisions, I make them all the time and you will catch hell with whatever you decide to do but you only need 51% of the vote. I urge you to do the right thing.”
Assemblyman Jim Frazier, thanked the board for their effort and dedication while highlighting the lack of funding the district receives.
“We did go for a revenue enhancement for this district because again this district is underfunded; it’s always been underfunded, and operated under the veil of funding when property values were up and money was flowing and then reality struck,” explained Frazier.
Frazier said he is working at a state level for a fix of rural fire districts and volunteer fire districts to get proper funding but stated it takes time and needs buy in from many people.
“Please understand that I am up there fighting for this district on a daily basis and that takes time. But I need your help so we can prepare a fix for rural and volunteer fire departments,” said Frazier.
Hal Bray, said the Distinct should be getting more money because property taxes are going up.
“Last month I got a letter from the county that my property taxes are back above where they were when the recession hit but you keep using a number that property taxes are down 40%. Yes they were, but they are not down 40% now. The point that keeps coming back to me is the term band aid, and this board has said, and this district has said every time they get a SAFER Grant or a tax is pass or they go for a tax you say this time we are going to fix it. If you just pass this we will fix it. Two years we are back with the same tax, this time we are calling it a Benefit Assessment,” explained Bray. “Your apportionment is lower than other districts, you get 6% and other Districts get about 15%, now in this room you have several city council members, a state assemblyman, if your apportionment is bad, then fix it. Talk to Jim Frazier, talk to other city councilmen, have them agree and go to the legislator and fix your apportionment instead of coming back time and time again with the same solution.”
Diane Burgis, Oakley City Councilwoman, explained how the firefighters have made a difference in her life and she supports moving forward with the assessment.
“I look at this Benefit Assessment and I think this is something we need to do,” said Burgis. “I’ve had an experience where I had a child going into anaphylactic shock and I had the fire department in my house in a few minutes and that made all the differences in the world whether he lived or had brain damage.”
She stated as a mom, she is very comfortable with this while as a councilperson she takes it as a responsibility of looking out for people who may not be paying attention while calling the District “limited” in terms of resources when it was set.
“I think we are approaching a cliff. Having 9 people cover 250-square miles is not acceptable. It’s not safe and fortunately we have been very lucky but if we keep moving forward without a solution to at least get to the 5 stations, we are going to have a big problem,” said Burgis. “I urge you to go forward.”
Meghan Bell, Oakley Resident, spoke on behalf of 7,000 children with special needs who rely on the fire department to respond when needed.
“My son is extremely dependent on the fire department. They are not only his heroes and his safe place, but they are also the ones who respond in his greatest time of need. With the response times being what they are he turns to me first,” explained Bell. “So when I see response times of 7-minutes or more, it doesn’t mean I am waiting those 7-minutes, it means I am the one providing those life saving measures. Quite frankly, I need my firefighters saving not only my son, but other children like him. I urge you to support this Benefit Assessment.”
Scott Sims, a small business owner, stated the district should live within their means.
“Perhaps you guys need to operate this like a business and within a budget and do things that way and perhaps it might start making a difference instead of this coming up time and time again,” said Sims. “Some people will have to decide whether to buy groceries or pay the assessment.”
Director Steve Smith explained how a three station model was in place before the FEMA Grant came through and the Board has made it clear that unless some other increase in revenue occur, the District would be reduced back to three stations.
“We have saved all we can before coming to the voters for additional funding,” said Smith. “Anybody watching the budget knows that. They know what we have done about pensions and everything.”
Smith further explained that back when the Citygate report was done back before the housing crisis occurred; it was already a funding shortage saying there was a shortfall from the get-go.
Director Joe Young responded to the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association regarding a study be done and explained how a study was done in 2006 stating there was not enough fire stations and not enough money which is a problem.
“These findings in 2006 were reaffirmed in the 2009 MSR study by LAFCO where clearly there is a funding problem,” said Young. “The issue of property tax continues to be disturbing and I know my assessment is back to where it was, unfortunately, many assessments and many will never will because all the property that changed hands during the crisis are revalued at much lower levels.”
