Oct 102018

… and we will be on the same side of other issues in the future!!! Ending long-term friendships and alliances over political matters is just plain stupid.

Take it from this blogger personally – I made enemies who are still trying to get even with me when I supported Tom McClintock. McClintock rewarded my assisting him in to office by siding with the moderate/liberal faction of the Placer GOP against former Placer GOP Chairman Jeff Atteberry.

Another candidate I helped in 2010 has not spoken to me since election night, but the winner of that race accused my brother of committing felonies on the front page of the Sacramento Bee months later. That news article caused us both problems for several years.

Instead of making the disagreements vicious and personal – I could have approached how I shredded Doug LaMalfa and David Reade in 2010 in a different manner.

Politics is unstable, it is disloyal and the only guarantee is that the rules of engagement will change.

I have been hearing some DISTURBING stories of retaliation and gamesmanship related to Measure B. They resemble some of the things I’ve done in past campaigns and lived to regret.

I’ve been told that service clubs are being thrown in to turmoil over Measure B. Whisper campaigns against at least one Roseville City Council Candidate, including allegations of infidelity and personal corruption being whispered around town.

I will call out Bruce Houdesheldt in this blog, I have been receiving phone calls at least 3 a week while I have been in Nevada working on another job about how particularly nasty and personal he has been getting with various people in the community. It appears that he believes he will experience no consequences for his behavior as he is expecting to be appointed to fill the vacancy left when Bonnie Gore is sworn in to replace the humiliated and defeated Big Daddy Jack Duran.

It is the opinion of this blogger, beyond Houdesehldt being Pro-Choice, soft on the 2nd Amendment, a proponent of higher taxes, fees and regulations that his temperment (there is that word again) disqualifies him from serving on the Roseville City Council. The fix appears to be in as the Roseville Chamber of Commerce has endorsed Krista Bernasconi (who appears to be headed for a coronation), Pauline Rocucci and Houdesheldt – even though only two council seats are on the ballot.

For the record, I do not know Bernasconi, I only know her via her celebrating the SCOTUS decision on Gay Marriage and her leaving the GOP to re-register DTS. My Mother was quite fond of Pauline Roccucci which is why I have been only marginally critical of her. No one I know has anything bad to say about Pauline as a person. I simply believe the previous two people are too liberal to be trusted to make consistently right decisions for Roseville. It is that simple.

However, this Measure B Campaign is crossing a lot of lines.

Please make the nastiness stop, as I really do not want engage in the race and start naming all of the rest of the names. The stories I have heard and verified involve a lot of people I’ve worked with over the last 10 years.

To those supporting Measure B, please make your case for why Roseville residents should tax themselves more and stop trying to destroy people who disagree. Both Scott Alvord and John Allard did with me in a very reasoned manner and they both took my questions politely and we left our meetings friends that disagree. This needs to be repeated dozens if no hundreds of times across town to reduce the acrimony.

Allow your intrepid blogger to close with a couple examples of how I handle disagreements in my old age. (47)

I had breakfast with John Allard. I will be meeting with him again soon. His Molly Maids still clean my house even though I think he is dead wrong on Measure B.

I have met with Scott Alvord a couple times. He is a liberal democrat (that calls himself a moderate) with a big heart and some ideas I agree with. Because I understand his motives and his character, I resisted the urge to wring his neck when he was pontificating about Brett Kavanaugh. I’d assume we will end up breaking bread again soon even though I disagree with him 50+% of the time.

Here is why I am voting no on Measure B:

Unlike Measure M, the Tax for a specific list of road projects, Measure B has no list or limits. It is simply a tax increase that goes in to the general fund. Given that there were no pre-negotiations with collective bargaining units, it is clear that police and fire will especially be calling to get pay and benefits. The City will have a much more difficult time trying to explain why they need to take less with the backdrop of higher tax revenue.

Does the Tax Sunset? (The answer is no)

Does the tax fix the budget hole long term? No it does not, it is about a 3 year fix from what I have been told. Even those promoting Measure B tell me the City will be back in the Red in 3 years.

Roseville’s Sales Tax has jumped 70+% in the last ten years, this is higher than inflation / population growth in the same period by quite a ways. Some that use hair-splitting nuance to claim that the City only gets a fraction of the 7.25% are trying to confuse people. The 70+% jump figure IS based on Roseville’s Share. The increase in tax revenue has out-paced Population and Inflation. This is undeniable.

People should be asking what was done and where was the advanced planning that has led the city to the fiscal wall it is facing today. I am not sure anyone will like the answer. It

I will be voting for Stephanie Dement for City Council, only. And I will oppose Measure B.

Stay Informed!

Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates sent to your inbox.

  3 Responses to “Dear Roseville City Leaders STOP MAKING MEASURE B PERSONAL! Some of us Oppose it for Good Reason!”

  1. no matter what side anyone is on, making a additional tax to compensate for what should be provided to a community it is a no brainer. No on measure B. Not all of the citizens are fooled. I also will not say a name but there is a homeless agency ran here that violates many human rights. And the manager of that location is heavily tied in with other elites in the community who know it was bad and continue to allow it. So I already know how bad politics are when you choose a side. Saying “no” is a right. And it means leave it as it is.

  2. Aaron, your 70% sales tax growth claim is very misleading. You selected the absolutely-lowest point of the depression and the first 50% was just to get back to normal. The facts are very transparent. Costs are outpacing revenue and it’s forcing the city to trim about $2M/yr compounded (in addition) every year. The last decade has caused the various councils to encourage retirement (we have cut back staff by huge numbers), combine depts, cut way back on services. For example, we fertilize and cut park grass less often, do less police patrol because we have 6 less officers now, close libraries an extra day/wk,and MANY more. It’s not a joke and no one is playing games. The worst thing for me, as a business guy, is that the city hasn’t been setting aside reserves for the next recession that we all know is coming. Also, we’re not setting aside enough (if any) to replace our outdated software systems that are around 20 years old in some cases. I’ll be impressed if you allow my response to be posted. I know many of your followers may already have their minds made up but anyone living in Roseville needs to take this measure very seriously. Learn real facts. It’s not a trick. The city is operating way too lean and the only viable revenue options that are big enough to fill the now-$14M annual gap (and growing) are a Utility Users Tax (UUT) or a sales tax increase that the state and county can’t steal. Your fiscally-conservative city council voted 5-0 for the sales tax because residents only pay 40% of it thanks to being a shopping Mecca. And our extremely-conservative Chamber of Commerce did an unprecedented move by supporting it as well. You guys need to trust this one. It’s important and it’s necessary.

  3. OK, Scott, then what happens in the three-year window when the projected increase in revenue either a) does not occur fully, or b) gets eclipsed by higher and higher pension costs brought on by higher and higher salaries paid to City employees because of the presumed increase in revenue from Measure B? Then what? Another tax? Where does it stop? At what point does the City decide to rein in spending rather than try to wring more and more revenue from people?

    “You guys need to trust this one.” When ANYONE in the government says that, that is an indicator that we need to vote opposite of that issue, 100% of the time.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>