[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . just tax those that are less worthy than public employees, never mind that we did just fine for 35 years without such taxes.[/quote]
EXCEPT, uhh, FlyerInHi, we AREN’T “doing just fine.” I don’t know what planet you just arrived from but it has become clear here that you have no idea as to the depth and breadth of the gutting of local services that unfilled positions from layoffs and retirements have had on city and county residents. These positions are unfilled because there is no money to pay new employees.
Have you tried scheduling a court hearing lately? Hearings that used to be scheduled out eight weeks now are now scheduled out 4.5 to 9 months. Have you tried to get a Stipulation and Order (agreement between parties) signed by a judge lately? That takes 2.5 to 4 months to process. YES, that’s after paying $20 JUST FOR A JUDGE’s SIGNATURE, folks. (This took 4-10 days to process just two years ago.)
I hope you don’t ever find yourself in any skirmishes in our great state of CA, Flyer. That is, ones you can’t come to a very quiet agreement on inside a law firm conference room with the blinds drawn (or on a clipboard on the trunk of your opponent’s car).
Need a diseased tree cut down on a city easement in front of your house? Put your name on a list because the wait to have the tree “inspected” is 9.5 months. WHY? The cities’ arborists are all retired and were never replaced so their ONE “apprentice” has taken their place (along with their old duties). Want to cut it down yourself? If a neighbor reports you, you could end up being fined $500 or more. Believe me when I tell you that City will send someone out almost immediately to inspect a violation if they smell the potential collection of a $$ fine :=0
Need a deep pothole fixed on your street? Call it in. The street crew jobs are arranged on a first-come, first-served basis and also in order of priority. Is it deep enough yet to get a tire stuck in? Is it crumbling into a pipeline? Has it caused a pipe break? If the answer is no, then join the list. If it has, then City has a crew to put cones around it and detour signs. How long will all this mess be sitting there? That’s anybody’s guess, Flyer. We all know of one infamous case on in MV which took City nearly TWO YEARS to even begin work on (situated on a main thoroughfare leading to a major bus/trolley transfer station, no less)!
The holes in the muffler of your modified “low-rider” are NOT the city’s problem.
Where ARE all these tree easements which are not maintained by HOAs? You guessed it! In OLDER areas, which are the EXACT SAME AREAS in which 25-75% of the affected property owners are not paying anywhere near close to “market rate” taxes on their properties due to ultra-low assessments pursuant to Props 13, 58 and 193. The ones that are paying “market-rate” taxes just have to suck it up. Their level of city services is the same as if they were paying ~$500 annual property taxes (as most of their neighbors are).
Need bldg permit supervision or a trench inspection to commence work? What used to take cities 2-4 weeks to coordinate with SDG&E now takes 3-4 months.
I talk to court and county employees several times per month in my biz, even “supervisors.” In case you didn’t know, pulling a number and waiting months or years for a local gubment service is the “new normal,” now, Flyer. Their employees all chant the same mantra, every day. They have it memorized and it goes something like this, “Taxpayers no longer want the level of service they were previously `accustomed to’ because they are not willing to pay for it.”
I’ve turned away work a few times in the last few months because I can’t get prospective “clients” any kind of result at all by preparing court papers for them. They all want and need a judge ASAP to “solve” their skirmishes. That’s not going to happen so I tell them to go to their opposing party and come up with some kind of an agreement and I will draw it up for them to submit. The SD County Hall of Justice used to be referred to as the “Hall of Results.” It’s new name is now the “Hall of Inordinate Delay.” Court services in the North County and South County branches are even more gutted, causing the “system” to be utterly dysfunctional (East County Court was less affected because they didn’t have very much, if any, population influx in the last 15 years.)
It doesn’t help that 60% of non-criminal litigants in SD County are representing themselves (in “pro per”) and 80% of those pro per litigants have filed FEE WAIVERS. YES, if you are a law firm or pro-per litigant who is paying all your own court fees, the thousands of litigants with fee waivers are clogging up YOUR queue with their “free” cases, a good portion of whom had their papers prepared by a govm’t agency for “free.” There is no proof of indigency required to qualify for court fee waivers (except a declaration of income) or to avail oneself of govm’t help in preparing court papers (which requires standing in a long line very early in the morning to make an appt).
The sad truth is, in the vast majority of cases … if pro per litigants were all preparing their own court papers, their case would clog the court calendars for years and never get resolved.
