Home Antioch Measure C: Speculation Over General Fund Usage Is Dangerous

Measure C: Speculation Over General Fund Usage Is Dangerous

by ECT

yes on C photo

The residents of Antioch have a decision to make on November 5th of how they want to attack crime in their city. They can support a ½ cent sales tax measure to hire 22-additional police officers or they can reject it and wait longer for a crimes solution. Having said that, with the election drawing closer the rhetoric has stepped up against the tax.

If Measure C passes, a one-half percent sales tax that would go to the city’s general fund. That would raise the total sales tax in Antioch from 8.5 percent to 9 percent matching Pittsburg and Concord. The apparent elephant in the room is some residents do not like the sales tax revenue going into the general fund and would prefer a dedicated fund specifically for police.

No doubt it’s a valid concern as residents want 100% guarantees, but it’s a really simple explanation of why the council opted for this option with a revenue enhancement—it’s the easiest way to pass a tax, they are not out to “trick” anyone.

The reason for not choosing a “special tax” which is what opponent’s state should have occurred as a form of “guarantee”.  Unfortunately a special tax would never pass in this atmosphere as is that it requires a 66.6% voter approval. The council chose the option which requires a 50%+1 vote which means the funds first go into the general fund.

It’s my belief; most people in the council’s shoes would opt for the 50+1% vote.

Since the Council moved forward with their decision we now are hearing statements running amuck all over social media and websites which include, but not limited to the following:

  • We cannot trust this mayor and city council to do the right thing.
  • Politicians are not trusted to do the right thing with the money.
  • Do you really trust the same old city council members to change their ways?
  • No guarantee it will be spent on Police Officers only. This additional TAX will go into the General Fund and can be spent on other things besides police officers
  • The real reason they went with a 50%+ 1 is because the council wants and needs money for anything else but police

For the record, these are all valid concerns and they should not be dismissed from the discussion. But the problem with them is they really do not have much substance when one really sits down and thinks about them.

For example, “We cannot trust the mayor and the city council to do the right thing.” Okay, why not? What has this council which includes a new mayor and two new councilmembers done to break the public’s trust?

Same goes for the statement, “politicians are not trusted to do the right thing with the money”. Again, I ask why not? After all, the citizens of Antioch voted in this councilmembers (note: Tiscareno was appointed), so there has to be some form of trust.

I believe these types of argument stated above are really have nothing to do with the tax going into the general fund, but rather a distrust of Government. Most people realize the police department needs help, its government standing in the way.

Unfortunately, the anti-government sentiment is straw man argument with no substance attached to Measure C because no action has yet been taken with the funds because the tax revenue has not been voted on, generated or spent.

The truth is, neither supporters nor opponents can say for certain whether or not the funds will be spent only for the police department. Any argument for or against regarding the money being spend is invalid.

Instead, all the public should be basing their vote on is whether or not they want an improved police department, additional officers on the street, and a safer Antioch which is what the City Council has promised.

Given the amount of pressure for the public, I find it very unlikely that the council defer funds to another cause.  You also have an outspoken police chief who would alert anyone and everyone who would listen of what was transpiring.

So again, it get back to the City of Antioch residents deciding if they want to work on fixing crime and taking back their city.  Or residents can vote “no” based off straw man arguments? It’s a pretty easy decision when you consider what would happen should the council break their promise.

The council should at the very least be given the chance to keep its promise to the public and should they break the public’s trust with the generated revenue,  It goes a little something like this.

The moment the oversight committee announces the council is spending money against its promise and, immediate recalls can and should begin—we will even help promote recalls which is how strongly we feel should the council pull the rug out from underneath everyone.

To offer further future protections for Measure C spending in the next three election cycles, candidates should be given pledges to sign vowing to ensure Measure C is spent as promised—should they refuse, that’s a candidate not worthy of being elected. Should they sway from their promise upon being elected, recall them as well!

The point is, trust is in the eye of the beholder and trust has to begin somewhere—it might as well be with Measure C.  Instead of worrying about rhetoric and fighting the solution, realize this is the solution. A “no” vote outcome further delays fixing crime and puts Antioch further behind ever catching up.

For the record, do I personally have concerns about the funds being placed in the general fund? Absolutely!!! But my response as to why I support the tax is because the alternative of doing nothing is worse. It means no additional boots on the street while response times remain unacceptable.

