WEATHER »

Vote No on Measure M

Unfunded Mandate Will Take Millions from County Departments


Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

As individuals from diverse perspectives who care deeply about Santa Barbara County, we strongly urge a “No” vote on Measure M.

Measure M is an $18 million-$36 million-per-year unfunded mandate that will deteriorate our way of life in many possible ways, including more taxes, higher fees, and fewer services for the people of Santa Barbara County. The county has a general fund budget of roughly $220 million; Measure M could consume as much as 16 percent of the county general fund budget — nearly one dollar in every six dollars the county spends.

The proposed measure is to maintain roads and buildings. Though these improvements may be desired, Measure M would spend county money without providing funding. The lack of new funding means the remaining county budget will be devastated and our quality of life will get worse. Significant cuts will have to be made across the board in county services to make up the difference. The results will be all or some of the following:

• Higher taxes and more county fees

• Reductions in services in every county department

• Fewer law enforcement personnel and more criminals on the streets

• Reductions in the number of firefighters

These are only some of the cuts the county could experience. Cuts to law enforcement and public safety would include cuts in the Sheriff’s Office, Fire Department, emergency medical services, and 9-1-1.

Vital services would be cut, including those that support working families, seniors, children, students, those most in need, and those most vulnerable.

Library services could be cut out entirely. County parks and other facilities could be closed. Though these cuts would be experienced by everyone in the county, Measure M would not provide additional funding for the more than two-thirds of county residents who live in cities.

More than 500 positions have already been eliminated from county government in recent years, and more than $70 million in cuts have already been made in almost every department, service, and program. Simply put, Measure M would be very bad news for Santa Barbara County.

We continue to ask, “Where would the money come from?” The measure’s author has said that the county “may have a bake sale, or liquidate property, or put a tax on the ballot.” We believe this approach is unrealistic and leads to more questions than answers.

About 60 percent of county spending is for public safety — should expenditures on public safety be slashed to pay for Measure M?

What about other county spending? Law and justice are about 14 percent of total county spending — there are not many opportunities for cuts in those areas. Health and public assistance are about 9 percent of county spending — that’s already down from 13 percent in 2002-03. Public health services are vital and have already been cut too much.

Similarly, other areas of spending by the county are relatively modest as a proportion of the county budget and have been substantially reduced in recent years. Measure M would cause further wide-scale elimination of positions, programs, and services.

Looking to the future, it is essential to begin setting aside more than $15 million per year for operating the new county jail in northern Santa Barbara County. How would the county fund the new jail, pay for Measure M, and address its other fiscal challenges? Many one-time sources of revenue and reserves have been used in recent years. Now is not the time for an uncertain and unfunded mandate to spend $18 million-$36 million more per year — funds the county does not have to spare.

And what if there is another economic downturn or funds are required to alleviate water shortages throughout the county? Measure M is as fiscally irresponsible as a measure can be.

Opposing Measure M should unite residents of Santa Barbara County across the political spectrum and in northern and southern Santa Barbara County. This proposal would be very detrimental to the county’s finances, our quality of life, our future. Please join us in voting “No” on Measure M.

Bill Brown is sheriff of Santa Barbara County; Salud Carbajal is 1st District supervisor; Joyce Dudley is district attorney of Santa Barbara County; Lanny Ebenstein is past president of the Santa Barbara Board of Education; Joni Gray is former 4th District supervisor; and Janet Wolf is 2nd District Supervisor.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Not sure where I stand on Measure M, but this article doesn't help me sort things out at all. These folks offer no solution whatsoever to the deferred maintenance problem of Santa Barbara County. The roads I use every day are just awful.

I'm no fan of Peter Adam. But this article is so obviously intended to panic the lowest common denominator that I'm embarrassed for the authors.

Don't they think we can handle a serious discussion of how the County will solve its deferred maintenance problem? I guess not. Might make me vote `Yes' on M just to spite them for their disrespect of voters.

pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I dunno I can't figure out what is worse sometimes - driving on a crappy road for an extended period of time or having constant road construction everywhere, shutting things down and causing traffic.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Road maintenance is part of the overall county budget just like everything else. We are now supposed to believe that roads maintenance now is competing with operation of the jail and perpetuation of the prison-industrial complex and fiscal black hole.

