Editor:

A question has been asked about citizen’s viewpoint on ½ % sales tax increase in Antioch, it did not mention that it would last for 7 years.

Before I reply to the question, I believe that my observations are necessary to clarify my opposition to Measure “C”. It will be a single item on the Ballot on November 5^th. I forecast a small voter turn-out which, unfortunately, will not fully represent citizen opinion on this major issue.

I make this plea: Please, please vote. We need a high count. That is very important. It sends a message to our politicians’ to consider before they attempt to raise more Taxes in Antioch. The Mayor has told me that he believes a large majority of Antioch support Measure “C”. If the count is something like 2000 YES and 1985 NO is that a real majority?

My desire is to give the reader background information (as a pseudo reporter) especially to those who do not attend City Council Meetings.

I have been sitting on street corners with a sign asking for “NO on “C”. I am amazed how many people have been asking “what this is about”. That is what prompted me to write this commentary.

I am going back to original items that were on agendas concerning additional money to hire more police officers. My reason is also to shed light on how our city manages business. Then the heading of this document will be obvious.

I have attended every Antioch City Council Meeting that had the Sales Tax issue on the agenda. In the beginning there were 2 measures being proposed. The one not on the ballot, was designed to collect additional money from business license fees on rental properties.

Let’s start at the very beginning to give you knowledge of “how” this Measure was allowed on a ballot in the first place.

The City Council declared a Fiscal Emergency using increase in crime to authorize Measure “C”. A consolidated statement to be used on the Ballot was sent to the CCC Elections Department. (CCCED). The CCCED required the City to agree to pay Ballot costs. The Council complied immediately approving the cost of over $22,000.00. That is charged even if the measure fails. A very costly deficit win or loose.

PROPOSED MEASURES:

First agenda item proposed increasing income from Business Rental Fees. Currently Apartment and Multiple Dwellings are charged rental fees, Single rented Residences are not.

The idea was to charge a $20.00 monthly license fee on single rented properties. The money would be used for additional Officers.

A number of homes have been bought in bulk, are owned by investors for the sole purpose of making money, a return on investment (ROI). ROI from dwellings is certainly a Business and has made a large impact citywide.

Adding single or multiply owned individual property to require payment of Rental License Fees would equalize treatment to all parties in the rental business.

The second agenda item (it became Measure “C”) was also proposed. An increase in Sales Tax by ½% for 10 years was introduced. The money was also to go to the Police Department. It was amended to make it more “digestible” from 10 to “only” 7 years. This was done to obtain support by The City Chamber of Commerce, it was their idea. (Perhaps off the subject; in my opinion, The ACC group has not attracted new business into Antioch for years.)

Council members Harper and Agopain made many statements telling us that we need more officers to “prevent” and “reduce” crime. Police statistics were used to support their claims. The need for more safety stressed.

Both the Mayor and Council Members said that they were not going to “let criminals take over our city”. The solution is more police meaning more “boots on the streets”. They insinuated that criminals would not want to come into Antioch because added police would defer them.

There were never explanations as to “how” the additional officers could prevent or reduce crime. Unfortunately a set of new crime statistics had not reached their desks that might have enlightened them. Those statistics showed lower percentages crime (excluding murder from 3 to 5; I ask you, how can Police prevent murder?)

I made citizen comments at every meeting suggesting alternatives. I talked of more focus on developing cohesive neighborhoods instead of more police. I gave our Council documents about the city of Richmond’s applied efforts to reduce crime which was independent of police methods; something that Antioch might apply.

I stated that more officers would not “prevent or reduce crime”, it might reduce “response time” but Police intervention is after the crime has been committed.

There’ll always be criminals; they know consequences if caught in the act but have no fear of police. Suggesting that they will avoid Antioch because of additional officers is a farce.

The City Council (not listening to any input) was not sure how voters would react if both of the Agenda items were placed on the ballot. They feared defeat similar to Measure “P” three years ago. (Note: That measure required a 2/3 voter approval and failed.)

The Council placed an order for an Independent Survey of constituents to help them determine what to do. The cost of the Survey was $18,000.00. Only 400 Citizens were surveyed. The forecast resulted in an “estimate” that if both measures were on a ballot one would fail.

A well-known group up of citizens ‘The Breakfast Club”(which consists of former council members, Ex-mayor, and other businessmen) appeared before the Council and advised them that they were in support of applying the Rental Fees but were against any Sales Tax increase. I had also pleaded (twice) saying that the fee option was best because it was fairness in business, would provide a stable yearly amount of money, and it wouldn’t be limited to 10 years.

