To the editor:

On December 6, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted election procedures for Prop 218, a new property-related fee which will be imposed throughout Contra Costa County. This is apparently a parcel tax disguised as a “Clean Water Fee.”

A public hearing to discuss the proposed fee has been scheduled for February 7, 2012. Written notices were allegedly mailed in mid-December 2011 to record owners of each identified parcel (or everyone who owns property in Contra Costa County). I own my home in Antioch, but, to date, have not received my notice. Have you?

At the public hearing, the Board will consider all protests against this fee. If written protests are presented by a majority of property owners, then the fee will not be imposed. Otherwise, ballots will be mailed 45 days prior to election close date of April 6, 2012. A majority vote by mail-in voters is sufficient to impose this new fee.

The election process to approve Prop 218 is a farce. It was designed to avoid detection rather than truly give the people a voice. The county has more than 1 million people. How many are property owners? Could the chambers of the Board of Supervisors accommodate all property owners? Why require written protest at a public hearing? Why the urgency and not wait for a regular election? How much more will election by mail cost? Do we really need to burden people struggling to pay their mortgage with a new tax?

Noticeably, District 3 Supervisor Mary Piepho has immediately started her campaign for approval of Prop 218 through her December 7, 2011 article appearing in Contra Costa Times titled “Delta At Risk And Needs Our Help Now.” She has also hit the campaign trail speaking before the Antioch City Council on the urgent needs of the delta without actually mentioning the Board of Supervisors’ plan to tax property owners with a “Clean Water Fee.”

Once imposed, this tax will be with you for ten years. On February 7, 2012, you have a choice; speak up (and write down your protest); or get out your checkbook.

Cynthia Ruehlig

To the editor:

As a neighborly follow-up to your posting wisely alerting people to be wary of opening a door to strangers, we have had kids going through our neighborhood asking to rake leaves. Having mowed lawns and shoveled snow as a youngster, I am never one to impede youthful enterprise.

Leave it to Beaver, though, is no longer the norm in these less than innocent times. Alarmingly, older kids are sometimes not far behind the avowed rakers. Somehow that makes you wonder.

Just like there is no such thing as a stupid question, there is no such thing as a stupid call to the police. Ask our men and women in blue to be vigilant and maybe drive by. This, after all, is a repeat of the common practice of kids ringing your bell collecting for a basketball league or some such extra-curricular activity. Truth be told, I not only habitually get puzzled at the private club they represent as it seems I have never heard of it.

Worse yet, given the burglary climate, I have bigger fears than contributing to a possible sham. It could be legit; it could be a set-up. It’s easy to feel guilty because we don’t want to doubt people asking for help, but preying on guilt can be a practiced art. Consider the studies that show that as much as 70% and upwards of beggars use their panhandled money for drugs.

You owe it to your family. Better safe than sorry.

I must confess that as a former New Yorker I have had to adjust to casual California where the doors rarely have peepholes and police locks (now called door jammers or braces) are uncommon. Those devices are poles, like long car clubs, that stick in the floor propped into the door. It would take a battering ram to force the door open.

New Yorkers take this stuff seriously and, obviously, jammers are far better than the useless door chain. Those decorative bracelets might stop a seven year old but they, and sorry to say, that $30 lock you are so proud of, are laughable to even a mere 130-pound crack addict with two good legs looking for their next fix.

Advice: If you are a woman and answer the door you might wish to yell upstairs, “honey, it’s some kids” -even if no male is home it sends a message you’re not to be messed with.

Incidentally, I met a fellow at the Golden Gate Bell Ringer and Boys Chorus concert last night who said that nine homes on his block had recently been burglarized. Five of them had previously shrugged off joining the local Neighborhood Watch group. Any wonder why they now sing a different tune?

Walter Ruehlig

I don’t want to sound like the Grinch who stole Christmas, but I find it ironic that BART, which is planning a future ballot measure to ask voters in 3 counties to approve a $651 million dollar parcel tax to replace aging train cars, last week gave commuters more than 65,000 vouchers for free round trip rides. (Last year BART distributed 60,000 free round trip vouchers.)

Because, like Ben Franklin I believe “A penny saved is a penny earned”, I object to taxpayer-subsidized public agencies acting like Santa Claus and handing out thousands of dollars of freebies. Therefore, I decided to query BART as to the actual cost of their holiday shopping promotion.

I was subsequently informed that this year’s holiday promotion cost BART approximately the same as last year’s promotion, e.g. $25,000 to print the vouchers, hire the street teams to hand them out and other associated costs, and that the promotions were designed specifically to increase leisure ridership as the vast majority of riders use it solely during weekdays to get to and from work.

