CCTA Action
Budget Press Release 8-4-09
Trinitas Attorney Letter To County
Letter of 5-27-09 click here PDF File
Trinitas Project Denied
4-28-09 This was also sent as a letter to Editor to the local media. - Al
Dear Supervisor,
As we understand, the negative vote taken today on the Trinitas Project was preliminary and you will be making the the final decision at a later date.
We appreciate that the Trinitas Issue has been extremely divisive and a heavy burden for public officials to endure. Perhaps we should be thankful that we are not owners of the property and had to endure their struggle and losses dealing with our land use planning process over many years.
If the purpose of government is to protect human rights and not to oppress them, then it is apparent that the California Environmental Quality Act needs to reformed to protect those rights. However, until that day would come, the main protection the property owner has - comes from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
While the courts are the last resort, the expense can be extensive and destructive to the owner and the taxpayer. If you are concerned about litigation, it would be better for the county to be defending the property owner and not the oppressive acts of government or malicious attacks from a few neighbors.
The evidence seems to suggest that the applicant is not harming his neighbors nor the public, have followed the rules, and therefore, should not be prevented from completing their project. The promise of prosperity created by their development is important, but pales in comparison to regulatory oppression of their human rights to liberty and property.
We thank those Supervisors who voted for the project and encourage those others to do so on the second vote.
Thank you for your time and attention.
The updated state and federal petitions can be downloaded from this site. Much thanks to those who helped with the wording of this puppy.
So glad we have supporters with more better english than mine. - Al
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Al Segalla, 785-1491
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 3, 2009, Copperopolis
Calaveras Taxpayers Host “Tea Party”
Taxpayers opposed to tax increases in these difficult times can let their leaders know it at a tax day “Tea Party” hosted by the Calaveras County Taxpayers Association (CCTA) at Utica Park in Angels Camp on April 15 from 5 to 7 PM, announced its President, Al Segalla
The “Tea Party” protest will be non-violent in keeping with CCTA's policy. Taxpayers may sign a list of grievances and petitions to the President and Congress and to the Governor and state legislature. CCTA members will answer questions and informational literature will be available. And of course, ice TEA and cookies will be served.
The petitions will also be available for download at the group’s website, CalaverasTaxpayers.org. Donations will be accepted on the website and at the event. A gift of $12 or more qualifies donors to a year's CCTA membership.
Persons interested in helping or collaborating with the event should contact Bob Mulvany, Event Chair, 728-9056.
XXXXXXXXX
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Al Segalla, 785-1491
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 27, 2009, Copperopolis
Calaveras Taxpayers Oppose Prop 1A
The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association (CCTA), according to its President, Al Segalla, believes that the state has fundamental problems in the handling of public money. “Even after the recall of a governor, the state does not seem capable of controlling spending and continues to expand the hurtful spider web of excessive regulation which is depressing our California economy. CCTA concurs with the points cited by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as follows:
FACT — PROPOSITION 1A IS A $16 BILLION TAX INCREASE: As part of the budget “fix,” the California Legislature raised income taxes, sales taxes, and nearly doubled the dreaded car tax. This “deal” also robbed Californians with dependent children of the $200 per child tax credit. These tax increases are supposed to be temporary, but voters know that taxes, once imposed, rarely go back down.
As part of the same deal, these same political elitists placed Proposition 1A on the May 19th special election ballot, which would, effectively, more than DOUBLE the taxes they already imposed by extending them for another two years. Unless we stop these higher taxes by defeating Proposition 1A, they will cost the average California family over $1,100 per year. That's right, higher sales taxes, higher income taxes, higher car taxes and more taxes if you have children — the worst anti-family tax package in history.
FACT — PROPOSITION 1A IS PHONY BUDGET REFORM: Knowing that voters won’t support massive tax increases, the proponents of Proposition 1A are calling it “budget stabilization” and “budget reform.” But, Proposition 1A is NOT a true spending limit. It allows payments into the so-called “Budget Stabilization Fund” to be suspended for any reason and, more importantly, it allows the spending “limit” to be adjusted upward any time the Legislature increases taxes. This provides NO spending discipline at all.