Young explained that because so many homes were re-assessed, the District will not reach the 2008 funding levels until 2021 at the earliest—15 years down the road and they miss the 2% accumulation calling it a long way to get back to those levels.
Director Greg Cooper said the solution will be solved in Sacramento and not here today, but they still need revenue for today.
“I do have a hard time rejecting this because of the $8 per month,” said Cooper. “To take our fire department and cut it by 40% makes no sense to me. I was looking at the numbers for the agency I work for and I have a population of 72,000 and 12-squile miles and five stations. This District has 105,000 people and 250-square miles and that is absolutely ridiculous. This is a no brainer and I know it’s unfortunate but It’s one of those time where the community has to step up for public safety.”
Director Ronald Johansen said he appreciated the comments both for and against and said the board does here you.
“I don’t like paying taxes and I don’t like paying more taxes, but there are those taxes that are important to the welfare of the community that do not serve special needs or special groups or limited people. We are talking about a tax that serves everyone and makes a difference for every individual,” said Johansen.
He asked those who oppose the tax at this time a single question.
“If the day comes and you need our service and you lose your home to a fire or you lose a loved one to an illness or to an accident or they suffer great disability. Will you realize that if you voted no for this benefit assessment district that you basically for 11 cents in the Sunshine area or 13 cents a day in the Bethel Island area that 30 cents per day throughout the rest of the district were willing to step away from this assessment. How do you value life or your property when you are willing to step away from that type of necessity? We are not talking about a lot of money; we are talking about loose change that people throw around in their car each day,” Johansen. “I can’t sit here and make a decision to shut a station ever and don’t want to be put in that decision because it means life are put on the line. I don’t want to be put in that position unless that taxpayers put me in that position.”
He further explained the use of band aid for the Benefit Assessment calling it a temporary solution for a problem that cannot be solved by this board but by Sacramento. He calls it a step closer to a final solution.
Director Cheryl Morgan state that if the District does not go forward and they move to a three-station model, that eventually they are not going to be worried about the District funding, but looking at the State taking over.
“I am in favor of this because I do not see an alternative, but I do understand everyone’s negatives about this and I agree with you. But I do not see a way to get passed this,” said Morgan.
Board President Joel Bryant wanted to give voters the opportunity to decide what service level they wanted to have.
“I get very sick of different groups trying to put a us versus them spin on this. There is no us versus them. We are you. You are us, we live here. We do not get one penny for being on this board. Not a dime! So there is no us versus them,” said Bryant. “When you come with your mind set up that we have to take a stand against them, you are really taking a stand against yourself because you are us.”
Bryant further explained that the terminology of band aid and that when there is not enough resources to protect families and property, there will be tragic results.
“I am personally not willing to trade lives for dollars. I am trying to purchase safety with dollars and not lives,” said Bryant. “I see rolling eyes, go ahead and roll your eyes…. If you are willing to pay a little extra now, that little extra it may very well impact your personal life.”
He further shared how he was incensed about is some of the questions by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association who proposed a series of questions during Alex Aliferis comments to the Board.
“They were questions you already knew the answers to and that we had already addressed them sir. If you look at these numbers, you know. But my question to you (Alex Aliferis) is do you live here? Because if you don’t, and disseminating misinformation you are playing fast and loose with my babies. If anyone lives in this District, I am thrilled for you for or against, but if you don’t live here you are playing with the health and safety of my family and every other family here. You need to consider that and shake your heads all you want that is perfectly fine; this is a very personal issue for me. You can throw rocks at the board for the decisions we make, but there is no one standing on your front porch or calling you or emailing you expecting you to provide protection for them. They look to use for that. When something goes wrong they are not calling you asking why didn’t you do something more, they are going to be calling me and those of us here with that question,” said Bryant.
Bryant further explained a series of issues that the Board addressed
- District Pay – paid nearly half of all neighboring districts
- Retirement – firefighters pay 100% of their employee portion of retirement
- Two Tier Retirement System – new firefighters are on a second tier.
- Volunteers – when it came time to sign up, they did not get enough interest to fill a single class.
- Fire Services – approached neighboring districts about getting fire services contracted out. Districts responded “no thank you.”