For those with reservations, simply support it, but ensure your council is on a short leash.

Burk Byline

By Michael Burkholder
[email protected]

You may also like


Kenji Freitas Oct 16, 2013 - 7:37 am

Good points, but since you are not an Antioch citizen, we take your input with a huge grain of salt. You failed to point out one of the other facts-property values are up, so property tax income is on the increase.

JimSimmons42 Oct 16, 2013 - 7:44 am

Kenji, I have read and observed you for weeks now on Measure C and you are the master of the straw man comments. I think Mr. Burkholder, being a non-Antioch resident, has a bigger grasp on this topic than you do. Just face it, you are a no vote and leave it at that, let others make up their minds instead of you filling them with a bunch of nonsense.

Support the PD everyone! Kenji Freitas apparently enjoys the current crime numbers and response times.

karl dietzel Oct 16, 2013 - 7:55 am

crime is down by 22%, property tax is up, sales tax is up.

Kenji Freitas Oct 16, 2013 - 9:32 am

Actually, I support APD 100%. I just feel that the general fund is not the way to do it. They need to write a proper measure to insure that 100% of the revenue goes to the police services. I am certainly not happy with the crime rate, even though it is down. There are lots of other things we can be doing to fight crime, We need to pursue those as well. The chief even said that more arrests will not guarantee keeping the criminals off the street when the county DA lets them walk or plea bargain down to nothing. That needs to change also. I did say, if you read my comments above, that Mr. Burkholder has some good points. I am a big supporter of this publication as well.

EastCountyToday Oct 16, 2013 - 10:57 pm


Using your logic, didn’t you just post your opinion about Discovery Bay the other day? Didn’t you chime in about how great Arizona and Sheriff Joe is? Why is it okay for you to have an opinion but I am not?

I have pointed out the flaw in the property tax argument in a prior article which looked at the taxes over a 3-year period—you still are down.

Rob Saw Oct 16, 2013 - 7:53 am

Wow Kenji, pretty stupid comment that one has to be living in a city to have an opinion. I guess we should ignore all newspapers or journalist who live outside a city who write about a certain city or area. Way to early this morning to be reading ignorance.

Nice article Burk.

karl dietzel Oct 16, 2013 - 7:53 am

the header of you article is right on the money. “speculation” spending speculations, hiring of “22” officers, comes from people who have no say whatsoever. period. whats missing in your article is…none of the council members has made any statements or even have presented a spending plan. i repeat, none of the council members have presented a spending plan.
even three of the council members, rocha, harper,agopian run their elections “though on crime”, but none of those three have presented any “crime fighting plan” a crime sub-committee, created by harper in nov.2012, has never met.
even a “fiscal emergency” was declared, the city still gave out a 9% salary raise, 12/13, followed by a 3% salary raise 13/14.
trust? the council has failed the people of antioch by supporting a business license fee/ tax for rental properties, the mayor even addressed his support in his major speech, but when it came to vote on it, harper, rocha, tiscorino voted against it.
only 6 month later after the council voted on the 3/50 – 3/55 issue, the council reversed their vote, and that voted effect/ benefited 22 none safety employees, at a cost of $ 3 million dollars to the tax payers.

Buy a Clue Oct 16, 2013 - 8:37 am

Karl, the only thing consistent with you is you like to whine.

You whine when you feel people are not doing anything and now you whine when they do something to address the problem.

Common theme. Typical for self appointed egomaniac watchdogs. Government was not structured to cater to the whims of the local loudmouths.

You note crime is down by 22% after both city council members and the Chief said they were going to do something about it. But apparently you think it’s because all the bad guys just went on vacation, not because people took action.

Some people can just never be pleased no matter what. Case in point.

Concerned Antioch resident Oct 16, 2013 - 9:16 am

I guess I don’t understand why the business license tax/fee for rental properties was not pursued by the council. The tax/fee is not something that has to be on the ballot for voters to approve. It is already a legal right of the city to impose. I’ve included a link to an article that explains the process and legal implications. To me, this would be a more equitable way for the city to secure funding for police and code enforcement officers– which are largely needed due to the high rental population in Antioch. http://www.sfaa.org/0703williamson.html

Donna Oct 16, 2013 - 10:09 am

I totally agree….since the landlord are bringing in the section 8 renters that are turning our city into a mirror of Oakland then they should have to pay fees to pay for more cops. I voted no on C and I may have voted yes if that was part of the Measure. Antioch used to be a nice place and now it is turning into a crime capitol of east county!!! we didn’t have all this crime before section 8 took over the rental housing!!!!!