After the survey results were interpreted which indicated that if both items were placed on the ballot “one would fail” (and advice that a 2/3 majority vote would also be very risky). Our City Council deleted the Rental Fee idea and choose to go ahead with only the increased Sales Tax Measure.

Then with fear of failure placing it on the ballot with specific use of funds to the Police Department requiring a 2/3 majority vote. They modified the earlier decision changing direction to send the money into the General Fund. Measure “C” reasons changed! Can we still claim the “emergency” Read the ballot the reason for the tax has been changed! The tax is no longer going to the Police Department it will (supposedly) be divided into a fair distribution for ALL city service improvements. Manipulation?

To influence a yes vote by citizens the Council has promised to set-up (yet another) Commission as oversight of tax expenditures. The group of 7 will report once a year, will be appointed by the Mayor, and will have no power.

If you read the “Yes on “C” signs , and receive a big post card, and stickers on your newspaper you should take the time to find out where all of the money to pay for this massive advertising is coming from . Data is available at the City Clerk’s office. My investigation indicates that people owning multiple single unit rental properties have contributed over $30,000.00. Their Ads are propaganda. All placards tell you the money is for more police! This deception is supported by the Mayor and Council Members. I have reported $150.00 contribution for NO NEW TAXES signs without deception.

In closing I offer this for your consideration: The addition of Police Officers to “Prevent Crime” is pure speculation. The change directing income into the General Fund is a manipulation.

If Measure “C” passes the City Council will likely continue “deficit spending”, they have in the past and there is no reason to believe this will change. It is likely that hiring more police will start before money for tax has been collected and placed into the General Fund. The old “Buy now Pay later” repeatedly used by our “leaders” is one of the reasons that our city is near bankruptcy today.

Considering money contributed to influence the “WIN” compared to the amount spent supporting LOOSE makes me feel like it is a David vs. Goliath battle.

I assure you that I am not against any improvement of our Police Department. I supported the Rental Business Fee, I own and rent one property and had no problem with that proposal.

There is more to consider, just months ago Police Department benefits were increased. Retirement benefits cost went up. (Another “spend forward action”). The Police Chief pleaded for the extra money to lure (some costly) “experienced” officers. Some he had interviewed wanted more than our city was currently offering.

The Council moved without hesitation and approved that request and we will pay for it year after year. It is deficit spending! (Note: The Police Association can demand more when labor negotiations re-open and no ballot measure is required for increased in city spending.)

Placing “C” on the Ballot because we need more income to eliminate an “EMERGENCY” is wool over the County Elections Departments eyes. We have been in an “emergency” state for the last 5 (or more) years! Why the “emergency” now? Why wasn’t it declared before the huge reductions of all city services? That is a mystery to me.

I think our citizens should have been asked to send written ideas on possible solutions to reduce debt and used to develop and implement a strategy to solve our problems. That, however would require more than a 3 minute input at meetings and it might be considered as interference.

November 5^th is my 79^th Birthday. I have been a resident since I was 9 ½ years of age. I hope David mentioned earlier will prevail. I thank you for reading this to the end. I have tried to minimize insinuation, within this article, it is opinion, and everything written is based on my participation and observations of City Council actions for many months.

I will appreciate your Gift at the Ballot Box when you Vote “NO on “C”. Again, I thank all of you for reading this to the end.

Fred Hoskins, Antioch

By Barbara Zivica

A newspaper arrived at my home this week with a Yes on Measure C sticker on the front page as did two mailers urging me to vote Yes on the half cent sales tax increase on the November 5^th ballot. One mailer was sent by the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA) and one by Citizens for a Safe Antioch who also paid for the newspaper sticker.

The mailer sent by APOA states that passage of Measure C will result in the hiring of 22 additional police officer positions in Antioch and double code enforcement efforts to inspect and clean up 1,000 blighted properties in Antioch neighborhoods. What audacity! Read Measure C carefully. The City Attorney’s impartial analysis states “The revenue would be deposited into the city’s general fund. It could be used for any legal municipal purpose including: police and emergency response; code enforcement; local economic development and job creation; street repair; and any other city program and service.”

The ambiguity of how the revenues will be spent should prompt you to vote NO on Measure C. The reason the city didn’t put a dedicated police tax measure on the ballot is because it would require 2/3 voter approval to pass rather than a 50% approval plus one vote needed to pass Measure C, a general tax measure, similar one of which was shot down by voters in 2010.

