Letters for October 25, 2018

Re: “You better f@%#ing vote!” by SN&R staff (Opinion, October 18):

Passing Measure U [two times] rewards [the Sacramento] City Council for arrogance and deceit. As you point out, they were warned for years to not “build the temporary money into its long-term budget, and that’s exactly what they did.” You say you’ll be watching them closely to make sure [Mayor Darrell] Steinberg keeps his promises. B.S.! We all know they set up this vote so that no one can hold them to their promises. If Steinberg and his cronies want to spend this money on 17 percent pay raises for city employees (like they gave the police last year) or a new soccer stadium or more crony corporate welfare, no one can stop them. On the other hand, the measure may be challenged in court. The [California] constitution defines a special tax as “… any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.” Measure U begins by enumerating specific things the tax is to be spent on. How specific do those things need to be to make the measure, in fact, a special tax? If it is ruled to be a special tax, and if it doesn’t get a two-thirds vote, it might be invalidated. It might be thrown out anyway because it was not voted on at a special election. If it is ruled a general tax, then Steinberg and the City Council might be guilty of election fraud for making promises they know they don’t have to, or cannot, keep.

Jan Bergeron

Sacramento

via sactoletters@newsreview.com

Bad measures, bad endorsements

Re: “You better f@%#ing vote!” by SN&R staff (Opinion, October 18):

As a local advocate, I’m shocked by your support for Measure K and Measure U. Measure U: Sales taxes disproportionately affect people in poverty. Further, we are expected to trust the City Council to use the funds in a responsible way, with zero outline of how the tax funds will be allocated. Need I remind you that this City Council has time and again shown a tendency to spend irresponsibly? Measure K: starts out sounding good, but gives the City Council appoint the city auditor, whom is supposed to be independent and act as a financial watch dog. (Interesting since they’re trying to raise more tax money without any spending plan for those taxes). It would also allow the City Council to change how they hold meetings, including eliminating public comments for matters not on the agenda. If passed, this measure would further shield council members from being held accountable. I hope your readers do their own research on these measures, because it seems that you have not.

James Faygo

Sacramento

via sactoletters@newsreview.com

Pay up

Re: “You better f@%#ing vote!” by SN&R staff (Opinion, October 18):

[Mayor Darrell] Steinberg is rightly stressing that if we want goods or services we must pay what they cost. But it is puzzling that he says “We can’t put on the measure what we’re going to do…” Why not? This has been a problem with the state’s gasoline taxes.

Hugh Montgomery

Sacramento

via newsreview.com

Time for a Sacramento Kings reboot

Re: “The once and present king” by John Flynn (Feature, October 18):

Fire everybody.

Brian Fraser

Sacramento

via Facebook