Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=spdrun]I’m confused. You said that most companies offer spousal coverage, yet the employee has to pay it out of pocket anyway (at a lower rate than an individual plan, though).
So the exchanges will essentially extend this to families where one parent is self-employed and the other is a homemaker or part-timer. It doesn’t sound like it will discriminate based on gender either, since the exchanges will be available to all who aren’t covered by an employer….[/quote]
Yes, “group rates” for an employer-sponsored health plan are MUCH lower than rates for individual plans. But even more important was the fact that employer-sponsored health coverage could not discriminate against a SAH spouse or partner who had pre-existing conditions as individual coverage did. Many employees who covered spouses could not even get coverage at all on the open market for them because of their pre-existing conditions.
All this is changing with the inception of the HCRA (“Obamacare”). Now the exchanges, although not priced as cheaply as employer group rates, will treat every applicant who is the same age and gender exactly the same no matter what their pre-existing conditions were or are.
If a family who applies to insure an unemployed spouse on the state exchange qualifies for tax credits, then the unemployed/self-employed spouse’s premiums could very well be as low or even lower than employer group rates (the actual premium the employed spouse’s employer would pay for that spouse coverage). In CA, the size of the tax credit will depend on the AGI (or MAGI, if applic, as UCGal stated) reported on their 2012 state tax return.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Bearishgurl, so you’re saying that people should be forced into having two-working-parent families by overly high insurance premiums?
Remember that child-care is ALSO expensive. If this enables more families to have only one breadwinner (or causes families to have both parents working less than full time), this can only be a good thing. Americans work too much, too hard as it is. We should be more like the French.
(The economic problems in France come from other sources, like the difficulty of firing bad employees.)[/quote]
No, what I am saying is that US employers who provide costly full (or nearly full) spouse health coverage are discriminating against single employees, including unattached lesbian and gay employees.
In this day and age, having children is a choice, and, whether single or married, the cost of child care goes along with the territory. Why should employees who don’t have children or will never have children subsidize the healthcare cost of employees who choose to leave an able-bodied adult at home with or without children and cover them (mostly with employer money)? Just because an employee has an unemployed “partner” doesn’t mean that he/she is “worth more” to an employer than one of their single employees.
I’m not against nuclear families with one worker but I am against paying an employee more because that is their chosen lifestyle. When an employer gives a(n) (often $500+ mo) “subsidy” to an employee in the form of a healthcare allowance which other employees aren’t eligible for because of marital status, that is real money being paid to the married employee which amounts to unjust enrichment to only a portion of employees based upon marital (or RDP) status.
This is the main reason why large govm’t employers such as the City of SD changed over to having “cafeteria plans” in recent years. EVERY represented employee gets ~$6600 to spend per year on healthcare, including dental and vision care if they wish. If they are trying to cover more people than themselves with that, they are going to have a lot taken from their checks every payday UNLESS they sign up for the cheapest Kaiser HMO for everyone in their family, in which case they will have ~$175 mo taken out of their pay for spouse coverage.
This is the fair way to deal with ALL employees.
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=bearishgurl]
flu, you, all of people stand to be on the “winning side” of this HCRA equation if you retire early. Had the HCRA never become law, you might have been required to pay $2000+ month just for yourself for coverage (for a crappy HMO) :=0
Go check out coveredca.com and quit complaining.[/quote]
Actually – FLU will likely not qualify for subsidies based on his income. Subsidies (tax credits) only apply to those with income < 4 times poverty level. And it's MAGI, not AGI income. (MAGI income = your AGI income PLUS your 401k/IRA contributions.) That said - I suspect FLU will benefit because of the ban on pre-existing conditions. He’s relatively young – and premiums are based on age. His medical issues will not jack his rates up or allow insurers to not insure him.This will give FLU the opportunity to do consulting, entrepreneurial ventures, etc – and not be tied to an employer for healthcare.
As far as retirees – Any non-government retiree that was firmly counting on retiree healthcare hasn’t paid attention for the past decade. It’s gone away along with pensions. And it was NEVER protected under PBGC, the way pensions were.
I know a lot of folks on the early-retirement.org board who are waiting till October to verify the exchange rates – then turning in their notices at work… Access to insurance for the early retiree has been the big crap shoot preventing people who would otherwise retire from doing so.