What are the facts? Is Antioch a little short of revenue at the current time? Is the city predicting a problem in the future? Is so, what measures can the city take rather than continually asking voters to absorb another tax increase. Here’s updated city budget facts and some ways in which Council can increase revenues:

In a September 17, 2013 report to the City Manager and Council, City Finance Director Dawn Merchant recommended approval of amendments to the 2014 fiscal year budget, stating that “Fiscal Year 2013 is actually closing with approximately $1.1M higher fund balance than projected, representing approximately $550,000 more in revenues and $556,000 less in expenditures than anticipated.”

She goes on to state that “earlier projections for fiscal 2015 indicated a projected ending fund balance of $511,184 and current projections now are at $2,021,005. While this is just over $1.5M more, this ending fund balance is still alarmingly low and deficit spending is projected to increase to $4.78M.”

Let’s look at some ways the city can maximize existing powers and recover costs to fight crime:

Drug Activity: The CA Drug Abatement Act allows cities, through their city attorney to remove occupants from any building or place where illegal drug activity takes place. Violations are punishable by fines up to $10,00 and 6 months in jail. Additionally, a fine up to $25,000 may be imposed against each defendant, half of which is payable to the prosecuting city., which is also entitled to recover all its attorneys’ fees and investigation costs, including from the property itself with a lien.

Prostitution and Sexual Crimes: The Red Light Abatement Act allows any city, though its city attorney to vacate and board up for one year any building or place used for these crimes. The same penalties and cost recovery rules apply as with the Drug Abatement Act. Cities may use either act without passing an ordinance.

Gang Activity: The city can file a lawsuit against gang members though its city attorney under the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. Every building or place in which gang members commit certain offenses e.g. robbery, murder, unlawful drug sales, rep, intimidation, theft or burglary, any offense involving dangerous or deadly weapons can be declared a public nuisance. A fine may be imposed against individual gang members and the property owner. Attorney fees are recoverable if the city has a properly worded ordinance. Gang injunction programs developed in cooperation with the local district attorney can be a very effective tool in combating gang crime.

Numerous other ordinances allowing the city to impose administrative fines for various violations of the municipal code can be enacted. If the aforementioned violations and other municipal code violations were vigorously enforced and the applicable fines and cost recovery rules followed, the city would be a safer place to live and its coffers benefit from an increase in revenue.

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Opinions expressed by columnists and/or letter writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Antioch Herald, it’s owner, editorial staff or management.

Editor:

In April of 2011, there were serious negative implications towards citizens of Syria who challenged and protested against the authoritarian like government they lived in. Protesters were killed for their activism by troops, which caused many Syrian citizens to rebel and fight for their basic social rights. Ultimately, the controversy resulted in a civil war between these two parties who feuded over a style of government. Recently, there have been claims that Syrian officials have been using chemical weapons against their own citizens. The Obama administration felt that these acts by al-Assad were inhumane and that the United States needed to set a degree of limitation in the current civil war in the Middle East. Al-Assad’s regime has tested the supposed consequences of the Obama administration and will not back down to United States authority. Now, the United States is faced in a dilemma on whether a war on Syria should be declared.

According to the article titled “Syria Death Toll: More than 110,000 Dead In Conflict” by the Huffington Post in September 2013, “The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the toll since the beginning of the 29-month uprising now stands at 110,371 people, with at least 40,146 civilians killed including nearly 4,000 women and more than 5,800 children.” The United States is trying to promote global peace and enforce their power as world police, but wouldn’t a war just add more violence to both Syrian citizens and American troops? According to October 2013 statistic on AntiWar.com, there have been 32,021 American soldiers that have been wounded from the Iraq War. The United States needs to learn from its mistakes.

The national interests of the United States are to not invade Syria. Avoiding intervention will help save the lives of Syrians, as well as American troops. While the United States has made a red line that should not be crossed, it is not worth the unfortunate effects of war. Policy makers and government officials of the United States need to make nonintervention in Syria as a way to promote global peace, not to start another war.

Karan Arora

Antioch

Dear Editor,

As a member of the Antioch Unified School District Board of Education, I recognize that our primary goal as a board is to ensure the safety of all Antioch students. Our capacity to do that relies heavily on the partnerships within and outside the school system. PG&E has continuously provided support to our school by safely operating the Gateway Generating Station, rebuilding the Antioch City Park after a senseless act of arson, and supporting the development of the Antioch Community Center so that we can provide educational opportunities for our city’s youth through specialty programs focusing on the environment and sustainability.

Because of our successful partnership, the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion deeply saddened our board and the entire Antioch community. We were concerned about what this type of explosion may signal about the safety of our local infrastructure. It also left many parents wondering if an outdated pipeline existed near or around their child’s school.

Since then, I am happy to see the significant progress PG&E has made in rebuilding the trust of our parents and community members. After the disaster, PG&E has made critical leadership changes, paid over $70 million in restitution to victims, and, most important, has invested over $2.2 billion in pipeline and infrastructure safety upgrades.