FACT — PROPONENTS HAVE TRIED TO HIDE THE TAX HIKES FROM THE
VOTERS: Proposition 1A’s ballot language, ballot title and summary were NOT
prepared by an independent authority, such as the Attorney General. There is virtually no mention of the massive tax increase consequences in the ballot material accompanying Proposition 1A. THIS DECEPTION WAS INTENTIONAL.
More information is available on line at CalaverasTaxpayers.org or by calling CCTA at 785-1491.
XXXXXXXXX
The below link is about our meeting last Friday, February 20th, and below that is our letter to the Governor regarding the On Time Budget Amendment. - Al
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Al Segalla, 785-1491
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 14, 2008, Copperopolis
Calaveras Taxpayers Want Spending Cuts
The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association (CCTA) faxed a letter the Governor today asking for spending cuts, according to Al Segalla, CCTA President. The letter said: “The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association urges you to cut spending. Forget the lobbies.”
“Our economic system is under tremendous pressure and families, the poor and the elderly are affected the most. Unemployment is at a cyclical high, businesses are closing or leaving the state; families are losing their homes to foreclosure. Cost of food, energy, and every other commodity is rising, retirement plans are devalued and the banks are not lending.”
“Sales tax and tax on oil are regressive taxes, which seriously affect the most vulnerable of our population. There must be no increase in taxes.”
“State expenses must be cut. Costs must be contained by cutting state payroll, programs, agencies, education, subsidies and every other recipient of tax money.”
“We need a ”Grace” commission report to identify wasteful spending for long term positive reform of California government.”
More information about CCTA is available at www.CalaverasTaxpayers.org
#########
PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Al Segalla, 785-1491
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 14, 2008, Copperopolis
Calaveras Taxpayers Oppose State
Bond Measures
The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association (CCTA) by action of their board of directors voted to oppose the following Propositions which will appear on the November 4th ballot:1a, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10, according to Al Segalla, CCTA President.
Segalla indicated, while CCTA does not normally endorse or support candidates, we recommend, regardless of political party, that those representatives supporting the Bank Bailout not be returned to office.
Summarizing the CCTA state ballot positions Segalla said: “Even after the recall of a governor, the legislature still fails to control spending and continues to expand excessive regulation of Californians and the California economy.” With credit to Bill Leonard, Board of Equalization, Segalla provided detailed CCTA comments on each of the opposed propositions as follows:
Proposition 1A, High Speed Rail Reason Foundation research indicates this proposal is not realistic. It would not have the ridership to sustain it. This is especially sad in that 500 million dollars have been wasted in “studies”. Someday, high speed rail could be feasible, but it should be created with private capital and risk, and operated by the private sector.
Proposition 2, Standards For Confining Farm Animals According to a UC Davis study, this law would wipe out the California egg industry, forcing us to buy eggs from out of state or Mexico.
Proposition 3 Children’s Hospital Bond Act It really does not matter what you think about the need for more children’s hospitals in California, because this bond is not the solution. According to the Legislative Analyst, Proposition 61, which voters approved at the November 2004 statewide general election, authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children’s hospitals. The eligibility criteria for hospitals to receive funds under Prop. 61 is the same under this measure. As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of the funds from Prop. 61 had been awarded to eligible hospitals. Over half of a four-year-old bond measure remains to be spent! At this rate there will not be any new needs for this money for years to come. Why add to California’s debt for something that is already funded? How dumb do they think the taxpayers are? Don’t answer that.
Proposition 6, Police and Law Enforcement Funding This is the Safe Neighborhoods Act, an initiative designed by law enforcement groups to crack down on gang-related crimes and increase state funding for local law enforcement. Most of the technical reforms are easy to support and they might improve public safety if they are implemented properly. The problem is that Prop. 6 requires state government to spend nearly ONE BILLION DOLLARS every year, with annual increases based on inflation, even when state revenues decline. The initiative says nothing about how the state will pay for this expensive new mandate. Prop. 6 is a constitutional amendment so it can only be waived or suspended by the Legislature with a politically-impossible three-quarters vote in each house just to reduce the annual spending increase, even during statewide emergencies and disasters. We simply need to elect more representatives who believe in law enforcement.