“The ideas are good ones, we have tried them. No one is interested. So what you are looking at is a group of people with a vested interest because they live here. Your lives matter to me. Your family matters to me. The safety of the community matters to me. The safety of the District matters to me and because of that I am not willing to take it out of the voters hands to decide what they want for level of fire protection for their families to be,” said Bryant. “A voter has a right to have a voice and a decision on this. If you disagree, there are other countries you can go to who would be more than happy to tell you what to do. But in this case the individual still has the right to voice a decision and that is what we are doing. We are presenting to the community and individual homeowners a choice yes or no. If you don’t want this to pass, vote no. if you want it to pass, then vote yes. But I am not willing as a board member am not willing to make that choice for you. If you don’t want to vote, that is your decision. But I am putting the choice in your hand. We cant pass it without you, we can’t fail it without you. The choice is in the voters.”
August 2014:
- Prior to August 8, 2014, the Board approves engineer’s report and sets public hearing date for benefit assessment.
- No later than August 15, 2014, the District’s consultant (or subconsultant) prints and mails notices, instructions, return envelopes and ballots.
October 2014:
- October 6, 2014, the Board holds public hearing, after which the ballots are counted in a location open to the public.
November 2014:
- November 3, 2014, the voting results are announced and, if property owners do not submit a majority of votes in protest, the Board can enact the benefit assessment.
August 2015:
- If the Board enacts the benefit assessment, it is placed on the tax rolls by the County Assessor’s Office.
December 2015:
- New revenue from the assessment enters the District.
28 comments
Someone needs to tell Joel Bryant that the voters already had a choice 2 years ago and said no. This is political BS and they should have listened to voters the first time. Vote him out Brentwood. No new taxes! There is no benefit with this benefit assessment because nothing is changing. It remains the same. The little political stunt of closing station 54 is a perfect example of the district playing games with the voters. Property taxes are up. Money is coming in and they can soon enough open stations when living within their means!
@Bobby,
Did you even read the discussion posted above by the Directors? The explanation about why Property Taxes are not up is in there. Basically, with all the property changing hands they do not go back to the same levels as quickly. It will take until 2021 to reach 2008 levels again in terms of funding.
@Bobby,
Let us review the math behind the “little political stunt”. It takes 9 firefighters to staff one station 24/7. Due to the ongoing uncertainty, we are down 10, plus one medical leave and one military deployment. Overreliance on overtime eventually puts public and firefighters at risk due to exhaustion.
Classical political bullsh!t. Diane Burgis and Joel Bryant say they are looking out for the public but when the Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association raises a valid issue and also look out for the public they are the devil. No new taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Tim M,
Which “valid issue” are you referring to? Mr. Aliferis raised questions to which he already knew the answers. ECCFPD has engaged him in discussions for months. He knows better.
Wow, Antioch Councilman in a district he does not belong in. Nice to see! I agree with him 100% in this case but not decided on his reelection.
I hope East County residents support this because the last thing I want is Antioch engines in East County in another District. We pay our fair share and now you guys need to as well. Antioch/CONFIRE should not be helping ECCFPD daily. Only on major incidents. Sorry, but you should get the type of service you are willing to pay for.
Tony loves playing mayor. He was at the mayor’s cookoff in Concord too. The chef from the golf course won the cookoff!
“Bob Taylor, Mayor of Brentwood, said it was important to stand by and support this fire district on this initiative.” This comes from a mayor who has control of city funds and built himself a palace to work in. How about selling or leasing out City Hall and use that money to fund the fire department. Let the mayor work in construction trailers.
Is anyone aware…or do you even care….that Station 54 was closed today due to insufficient staffing? It may or may not open again before the end of the month. Sad.