Sheriff Brown and Salud Carbajal are not helping themselves with this bogus choice and only indeed motivate more yes-on-M voters.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That $15 million for the jail could go to infrastructure, creating jobs and lessening the conditions that create needs for a jail. And the roads are a wreck.

Loon, that's kinda like asking what is worse: dealing with a broken arm or going to the orthopedist and getting a cast.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Welcome! Welcome! One and all to another amazing show of "Scare-tactics, Lies and Mis-direction from our local lib-dem leaders" .

FACTS:
The money is currently fully funded by taxpayers, who use the facilities in question.

The problem here is that *every single one* of the co-signers of this letter is beholden to government unions and bureaucracies that they want to grow and serve at the expense of our roads and parks.

Why? This is how they fund their elections and re-elections.

Expect more and more of this "squeeze" where unfunded government union compensation packages are protected by lib-dem pols while services are trimmed and cut to pay for them.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Joni Gray and Lanny Ebenstein would be surprised to be called Lib-Dems. I don't say this to damn them, but from my perspective the signers of the letter are quite Conservative!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

realitycheck88 hasn't noticed that it's conservatives Francisco and Rowse in the city who support increased SBPD hiring, not democrats.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Loon, that's kinda like asking what is worse: dealing with a broken arm or going to the orthopedist and getting a cast."

I didn't mean the roads should never be maintained, just that letting them go a little longer and dealing with 30-50% less construction might be preferable.

The 101 north from downtown to Goleta was really bad 6 or 7 years ago, freeways may need a little more care due to the high rates of speed. Also they can shut down a single lane and still usually have a couple lanes open. I'm thinking more along the lines of side streets. They've been re-doing a large section of foothill lately and I drive that road every day and it never occurred to me that it needed repair before that.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some good comments here. I don't think Measure M is necessarily the best approach to funding the problem of our seriously-deteriorating infrastructure, but I think it's getting the attention of citizens wondering why the County continues to pay and ever-increasing percentage our the budget for "public safety" [read: fire and law enforcement pensions] at the expense of the County's roads, bridges, parks and buildings. What solutions to this problem have the signors of this piece offered to us County taxpayers?

In fact, if it was left up to Bill Brown, we'd incarcerate more of our population and spend even more $$$ we don't have constructing and operating a new mega-jail in the north county.

Indyholio (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you noticed the proponents of Measure M will not put out a blueprint of how the measure will be funded? This opinion piece does and I doubt we'll see Peter Adam deny it's claims.

You know I don't recall seeing any news stories about "horrible roads and buildings" before the idea of Measure M ever came about, but we've seen numerous stories about short staffed departments. Why did the infrastructure issues even come up now? Maybe a personal vendetta Peter Adam has with the county going back many years?

Come on people, see this for what it is. North vs south county, Peter Adam vs the other supervisors and the north county tea baggers vs reality. Peter Adam is either a completely controlled puppet, a spiteful con artist or a complete idiot.

Validated (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My roads are awful and I live in the South County.

pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've been complaining about South County roads and sidewalks since '03.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

County and city roads are in some sort of disrepair in all jurisdictions. With the budgets as they are now you have a choice with Measure M. Drive on nice new paved roads or have sheriff, fire, probation, public defender and DA services. It's pretty simple for me.

Validated (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Validated, I want all of that and a pony.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Roads are being repaired right now, without Measure M. And the Fire Department put out fires tonight.

The recession affected budgets. As things improve, there will be more money for road repair without stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote yes on Measure M.

Board of Supervisor majority has shown they are irresponsible with public monies.

They need to have their hands tied permanently, so the rest of the county does not have to pay for their free-spending ways. Time to stop the blank check they keep writing to their employee union buddies and make sure the county infrastructure gets a fair share too.

Don't vote union this election.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The county employee unions know every dollar spent on infrastructure is a dollar that does not go to them. They will mount a massive campaign to defeat this pragmatic solution to the county's long history of fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement.

It will be good to finally put money aside permanently in a lock box for infrastructure, which we all enjoy and not have it under attack by the county unions who demand it should be spent only on them.