Now that three years have passed since the tragedy, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) staff has recommended a fine so severe it ranks as one of the largest penalties on record, estimated at more than $4 billion including the $2.2 billion PG&E had previously made in pipeline safety upgrades. A large portion of the additional $2.5 billion fine, $300 million, will be directed to the state’s general fund; instead of the safety and infrastructure upgrades that so many of our communities desperately need.

I urge CPUC to focus its attention on safety and infrastructure upgrades and not the political needs of Sacramento. This is one opportunity where we can stand up and demonstrate to parents and families that their children’s safety matter to all of us.

Respectfully,

Joy Motts

President, Antioch Unified School Board of Education

Editor:

Vote “NO” on Antioch’s proposed Measure “C” General Fund Sales Tax.  It’s not a dedicated Police Tax. This General Fund Tax can be used for whatever any Council majority (3) wants!  Measure “C” increases your Sales Tax to 9 cents on the $1 for the taxable items purchased.  Don’t be fooled by their misrepresentations, questionable claims on their misleading signs and mailers!

The claimed police manpower shortage situation has been greatly created and contributed to by the Antioch Police themselves!  It’s also been a result of the weak City Council majorities, City Manager, City staff, unknowing volunteer groups purposely misled, and even the news media who don’t investigate or expose their pretentious charades.  They’ve allowed this to happen, not you!

The APOA always vigorously insisted on pay and benefit increase for themselves, not more manpower when given the choice!  Once the highly paid Police got what they wanted for themselves they then cried out about the lack of manpower and pushed for the need for more taxes (e.g., – the APOA’s President Tom Fuhrman signed the Argument In Favor)!  Do you really know what they’re paid and compensated in Antioch?  Well, we do!  Police recently received 9% in wage increases and an additional 4% more effective on 9/1/13, with more guaranteed yearly increases, costly multiyear contracts, and are keeping their generous “3% at 50” retirement package (where they can retire with 100% of their highest pay)!

Some outrageous Antioch Police and City estimated salaries’ and benefits’ costs are; City Manager $350,000; Chief $330,000; Lts. $285,000; Sgts. $240,000; Corporals $200,000; Officers $180,000.  The public gets far less, and some with no retirement pay at all. It’s disgraceful!

They’re again using scare tactics to just tax you more!  This tax increase is unnecessary!  Increasing existing taxes isn’t the solution!  More taxes benefits those favoring its passage and those receiving future increased raises, benefits, and extremely generous pensions!  You shouldn’t pay for their uncontrolled overspending and mismanagement!

Property values are continuing to increase and as adjustments are made the City will receive more tax revenue!  The State has recently raised gasoline taxes by 3.5 cents more per gallon!  We have continuing increases in costs for our foods, utilities, sewer, groceries, medical, and unemployment! Antioch’s already raised water, garbage rates, business fees, etc.  Enough already!

City officials must do more to cut costs, or get out and let others do the right things!  Stop overspending, and definitely cut back excessive salaries and benefits for those overcompensated employees.

Vote “NO” on Antioch’s Measure “C”.

CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY

Ralph A. Hernandez, Chairperson and former Antioch City Council Member

Frazier, DeSaulnier support another anti-family bill by a San Francisco legislator

Commentary by Allen Payton

Once again, California’s Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that undermines the family and morality in our state.

This time he signed into law a bill, SB 274, by Democrat Senator Mark Leno from San Francisco, allowing children to legally have more than two parents. Brown vetoed a similar bill, last year.

According to a press release from Leno’s office, “Senate Bill 274 allows courts to recognize the rights and responsibilities of each parent if recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child.”

It was sponsored by the Children’s Advocacy Institute and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

SB 274 becomes state law on January 1, 2014.

Also, once again, Antioch’s representatives in Sacramento, State Assemblyman Jim Frazier and State Senator Mark DeSaulnier have both voted for this type of legislation, allowing San Francisco morals to permeate our state. (See vote info here)

Earlier this year they voted for what I call the gender-bender bathroom bill for school children (AB 1266 by San Francisco Democrat Assemblyman Tom Ammiano), allowing kids to determine what sex they and then use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex, as well as the bill (AB 154) making it easier to get an abortion, by allowing non-doctors to perform the medical procedure. (See vote info here and here)

Why do the Democrats in Sacramento do this? Because they coalesce with the LGBT community, which is one of their bases of support during elections.