Lots of discussion over on that board about 4x poverty rate thing (and the cliff on the other side if you don’t manage it right.) How that effects the roth conversion plans (don’t convert to roth because it might kick you above that threshold.)[/quote]
The bolded portion of your statement is what I was referring to, UCGal. I realize flu likely isn’t eligible for tax credits. Since he is still young, I’m guessing that he can probably actually avail himself of the Platinum Plan for $500 mo (+/- $50).
I believe the details which were recently added to the covereca.com site regarding those four “Enhanced Silver” Plans are designed for those early retirees you are talking about – the 55+ boomer crowd who will likely qualify for tax credits.
My understanding is that a Covered CA applicant’s tax credits will be based upon the income they reported on their state tax return for 2012, unless they can prove it is substantially different now. The problem with CA private workers who are considering retiring on or before 12/31/13 or CA public workers considering retiring by 3/31/14 (to be eligible for the 2014 COLA) is that they will have a full year’s income as a “worker bee” on their 2013 tax return, which could keep them from becoming eligible for the credits until 2015. I don’t know how the exchanges are going to handle this issue, since ostensibly this group won’t be “employees” anymore and if they DO have a pension, it is likely nowhere near what their income was while working.
Gen X/Y should start REJOICING whilst contemplating applying for all those lofty job openings at your work that boomers will vacate come 2014. All because of the HCRA!!
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler] . . . This will end up much worse than doing nothing, (You might want to check if your company will cover your spouse and kids next year). . . [/quote]
Shoveler, most companies and govm’t entities OFFER spouse and children coverage but the employee has to pay all or nearly all of their premiums out of his/her pay. Most company and govm’t plans charge the same child premium whether the employee has one child or ten children. Minor children and college students up to age 26 are relatively cheap to cover and lower-income employees in CA can just sign up for “Healthy Families” which has a sliding scale of $37 – $57 for a monthly premium for the first child and lower for succeeding children, IIRC.
http://www.healthyfamilies.ca.gov/Home/default.aspx
In addition, military retirees can put a 18-26 yo son or daughter on Tricare Prime (HMO) for a $422 ANNUAL premium. This premium is not income-dependent or dependent on the kid being a “FT college student.”
It is the SPOUSE who is traditionally expensive on employee health plans. The only time it is worth it for the employer to fully cover a SPOUSE is when the SPOUSE also works for that same employer and is eligible for healthcare coverage in their own right. It is patently UNFAIR to single employees when married employees or those employees in registered domestic partnerships get generous spouse coverage at low or no cost to the employee. This amounts to unjust enrichment to some employees due to marital status.
If your able-bodied SPOUSE needed medical coverage in the past and you couldn’t afford his/her premiums out of your pay, then why weren’t they WORKING enough hours somewhere to get their own coverage?
Sorry, the presence or absence of minor children in the home have nothing to do with it. And this is coming from a mom.
Come 2014, unemployed spouses will be able to get coverage on the state exchanges but they will still have to pay what is remaining of their monthly premium after any tax credits they are eligible for are taken into consideration.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=SK in CV]Your implication in your lead is wrong. This isn’t a cut to benefits. It’s a shift in coverage. Says right in the article “It does not reduce our costs.”. Large companies have been cutting retiree healthcare benefits for more than a decade. This move expands retirees choices. For most people, exchange rates will be lower than those available in the private market.[/quote]
Oh please. It’s going to cut benefits. Retirees are going to pay more for the same level of coverage. It also shifts part of the burden onto taxpayers….
You either pay more for the same coverage, or you pay the same as before and get less coverage…. Same thing….
It’s starting with retirees. But I guarantee you this will be rolled out to all non-retirees to. Terrible ..Absolutely terrible….
Well that’s it…When my health fails, I don’t want to put up with this insurance shit and health circus…Looks like I’ll be retiring early..permanently.
Good news that my kid will end up being pretty wealthy at a pretty young age!That or Canada…. Looks pretty interesting these days, ey![/quote]
flu, you, all of people stand to be on the “winning side” of this HCRA equation if you retire early. Had the HCRA never become law, you might have been required to pay $2000+ month just for yourself for coverage (for a crappy HMO) :=0
Go check out coveredca.com and quit complaining.