The supervisors have proven they can't say no to the county employees so now it is up to the voters to say no for them. T

his one is a no-brainer. Vote yes for Measure M. And unmask the heavy county employee union arguments against it that will soon be coming fast and furious.

Vote YES means county money finally gets spent on you.
Vote NO means more county money gets spent on county employees

foofighter (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I drive a really old sports car all over this town and county
Over the decades, I have never encountered a road that was in a condition that could remotely be called dangerous . The roads have never been better. Should we be spending money on keeping up and improving roads? We do and should, but this idea that there is some road maintenance emergency is a complete fantasy. Those that disagree should provide some specific locations of really bad roads to back up their claims.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Foo just convinced me to vote "No"

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)


I drive a really old sports car all over this town and county
Over the decades, ...

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
April 30, 2014 at 10:37 p.m.

The perhaps it's time to get a new one.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

" *every single one* of the co-signers of this letter is beholden to government unions and bureaucracies "
-- realitycheck88

??? Lanny Ebenstein is beholden to the unions ??? Omigosh, that's a good one. This proves once again realitycheck88 has absolutely no grasp of reality.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I urge everyone to vote YES on M.

The percentage of budget going to maintain infrastructure has decreased dramatically over the last 30 years while the percentage spent on salaries and pensions have increased widely.

We need to force to BOS to spend the money on infrastructure instead of the union wishes. Forcing them to spend on infrastructure will force them to deal with pensions and salaries.

We have firefighters in our immediate family and I can say for certain they know they are over paid and have amazing pensions. There is 100's of applicants for each opening, it is like winning the lottery to get a firefighter job.

loneranger (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously, where are these roads that need urgent repair?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lanny Ebenstein and his father were UCSB employees. They were public agency workers.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Santa Barbara County salaries, benefits, overtime and pensions, all set out by name and by position can be found on Transparent California:

http://transparentcalifornia.com/sala...

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Seriously, where are these roads that need urgent repair? "

Ya I'm actually kinda pissed now, my morning commute is going to be completely screwed for the next 2 months while they fix a road that doesn't even really need repair... Unless they are putting in some better bike lanes or something, this just doesn't make sense.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The comment that sticks out is that 60% of the budget is spent on public safety. Maybe if there was some comprise on the departments side to address the unsustainable pension benefits, and if our elected representatives were not so indebted to them for their seat, they could have some balls and push for real reform and we could have both safety and infrastructure. Future pension cost is the biggest unfunded mandate and the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Look at the authors of this piece and connect the dots. The only thing that is transparent is government electing government.

LizW (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of these posters must never drive. Try driving under the freeway on Castillo.
Our roads are worse than Detroits.

loneranger (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Castillo underpass has more issues related to design than actual maintenance. The bottom of the underpass is below sea level. That's the main issue with that section of roadway.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of you wondering where all the bad roads are, or not understanding the unfunded pension issue, I suggest you read this article (link below) for some facts and numbers. Unfortunately the Indy has become somewhat of an extension of the local Dems these days, so can't really report credibly or thoroughly on issues it's already taken a political stand on (such as Measure M).

http://www.missionandstate.org/depart...

Basically, here are some key statistics from the article:

To date, "the county has accumulated an estimated $292.2 million in deferred maintenance—$250.1 million for public works, $35.2 million for county facilities and $6.9 million for parks."

"There has been a 75 percent increase in countywide retirement contributions from $66.1 million in 2007-08 to $116.2 million in 2013-14."

"The average salary and benefit cost for a public-safety employee has increased from $117,600 in 2008-09 to $153,200 in 2013-14, while for a non-public-safety employee, the cost rose from $97,900 to $118,500 over that same period."

"The county spends 60 percent of its discretionary general-fund revenue on public safety, which will likely increase when the sheriff comes back to the board in April to review the North County Jail project’s operating costs."

"As for the unfunded liabilities, the county will contribute 30-plus percent of employee retirement for the next 15 years to pay down its liability. "

I don't know about all you folks, but as a county resident and taxpayer, this is alarming to put it mildly. If you think failing infrastructure isn't a "public safety" issue, I'm not sure what is.