Fortunately, a referendum effort is in process on

I’m pretty sure that voters of Contra Costa, Eastern Alameda and Solano Counties didn’t elect either Frazier, a self-proclaimed Catholic nor the Jesuit-educated DeSaulnier, to approve of such legislation. We sent them to Sacramento to solve our economic and budget problems. And that’s what they should be focusing on and resisting this type of legislation. It’s time they both grew backbones and stood up to the extreme elements in their party and legislators in our capital and voted against them and their anti-family bills.

If you’d like to help gather signatures to put the referendum on the ballot to repeal AB 1266, visit http://privacyforallstudents.com/.

By Barbara Zivica

Last year the Antioch City Council decided against placing a parcel tax for additional Police Dept. funding on the November ballot. One wonders if the council would have made the same decision if there weren’t three open seats up for election, including the mayor’s seat. This year it’s a different story. The City (council) is spending more than $200,000 to get voters to approve the deceptive sales tax increase ballot Measure C.

Although it’s being heavily promoted by the council and the police chief as the solution to an understaffed police department, scrutiny of the measure reveals that any funds received from increasing the tax on all our purchases for the next 7 years, will go into the city’s General Fund and can be used for any legal governmental purpose. The measure was purposely written in this manner to enable an easier passage, requiring only 50% plus one yes votes to be approved. A specific tax measure requiring all additional sales tax revenues be directed to police services and public safety would require 2/3 voter approval whichm apparently the council doesn’t think would pass.

Measure C is similar to Measure P, Antioch’s 2010 sales tax measure which, council should note, failed. Failure was attributed to opponents being worried about the impact on local businesses and wary of the fact that the money was not guaranteed to go to the police department:

A few facts for you to consider before you vote:

Prop 30 (Governor Jerry Brown) passed in November, 2012, raising the sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5% and increasing upper income brackets, increases which applied retroactively to all income earned or received since the first of January, 2012. Another voter approved state law which also passed amended specific pension formulas for public employees (2.7% at age 55 for police officers and 2% at age 62 for other employee categories, effective January 1, 2013.

On December 27, 2012, in order to avoid the new law which would freeze the benefit level for lateral (experienced) officers, the newly sworn in Mayor and council members, urged on by the Police Chief, adopted an “urgency ordinance” amending recent negotiations which extended the existing contract with police until 2016 and specified that police hired after September 1 would have to wait until age 55 to collect the 3% retirement benefit, saving the city up to $2.5 million.

The council ignored a recent comparison showing that Antioch pension benefit levels matched or exceeded 10 of 15 nearby cities and restored the 3% retirement benefit at age 50 for newly hired lateral officers, stating the move was necessary to attract more experienced officers.

Being that the police department continues to be understaffed, it’s clear to me that, in order to assure the public’s safety, we need to adopt more proactive policing policies like those under Chief James Hyde, rather than continue the reactive policing policies practiced now, practices similar to former Chief Dave Lewis.

NOTE: Property tax values are moving upward again. In July, County Assessor Gus Kramer told the Board of Supervisors “The increase to the local tax base for 2013-14 is over $4.87 billion. This represents a 3.45% increase in assessed value and brings the total local assessment roll to over $146 billion, just 6.92% away from the county’s record assessed value, which was set in 2008. Cities with the largest increases in assessed value are: Antioch, (7.38%), Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley and Walnut Creek.

Editor:

Knowing City Councilman Gary Agopian as I do, I expected nothing less from the man than his spirited resolve to fight brain cancer with every ounce of his faith and his pledge to continue public service.

In four years serving with him on the Antioch School Board, through thick and thin, I never saw him flinch from challenge. I never saw him bitch, moan or whine, He’s a trooper and a certified positivist and if anybody can beat cancer, this warrior is the one to do so.

Knowing Mary Rocha, I again expected nothing less from this big-hearted woman than her glowing praise for Gary’s character. She, like so many of us, have grown to love Gary and to see him not as a towering 6’4” giant but as a teddy bear at heart.

You hit the bulls eye, Mary, when you characterized Gary as enormously dedicated to public service and a policy wonk who is always prepared. I found the same in him. There’s never any mistaking his unflappable commitment to homework, to the public goodwill, to speaking his mind and  to sticking to his conviction.

His charm is that beneath the passion is a gentleman’s soft streak. if Gary disagrees with you it is never personal and always respectful.

Certainly, all voters will, and should not, always agree on every policy decision but life is bigger than politics. I would daresay that all Antioch citizens of good faith are rooting for your recovery, Gary. You’re, after all, a good man, Charlie Brown. Antioch’s proud to have you.

Spit in the eye of this nemesis. Trust, a legion of prayers are with you.

Godspeed your recovery, my dear friend.

Walter Ruehlig

Antioch