Participant[quote=6packscaredy] . . . Probably congress should consult the Tao Te Ching beforemaking any big movesfrom here on out…[/quote]
I agree, scaredy …
I’m also wondering if the HCRA will end up blowing up in 2-3 years when small biz (<=50 employees) starts dumping their employees on state exchanges en masse.
ParticipantI figured thousands of companies with 50 or less workers would elect to give smallish raises and dump their employees on the exchanges. Obviously not for 2014 (since they now don’t have to comply with the HCRA for another year) but certainly for 2015 and beyond.
As for me, I’ve changed my tune. I was pretty distressed back at the end of June when I got a letter from my longtime carrier, Aetna, that they were leaving CA’s individual market and dropping ~50K CA policies (including mine) on 12/31/13. Since then, I’ve scheduled several “preventative care” appts (which are “free” or nearly free with my plan) and have 2-3 more appts to go before EOY. I was worried that I would be dumped into a plan on the state’s exchange where I couldn’t see my regular providers anymore (some of the BEST drs in SD). They have all assured me that this will not be the case.
Since then, I have done some preliminary research on coveredca.com. However sketchy the info that is avail on there now, the tax credits based upon adjusted gross income and the premiums which are on there now are likely close to an accurate representation of what they will be, at least in 2014. (I may no longer be a resident of CA in 2015 and I checked the exchange websites of the two states I am considering relocating to and their premiums are approx. $100 – $150 mo less for me than the CA exchange for the Gold and Platinum plans, respectively.)
Right now with my guaranteed retiree healthcare allowance, I am out $93 mo for an Aetna Advantage HDHP ($5000/3000). For 2014, it appears from coveredca.com that I may qualify for an “Enhanced Silver” plan ($2000/$2350). In that case, my out-of-pocket mo premium will only be ~$80. This plan has the same coverage as a “Platinum Plan.”
The above cost of my 2014 premium is due to the tax credit I will get when signing up on the exchange plus my retiree healthcare allowance.
It appears that the two carriers for Covered CA’s PPO plans are going to be Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of CA but we don’t yet know which one will be administering which plan.
If it goes down in 2014 that I am out of pocket $13 LESS for my mo premium in 2014, get more comprehensive coverage and get to keep my longtime SD providers, I won’t be complaining.
We’ll see what happens. In any case, I now have no choice but to sign up on the exchange come October.
Participant[quote=earlyretirement]Thanks BG. You sound like you’re well versed on these issues. Thanks for posting these links. I’ll try to check them out. I’m working on a new consulting gig which will keep me busy the next few months so not sure how active I can get but I’ll check these out.
It would be great if you could repost these on the KPBS comments section as the reporters DO read the comments section and follow up on them many times. It also gives them inspiration sometimes.
Thanks for posting those details.[/quote]
Sent you a pm.
ParticipantER, I just found this set of “Guidelines for Mello-Roos Financing” circa 1991, put out by then State Treasurer Kathleen Brown’s office.
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac/reports/M-Roos/MR_guidelines.pdf
Perhaps you have already seen it. My understanding is that at least some of these guidelines were later legislated. I think you will need to cite the law and the PUSD’s own rules and guidelines (but better the law) to successfully argue to them their need for transparent accountability as to how these funds are being used, IMO.
Here is a good “layman’s guide” to CA Education Law” put out by the League of Women Voters.
http://www.guidetogov.org/ca/state/overview/school.html
And here is an excerpt of a 2005 book (link below) written on this subject (CA MR discussion begins at pg 245).
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~steiss/page63.html
Special Assessment Bonds
Special Assessment Bonds often are considered a special form of revenue bonds since the debt service is payable only from the proceeds derives from a special assessment levies against those who benefit from the facilities constructed (e.g., special assessments for curbs and gutters in certain residential areas). The burden of financing special assessment bonds falls on those individuals or properties receiving the greatest benefits from the improvements. In some cases, however, the property owners who must pay the assessments have had little or no say in the issuance of the bonds for which they must meet the debt service commitments Such is the case with the so-called Mello-Roos bonds in the State of California.