After I read his article I was disappointed. Bryant is quoted about district pay, retirement , and volunteers are bit stretching reality to sway the voters. There is no need to BS the public. We know what’s going on. The retirement paid by the firefighters originates from our pockets. Not that they should not receive a great retirement but currently its too much. The first comment on how they get half the pay and pay all the retirement is kind of misleading. Not that they do not deserve a raise but lets be realistic and not try a play on words. Also the volunteer try is even more misleading because they had sixty applications some with full credentials but could not get one class together, BS. Call it like it is, the union will not allow it. Then to coincidently close one station right before the ballot and threaten another immediately following when the district just gave raises and bonuses to the BC’s. and Chief is insulting to the public. So quit trying to BS the public and just say we need more money to do what we are doing. Excuses are like A H and elbows everybody has one. That being said Merge now to Con Fire or Vote yes and pay more. There are no other choices.
Chuck, how can I put this mildly?
You’re an idiot.
If you bothered to attend meetings, as has been suggested to you several times, you would know the District is burning through overtime at a rate of $85,000/mo right now to cover the staff shortage. That is overtime that was not planned for in the budget. It’s also not covered by the SAFER grant money. It’s only eating through the limited funds the District has.
Basic math problem once again.
If the benefit assessment fails, the money spent on overtime now will draw the dates closer for when the District will have to cut to 3 stations. By the 2015/2016 cycle there is a real chance they won’t even have the funds to keep a full 3 open.
All right there in the agendas and it’s discussed at meetings. But because you think you’re too good to attend or educate yourself, you continue to post BS.
The closure of Station 54 is a result of the massive overtime drain. The closure of the station right down the road from your little shack is next. No later than Dec 1 if the measure fails.
The money for your Starbucks latte originates from your pocket. So does the money for your Big Mac and your gasoline.
You struggle with the basic concept that once you pay for a product or service you no longer “own” those dollars. Nor do you own control over the people or the company or the agency you paid those dollars to. These are middle class people with jobs who just happen to work in the public sector serving ingrates like you.
Stop discriminating against them and treating them as second class citizens.
This control freak factor is a common denominator in the anti-tax crowd’s argument. It has never passed the smell test.
Folks. I like firefighters and cops as much as the next gal. But, they are still just working stiffs. Don’t put on the rose colored glasses and grant them special dispensation.
You’ll have to run the filters for yourselves to isolate the district in question but, you ought to take a look at this before accepting “more taxes” as the answer. It’ s not like they have any trouble recruiting.
http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area/2013
The answers are in front of your nose. The sooner we begin addressing this, the sooner we’ll get this thing back under control.
No way claims, “It’ s not like they have any trouble recruiting.”
So that’s why they are down 14 head and closing stations? Because of the flood of applicants??
Have your wife check your homework before you hand it in next time.
Here’s your sign……
I spoke with a developer today who said he has 50 plus votes. He would not vote for it because it would make the price of his homes go up and make them less sellable. I told him about the increased benefits and he laughed at me. He said the increased home price would also increase the property tax. That would mean double taxation. I told him about the increased coverage for his development. He laughed again and said the fire district cost me thousands because I have to put sprinklers in the homes. Why would I vote for that ? I had a hard time responding back. Then I thought of Clue and his cohorts. Maybe they can tell me what to tell fellow developers that would convince them to higher developer costs. How about some positive help here Clue and cronies or has the queen bi silenced you? At this point I’m still for it but the developers and neighbors are making me think twice. I need some good selling points why landowners need to dig deep in their pockets.
Johnny, let’s call that discussion, “when morons meet”. Personally I think it’s 100% fabricated, but let’s give it a whirl anyway.
It’s frightening that this imaginary friend of yours has the money to supposedly build 50 homes, but doesn’t have any demonstrated common sense.
When you gut your fire services to dangerous levels, your property values go DOWN. They do not go up. Shouldn’t any rational thinking, two matching socks wearing adult be able to figure that out?
But apparently not you.
The double taxation bit was a massive head shaker, complete with jaw drop. You really do make this crap up as you go.
The benefit assessment is tacked onto the annual property taxes which go to the state. They are not paid to the developer at the time of sale. The seller is a pass through entity, at best, in any scenario.
Sprinklers are a requirement under California state building codes since 2011. ECCFPD has nothing to do with the requirement. This big time developer friend of yours is so on the ball he doesn’t know that? What other building regs is he oblivious to?
He puts them in, the cost gets folded into the selling price. The Developer doesn’t eat it. Bonus round: sprinklers also play a role in lowering home owner’s insurance and they lower the benefit assessment amount on that home.