Indyholio (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am still waiting for ONE example of a dangerous road condition.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and the Castillo underpass is owned by Caltrans. Still waiting.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, Herschel, you're a car guy? Do you wait to repair a leaking tire until it has a blow out, or proactively get it fixed before it becomes a dangerous situation? Based on your comments, I'm guessing it's 'B'.

Indyholio (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Weak analogy, but I will bite. Please let me know what stretch of road is a potential "blow out"?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Herschel.

Unless you drive all the roads all the time, your point is moot.

locke (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've driven walked and skateboarded the sidewalks and streets of SB City and County. Many of the nontourist areas are a wreck.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Seriously, where are these roads that need urgent repair?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 9:52 a.m.

The road to perdition.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Measure M is a bad solution in search of a problem. I have yet to read about a section, any section of road in this county that is dangerously in need of repair. It looks like many posters base their support on the goofy idea that somehow this measure will "stick it to the unions." When the county spends money on road repair that means more not less work for unionized county workers. You might as well take 200 million and buy everyone in the county a pony.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This article is self-serving pap coming from the local Demachine so they can continue to pay too many employees too much money while ignoring the fact that our infrastructure is decaying. They have shown they can't be trusted to act in the public interest - hence this Measure.

Vote for M

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JohnLocke, if it's the "Demachine" how do you explain the presence of Joni Gray and Lanny Ebenstein? Don't let that knee jerk too much!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Still no evidence of a pressing need for increased road maintenance, just vague impressions of need. Please give me ONE concrete example.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel, I think you're missing the point. Infrastructure deterioration isn't always a giant sinkhole in the middle of the road. Just because YOU don't see it whizzing by in your "really old sports car" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are several studies by County Public Works, Parks and General Services that outline the poor condition of the infrastructure.

You saying "I drive all the time and haven't seen it myself" is equivalent to saying global warming doesn't exist because it's cold at your house.

Indyholio (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry but no sale. The county is always maintaining roads and that is a good thing . This measure is based on the premise that there is a urgent need to divert scarce funds to completing every project on the public works' wish list. I was only asking for one example of a road that is need of extraordinary maintenance
So far no one has provided one. The county has had put off road maintenance needs since there have been roads. I am sure that the Chumash wrestled with trails that needed clearing. This entire issue is a hysterical creation of Adam and it's only purpose is to further his career.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the information on $251M of backlog for country infrastructure maintenance;
http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFil...

loneranger (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Lanny Ebenstein and his father were UCSB employees. They were public agency workers."
- foofighter

You're painting Ebenstein pro-union (or not anti-union) based on that? Weak.

The reality is, Lanny has been fighting against the unions, specifically public employee unions, for years. He's even started groups to finance campaigns to take away collective bargaining rights for public unions.

Google it.

The bottom line is, one of your own has come out against Measure M.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is what was first written, thus the response about Ebenstein perhaps being "beholden to bureaucracies" - aka UCSB for any accrued benefits, if any.

Ebenstein's stance about unions is well-known and well-appreciated. He knows of what he speaks.

PRIOR POST - NOTE TO EAST BEACH:
*every single one* of the co-signers of this letter is beholden to government unions and bureaucracies "
-- realitycheck88

??? Lanny Ebenstein is beholden to the unions ??? Omigosh, that's a good one. This proves once again realitycheck88 has absolutely no grasp of reality.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Lanny Ebenstein and his father were UCSB employees. They were public agency workers."
--foofighter

So Ebenstein is "beholden to bureaucracies" (whatever than means) because of that? Lanny was a visiting lecturer and taught one class in 2012. The official UCSB schedule of classes shows he has not taught since then.

Whatever Ebenstein's association with UCSB, it is tenuous. And even if it wasn't, what does that have to do with Measure M?

The bottom line is, a bonafide conservative has come out very publically against Measure M. I think it's ironic how normally like-minded posters here are using their typical fact-empty rhetoric to tar Ebenstein. Such is the Karl Rove nation.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Essay question: Measure M is fiscal common sense - is that a conservative or liberal issue?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Measure M is a fiscal disaster .