After the passage of the property tax-cutting Proposition 13 in 1978, funding for local infrastructure improvements in dried up. The State legislature adopted special legislation that permitted the creation of special taxing districts which empowered local governments to cooperate with developers to achieve more flexible funding options to finance streets, schools, sewer and water facilities and other specific improvements in primarily new residential areas. Billions of dollars of bonds were issues to finance these improvements with the homeowners served by these facilities obligated to pay off the bonds through annual assessments added to their property tax bills.
Until the residential development has been completed and all of the property has been transferred to individual owners, however, the burden of the assessment is shared by the developer and the homeowners that have moved into the area. When the California real estate market experienced some slow downs in the early 1990’s, some developers where forced to file for bankruptcy, prompting banks or other investors to begin fore-closure proceedings on the development. The bank then assumes financial responsibility for the special assessment bonds. In many cases, bond payments are delinquent and the banks must either assume this additional obligation or use any reserves in the bond offering to pay off the bond-holders.
In 1994, nearly 5 percent of all Mello-Roos bond issues were reported as experiencing some degree of financial difficulty primarily due to due to significant delinquencies. The value of the bonds in trouble was nearly $300 million. Examples include: (1) an $8.1 million bond issues by the County of Los Angeles in 1988 for a Mello-Roos district in which nearly 22 percent of the bond payments are delinquent by local real estate developers; (2) a $7.4 million Mello-Roos district in the northwest area of the City of San Bernardino which experienced a 77 percent delinquency rate; and (3) a 211-acre housing and commercial project in the City of Oxnard on which the developer stopped payment on the bonds in 1991 and the bonds went into default in October, 1993.
Several changes in the Mello-Roos enabling legislation were adopted in 1993 in an effort to prevent abuses and to reduce risks to municipalities and homeowners in the event of default caused by bankrupt developers. Tighter rules for policing the bonds were adopted, and city and county agencies are now required to limit fee increases to homeowners in the event of default. Developers are required to do a better job of disclosing to home buyers that they will be living in a Mello-Roos district and how much in special district taxes they will be required to pay.
Summary
Revenue bonds can play an important role in the long-range planning of capital facilities. It must be clearly established, however, that revenues generated by the proposed project are sufficient to: (1) cover the cost of operations, maintenance, and debt service; (2) provide a comfort-able margin of working capital; and (3) create a reserve fund for emergencies and to cover possible declines in income. In short, revenue bonding must be approached with the principles of sound management and debt administration firmly in mind.
From this excerpt, it doesn’t appear that your issue of receiving agency/entity misuse of MR bond income was addressed in the 1993 legislation. However, I have not yet had a chance to research state law on this subject.
September 8, 2013 at 7:11 PM in reply to: OT: On the killing floor; immigrations impacts on wages #765284Participant[quote=dumbrenter][quote=no_such_reality]
Finally, I don’t expect to a rewarded for the work my father did. Labor needs to quit talking about what they did in the past and talk about what they will do in the future.[/quote]That’s the biggest disconnect I see from posters arguing from the labor-side. They take your trends of looking into future and ask if you can get a robot to do tiles in your home today.
With the relentless pace of mechanization and automation, it is pretty clear that the labor component of any product is trending down and one of the primary drivers for this today is the cost of labor.
So what happens to the extra labor? Where do they go?
Unfortunately, the labor side folks only think of bygone days of the past or look for regulation help (tariffs, visas etc.).What they don’t get is that when it comes to regulation, they stand no chance against the capital. Its like a lamb picking up a fight with a tiger.
Ask them to frame an argument that does not involve regulation or past and you’ll hear nothing.[/quote]
The first 20 min segment on “60 Minutes” tonight is about robots taking the jobs of what appears to be warehouse workers.
Participant[quote=earlyretirement] . . . People here in San Diego surprisingly have this totally lackadaisical attitude about getting ripped off with their tax dollars, voting for voter approved tax increases via bond assessments without even having a clear understanding of how the tax dollars will be used for their intended purposes or even worrying IF the tax dollars generated will be used for their intended purposes at all. And also if there will be any oversight of such funds.