Buy a Clue Oct 16, 2013 - 11:59 am

So the points flew right over your head?

Why is crime down 22%? I’m using Karl’s own numbers. Haven’t even looked to see if he’s accurate, which is certainly not a given.

Another point I was trying to make is why the selective taxation? This broad brush Section 8 line is a joke and an insult to Section 8 who are not part of the problem, but good folks just trying to survive. Are you people checking this or making assumptions? Took a talking point and that was the end of your critical thinking? You imply you have no homegrown criminals. Are we really going to that level of silliness?

Further, you assume rentals are all licensed. Aren’t you getting ahead of yourself? What data are you looking at to come to come to this conclusion? In the likely event that many are shadow businesses or not registered, who are you going to put on that to enforce? What’s the cost of that enforcement for what you’ll gain? What does this broad tax do to overall property values? Since most people can understand that Mello Roos has a negative impact, why would you think this is any less negative?

Wild headline ideas are a dime a dozen. When you start talking the devil in the details most of you go deer in the headlights with your looks.

JimSimmons42 Oct 16, 2013 - 10:25 am


Very valid. But I challenge you to come up with a spending plan when you don’t even know how much tax revenue has yet been generated. Quite frankly, any spending plan would be a waste of time for all involved until the money comes in.

The business license/landlord tax is a nonissue at this point in time. I am amazed people continue to worry about it.

karl dietzel Oct 16, 2013 - 11:14 am

well, lets put it that way. no public commitment on what incoming monies will be spend on. none of the 5 council members have said anything. i guess they can’t, since 3 votes will be needed. i believe the sales tax is a very dangerous and very unstable sort of income tax. speculation about the economy? what about the economy does not recover, are we laying off those “22” officers?
i think the reason why the rental tax/ fee comes up is, council was committed until few days prior to the vote. people loosing their trust.!
council does not need a vote on that, but they are not touching it.
that is also a steady flow of money, if i open a business in antioch, i have to have a biz license, and pay my fees, if i own rentals, i can run a apartment/ house rental business, and don’t need a license???? we have about 11,000 rentals in antioch, no license needed. we also have a rental inspection program on the books, which could bring in millions of dollars, but we’re not collecting.
my point in all of this is…none of our council people has explored or worked on a solution, all 5 of them just let things go, declare a “fiscal emergency” and try to raise taxes.
on top of all this, now the apartment associations/ real estate comp, unions etc, all out of town, are financing the campaign. that stinks..big time.

Concerned Antioch resident Oct 16, 2013 - 4:17 pm

Thank you for making the case of having a business license fee on rentals! I think it’s a very relevant issue regarding the vote on Measure C as well as noting the organizations that are financing the “Yes” on Measure C campaign.

Donna Oct 16, 2013 - 8:42 am

Promises are made to be broken and we know all forms of government is guilty of them!!!! we can hire a 100 police officers but it wont help…until the section 8 rentals are stopped the crime will keep happening. they are not responsible for all, but a good portion…we are turning into oakland and richmond!!!!! Antioch has a bad name these days…burglaries are way way out of control along with shootings…and they think hiring 22 cops is going to fix the problems??? Antioch used to be a nice place to live, but we are turning into a crime capitol…..

Nancy Oct 16, 2013 - 10:23 am

Thank you for this article. I am sick of all the stupid comments about how the council is not to be trusted. HELLO!!!!!!!! They were voted in by the public. Give them a chance to hang themselves. I agree with Mr. Burkholder, everything is speculation.

karl dietzel Oct 16, 2013 - 11:15 am

because council was voted in by the public, they can be trusted? wow..what are you smoking.? give me something

Buy a Clue Oct 16, 2013 - 12:19 pm

Karl, because you appointed yourself the neighborhood watchdog you are supposed to be trusted that you know what the hell you are talking about?

That door swings both ways. Appears it just hit you in the nose.

The big difference is the council has accountability at the ballot box. Self appointed watchdogs don’t have accountability to anyone but their fan boys and girls who they are able to buffalo with a bunch of BS.

karl dietzel Oct 16, 2013 - 1:40 pm

you are right on the money….

