As election day approaches I am urging people to use their heads and not their emotions and to vote No on Measure Y.

Why?  I have yet to hear an honest, forthright response from the City Manager or the City Council to requests for factual information on exactly which essential city services would suffer or be cut out if Measure Y fails to pass.

An informed electorate deserves facts, not half-truths nor appeals to “doom and gloom” scenarios.  No one has provided me or the rest of the voters with information from responsible sources that can be used to assist voters in their choice at the polls on November 6^th.  Surrogates with opinions abound, but responsible city governance has been factually silent.

I believe in responsible city government with the best interest of the taxpayers, not vested interests, at heart.  Until I see this happen, I will vote No on Measure Y and urge other Piedmonters to do the same.

Jim McCrea, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates or ballot measures. 

Comments From Measure Y Supporters-

One thing that makes Piedmont exceptional is our commitment to excellence in public services, parks and facilities. Measure Y, with no increase in taxes, simply renews the revenue raised by the municipal parcel tax to ensure Piedmont maintains this commitment.  At approximately $9 a week, the parcel tax is less than similar taxes in comparable cities. While it is laudable and important to address concerns over public spending, Measure Y, the municipal parcel tax renewal, is a good deal in these fiscally difficult times.  Maintain our legacy and vote Yes on Measure Y.

> Click to read more…

Vote No on Y to stop City intimidation and silencing of residents –

For the first time in my 21 years as a Piedmont resident, I will vote against the city’s parcel tax. I do so for several reasons that other dissenting voters have described at this website and elsewhere.  These include reckless growth in the cost of city government and incompetent management of capital projects.   But another reason arises from a darker, more insidious circumstance that I, perhaps like other Piedmonters, had until now chosen to ignore rather than confront.  I refer to the City Council’s use of its privileged position and of city resources to intimidate citizens who speak out against Council catering to special interests.  The most egregious example of this reprehensible behavior came when a Piedmont homeowner objected to the Council’s attempt to manipulate the results of a neighborhood vote on utility undergrounding.  After the Council refused to comply with its own rules on the fraction of positive votes needed to implement undergrounding, a homeowner in the proposed district went to court to ask for relief.  Rather than defending the city’s interests in the suit, the Council instead chose to counter sue under provisions that would have inflicted heavy financial penalties on the homeowner.  The court, in ruling for the homeowner, noted that no competent lawyer would have brought the city’s suit.  The Council, however, included 3 presumably competent lawyers and had a City Attorney on staff.  As Piedmonters, therefore, we can draw no inference other than the Council intended to intimidate the homeowner, and any others who resisted undergrounding, into silence.  That attempt to intimidate a citizen cost Piedmont taxpayers over $600,000 in legal fees and settlement costs.

> Click to read more…

Opponents’ Claims Defy Logic –

We’re fortunate to live in a city that has beautiful, well-maintained parks, a superior recreation program for our kids, wonderful fire and police protection. I don’t know why anybody would want to jeopardize the excellent services we have by voting against measure Y. Opponents of the tax claim all they want is that services would not have to be cut if the city budget was cut by more than 7%, but their claims defy logic.

> Click to read more…

Council support for Measure Y was not unanimous-

There you go again, Measure Y proponents. Continuing to misinform and mislead Piedmont voters. At the outset, there was the completely false claim in your ballot argument in the Voter Information Pamphlet that, “The City Council unanimously supports renewal of the existing Municipal Services Tax . . . “. Even when the proponents acknowledged their material misstatement, when there was time to correct the submission, they chose not to do so. To let the statement stand is an egregious, misleading act.  > Click to read more…

The League of Women Voters of California recommends Yes or No votes on five measures on the November 6 statewide ballot –

YES on Prop 30: Proposition 30 begins to move California toward financial stability and adequate funding for all the services we want from our government; we can’t continue to cut vital public services such as schools and public safety.

NO on Prop 31: Proposition 31 is based on good intentions and has some pieces that, taken alone, the League could support. However, Proposition 31 has several significant flaws and raises questions about whether or not the provisions allow local governments to suspend state environmental requirements.

NO on Prop 32: This measure is not the campaign finance reform measure its proponents say it is. Proposition 32 promises “political reform” but is actually designed by special interests to help themselves and harm their opponents. It unfairly targets one set of large campaign donors while giving other donors unlimited power.