BART’s communication officer also told me that “last year’s promotion didn’t cost us anything, rather it made money. This is for two reasons: as I mentioned, not all trips taken with the free tickets would have been made without the incentive because those people normally would have been making the trip in a car. We’re not losing money because that person would have been driving anyway.

“Second, many of the riders using free tickets last year brought along companions who paid full fare. In fact, 36% of those riding last year did so with an average of 1.82 fare-paying companions, thereby adding to our revenue Even using the conservative numbers (total expenditure for last year’s promotion $24,207.59), the program made its money back and 28% in additional revenue.”

Frankly, I’m having a hard time following BART’s logic. BART has a history of inaccurate financial projections and a problem increasing ridership. BART does, however, know how to wage strong public relations campaigns.

Although one of the latest got called out on the carpet after the Bay Citizen ran an article on September 15th entitled “BART Promises to Stop Faking the News”. The reporter noted that BART Board President Bob Franklin promised the embattled agency would stop trying to push fake news, referring to a clumsy media manipulation strategy hatched by former BART spokesman Lindon Johnson who had tried unsuccessfully to recruit loyal passengers to attend a press conference and read from a BART-friendly script he wrote.

Although he spent public funds on limos to ferry the loyal passengers, none showed up. Franklin said the agency decided to never do that again. However, Johnson’ s direct boss Jennifer Barton said it was not the first time the public agency had given loyal customers “talking points” to use with the news media.

Let’s hope BART turns a new leaf in the New Year.

———————-

Original column:

I find it ironic that BART, which continually cries poor mouth, last week gave commuters more than 65,000 vouchers for free round-trip rides to lure them to take transit to do their Christmas shopping.

Let’s take a look at what the hit was to BART’s budget. A ONE-way trip ride from Walnut Creek to Montgomery Street Station in San Francisco is $4.75, a ONE-way trip from Pittsburg/Bay Point to San Francisco is $5.95.

The vouchers were for ROUND-trip rides. Using the single fare rate, a round-trip voucher from Walnut Creek to Montgomery Street Station would be $9.50 ($9.50 times 65,000 is $61,750). A round-trip voucher from Pittsburg/Bay Point would be $11.90 ($11.90 times 65,000 is $77,350.)

I know that senior fares and clipper cards are cheaper than the above quoted rate, but that’s not the point. A taxpayer-subsidized transit system shouldn’t be acting like Santa Claus and doling out thousands of dollars in a vain hope to increase ridership.

The BART board of directors, which includes former Antioch mayor Joel Keller, should be ashamed of themselves.

By Mary Nejedly Piepho
District III Supervisor
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

Many may remember the fierce water battle days of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. These battles culminated in the California State Legislature passing legislation that authorized the construction of a Peripheral Canal that would have had significant negative impacts on Contra Costa County, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta and the San Francisco Bay.

Some involved in those water policy negotiations are still around, like former county supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak, retired state legislator Daniel E. Boatwright, Governor Jerry Brown and Congressman George Miller. Unfortunately others are not around, like my dad the late state senator John A. Nejedly.

In 1982 a grass-roots effort ultimately defeated the Peripheral Canal by a state-wide voter initiative. While that battle was won on behalf of the Delta and good public policy, the interest and focus of those who sought our water to begin with never went away.

In 2009 the California State Legislature again took up the issue of water supply and reliability for all Californians by convening an Extraordinary Session to focus solely on water. The culmination of this legislative session was the creation of SBX7-1, a comprehensive package reforming governance of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and related aspects of statewide water management.

It became clear the Delta and our local interests were in the cross-hairs of Southern California and Valley interests. A water grab was once again at play. The five Delta County Coalition (DCC) was formed to enhance our advocacy and we have been working feverishly ever since. Our goal is to interject local interests into the development of any policy related to our Delta.

We sought and won in the SBX7-1 legislative language protections for the Delta “as a place”, reduce reliance on the Delta, establish “co-equal goals” and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, restructure the Delta Protection Commission to better represent local government and stake-holders, promote regional self-sufficiency, and designate the Delta as a National Heritage Area.

“‘Co-equal goals’ means the two goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.” (CA Water Code §85054)

We did not succeed however on gaining meaningful representation (we sought 3 Delta seats) on the newly formed Delta Stewardship Council (DSC), but we did get a seat for the chair of the Delta Protection Commission (DPC).

We sought legislative oversight over the newly formed Delta Stewardship Council and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). This request was important for us because the power behind water is money and votes. In this regard, northern California is in a very vulnerable position. Unfortunately, this good public policy request was denied.

