 |
| This is what was on the ballot. |
First off, it is was a non-binding straw ballot vote. Second it said the millage would be increased by .1079. most people don't know what millage is. It says the general fund millage will be increased by .1079. It should have said YOUR TAXES and then people would have paid attention and you would have seen less people voting for it. And, .1079 is meaningless to most voters. This was not a fair ballot question. If it is non-binding, it is meaningless to base a tax increase on it. I like dogs and cats but I don't like being manipulated. Robert's Rules of Order prohibits straw polls, calling them "meaningless and dilatory" because they subvert the deliberative charge of deliberative bodies.
Let's do it again with real numbers (this will increase your taxes by X amount a year) and make it binding. Then we can have a fair vote. You can't have it both ways, you can't call it non-binding and then bind the government to the results as if it were gospel truth. And, if it were the gospel truth they wouldn't have had to hire Ron Book as their lobbyist.
15 comments:
I wonder how many spay/neuters could be paid for with the funds being used to pay Ron Book? Yes, this whole thing is wrong. You have to wonder why they need to help raise so much money to help rescue groups who have their own 501(c)3's? This money is not going to the dogs/cats for spay/neuter, it's going for other things we should not be funding. The millions of dollars is such a carrot dangling to rescuers to get them to support this as well because there's money in it for them as well. Why do a "straw vote" to begin with? It's the most dishonest question when it comes to raising our taxes. This is one issue I truly hope Gimenez and the majority of the BCC hold firm on. Let them spend the lobbying money to spay/neuter pets they so passionately plea to do. Nope, there's so much more to this then just save pets, it's about the money, plain & simple.
If these people were honest they would have said "tax increase" like you wrote, they didn't. If they wanted it binding, they should have had it as a real question, they didn't. I hate liars. This is what this group is and yes, that's my opinion, but how can you have something "non binding" then try to guilt the people into "binding" after the fact?
I bet the Car Network has a big hand in this. They are very well funded and love the fact Cats can freely roam anywhere in this County, unlicensed, Ferrel and otherwise while dogs owners pay dearly. The funding for "education" is stupid for so many reasons. The funding for rescue groups already registered as charity's is not written on the ballot question but is included in the proposal and was addressed on the public records. This is a scam, pure & simple. How they raised the money to put it on the ballot and lobby the voters to approve it is another mystery. Where did that money come from. It's kind of like the Dolphin Stadium slight of hand. They found big money to fund this scam because the bigger money is at the end of the tunnel on the back of homeowners.........You're right, if they would have said "it will raise your property taxes" plain and simple, it would not have passed. I agree with the Vet groups which DeGrandy represents. There are ways to spay/neuter pets within existing facilities. New facility's do not need to be built. If this was going to get stray cats off the street, I might even think about it, but it doesn't. It keeps stray cats out there as well. Education? You cannot educate the unwilling to listen............Just say no BCC. The taxpayers picking up this tab will revolt if you don't and they do outnumber these shysters not being honest with the public.
Sorry, meant "Cat Network", not "Car Network".
I think it would have passed either way, just like the library and environmentally endangered lands program specific tax programs passed. When people see a specific funding proposal for a program perceived as a public good that the public uses, they have agreed to tax themselves. Same went with the transportation sales tax. But then it turned out the commission used the money to cover expenses not expand services as promised . And then there was the raid on water/sewer funds instead if using the proceeds for repairing a decrepit system, we now have to increase fees to pay for $12 billion on repairs forced by Feds to face reality if sewage spilling into our streets and waterways.
The truth is there should be enough money for basic services and public uses - libraries, animal services, parks, etc. without special taxes .. But tax payer funds go first for pet projects or to subsidize special interests like sports stadiums or private development, money- losing expansions at airports and seaports, covering infrastructure for mega projects. They say these create jobs under the trickle down theory... But then there are no funds for basics that directly benefit the public.
Sometimes I feel the taxpaying citizens are serfs supporting a tourism/development king and kingdom.
I voted against it because I'm tired of being nickeled and dimed to death by our local government. However, I do accept the will of the people and 65% voted in favor. Regardless if anybody can compute the millage rate to actual $, I can't believe anybody who voted in favor not to expect their property taxes to increase.
If the question was poised as a Voter Referendum and if voters were clearly told their TAXES would increase IF they voted YES ... I wonder what the actual vote would have been then.
Anonymous 2 above:
It was not the will of the people. It was a STRAW vote. If it were an actual vote I am sure the results would have been different.
I love animals but I was never a proponent of Obowow Care. I understand the Vet's perspective in that one should be careful when providing taxpayer sponsored pet care and competing with the private sector. I see the advantages of spay/neuter and release. Cat Network has done amazing work and I hate to see them bashed. That is not fair. The bottom line is that I would like to see this kept out of the county's hands and I would like to see these amazing groups who do so much get some funding. No pensions, no cronyism ... no 800 supervisors for 2,000 people. The Children's Trust has become rotten at its core. I have little faith in these types of arrangements, but the people behind this are good people and, yes, 65% voted for this damn thing. That needs to be respected. I think it is an act of slime that Gimenez is trying to show austerity by cutting this. That is very disingenuous.
It was a straw vote not a binding vote.
What Genius wrote above......In addition, there was nothing on the "straw" ballot about funding rescue groups. Education is vague, it could mean anything. I certainly do not want animal rights activists heading down here brainwashing our kids with PETA nonsense. However, when there's a big pot of tazpayer money, you'd be amazed at how mis spent it could get. Any type of "task force" is useless because it will be like the CRA boards, favorites pushing their friends......
I would say spend the Ron Book money to put the issue on the ballot as a binding tax increase, pure and simple. Then let's see what the voters do. Then spell out exactly how the money will be spent and who will "pick the winners" so to speak (couldn't resist the last line)!
Carlos Gimenez lying to the public. Gimenez is using the results of a NON-BINDING STRAW VOTE as a reason to increase taxes to benefit his firefighter buddies. It is cheap trick.
What's the difference between a "straw" vote and an "actual" vote. Either I'm for something or against it. Does anyone vote against their position because it's non-binding?
Gimenez should cut funding subsidies to money losing county departments that don't directly benefit the public before shuttering public libraries and reneging on his promises to the pets trust. How about repaying taxpayers for the cost of his trip to Paris? How about firing his many $200k salaried assistants instead of firing 200 library workers that earn a pittance? Maybe Giminez should call on his lobbyist friends to make big ticket contributions to libraries and animal services.
Unless officials straighten up every new revenue on ballot is a sham and immoral to support.
Gimenez needs to reduce the number of County employees from 27,000 to 24,000. No more using the taxpayers to make up for his incompetence. No tax increases, Carlos.
Post a Comment