Julio Oct 16, 2013 - 10:46 am

This council is not to be trusted and that is not speculation. This is the same council that put Antioch in this spot. Three of them are from Mr. Davis’ council the worst we have ever had EXCEPT for when Mrs. Rocha was Mayor. Irresponsible people.

Vince aka Boomba Oct 16, 2013 - 2:08 pm

Burkholder (I recently sent an email to you which you failed to respond to), you don’t live in Antioch, so you offering an opinion on how people should vote is just that … an opinion. Most people, including me, are NOT against the police, again it would be very foolish on my part to be “anti-police” or “anti-public employee”. However, what is BAD about Measure C is it is exactly what it says, the money/taxes are NOT specific as to what they will fund.

I am NOT going to use the “businesses will leave Antioch” because people wanting to save a penny on the dollar will go elsewhere.

But I will say, as I have always said, the Antioch Police Department is in an ongoing recruiting phase, and have been authorized ALREADY by the council to hire as many officers as needed. The Antioch Police Department is having an extremely difficult time getting qualified applicants to make it through all phases of the process, so what makes Burkholder, City Staff as well as Council members think this extra tax will solve all the problems of recruitment, hiring and most important RETENTION of police officers ???

This tax is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and will be used by the council and subsequent councils to spend as they see fit.

The City Manager has already expressed that he intends to use the money generated from the tax increase to put city employees who are NOT essential to public safety back to a 5 day/40 hour work week; fund Code Enforcement — the last time I checked people in Code Enforcement are NOT police officers, ensuring public safety; and to fix roadways in Antioch, and then with the money that is left over (if there is any left), hire police officers.

Those items in and of themselves are not bad things, but to push this tax fooling the public that the city will hire additional police officers knowing full well that will not happen, AND not presenting an alternate plan to the public should this measure fail — miserably as to what they will do, is a bad thing.

This is the City Council’s way of shirking their responsibilities in making the tough choices necessary to keep Antioch both safe and solvent.

If there is such a crime emergency as everyone says is happening, then why not have a specific vote specific for the police department, a tax AUGMENTS NOT REPLACES revenue for the police department.

No one, not one person associated with the city can guarantee that this money or any of will be available to the police department. The “audit committee” means nothing, because it is not a specific tax vote, it is only a warm, fuzzy blanket.

The City of Antioch has foolishly spent several thousand dollars to put this ridiculous measure on the ballot.

I am retired from the City of Antioch, and have already voted NO on this measure, because it will not cause 22 additional officers to be hired, and if it did, does anyone out there want to take an educated guess as to how long it takes a police department to hire, train (even a lateral officer from another agency) and retain that officer ??

The bottom line is Vote NO on Measure C, and make the City Council go back to the drawing board, to come up with a better way to generate money for the understaffed, and overworked police department … something the city council should have done two years ago.


EastCountyToday Oct 16, 2013 - 2:13 pm

@Vince aka Boomba,

I love this idea that because I don’t live in Antioch, I should not have an opinion on Measure C? Okay, lets apply that to every other issue facing this country. If you don’t live in a particular city, we should just pipe down!

For the record, Antioch crime effects neighboring communities!!!!!!

Vince aka Boomba Oct 16, 2013 - 2:24 pm

Okay, how does crime in Antioch effect things happening in Oakley, Brentwood and Pittsburg ?? Let’s all hear your explanation since you are a “crime expert”. Antioch has been, and always has been behind the 8 ball when it comes to police/public safety funding, and this “special tax” just proves the point, again the council should have addressed this issue 2-5 years ago — take your pick on the time frame.

Gee Burk, why don’t you respond to the email I sent you VIA email, and I will be happy to meet with you over coffee to air our differences — in a friendly, cordial fashion of course — I promise !!!!

been here for a long time Oct 16, 2013 - 6:38 pm

I don’t live in Antioch, but I would think they need the help. My wife grew up there, but she doesn’t really feel comfortable going there. We definitely don’t go to Antioch after dark. If the council would have had a backbone they would have setup a rental inspection program.

Julio Oct 16, 2013 - 8:37 pm

The rental inspection program WAS set up and began the inspections just as the economy flopped. So, it was the first to go.

karl dietzel Oct 16, 2013 - 10:26 pm

you are right, but there are some buts…..this is a program which could bring millions of dollars, it’s on the books, it just needs to be collected. the big hurdle was…..the city started the program with a 5 person overhead, no data base (and we still don’t have a data base) since the city has no “collection” department, god knows what else is on the books, and NOT collected.

the city needs to stop blaming the economy downfall and get back to business. work on solutions, and a tax increase is NOT a solution, it just means..doing busines the same old, same old.

Buy a Clue Oct 18, 2013 - 7:51 am

Stop blaming the economy like it never happened??

Karl, it’s always humorous when you and the anti-tax zealots step out of your bubbles to post. Guaranteed you’ll post something incredibly stupid.

Show me how you get 5 people to work for free, a free database set up, a collections system set up and you’re guaranteed to make millions per year on the program. Don’t forget the biggie: Compliance. Because if you don’t have a good way to assure compliance, you are pissing into the wind, my friend, and then wondering why your shoes are wet.

Red Oct 17, 2013 - 10:05 pm

“Speculation Over General Fund Usage Is Dangerous”.

To whom? The council that wants to spend it as they see fit? To the voters? It’s dangerous to promise them police funding that never materializes, and commit yet another portion of their earnings to other stuff. It’s dangerous to bleed them dry like that. And frankly I find it poor taste too bully voters into silent acquiescence with a title like that.

It’s a voter’s right and responsibility to speculate on the merit of taxes for uncommitted funds, especially those masquerading as “for the public good”. Apparently the author feels voters should just keep quiet and vote the way he says. Be quiet and buy the lousy masquerade.

“No doubt it’s a valid concern as residents want 100% guarantees, but it’s a really simple explanation of why the council opted for this option with a revenue enhancement—it’s the easiest way to pass a tax, they are not out to “trick” anyone.””

The end goal here is not just the easiest road to passing a tax, but passing a tax that actually goes where it’s needed. General fund taxes are not the answer. And there’s no need to “trick anyone”, you don’t have to with a general tax, it’s right out in the open that it’s up for grabs. The only “trick” here is the claim it’s for police hiring.

“The reason for not choosing a “special tax” which is what opponent’s state should have occurred as a form of “guarantee”. Unfortunately a special tax would never pass in this atmosphere as is that it requires a 66.6% voter approval.”

Who says it wouldn’t pass? If you gave it a change as an honest measure, you might be surprised. You know what happens when you assume. Also, please define “this atmosphere”. it sounds like you refer to voters as wanting crime, or too cheap to invest in the well-being of their city. Is that how little respect you have for the righteous citizens of Antioch?

It may be that the proponents of measure C may have to put in a higher level of effort to achieve 66.6%. So far the author sounds like he is averse to making the extra effort. Just for taxes. The goal is transparent, just another grab for a blank check. To spend wherever. And we should just “trust”?

As President Reagan famously said, “trust, but verify”. The fact it’s a general fund tax is verification enough, it’s not trustworthy.

Buy a Clue Oct 18, 2013 - 8:16 am

Just what this thread needed. Another narcissistic comment.

Life doesn’t come with any guarantees. If you have been on this fine planet for any length of time and not in a coma, you probably should have figured that out by now.

Insistence on the 2/3 requirement is the same as saying you want it to fail. In this environment, it has no chance. You just had a fire measure fail the higher threshold and it’s like you “No” people have total amnesia.

The telltale is right there in your own words. The simple fact is yes, there are lots of voters who are too cheap or don’t care and they exist in sufficient numbers that your 2/3 approval pipe dream is just that. Clearly you haven’t spent any time studying politics nor do you understand basic human nature.

Stop trying to relitigate the process and make claims you cannot support. There is no mechanism for rewriting the measure between now and election day just to suit your whims. There is no “do over” for the $200k that it costs to conduct this poll. The process is already in motion.

Accept the risk and vote to improve public safety or vote it down and accept that you will not improve public safety. It’s that simple.

Vince aka Boomba Oct 18, 2013 - 6:15 am

Red you ARE 100 % correct !!!

Red Oct 18, 2013 - 9:23 am

Thanks Vince, and Buy a Clue, talk about narcissistic; casting assumptions, insults and grand pronouncements of what Is, and what Cannot Be. It’s still all deflection.