Proposition 7, Renewable Energy Generation Remember the 1996 legislation to restructure the electrical industry with the goal of increasing consumer choices? Remember that it did not work as intended? Well, they’re back. That legislation had mandates inserted into it that took away choices and forced utilities to use more renewable energy even if it was by far more expensive and even if it was not reliable when consumers needed it. Proposition 7 is a repeat of those mandates and it even expands the mandate to cover all local government utilities.
Proposition 10, Alternative Fuel Vehicles
This $5 billion General Fund bond is beyond preposterous. It’s a perfect example of how the politicians use the Global Warming Scare. It would provide direct subsidies to consumers and others to purchase green vehicles, as well as money for research into alternative fuels and vehicles. Judging by the availability of hybrid cars from Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Mercedes, Mazda, Saturn and others, it is pretty obvious that consumers are more than willing to subsidize the green vehicle movement on their own. From the standpoint of the manufacturers, $100-plus oil and $3.50 gas provides plenty of incentive for industry to do the research that will make consumers favor their fuel efficient vehicles over their competitors’ for the simple reason that consumers demand it.
Measure K $18 million School Bonds CCTA has not yet taken a position on these bonds for upgrading Bret Harte School. The CCTA school committee led by Cory Burnell, met with Mike Chimente, Superintendant, and toured the campus. CCTA will announce its recommendation on Measure K at its public luncheon on October 29th in Angels Camp. More information is available on line at CalaverasTaxpayers.org or by calling CCTA at 785-1491
#########
September 9, 2008
Subject: General Plan Update
Dear Calaveras County Board of Supervisors:
The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association directors have reviewed Mintner and Associates Draft Working Vision Statement and Guiding Principles and General Plan Public Review Draft Issues and Opportunities Report in detail.
CCTA questions, comments and recommendations are included in the attached three pages. Our concerns are that, as presented, the updated General Plan will unfairly restrict reasonable and constitutional use of private property by owners, will be difficult to administer and will impede economic development.
We respectfully request that the County Supervisors and staff carefully consider the attached documents and re-direct Mintner and Associates accordingly.
Sincerely,
Albert J. Segalla, President
Attached:
Review of Vision Statement
Review of Key Policy Questions
Summary
REVIEW OF VISION STATEMENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
CCTA believes that the submitted General Plan Update proposals are excessive, overreaching and in some respects unconstitutional. The GPU scope should be reduced to address only land use matters with the sole objective of meeting the CEQA and other state statutes' extensive requirements without infringing upon citizens' constitutional right to reasonably use their property. For example, the draft addresses government fees, funding and promotion of small business, education, and tourism, none of which directly relate to land use.
On first glance, the document appears to be a statement of lofty goals and noble purpose. But what does it really mean? Since we are concerned about the expansion of government control and potential for abuse of property rights, we pose these ten questions:
1. Are the “Guiding Principles” really principles or subtle and deliberate obfuscations? The first guiding principle should be, “the GPU update shall adhere to and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America”.
2. Does the protection of “open space, wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, agricultural lands, forests, rivers and lakes” mean that the owners of those assets will no longer have control of their property? Are ranchers and landowners obligated to provide and preserve scenic vistas, public recreation, et al, without compensation?
3. Does having building boundaries limiting construction to existing communities mean that no lots large enough to keep a horse or llama will be allowed? Is this smart growth?
4. Regarding Senate Bill 32, Global Warming Solutions Act: A substantial number of scientists are questioning the validity of the carbon theory, which this law is based on. What if property rights are compromised in the name of catastrophic global warming and then the theory is discredited?
5. How can land use restrictions promote tourism? Is it even worth the attempt?
6. Are developers not now limited to availability of infrastructure or is the General Plan meant to be a no-growth plan?
7. What is the need for riparian controls in the general plan? Are water rights and riparian protection not adequately addressed by other jurisdictions and existing statutes?
8. How will the GP resolve the issues of fire protection and logging? Are logging regulations and wildfire protection not the province of the state?
9. How are education and health care deemed land use issues? Why are they included in the list?
10. Why is government service included in the list? How does it relate to land use decisions?
REVIEW OF KEY POLICY QUESTIONS
• What is the appropriate minimum parcel size in rural areas that will discourage sprawl and protect open space and working landscapes?