That’s a big problem I see here in San Diego. Many people just don’t seem to care. And ultimately that is TRULY pathetic and sad.[/quote]
I think if the press can get it out to the masses using sound bytes (in laymen’s terms), you can get local interested parties to come to school board meetings and complain and also complain to the right bureaucrats at the County Office of Education:
http://www.sdcoe.net/Pages/Home.aspx
and better yet, the CDE:
The problem with your elected officials is that they have no jurisdiction over public schools and therefore cannot enforce state public school law (K-12).
The best people to get riled up to write letters, testify before your school board and even lobby the CDE to take action are those like yourself who have or are paying into this sham and rightly so, demand accountability. Also residents who may suffer “damages” at the hands of the prior school board because of possible property value debasement in the future (due to the principle coming due on the Prop C subprime loan fiasco which will likely have the effect of raising their taxes (on a ~40 yr old home) through the roof!
I think a parent complaining to the Board about where the district decides to send their child(ren) to school for any given school year is the wrong approach and is also wasting time and testimony which could be far more persuasive discussing other damages sustained or to be sustained by the speaking taxpayer. It doesn’t matter how much MR parents are paying if their child(ren)’s home school is full. In CA, public school districts have the right to make this decision. They are only obligated to educate each child residing within their district and if a child’s “home school” is impacted or otherwise full, they have the right to transfer children who live within its boundaries to another district school with room for them (and pick up the tab for transportation). As you may already be aware, a single public school (brick-and-mortar location) actually does not legally exist. It is merely a branch of a school district and all employees of that school are employees of a public school district.
The best way to approach this, I think, is to rile up neighbors with biz experience, like yourself, to demand accountability for the 200 bank accts, etc. If you keep your discussions about the business and stay away from attendance areas and student-placement issues (legally, the District’s turf) and familarize yourself with school law as it applies to MR bond income accountability, you will go far.
If PUSD residents paying MR get in the Board’s faces about what a developer’s office told you at the time of your home purchase (who’s likely made all the profit they’re going to and left the county long ago) would be your child(ren)’s “new school” when it was built, you will come off like a bunch of whiners and be shunned. Developers aren’t supposed to be telling tales out of school like that to prospective buyers as they have zero control over the issue.
IMHO, the REASON why your local elementary school is already full (before or at the time of final buildout?) is because too many parents wanted the same thing, hence the “success” of your neighborhood (most of which was originally subdivided and built to appeal to “empty nesters,” acc to its website) :=0
You can’t have it both ways.
Participant[quote=earlyretirement][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV]. . . The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven’t out of office.[/quote]
Good advice, SK. I’ve been saying the same thing on this forum for years. There seem to be a LOT of disenchanted people (primarily with how all levels of gubment are run) who appear to be completely ignorant of the process and/or don’t want to take time to get involved.
The letters Pigg ER is writing and the (press and elected official?) contacts he has made appear to have been a positive start. Even though fairly new to SD county, he seems to be quite eloquent in his posts and so is likely the same in person 🙂
I was very active in local politics for years but I’ve long ago run out of energy for this sort of thing :=0[/quote]
BG,
Yes, that is me posting on the various blogs and comments section of KPBS and other websites. Thanks for the kind words. I’ve written letters and emails to various officials as well as asking some media to investigate the matter further. It’s good to see some taking an interest in the matter but I really think it will take more of a national spotlight to shine on this potential fraud and abuse of our tax dollars . . . [/quote]
Oh, hey, ER, I haven’t seen you on any other blogs or websites as piggington is the only one I “make time” to pay attention to 🙂
My comment was directed at your prior posts where you stated you got a hold of KPBS and other investigative reporters and also wrote letters and spoke to your local rep’s office, etc, regarding PUSD’s misuse of MR bond income.
Keep up the good work! If anyone can eventually get some answers and possibly effect some head rolling down the road, you can 🙂
You seem to have a good enough understanding of the bond market and business, in general, and are eloquent enough to state your case to get the attention of folks who have the ability to get it out to the masses, using sound bytes in layman’s terms 🙂
Me, I understand how gubment works and the law governing state and local gubment operations and it’s not the way most people think (or would like to think) it should run. It doesn’t matter whether I agree with it or not because it is what it is. Over the years, I have learned to accept things for which I cannot change :=]
Participant[quote=SK in CV]. . . The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven’t out of office.[/quote]
Good advice, SK. I’ve been saying the same thing on this forum for years. There seem to be a LOT of disenchanted people (primarily with how all levels of gubment are run) who appear to be completely ignorant of the process and/or don’t want to take time to get involved.