Buy a Clue Oct 18, 2013 - 9:55 am

Red, how about addressing the issues I raised instead of a cowardly deflection? You, on this score, are no different than any other anti-tax stance commenter I’ve ever run across. You rail against the measure, but when pressed for logic or substantiation of your claims, you fold or run.

Are you expecting to change the measure after it is written, filed and the ballot process is in motion? If not, then why are you trying to relitigate it here? It’s 50% +1. Period. You don’t get to rewrite it as this late stage.

Did the fire measure not fail as I stated? Why would you or anyone suggest, without any supporting evidence beyond your opinion, this would fare any different under a 2/3 requirement?

Some people are better tuned into fiscal and political realities than others. You seem offended by that fact.

Marty Fernandez Oct 18, 2013 - 9:50 am

No one is asking for anything with a 2/3 vote. If the rental business item was on the ballot it too would have not been required to have a 2/3 vote. It was simply to charge a fee to rental owners as most cities are already doing at a rate much higher than Antioch was asking. It would not have a sunset which means the money was certain to continue for many years not just 7 as “C” requires.

Vince aka Boomba Oct 18, 2013 - 10:14 am

Jeeeeeez !!! When are people going to realize that this tax is NO guarantee of better public safety. I should know, I recently retired from the police department (Antioch) after being there for 20 years, and being a cop for over 23 years total !! I think I would know how, or should know how the operation works ….. When money goes into the General Fund it is there for the council’s use, whatever it might be — street repair, hiring more people, etc. What they say, and what might happen in the future (another sudden economic downturn perhaps) are two different animals !!

What the City of Antioch wants to do (BUT THEY WILL NOT TELL ANYONE) is put all the displaced workers who are currently experiencing Furlough Fridays back to a 40 hour/5 day workweek, and beef up Code Enforcement. Those things in and of themselves are NOT bad things, BUT when you promise the public that 22 officers will be hired should this pass is WRONG ….. It is almost akin to False Advertising.

Does anyone on this blog know how much putting everyone in the city back to a 40 hour workweek, boosting Code Enforcement, along with hiring 22 police officers costs ??? Oh yes, I’m sure there are those that will say if the city employees all take a pay and benefit cut then it will happen …. Well that ain’t gonna happen, the employees have all had budgets balanced on their backs, while the City Council authorizes $200,000 to be spent on this special election.

I will kick this dead horse again ….. The police department has already been authorized to hire officers WITHOUT Measure C money, but because they are having a very difficult time finding suitable applicants who can make it through the hiring process, they cannot fill those positions, so instead they are using a lot of the money they have authorized for hiring to pay overtime to officers currently working the streets (NOT A GOOD THING) — believe it or not, that is totally justified !!

The Audit Committee is there to just make sure the money is spent on projects (yes hiring is one of those) in Antioch …. It is NOT there to make sure the money goes specifically to one group or the other, then it would become a specific use tax.

I cannot change anyone’s votes, but before you all take Measure C in “hook, line and sinker” do some thinking and research what exactly the city has in store.

Tax Measures that depend on sales tax revenue are always risky because one cannot forecast on how well the economy does, and food products are not taxed.

The police department will never be fully staffed because there are always resignations, retirements, terminations, injuries and it takes a long time to fill those vacancies.

There is NO guarantee that the money generated from Measure C will ever go to the police department. If you don’t believe what I wrote, ask Cantando, he will tell you the same thing — There is no guarantee of police funding as a result of Measure C.

Buy a Clue Oct 18, 2013 - 10:30 am

Vince, wake up. No one is arguing the guarantee angle, yet you guys can’t stop talking about it. It’s like you’re arguing with yourselves.

The only way to a guarantee is a 2/3 approval and that is not going to happen. You can wish upon a star all you want, Bud. NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

So you either take a leap of faith or you don’t. That simple. $200k is what a ballot measure costs. You have a chance here. If you put that $200k toward the 2/3 requirement all you would have done is guaranteed you get nothing for the effort.

23 years in law enforcement doesn’t mean jack when it comes to understanding political realities and navigating the mine field. It just means you were a 23 yr law enforcement professional. Thanks for your service, but Dude, that stretch doesn’t mean you have a clue about how to win an election.