YES on Prop 34: The SAFE California Act will replace the death penalty in California with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Convicted killers will stay in prison for the rest of their lives, eliminating the possibility of executing an innocent person in California. It will save over $100 million every year— because the court and incarceration costs are so much higher for prisoners at risk for a death penalty.

YES on Prop 40: One last step to lock in independent redistricting for California. The League strongly urges a “YES” vote on this referendum on the state Senate maps drawn by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. The question on a referendum is not intuitive; it asks if you want to retain the new law, or in this case, the maps drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.  Vote YES to affirm the maps drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.

NEUTRAL on Prop 38 & Prop 39: Adequate revenue to provide for the public good is critically needed. The League supports Prop 30 on this ballot as the best way to provide some relief from the endless cutting of vital government services. We see some merit in Propositions 38 and 39, but have taken a neutral position on them because of their earmarking of revenues.

For more detailed information on the recommendations, go to www.lwvc.org and click on Ballot Recommendations.  The League has not studied the issues in Propositions 33, 35, 36 and 37, and therefore has no recommendations.

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the League of Women Voters of California.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose ballot measures or candidates.

From a Member of Piedmont League of Women Voters Undergrounding Task Force –

Voting no on Measure Y is not about opposition to taxes or antagonism towards city government, nor is it about ingratitude for all the benefits of living in Piedmont.  I believe it’s about “tough love” — setting limits for the sake of preventing unconstructive, ultimately self- destructive behavior.  It’s sending a clear message of the need for restraint, redirection and problem solving, rather than simply reacting.   The Task Force for the Piedmont Hills Undergrounding District, which I served on, spent many hours researching and identifying the factors that contributed to this project’s $2 million dollar financial fiasco. Among these were inadequate or absent  risk management policies, insufficient oversight, lack of transparency in decision making, and lack of planning and appropriate systemic procedures for dealing with the potential problems associated with major construction projects.  If one reviews the time line of events building to that significant cost to the city and the taxpayers, one sees a sequence of “just this one time” attitudes–  repeated reactivity,  rather than thoughtful problem solving in a devolving situation, a situation which might have been avoided or minimized by planning and anticipation, and by specifying limits clearly.

> Click to read more…

 Tax Helps Pay for Many Special Elements in Piedmont –

Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1980, the residents of Piedmont have realized that for our community to have the things that we as a community value, we needed a City Services Tax.  Our city has had such a tax since 1980, and we have continuously renewed it for the past thirty-two years.  The tax is up for renewal this year and is on our ballot as MEASURE Y.  It will be at the end of your ballot and is not an increase over the past four years.  I urge you to vote YES ON MEASURE Y.  > Click to read more…

Many Contribute Time, Effort, and Expertise  –

Many Piedmont residents are dedicated volunteers who contribute their time and talents to help make our community a better place to live.  Attention has recently focused on Michael Rancer, Chair of the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC), who for the past two years, has applied his expertise and knowledge of budgets and public financing to help shine a bright light on Piedmont’s financial issues.

In 2011, Rancer was selected by the City Council to serve on the MTRC, and was then elected Chair of the Committee by his fellow Committee members. The 9-member Committee met for months in Spring 2011 and, under Rancer’s leadership, produced an extensive analysis of the City’s budget and financial projections.  The report was praised unanimously by the City Council.

In the March 2012 local election, Rancer publicly supported Measure A, the sewer service surcharge, and signed the “pro” argument  in the Voters Handbook.

Rancer’s education and professional background make him well qualified to assess Piedmont’s financial and budget issues. Consider his resume:

At  the Piedmont League of Women Voters Forum on Thursday, Oct.11, Rancer represented the “No on Measure Y” portion of the presentations. During his presentation, he  commented that he thought the personal attacks against opponents of Measure Y  should cease. Rancer had good reason for his comment, since he is the subject of a verbal attack by Councilman Jeff Weiler posted on Weiler’s  Facebook page.  Letter to City Council requesting an apology from Council Member Wieler; Letter to Council Member Wieler.

As Chair of the  MTRC, Rancer carefully considered various aspects of Piedmont financial matters.  Despite originally supporting the proposed Piedmont parcel tax renewal (Measure Y), he reversed his position when, in his opinion, City actions recommended by the MTRC were not taken.