The letters Pigg ER is writing and the (press and elected official?) contacts he has made appear to have been a positive start. Even though fairly new to SD county, he seems to be quite eloquent in his posts and so is likely the same in person 🙂
I was very active in local politics for years but I’ve long ago run out of energy for this sort of thing :=0
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl][quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]SK, I was referring to outlying areas. Carmel Valley is not really outlying, and, in any case, a portion of its MR bonds should now be ~10 years from maturity/retirement.[/quote]And no true Scotsman…[/quote]
What about the subdivisions which were built in Carmel Valley in the very early nineties??
[quote=all]Carmel Valley is not outlying, but the area right next to it is?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Carmel Mountain Ranch was built in very early nineties, it is in PUSD and there is MR. Santaluz is halfway between CMR and CV, about three miles from either. Another 3 miles from a business park that hosts Sony, Nokia, Broadcom, HP… Santaluz is an outlying area only if you are observing the world from a Tijuana suburb.
[/quote]
I would tend to agree. Carmel Valley is no more of an outlying (or at least as much of an outlying area) as Santa Luz. Escondido is more outlying, and if there have been MR abuses there, I haven’t heard much of them. Same with some of the other truly outlying areas that had major development over the last 15 years…San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside. Maybe there have been problems, but if so, they haven’t been near as public as the problems in the PUSD.
And I’m pretty sure there are some MR that are fully paid off in Carmel Valley.
The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven’t out of office.[/quote]
SK, I never stated that MR (bond-money) abuses are rampant throughout the state. In fact, in my post above with the link to an earlier (Aug 2012) thread on this subject, I stated that other county suburban school districts had appeared to be using their MR bond money appropriately. What I did state was that the MR Act created an environment for Big Development to convince local jurisdictions to approve massive “master-planned communities” which has had the recent effect of creating boom/bust cycles in areas which never witnessed this phenomenon before (ex: Stockton, Los Banos, Napa, Tracy, etc). These “boom-bust” cycles caused these (formerly rural/agricultural) cities and counties to “ramp up” their personnel to increase services for a huge new population increase which turned out to be temporary, causing them to later lay off due to severely falling values (which were never supported by local fundamentals). These developer-driven cycles also occurred in exurbs located in Eastern Alameda County and the City of San Bernardino (an exurb of Los Angeles). The fallout of these “boom-bust” cycles was and is devastating to county and municipal coffers. However, I believe those subd’s in Eastern Alameda County and Napa County are well on their way to recovery now. The same cannot be said for the City of SB, Stockton and Los Banos, for example, because higher-paying white-collar jobs within ~25 miles of these cities (adequate for a monthly mortgage payment) are not in abundance.
I am totally with CAR in that developers should have had to finance ALL the infrastructure on their land as a condition of subdividing for residential development and then roll this cost into the price of each parcel when purchased as new construction.
In the absence of the MR Act, if each new parcel over the last ~30 years (with new construction on it) had been priced appropriately from the get go, CA wouldn’t have all this unwanted and unneeded urban and exurban sprawl because each fully-developed parcel would have been too expensive for the masses of past and present buyers who were drawn to subd’s within the CFDs (in comparison to a home in an established area).
But we can’t turn back the clock. The unintended consequences of the MR Act are now knocking most of CA’s elected and appointed officials upside the head because the MR bond money emanating from these CFD’s was never intended to to be used pay the extra city/county workers salaries to service these residents. The available county and municipal services will be permanently curtailed going forward for EVERY CA resident. And for many overdeveloped jurisdictions throughout the state, the gravity of this problem is such that their residents’ needs are so great that they must permanently “borrow” agencies and their personnel from neighboring cities/counties which either did not have the land available for or were wise enough to NOT fall for Big Development’s ruse.
In conjunction with the later (1986) enactment of Props 58/193 (the progeny of Prop 13), the after-effects of the MR Act have been no less than fiscally devastating to the (former) “Golden State.” As I have posted before here, Henry Mello could not have possibly envisioned this sad scenario when he and Mike Roos introduced the bill to the Legislature and has to be turning in his grave by now :=0.
-
AuthorPosts