Shark Bait Oct 18, 2013 - 11:15 am

I think Boomba is right on point here. In the past year how many new police officers has the APD been able to get through the hiring process, the academy, and the field training program to reach solo officer status?? Maybe 4…5…at most 6 ? So it’ll take 5 years or more to fill the current openings then just as many to try and fill the 22 additional? Well if they can’t even fill their current openings what is going to happen with all the tax money that is being accumulated from Measure C if it passes? You think for a second that it’s gonna just sit in the general fund and earn interest?? Yeah right !! The political powers to be will “borrow, take, skim, rob peter to pay paul” etc with the big pile of tax cash just sitting there in limbo while APD is trying to get officers through the whole process. I think Boomba knows what he’s talking about.

karl dietzel Oct 18, 2013 - 2:04 pm

hello vince,
thanks for your comments about cantando. i have a nice talking relation ship with him, and can only confirm your post. on top of all this, he is a darn honest guy. what most of the commentators don’t understand, and the measure c campaign leaders (out of town i may say) this measure is NOT about the police, this is NOT a police job evaluation, this is NOT a job performance issue, and it’s NOT about crime. our police department is pushed to the forefront, and is being used by our city council to raise taxes, because without the proposed/ assumed incoming money next year, antioch will be broke. we’re having right now a $ 3 million dollar, plus, deficit spending, but our council is still not looking for any solutions. instead they continue to spend, spend and spend.

Marty Fernandez Oct 18, 2013 - 12:51 pm

Vince. You Go guy!!! Exactly what Tony said at council is to put all workers back to 40 hours and pay all the wages they lost. Mary want 30 to 50 thousand for her people for youth employment next summer. Council owes the city 1.5 mil in money it borrowed and cannot pay back. The streets are falling apart and it goes on and on. SO, if we get 5 officers we need we will be darn lucky. Shark Bait is right on the money here also.

Red Oct 18, 2013 - 1:23 pm

Vince and Red have convinced me that this measure should be opposed.

Why should voters (and taxpayers) take a leap of faith when funding already exists for more police and the city can’t find new hires. From what I have read, there are no financial constraints limiting the city from hiring more officers. Antioch has more money than it needs to hire more officers right now.

Using the 50%+1 ballot measure while claiming the tax will be used only for putting police on the streets is a scam. Call it what it is – a general fund tax increase with no strings that can be spent as the city counsel wishes.

This ballot measure will fail because Antioch residents will not be fooled by empty promises.

Deena Cummings Oct 18, 2013 - 1:53 pm

So suffice it to say, if you want to put more money in the city’s coffers, then vote for Measure C. But don’t expect the funds to be dedicated for hiring more police officers.

VInce aka Boomba Oct 18, 2013 - 3:58 pm

Buy a Clue (DUDE),

Really ??? Tell us then, what does it take to win an election ???? Is it when the voters are fed a bunch of garbage about an issue ? Or would you rather hear the truth.

I don’t think I was trying to educate people on how to win an election …. What I am saying is what I have seen take place in the last 20 years working for the City of Antioch, I think I have some inside knowledge about the inner workings that the average citizen doesn’t see or hear, and probably will never see or hear.

I am NOT the one who is trying to advise anyone on how to win an election. Frankly, if the “City of Sheep” Antioch residents want this ill advised tax under the guise that it will put 22 officers on the streets, well then, so be it.

But the truth of the matter is this will not solve the “crime emergency” as advertised, and it will never come close to fund the necessary 22 officers as advertised.

If you have as much faith that the leadership of this city will do the correct thing, go ahead and give them a blank check yourself “DUDE” — I believe the police department is looking for donations still.

There is money ALREADY allocated to hire police officers, and the police department cannot get enough qualified applicants. I ask again, that being the case WHY would you vote for this measure ?????????????????????????

If it is for preventing the city from going belly up WELL …. The organizers, including the individuals who signed the argument in favor of Measure C should have said this, instead they choose to lie to the public and say that 22 police officers will be hired, then one should THEN question why the city is spending $200,000 on this election ….. go figure.

Vince aka Boomba Oct 18, 2013 - 4:03 pm

Hi Karl,

You are correct, the Chief (Allan Cantando) will be absolutely frank and honest with you or anyone else who asks him questions about this matter. Unfortunately he is the only one, although he does have a vested interest in the passage of Measure C.

Comments are closed.