CCTA: Minimum parcel size should be determined by reasonable use of the land, not for imprecise and questionable political ends.
• How can Calaveras County support infill development that offers a small-town, rural atmosphere and lifestyle in existing community centers?
CCTA: Infill may destroy the desirability of existing neighborhoods by increasing crowding, traffic congestion and parking shortages. It also threatens historic features of the gold rush communities. Infill should not be a priority in Calaveras County.
• How can the County protect and preserve historic centers?
CCTA: Private interests preserve historic buildings and sites as a matter of economic self interest. County planning is not needed to preserve history.
• How can the GP provide sufficient local control over planning decisions?
CCTA: The General plan should be written as a performance document that clearly and succinctly specifies the minimum requirements for building or development and leaves the specific details to owners or developers, thus minimizing need for control.
• How should County retain distinct community identities while stimulating growth and reinvestment in the communities?
CCTA: First, “community identity” is an imprecise and subjective term. Laws, ordinances and regulations must have clear, well defined objectives to be generally understood and fairly enforced. Secondly, relaxed regulation will best stimulate growth and investment.
• How should the County best provide unique community gathering places and recreation areas?
CCTA: It should encourage communities, non-profit organizations, developers and entrepreneurs to provide parks, playgrounds, open areas and meeting halls.
• How can the County work with farmers, ranchers, non-profit organizations and other partners to preserve agricultural land?
CCTA: The County can continue to encourage agricultural enterprises such as hunting clubs, riding academies, ranch hostels, etc.
• Should the County consider a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to protect open space?
CCTA: As long as land is more valuable in agriculture, it will not be developed. Development should be based on economics, not politics. Also, a TDR program would be wasteful, tempt abuse and fraud and would diminish property rights.
SUMMARY
CCTA believes that the submitted General Plan Update proposals are excessive and overreaching and should be reduced to address only land use matters with the sole objective of meeting the CEQA and other state statutes’ extensive requirements. For example, the draft addresses government fees, funding and promotion of small business, education, and tourism, none of which directly relate to land use.
Furthermore, we believe the new general plan and ensuing zoning ordinance should be simple, more concise and user friendly. It should be written in plain English using only common words with precise meaning and should adhere to the US and California constitutions.
|
August 14, 2008 |
CCTA Tax Alert brings heavy response |
|
CCTA sent out over 800 "Tax Alert" postcards to property owners giving notice of the meeting sponsored by Supervisor, Russ Thomas and Assessor, Randy Metzger last night. There was a overflowing attendance and about half of which indicated our prompted propted them to attend. |
|
August 14, 2008 |
Reaching out to former Grand Jury Members |
|
This is the letter sent to 98 former Grand Jury Members today. |
Ltr to Grand Jury.doc
|
August 17, 2008 |
State Budget Amendment |
Local governments are having difficulty budgeting due to the lack of a state budget which is caused by over spending. governor voters recalled a govenor to stop this, however the problem remains. Due to the power exerted by special interest groups on the legislator, it is not likely to improve.
Therefor, like Prop 13, it will be up to the people to fix the problem.
The below updated California constitutional amendment is proposed by the Calaveras County Taxpayers Association.
Two questions: Would you vote "Yes" if it were on the ballot? Would you help put it on the ballot?
- Fiscal Responsibility Amendment -
If the State of California fails to enact a budget by the end of the fiscal year, the following shall then immediately become the new budget as if adopted by the legislature and signed by the governor:
1. The budget for the ending fiscal year shall automatically become the budget for the new fiscal year. This new budget shall include a 5% contingency included within the previous year's total.
2. If the resulting budget shows a surplus, the surplus shall be used first to reduce debt and any surplus after that shall be disbursed to the counties in direct proportion to population as determined in the latest United States census.
3. If the resulting budget shows a deficit, all expenditure items shall be proportionally reduced to balance the budget. This amendment supersedes any previous constitutional mandating of expenses for the fiscal year that this amendment is in effect.
CCTA is reaching out to other taxpayer groups in the hope all taxpayer groups in California would be interested in co-sponsoring such a ballot measure.
|
|
September 8, 2008 |
TCCA COMMENTS ON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |
|
The below letter and documents will be presented to the BOS tomrrow. |
BOS Ltr, General plan.doc