Flyer, where do you think the money comes from to operate the California Court system? Here, let me get you started:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as “the
Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997.”
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) The judiciary of California is a separate and independent branch of government, recognized by the Constitution and statutes of this state as such.
(b) The Legislature has previously established the principle that the funding of trial court operations is most logically a function of the state. Such funding is necessary to provide uniform standards and procedures, economies of scale, and structural efficiency and simplification. This decision also reflects the fact that the overwhelming business of the trial courts is to interpret and enforce provisions of state law and to resolve disputes among the people of the State of California. . .
Except … after local fiscal control of each county’s court system was removed and turned over to the state after the passage of AB-233, there ended up to to be no “teeth” in the law to compel the state to fund each county’s court system down the road. Large metropolitan county court systems suffered the most, and alas, none of the county court systems or state appellate districts will bring this growing elephant in the room before the CA Supreme Court to get clarification on the law because their “opponent” is the hand that feeds them. Click to load:
Let’s take a closer look at the “money trail” as it winds its way into the coffers of CA trial courts’ operations budgets. ..
The issue was resolved during the midnight hour with the passage of the Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act of 1988. The original Trial Court Funding legislation provided for over $400 million in state appropriation to partially fund the trial courts, including the addition of judicial positions. In order to qualify for Trial Court Funding dollars, counties were required to make payments out of the county share of property taxes to cities deemed “no and low property tax cities”. AB 709, the first TEA legislation, required 17 counties to shift some of their property taxes to 49 qualifying cities. The original plan was to shift 10 percent of the taxes generated within the city boundaries to the cities over a 10-year period. AB 1197 amended TEA legislation providing that most qualifying cities receive 7 percent of the property tax revenues generated within their boundaries phased in over a 7-year period, beginning in 1989/90. In addition, AB 1197 took into account the impact of redevelopment and growth, and added certain other adjustments to the calculation. Several additional bills have been passed over the years, primarily to clarify implementation issues or provide special provisions for particular cities and counties. The two bills above, however, provide the basic framework still in effect today . .
The truth is, the solvency (or insolvency) of CA state, county and city programs are ALL DUE TO THE TIMELY COLLECTION OF PROPERTY TAXES which are based upon PROP 13’s formula of 1% of value at time of purchase or 1% of assessment at time of title transfer PLUS 2% increase every year thereafter (+ voter-approved bonds and agency fees which DO NOT fund city/county departments). The REASON WHY Prop 13 will haunt state residents into perpetuity is because of the subsequent passage of Props 58 and 193. Our Legislature (back in the day) screwed CA residents royally with Prop 13’s passage and hammered the nails in the coffin with their subsequent passage of Props 58 and 193.
[quote-FlyerInHi]You also fail to mention escalating health benefits to retirees paid for by taxpayers.[/quote]
Flyer, I’m going take the liberty of “mentioning” it here . . .solely on your behalf. FYI, retirement “health benefits” in CA state and local government don’t “escalate.” They are a FIXED MONTHLY SUM FOR LIFE” paid to each retiree depending upon their years of service. Whatever the current premium for a particular retirement-assn-sponsored health plan is what it is (and rises every year). The retiree has to make up the difference in the premium out of their pension until such time as they are eligible for Medicare. At that time, their healthcare allowances will be used for Medicare Part B and D.
In any case, any state or local CA “civil servant” who “retired” before 3/31/02 is guaranteed whatever healthcare allowance was bargained for in their particular contract. You are speaking ONLY of CA state and local “retirees” who have elected to “retire” in the last ~decade. Since these members’ pensions are often “enhanced” (due to much more generous formulas allowed in that era), their retiree healthcare allowance was never bargained for nor guaranteed, and thus, is at stake. In my particular retirement plan, I’ve recently heard rumors from the horse’s mouth that they may very well have to discontinue healthcare allowances in the “enhanced benefit” group as early as 2015.
Any loss of healthcare allowances affects the last 10-11 year retirement group only. You’re two jokers short of a full deck if you believe earlier CA public retirees are in danger of losing their healthcare allowances.
It will never happen.
As it should be.
Flyer, I was THERE (yes, even in the middle of the night, lol) at the bargaining table in 1994 and 1998 and have a vivid recall of exactly what took place. Quit spouting here your misinformed hyperbole and conjecture on state, county and city retirement systems when you obviously have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
I’m going to give you a little assignment and I implore you to study it well . . . ESPECIALLY if you have a propensity to post here again on this subject.:
