Tomorrow night, the city is poised to do two completely contrary things: first they will vote to collect $900,000-plus a year off taxpayers by RAISING YOUR UTILITY TAX, saying they are broke and need the money to pay salaries. Then they will turn around and hand it to the Chico Creek Nature Center.
Okay, it’s not THAT simple, but you can follow along. See, over 5 years ago, the city made a deal with Tom Haithcock and Dave Guzzetti and John Merz to loan the Nature Center, a PAC run by the aforementioned people and their friends, EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS to build the Taj Majal in the Park – a new “learning center” to which only Nature Center personnel hold the key. This building is not even open to the public. It is used by the NC to run a “school” by which they also suck in a good hundred grand a year, by my estimates. They’ve never been asked to show their books.
In addition, we taxpayers have been paying Haithcock’s $50,000+ salary and benefits all these years with Community Block Grant Funding money. This is the same pot they take out of to pay for garbage like “Artoberfest”.
Well, the city started to cut the grant funding – down from $60-something-thousand to about $42,000 a year. So, Haithcock was faced with fundraising his own salary – like every other “non-profit” – or he could quit. If you know Haitcock, you were not surprised when he quit. He tried to go out like the Lorax, but when he stamped his foot, he just ended up standing there looking like a big spoiled brat.
Well, they hired a new front for their operation – Courtney Farrell – who is going before the council tomorrow night to ask that the loan payments be deferred, AGAIN. In the five or so years since they took $800,000 from the city pot, they have not paid one red cent, not principle or interest. But every year they take CBGF money to pay their director, because they can’t get enough support in the community to pay her salary. And benefits, yeah, she gets benefits. You pay for it.
I took my kids to the Nature Center “camp” before Haithcock took over – it was nice but not really worth the $50/week for a half-day price tag. A full day was $80/week. That was over 10 years ago. Now they charge $135 for a week!
Those camps were full, and in passing, I see they still get plenty of kids. But they are not being asked to present these figures – Haithcock got away with a hastily scrawled list of half-baked figures – and in his case, I think the word “baked” is applicable – he was just handing them amounts, I wonder if he even knew exactly how much the center was taking in and how much it was spending. Nobody pressed him for his tax filings or anything like that. He just made the shit up and handed it over, and they patted him on the head and handed him 10’s of thousands of your money.
So, here we go again. They want to raise your phone bill to hand money to their friends.
This next Tuesday, May 1, council will get a report from the city attorney of an ordinance that will allow the city to take a 4.5 percent tax on your phone and messaging devices – on local and interstate calls, text messaging, voice over internet – even PAGING.
The report is available now at this link:
It’s there, just keep digging all the way to the bottom. They aren’t going to make it easy to read these agendas, you know.
I’ve asked the city clerk for a cut and pastable copy so I can share the pertinent points here. In past, she’s told me, she can’t give it to me in a cut and paste version, because I might edit it when I post it! As if, I can’t edit it when I type it in – what a pile of horseshit! I don’t know why the clerk’s office plays these little games – well, yes I do – $taff doesn’t want us to see this stuff. They don’t want us to know, they’re about to rip us off for about $900,000 a year off our phones and computers.
I’ll work on getting the report here, but in the meantime, it won’t hurt you folks to go to the city website and read the whole thing yourself.
And don’t forget, it’s time to get your Utility Tax rebate. I’m waiting for my April bill from PG&E, and then I’m going in. I only have PG&E to collect, so I’m getting about $50. That’s a trip to the grocery store, with some Shuberts money to spare.
Sometimes diplomacy is the best policy.
But I stand by this much:
Why, oh why, is Greg Welter allowed to write “news” pieces for the Enterprise Record?
Today’s piece is an another example of yellow journalism – that’s “news” that is slanted to make the reader have a certain opinion – only give them some of the facts, and make sure to inject plenty of your own opinion. That’s Welter.
“Ironically, Maloney was recently forced to cut overtime and make assignment changes in the department that threaten to cut the legs from under Volunteers in Police Service, one of the city’s most efficient law enforcement tools.”
I suggested the Chico Fire Department reorganize, instead they have turned on the taxpayers like a bad pit bull.
Oh, sure, close the most expensive and highest profile station in town – “we’ll show them!” That’s the kind of genius, integrity, and above all, loyalty, that is attracted by these salaries we been paying.
But, it’s our own fault. We elected the city council, and they made the contracts that allow the chief to make budget decisions. He’s supposed to put out fires, instead, he wields the budget ax, swinging extra wide and sloppy when his department doesn’t get the funding levels he wants.
I think Chico Fire heard the answer to Tom Lando’s survey – HELL NO, WE WON’T PAY MORE! – loud and clear. I think they’re pretty mad about it. They think they will punish us.
I think we’ll all find just how necessary they are. Look around Folks – any burnt out houses in your neighborhood? Not lately? Not as long as you remember?
Take a look at the Chico Fire logs sometime. When I saw them, I was amazed at the number of false alarms. I was also amazed that when they responded to a false alarm at the EV Free Church on Filbert Ave, they spent four hours helping to clean up wet insulation from a sprinkler malfunction.
Firetrucks with crews of two to four “technicians” routinely follow ambulances, as if they are of any service. I”ve been told they often help carry patients – WHY? Why should the ambulance companies, who charge dearly for their services, get free escort and labor from the City of Chico, paid for by YOU?
Chico Fire performs a variety of busy tasks simply in order to look busy. That might be okay for a $50,000 a year worker, but we’re paying too many of these people $100,000 plus to buzz around town making themselves look useful when they’re just blowing fuel out their tail pipe.
I think the chief has made a big mistake. At a time when more and more people are questioning the salaries, overtime and pensions these “public servants” are racking up, it’s ill-advised to play these little games. The taxpayers just might find that they can fend pretty well without Station 5.
A friend of mine suggested calling the Fire Department at their office Downtown to let them know what we all think of the closure of this brand spanking new station, built during The Boom at ridiculous expense. Do you love that tower on top – I guess that’s for the days when electronic communication breaks down and they have to light a lantern to signal the other stations. Couldn’t they have their office in that? No, they have an office Downtown, $taffed all day by people who have nothing to do with serving you – they instead serve themselves. In fact, according to the message I got when I called, they serve themselves lunch from noon to 2pm! How nice!
That phone number is 897 – 3400. There is a message machine, be firm but nice, and speak clearly. Let them know what you think of this ploy – do they really think they’ll scare us into increasing sales tax three quarters of a cent to pay their pensions?
Tell them what I told them – I think that location would be perfect for a coffee shop and a little store!
What a lame editorial in Today’s ER. “Only one fix for crash statistics”? Oh, really. Spoken by a person who uses their car like an extension of their butt.
Yes, you heard it, Chico is one of “the worst” cities in California for bike vs car accidents. And here’s a little something else – five pedestrians died in Chico in 2010 – and you probably only heard about the lady who was mowed by a dog-wrestling pothead while jogging on a country highway with her back to oncoming traffic. Four other pedestrians were killed by cars that year – anybody got any idea who they were? I don’t remember reading about five dead pedestrians in 2010. Did the ER report those accidents? Anybody?
I ride my bike alot around town. I encounter some strange car behavior. My favorite is when they speed up to cut you off with a right turn instead of slowing down until you cross the intersection they’re after – I’ve stopped many times to avoid running into these people, and one of them almost hit my kid right in front of me.
And then there’s the red light runners. Did you know, the fine for running a red light in Chico is less than $300? But it’s $472 for riding your bike the wrong way a block – I got that from the Butte County Superior Court case index.
One bike vs car fatality I remember very well is the death of Christine Girton over at 20th and MLK Parkway. She was determined, by the experts down at Chico PD, to have had the right of way, but this guy just gunned her down anyway. He was not charged with ANYTHING – the general attitude we got from the cops was, what was that woman doing on a bike in that intersection?
I feel the editor reflects the general attitude of this car-driving town in his editorial – bikes need to get out of the way. There’s waaaay too many! I feel, if the editor rode a bike once in a blue moon, or even say, read the study on which he is reporting, he might have a different point of view.
Here’s the link to that report:
The California Office of Traffic Safety ranked cities by size, so that we are compared to cities with similar populations. We are ranked at 8 in the number of miles traveled by bike, out of 103 cities in our group. That means, we are not number one in the number of miles traveled by bike, but we are close to Number One in the number of bicycle accidents. Davis, California, also a college town, has more cyclists but less accidents – go figure!
We only rank 35 out of 103 cities as to number of miles traveled by car. Look around you – we don’t have as much traffic as bigger cities, but we have a higher ranking than some in bicycle vs car accidents.
Editor heard the story and blopped out his editorial opinion that bike riders are at least as responsible for these accidents as car drivers. I say, get on your bike Editor. Ooooooo, no more drive thru coffee! No more ragin’ tunes! Just you, and the car drivers. I’d like to hear about that, I don’t need any more crap about bike riders from some phlob who uses his car like a body part.
Here are some videos of people cycle commuting in cities all around the US:
Ann Schwab likes to tout her “bicycle city”. Hah! This is something we must not allow her to do this November, we need to remind her, CHICO IS NOT BICYCLE FRIENDLY!
This morning Sac Bee columnist Dan Walters tells us Stockton is not the only California city in financial distress.
Well, you don’t say!
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/16/4416349/dan-walters-stockton-not-only.html#storylink=cpy
Guess where he’s describing here:
“City officials borrowed and spent heavily … in hopes of resurrecting a woebegone downtown, and simultaneously boosted their employees’ salaries and fringe benefits.”
I know, sounds like Chico, but he’s talking about Stockton.
How about, “was seeing a surge of sales and property taxes from a housing boom and the city’s politicians and administrators wagered, in effect, that it would go on forever. When the bubble burst, it was left with more debts and operating costs than it could afford.”
Yep, again sounds like Chico, again, Stockton.
Walters is describing government entities that “have consistently overspent revenue – even when the economy was booming – with chronic budget deficits the inevitable result.”
He adds, “A number of school districts have been listed by the state as being in fiscal distress, some facing the prospect of state receivership.”