Again clearly spelled out in the engineer’s report and explained at the meeting………..you know, the one you couldn’t be troubled to attend.
If land owners and developers are looking to you for advice, Gaaaawd help ’em.
You give up your identity every time with the queen bit, John. You’ll go to your grave bitter that Piepho wouldn’t let you have your KTAC seat back after you publicly threw a fit and quit.
John, it’s clear you’re not wired right.
For months, if not years, you have come into this forum and railed on the idea that Developers should be stuck with all the cost of keeping the fire department afloat. You’ve said it repeatedly with your current alias. Probably within the last week even. You wrote countless letters to the newspapers and posts on blogs during the Measure S vote 2 years ago with that meme.
Now you claim you care about the Developer’s overhead??
Schizophrenia much?
Is your next trick to cast your vote under that Chuck Samuels name you use on H2C? No such person on the voter rolls of Contra Costa County.
“Save Knightsin” – a classic!
Jigs,
I’m with you. That “chuck” dude just ain’t wired right. He is entertaining @ times but his opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. ….Nothing!!!!
Don’t pay him no mind. No one else does.
I’m glad all the pocket rocks have come when called. You will never figure out who I am. It doesn’t matter anyway because what I say makes sense. What you say is total gibberish and spin. You still have not provided me a good response for my developer friends on moving them to the support side of the benefit. I guess either you don’t own any property and are not allowed to vote or your against the assessment. Either way I expected the lame response. To address your lame comment about benefit assessments and developers. An assessment will remain with the developer until every home is sold. That is a huge cost. I have yet to see my fire insurance change in the ten years here but the fire service levels have deteriorated significantly. So much for your comment on that.There is not even a station on the Island anymore. Keep those lucky rocks in your pocket for extras when one falls out of your head. Vote yes and pay more or merge with on fire.
I gave it a try, johnny. I really did.
But when I got to your line “what I say makes sense” it was over.
$113 x 50 homes is barely $5K. So your buddy is such a “player” that he is sweating bullets over 5 grand? Yup, I’m buyin’ every word. Hell, the guy can experience far more than 5 grand in added costs to his project just by some jaggoff ripping him off on the price of rebar for his foundations.
Just a hypothetical, of course.
A week ago you were crowing about some claimed 20% rise in property values. You even claimed(incorrectly) that tax revenue to the District would go up by a similar amount.
So it’s bad, evil and will put your buddy out of business if a 2.5% increase happens for a benefit assessment. But he’s totally fine with the 20% increase in his bill you were jawing about last week??
You really do struggle to keep your BS stories straight, don’t you?
“Chuck”,
You can call yourself whatever you want but many of us know exactly who you are. Isn’t that right John? Things slow over in “Knightsin” this week? Normally identity isn’t that important but in your case it is completely relevant because it goes right to your history and moreover you translucent character.
You are chock full of gibberish and spin. Your feeble attempts at projection are not gaining you credibility, in fact they are having the opposite effect. Sadly you continue to spew your vitriol proving you are a product of your own fantasies. Your comments about your “friend” the “developer” was a riot. And what was it you said? 50 homes, votes and assessments being a HUGE cost? Well John, most of us have some baseline skills in mathematics and business, so please explain to those of us how 50 x a 100.00 assessment = a HUGE cost to a home developer. C’mon Johnny even for a low brow, large forehead type you must have figured it out by now. It’s 5,000 dollars divided into the entire development. John, trust me, that is inconsequential cost compared to most mitigation fees. But in your world facts don’t matter do they? Perhaps that is where your ignorance and continued frustration stems from.
It’s plain to see that in a battle of wits, knowledge and opinion you show up daily, unprepared. If you think your ideas of a merge make so much sense why don’t you take it to the county? Or is there truth to your loss of credibility with the county and supervisor? You certainly demonstrated some ill will towards a very popular official with your previous attempts to sling mud. Buy a Clue and Jigs Up owned you with the last few rounds of postings, yet your best was to proclaim your intellect with the skills of a 4 year old. Ironic, don’t you think?
If it is true (and it is) that BAD funds are forbidden to go towards EMS or the benefit of non-district property owners, why did so many ECCFPD board members speak of the importance of moving forward with it so that better (faster) emergency medical services could be provided?
The BAD tax will provide an EMS benefit to the district – and to those visiting the district, and even the fire district board admits that is illegal.
According to Prop218, if a fire engine from a fire station that was opened/reopened as a result of the BAD to responds to an auto collision and provides essential lifesaving services (EMS) to a cherry picking tourist, the law has been violated. The fire district board know this, but they are going ahead with their plan because they are desperate and have no better ideas. That is not a valid reason to break the law…
Even worse, they aren’t even using secret ballots.
“… the assessment ballot shall also be treated as a disclosable “public record” as that phrase is defined by Government Code section 6252.”
All of the votes will be public records that the Fire Chief or anyone else can review. Is that the districts’ way of intimidating voters? The fire district can post a map at every firehouse showing every parcel that voted against this BAD.
Does this bother anyone else?
I guess “Clue and Da” says it all. Your fantasy with John and Johnny are comical. The fact that you still can’t answer the question is explanatory in itself. You write a book attacking a name but still avoid the question. The only real information other than your copying my gibberish and spin comment is the comment from Concerned Voter. If there is any validity to that comment about the wasted dollars on this assessment due to violation of a state law it is unforgivable.
Any ballot measure or initiative that is questionable in any way should be sent for comment to the State Attorney and a Chief Justice prior moving to the public. Too many times a ballot that the people vote in is overturned because it violates a law. If this one does then it should be pulled or modified to conform. For the two pocket rocks Da & Clue that are probably from the same pocket, why don’t you fork out 10 or 15 grand for my friend ? According to you two chumps it’s chump change. Now run along and go back into your pocket. I’m very concerned that this assessment may be illegal. ECCFPD has no more money to waste on probing the pockets of the public on questionable taxation. Do it right or don’t do it at all. I would like to see the state court review of this assessment. Legal ? I’m for it. Questionably illegal ? that’s just not right and another waste of tax dollars. ECT can you find documentation that rebuts the concerned voter and those government sections sited? Thanks for any help you can provide.
John(aka Chuck), it has been pointed out in this blog multiple times. There is existing case law to support the concept of benefit assessments for fire suppression. You chose not to pay attention or read them. That is on you.
If you are referring to Aliferis comments, then you are a fool to follow him. He’s in the misinformation business. He was asking questions at the podium that have been answered long ago. He knows they’ve already been answered. His claim the assessment violates the law is his opinion. He’s not a ruling Judge, so it carries no more weight than yours or my opinion. Again and like you, Aliferis is choosing to ignore existing case law.
Johnny, you obviously don’t get how public debates work. It’s give and take. Point and counterpoint. You don’t come in here, drop some smelly line of BS, then when someone challenges you, with supporting facts or just basic math or your own words and make you look like a fool, you simply change the subject. At the moment you just seem to be pretending that you didn’t say all those many times that you wanted the gap in revenue to be put on the Developers.
Last week you were all onboard. It was “vote yes or merge”. How many times have you posted that one? Now you’re lining up this crap. Not a single fact has changed since. If you changed your tune because of that BS Don Flint posted about EMS(hiding under his latest alias), you once again follow an uneducated fool. Don can have his opinion. The District has legal counsel that has worked on multiple Prop 218 related measures. It is their qualified legal opinion that it passes muster. Believe Don or believe a real lawyer. Your call.
Readers aren’t stupid, John. They can see through your game.
Finally, Hercules-Rodeo just passed a measure using the same strategy and similar engineering report methodology. If the CCTPA and Aliferis are so damn sure it’s illegal, then why haven’t they filed suit over there?
Because they are bluffing(lying). Plain and simple.
But beyond all of these pissing contests is the undeniable overarching message. In this debate there are a group of individuals who are clearly out to union bust. That in an of itself is not the problem. It’s the lies and outright deceptive tactics used to get there. They are willing to sacrifice public safety in pursuit of this political agenda and that is disgraceful. Making the residents of East County expendable pawns in your political games.