The five Delta Coalition sought oversight that had direct accountability to the public and the taxpayer. The DSC operates under a public meeting format, but the sitting members are appointed by the Governor and legislature. What the DSC ultimately decides to do under their legislated authority, which includes development of a Delta Plan to “guide state and local actions in the Delta in a manner that furthers the co-equal goals of Delta restoration and water supply reliability”, is final. Whether we like it or not.

This is extremely relevant, particularly since the DSC also has the authority to hear appeals with regard to determinations that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) has met its legal standards under Water Code Section 85320.

Here is the kicker. The BDCP is the Peripheral Canal of the 21st Century. The BDCP is project based, i.e. canal construction, and is paid for principally by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Kern County Water Agency, and Westlands Water District to the tune of $240 million dollars. A third is paid for by the federal government (which means me and you). This is only for the cost of permits and does not include any construction or mitigation expenses. The BDCP provides 50-year operating permits under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts.

There is no question that our Delta is at risk and needs our help. It is time for us to work together and perform as our citizens deserve. We must first begin with identifying what the Delta and Bay need to get healthy and stay that way. Until then, the fight will continue.

To the editor:

Ready for this? St. Ignatius of Antioch Church, which has been hit three, yes count ’em, three times, for copper, twice within a week, had another attempted ripoff the other night. Luckily, the thief was frightened off by one of the volunteer parishioners who give up their warm beds to patrol the church grounds nightly.

You must have read how for the second time BART was vandalized, with the thieves going out on the tracks themselves. Here in Antioch, this week Marsh Elementary School got hit for the second time. And the beat goes on and on. If you’ve got copper faucets or copper pennies laying around the house, you better have a guard dog. These people are crazed!

On another note, my neighbor was monitoring their outside video cameras the other afternoon when they saw five male youth approach a neighboring house of folks vacationing in Europe. The suspects then proceeded to kick the door down.

My neighbor called the police, but no patrol car was available because of a fight somewhere in Antioch. Eight minutes later the thieves started leaving the house and my neighbor called the police again.

This time they sent out five cars and were apparently able to catch at least two of the suspects, who were running through back yards and climbing fences, including my mother in law’s around the corner from me. In fact, one of the suspects was filmed taking out a change of clothes from his backpack but didn’t change his flaming red socks. The foolishness of youth!

My best advice: get an alarm (which the broken-into folks didn’t have; try to get a house sitter if you are gone; have a dog; iron gate your door; start a Neighborhood Watch. The police are doing their best, but with a force down well over 30 uniformed cops, the ruling maxim is that God helps those who help themselves.

Walter Ruehlig
Antioch

I really thought the treadmill would change things – mainly my thighs. Instead, I now have a new $300 clothes rack with cup holder (for my chocolate shakes), parked strategically in front of the TV.

Good intentions quickly convert into “not intended for those purposes” real quick-like in my pad.

I see myself getting up, mummy-style, before the rooster crows (or the upstairs neighbor starts showering). I do 10 minutes of brisk walking, then five of running at 3.2 miles per hour. Sweat begins dripping three minutes in, excessive gasps for air rapidly replace the garbled snoring just 15 minutes earlier – then I wake up, treadmill still cold from non-use. Do you burn calories while you dream of running?

Just weeks old, fresh from the big, bulky box (resembling my body) it had been yanked from, this apparatus, this melter-o-flab machine, this torturous hunk of metal with indicator knobs and a circulatory floor mat, bring tears to my eyes and guilt to my conscience. Yes, I pay happily and willingly for infliction of pain. I pay for self-chastisement too. But at least I envision the pay-off. Who doesn’t?

See, what I’m really doing is paying for privacy and good (stuffy) apartment air. Unlike the gym, at home I can run 24/7, with or without make-up, and watch “real” women on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.

Added bonus: I don’t have to chat with a complete stranger-dude who doesn’t know that turning 10 shades of red coupled with extremely heavy panting is biological charades for “I really can’t talk right now, bozo.”

Treading at home means I can wear my cute outfits (that don’t fit cute anymore), without having to don an extra-large cotton tee shirt to cover up what I’m trying to lose. And I could run, hop, skip and jump (off the unit) with no threats of annihilation from a trainer-slash-salesperson wanting me to get on a “program,” down protein powders (now sold in Costco-sized containers) and pop meal-metabolizing pills with the healthy foods I’m supposed to be eating.

Back off, junior-experts with commission checks, I only down Mexican food in those large quantities.

