by Mike W.
Jack, you really hit it on the head when you referred to 3 of the candidates as the “dream team”. Bob Kromer, Bob Evans and Mark Sorensen really came across as thoughtful adults who have experience and public welfare in mind.
We certainly need this type of leadership to lead Chico out of the financial messes caused by the liberal majority on the City Council. Compared to the dream team, there were 2 candidates who are the nightmare team. If we re-elect Scott Grundl and Mary Flynn, we’re asking for more of the same misguided policies that are wrecking Chico.
At the forum, Mark Sorensen rightly pointed out a few of the damaging City Council actions that Grundl and Flynn supported – -“Millions of dollars spent to purchase HUNDREDS of ACRES OF land that has been fenced off for years”. -“Humboldt Road Burn Dump. Once a $4 million dollar clean up project, when all of the law suits are settled it will have cost the city of City of Chico WAY over 20 million dollars.” -“The City builds 600-800 Square Foot apartments for up to a quarter million dollars each and call it low cost housing. There is nothing low cost about it, it is merely subsidized with millions of your tax dollars. ” -“$600 thousand dollars wasted fighting against people trying to play Disk Golf in a public park.” Let’s replace these big spending folks supported by the far left machine with 3 folks with some common sense and judgment.
The one question I have for Scott Grundl and his supporters is “how do you define conflict of interest?” I do not see any difference between being a government employee in one county and an elected official in a city outside that county being any different from (example only) being a government employee in Nevada, Oregon,or Arizona and being elected Governor of California. Only the size of the job is different. You still protect your number one pay check.
Scott and Mary, are you aware that re-development money that you are putting into low cost housing is about the most expensive money available? It cost the taxpayer and takes away from the tax base. And you wonder why the budget is a problem.
Yes, it is time to change directions in Chico.
Will your dream team increase fees on development to cover the cost of cops, etc?
The E-R–and you guys too, I believe–have questioned how we will pay for development over the next 20 years.
The dream team are funded by the developers.
Developers will lose money if the fees go up.
That is a primary reason developers donate to certain candidates and not to others.
Will the dream team introduce legislation to charge enough for fees or will Chicoans be forced–again–to subsidize the profits of the dream team’s contributors?
Quentin, developers? uh, what developers – where? You say that like they are evil, why?.
All the builders, contractors and carpenters that I know are either out of work, changed jobs or are doing handyman jobs just to keep food on the table. The day of the developers and big housing tracks pretty ended when the real estate market imploded and took half of Wall Street’s cash (our retirements) and a good deal of banks (and our money again) down the tubes. Geez I wish there were developers because that would mean the economy is on the mend and there would be something worth developing.
So raising fees on non-existant development doesn’t seem like a good plan. Raising fees on anything while unemployment is over 14% and we’re still deep in recession doesn’t seem smart. What does seem smart is adjusting salaries to make them realistic with community standards. Is a bottom step patrolman worth a total cost of over $135,000 a year or could we possibly have him scrape by on say $50k a year plus benefits for awhile why we recover from the worst recession since 1929? What are you scraping by on Quentin?
Maybe it’s just me, but shouldn’t it be possible for candidates who profess high levels of intelligence to go outside the box of either raising fees or cutting services?
It would be very possible to continue basic public services if public service employees were not making 3 times as much as their private counterparts (when you count pensions and benefits). So wouldn’t the sharp candidate point out these costs and find a way to continue vital services without raising taxes on the people?
And make no mistake, fee increases on anyone, developers or otherwise, always translates into higher costs for the consumers.
If development does not pay it’s own way, the taxpayers have to subsidize it.
I thought you were in favor of taxpayer rights.
Why does it always have to be a race to the bottom when it comes to wages. Why blame the public sector for the fact that actual wages have decreased to approximately one-third what they were thirty five years ago?
Unfortunately, we are going to have to cut wages because of poor decisions by previous conservative and liberal council decisions
Steve? Certainly, we need to get a handle on wages, but what stopped you from seeking employment there? They made the wiser choice, and now you’re mad and would like something done about it. Is that correct? Were you this angry when they were hired? Or, are you angry now that they are close to the end of their service and they have been rewarded adequately to keep up with the pace of inflation that has robbed you and me both?
Quick question for you “wage cutters:”
The police are averaging $532 per DAY in total compensation. Where do you stand on cutting police compensation.
BTW
Excellent dodge!
I love the jealousy line of reasoning to try and refute questions over public salaries. Classic.
No, I am not jealous or mad at anyone who takes advantage of situations to make as much for themselves and their families as they possibly can. Such is human nature. The city manager of Bell who was making over $800,000 a year was only following the example of true government class elites who seek to rule our country.
Of course, such mentality eventually breaks the system and hurts everyone.
But we do need to ask how much we really should be paying public servants. The City of Chico has a lot of employees who make over $100,000 annually. I realize some of those jobs have certain dangers with them. I once worked in a dangerous job carrying a rifle in foreign countries though, and I never made over $50K a year doing that. So maybe there’s room for discussion?
Taxpayers deserve the best possible use of their taxdollars. Why spend 60 grand of my taxdollars for street sweeping if you can get the same job done for 45 grand?
If you want to raise fees on development, that’s fine. But let’s be honest and call it what it really is. A tax on homeowners who want to live in Chico. We could call it the “Welcome to Chico, Now Pay Up” tax, and then hand new residents a bill for $50K. I’m sure prospective homebuyers would love that.
I appreciate candidates who let voters know exactly where they stand. I would like to know how many candidates would publicly be in favor of such taxation.