You, John, are a part of that group.
John aka Chuck,
Don’t you know, opinions are like DNA. Your postings give you away and are a 100 percent match. Your denial isn’t surprising. It’s what you do. It’s all you do. It’s how you survived this long. Under normal circumstances it wouldn’t matter much who you are but in this case it is extremely relevant due to you colorful history and mental status. A leopard doesn’t change his spots.
It’s just a matter of time before you come up with another alias. Your like a bad penny, you just keep turning up.
Chuck (or John?)
I think they answered your question, numberous times. If you aren’t bright enough to figure that out then you proved their point.
I figured you out when you arrived at the sum of 10-15 grand for your “friend the developer”. **100 bucks a parcel times 50 parcels equates to a mere 5 grand, not 10, not 15. Whether you know it or not “Chuck” that is a drop in the bucket for any developer. So how does one with superior intellect such as yourself inflate that figure to 3 times the true amount?
You may want to stop lying to yourself.
I see all the same rocks have come out again. Where do you come up with this spin and attack? The rocks must have too much time on their hands. John seems to have a following here. The subject is not about a name. Why you DA’s try to change the subject all the time is juvenile. However, I am starting to agree with ECV ‘s previous comment and be against this assessment. Now don’t lose any sleep tonight thinking about John or who everyone is. You’re showing signs of paranoia.
Now, there was another thing about this assessment that comes to mind. If the district received a grant to add firefighters with the guarantee they would remain fully employed for a period of time after the grant runs out, does that mean this assessment is needed to conform to the contract and it really is not a benefit ? Something seems to smell like the alias rocks do around here. So, ECV are you a developer ? You seem to act like you know about developers personal thoughts on money. You posted voting against this assessment. Are you voting no as a developer? Why is that?
Chuck (John) you talk a helluva lot about rocks. Either you got some stuck in your head or you live under one.
Let’s examine your latest post shall we?
“Spin and attack”? Looks like the pot calling the kettle black don’t you think? Maybe your fictitious developer friend can explain it to you. You see John, I and others called you out on your spin. (You know, those inflated figures you posted). I wonder, are you really that dumb or are you still playing a game? As for you having a following….don’t flatter yourself. Yours is not the kind of attention normal people seek. Then again, you are just that needy aren’t you?
“Why you DA’s try to change the subject all the time….” Calling me and others “dumb @zzes” now? There is that anger thingy we heard about. You never fail to deliver.
John, do yourself a favor and take a good, long hard look in the mirror.
You have been asked a number of questions that you can’t or won’t answer. The best you can do is go “full ret@rd” and change the subject. You are the only one guilty of that behavior, yet it’s exactly what you keep accusing everyone else of. There is a clinical name for that type of behavior; Hypocrite.
I’m not a developer but I have several friends that are. It’s common knowledge that 5k of fees on an overall development is virtually negligible. In the real world you get a developers attention when the fees exceed the 100k mark in a small 50 unit development. Either your “developer friend” is fictitious or won’t last long in his new found occupation. It costs a lot of money to build homes these days before you turn a shovel of dirt or drive your first nail. A real developer knows that.
You wonder who I am or in what manner I’m casting my vote? Let’s just say I call it like I see it and I don’t suffer fools. This puts you at a severe disadvantage.
As for my personal vote, I’m voting against this benefit assessment for two reasons. First, it is not a true benefit over the prior level of service (before the grant). Reverse engineering a report to appear as if we are getting a benefit is disingenuous and disrespectful to residents. Second, the reason this is moving forward as a benefit assessment is nothing more than an act of desperation. That’s never a smart way to lead or make decisions. It is undeniable that this is a underhanded effort to make passage of a tax which falls below the normal 2/3 vote threshold. The way the vote is tallied also lends to passage without actually receiving a majority of yes votes. That’s just wrong.
Do I believe the fire district needs more money to operate properly? You bet. But only if the public agrees to it. Sadly that vote and support falls short. Concurrently, It is not the fire board’s charge to trick voters into passage for temporary funding. That will only lead to future animosity and greater distrust between the public and the fire district. It is by their action that we all lose.
Comments are closed.