In my humble who-cares-what-I-think-anyway opinion, working out in public (without the trim, fit, you must be starving yourself-bods) is like performing a comedy set without using words or worse yet, in underwear-only. I’d rather go on stage “fit” and prepared (and fully clothed), than vulnerably exposed. The Full Monty, in this case, is just not my idea of weight loss.

Meanwhile, back at the apartment, my newfound dust-collector piece of furniture has potential. It promises me a thinner tomorrow, a private adventure towards a more energized me, and a healthier, cardiovascular circulatory system just begging to challenge any 10-year-old to a race … to the nearest ice cream shop.

Charleen Earley is a freelance writer, humor columnist, comedienne and high school journalism teacher. She can be reached at charleenbearley@gmail.com.

After watching and listening to some of the more rational people involved in the Occupy movement across the country, it’s obvious they share some common ground with the concerns and complaints expressed by the Tea Party folks, over the past few years.

Both are concerned with the big banks and the taxpayer-funded bailouts to the financial industry, while the average American homeowner lost thousands of dollars in value without receiving any bailout, and the fact that some are still losing their homes, today.

But, the solutions are different. It appears that the Occupy forces look at big business as bad and government as good. They want more government. On the other hand the Tea Party folks want less government and more individual freedom and responsibility.

The problem isn’t capitalism, it’s both immoral and irresponsible individuals who use our free market system to take advantage of others for their own financial gain, and politicians who keep using tax dollars to benefit those who contribute to their campaigns. That’s not capitalism. It’s crony socialism.

John Adams once stated “our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people.”

The same goes for all aspects of our free society – government and the private sector, included.

Government needs to do a better job of regulating the financial industry – especially the largest institutions, and prohibit the creation of esoteric investment vehicles without true value, such as derivatives.

Those in the private sector should not be motivated by greed and should make sure that whatever actions they take and investments they make are responsible and will not hurt another person.

It’s called the Golden Rule.

One thing many in both camps have in common is the desire to rein in the Federal Reserve that controls our interest rates and has been overprinting our currency, devaluing it, causing inflation.

Next year we have an opportunity to find common ground and vote out those in office in Washington, D.C. who have been part of the problem, and forgotten whose hard-earned money they’re spending (ours), whose future they’re putting deeper in debt (our children and grandchildren) and vote in a group of responsible representatives.

Police should instead contribute more to retirement

Antioch City Manager Jim Jakel said recently that the city’s current 2011-12 budget deficit is projected to increase in the 2012-13 fiscal year, and if the city can’t come to an resolution with the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA), the city will have to consider changing police staffing hours and reducing services.

Reduce services? Services have already been cut drastically. The police department is understaffed, gone are code enforcement officers and city departments are closed on Fridays.

City officials have been having ongoing discussions with APOA, which agreed earlier in the year to pay 3% of the 9% employee share of their age 50 retirement benefit. This concession expires January lst, although the city‘s contract with APOA doesn‘t end until August 2013. For this small concession, the Council, unbelievably, awarded them two extra holidays a year!

APOA should note that Contra Costa County deputy sheriffs just ratified a two-year contract that not only will cut their pay 2.8% but require them to pay 80% of any increase in their pension premium increases in 2012 and 75% in 2013. Starting in mid 2013, deputies will pay their FULL share of retirement contributions.

In addition, Governor Jerry Brown has come up with a 12-point pension proposal, which he recently presented to his Joint Conference Committee on Public Employee Pensions. One component of his proposal could cost local workers more because of a provision requiring equal sharing of pension costs between employer and employee.

State workers are less likely to be impacted because most state employees are paying more than or close to half the total normal cost. In comparison, most local government employees are paying less than half the normal cost.

As Ed Mendel at Cal Pensions wrote, “A boost in what employees pay for their pensions would allow employers to cut their pension payments by a similar amount. So the governor’s pension plan could provide budget relief for struggling local governments.”

Interesting to Note: CalPERS newsletter (PERSpective Fall 2011) informed retirees that STATE retirees that are enrolled in a CalPERS Medicare health plan may be entitled to a reimbursement of all or part of their Medicare Part B premium provided the Part B reimbursement not exceed the difference between the maximum employee contribution and the premium for the health plan.

Additionally, the state retiree could be eligible for an ADDITIONAL Medicare Part B reimbursement if the retiree has a higher income level and paid a higher premium because they are subject to an Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount. This provision doesn’t apply to local government workers who are enrolled in a CalPERS Medicare health plan.

Perhaps one of the first budget cuts Governor Brown could start with is abolishing this special perk for state workers. Unfortunately, he too, like some of our local officials, is afraid to buck unions.