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree EastBeach and Herschel: Measure M is misdirected and very thoughtless. I have today seen print ads against Measure M with Ebenstein's support for voting it down prominently displayed. Even Lanny knows this ueber-libertarian "let's just fix potholes and roads" approach is loony. Foo: Measure M is fiscal nonsense, and you're whistling in the wind as usual since M has no chance. It's a passe as Adams's muttonchops.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ebenstein carries no electoral clout; otherwise he would have won the many the races he put his hat into long ago.

He may articulate important issues from time to time, but can be wrong as often as he is right. He has no native sense of the political pulse and comes across often as merely lumpish and tin-eared. He is missing the taxpayer backlash going on, even though he thinks right now he is leading one.

The issue he misses is voters see their elected officials need to have their hands tied. This is what Measure M does. Measure M is the life raft this badly sinking ship needs that is now taking us all down.
Measure M folks gain no traction having Ebenstein's support.

Yes on M. Voters have to do what our elected representatives have now failed to do for too long. Budget prudently and for long-term; not for more deficits and degraded services.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Public employee unions are against Measure M because it permanently cuts into their demands on county revenues; and carves it out for the benefit of county residents instead.

Time to get the county unions sticky fingers out of the county cookie jar.

Yes on M.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel_Greenspan is completely missing the point.

There are no dangerous or crazy bad roads.

Measure M simply requires that *current* road and park conditions be maintained and not allowed to get *worse*.

Get it now?

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2014 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Still no evidence of a pressing need for increased road maintenance, just vague impressions of need. Please give me ONE concrete example.

Herschel_Greenspan :(anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 9:35 a.m

Mr. Greenspan, roads are not made of concrete, they are made of asphalt you silly ghoul.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 5:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberals are always whining about our deteriorating infrastructure. Instead of some federal jobs program, measure M will do the trick.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"If you don’t do it, it’s just going to get worse. You and your children will be driving around on third-world roads and visiting third-world county buildings.”"
-- Peter Adams, liberal whiner

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with Herschel. measure M is pointless...and adams is all about adams, no lie.

however, when I see that many politicos standing in one place all yelling no on M.......I get a reflexive puckering.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Democrats and their buddy employee unions start their massive misrepresentation campaign. Here is how the soft corruption of the election process begins.

Democrats/unions game plan: Emotional misrepresentation and elimination of key issues.

Failing to also disclose "employee support" is union support, who are evaluating candidates and issues for only one thing: who is going to cut them the very best deal post-election for themselves from our scarce amounts of public dollars.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The underlying issue for Measure M is how do back fill the one billion dollar employee pension debt and maintain county infrastructure if employee unions demand all discretionary county cash goes into their pockets.

Supervisors to date have not been able to resolve this issue and the debts and liabilities continue to grow, along with massive employee salaries and perks which are considered now a right or else their morale will suffer.

If the elected progressive majority can't show budgetary discipline and stand up to the employee unions who elected them, then this decision has to be rightfully taken to the voters who are the ones getting stuck with the deficiency bills these past string of progressive supervisors have racked up in our names.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No on Measure M. Stop "robbing Paul to pay Peter". This looks like both a money grab for Adam's contractor buddies and also takes flexibility away from how the Supervisors allocate discretionary funds. Do not be suckered.

uselogicatleast (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes 'lawdy' -- it makes no sense at all to maintain our roads and parks at *current* levels.

It's much more prudent to continue to overpay and (pay back) unions and their much more inefficient employees as well as fund huge expansions of government nanny-state programs filled with union bureaucrats and their sympathizers.

Makes perfect sense.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2014 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No on Measure M. Just looks like another attempt by Adam's contractor buddies to hijack funds that can be used for anything and take the funds for themselves. Possible result? Rich farmers can drive mud filled farm equipment on nice roads...yay. Meanwhile, the cities where the people use government services other than infrastructure likely get hosed because the money will likely be diverted to contractor buds and rural roads.
Those poor farmers...they just have no money...it's not enough to have cheap labor, they want new roads to destroy with heavy machinery! I know...life is difficult when you can buy a new 4 x 4 only every second year.

uselogicatleast (anonymous profile)
June 2, 2014 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: