Tag: Bruce Lee

  • Taxpayer group hosts Citrus Heights event, touts failure of Measure M

    Citrus Heights Vice Mayor speaks during a “Talk and Tacos” event at El Tapatio Mexican Restaurant in Citrus Heights, Thursday. // M. Hazlip

    Updated 10:08 p.m., March 23–
    By Mike Hazlip— Several elected officials along with other area activists met Thursday night at a local restaurant, highlighting the defeat of the Measure M tax increase in Citrus Heights during the last election and setting their sights on future elections.

    Sacramento Taxpayers Association President Bruce Lee led the meeting at El Tapatio Mexican Restaurant, where Citrus Heights Vice Mayor Tim Schaefer proudly presented the city’s budget showing a surplus without the additional 1% sales tax, which failed to pass in 2020.

    “We finished the year last year, without passing Measure M, with a $6.2 million surplus,” Schaefer said, appearing to reference the city’s budget for the last fiscal year which initially projected a shortfall of $3.7 million but ended up with $6.2 million more than anticipated in revenues.

    The numbers Schaefer presented did not include additional money the city received from federal COVID relief, he said. The vice mayor later clarified that the revenue did not include American Rescue Plan Act relief funding but “did include $3.1 million in additional money the city received in COVID relief, including $1.1 million in Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funding and the $2.0 million reimbursement from the Great Plates Program.”

    Schaefer added that cuts to the Police Department in a budget passed 3-2 last April caused some officers to seek employment with other agencies. He said the current budget aims to rebuild the department.

    From last year: Citrus Heights passes controversial budget in split 3-2 vote

    A report by The Sentinel shows last year’s budget slashed police funding by $3 million without federal stimulus money. Schaefer and Councilman Bret Daniels were the dissenting votes.

    Speaking at the event, Sacramento County Supervisor Sue Frost said the association has worked to “hold the line” on taxes, saying, “We’re always fighting rising taxes, regulations, and fees.”

    During the meeting, Lee gave prospective political candidates a few minutes each to make announcements about their campaigns, with one woman, Marijane Lopez-Taff, stating she is running for Citrus Heights City Council.

    The March 17 “Talk and Tacos” event was hosted by the Sacramento Taxpayers Association, which was the main organization that spearheaded opposition to Measure M in Citrus Heights. The measure sought to raise the local sales tax by 1% to boost the city’s general fund budget, but the measure fell short of the majority vote needed to pass.

    Related: City releases statement after defeat of Measure M sales tax

  • Guest Opinion: 8 things I’ve learned while fighting Measure M tax in Citrus Heights

    By Bruce Lee–
    As Sacramento Taxpayers Association president my duty is to represent you, the taxpayers. You may have read earlier OpEds regarding Measure M, but that’s not my primary purpose today.

    Now Measure M is a BAD TAX and you should clearly vote “NO” on it. Simply put, the bad tax formula is: No Accountability + Never Ending + No Guarantee on how spent = BAD TAX.

    Plus, sales taxes are regressive which disproportionately hurt the lower income, fixed income, disadvantaged, and elderly. That’s why the NAACP opposes Measure M. And, this tax is during the middle of a pandemic/economic crisis when thousands are unemployed and local businesses are shutting down.

    Further, Citrus Heights does not need the money as they only have a two-year problem until millions arrive annually from property taxes. They can manage their expenses while things are lean, just like every family must do. That may not be their first choice, but they can do it.

    However, that said, let me share insights I learned about governance in Citrus Heights over the past months working on Measure M. I’m a former elected; government university faculty; seasoned practitioner of government.

    1) Citizens, you must take responsibility and ownership of your governments – local, state, etc. They are not some vague entity about which we sneer. While citizens have delegated responsibility to government, many have abdicated responsibility for the community and just look at government as their provider. The government is YOU. Our government is no better than US together.

    2) Citrus Heights Councilmembers appear to stay in office way too long. Institutional history is very valuable, but there is a balance. When serving too long, Councilmembers entrench their power base, and they get too close to staff where the council serves as a rubber stamp. And, they do not ask the hard, analytical questions. The “form or look” of governance replaces the “substance” of governance.

    3) In my experience, not all elected officials are intelligent. Some are likeable, but they can still be dumb. For many elected, their motivation subtlety revolves around ego. They like being called the Honorable this or that.

    We tend to defer to and treat electeds way too nicely, whereas they are simply our employees. Some electeds are just figureheads, only in the office as a stepping stone to greater power – I find that particularly distasteful.

    (I remember one newly elected councilmember who a week after election was telling me his grand plans of who to suck up to so that he’d be reelected in four years. I told him, “Just focus on doing your JOB. And if you do a good JOB, maybe you’ll be reelected.” Which points out, people often get into office for all of the wrong reasons. It’s not a public service, but an ego-satisfaction or career.)

    4) People like power and power corrupts. Then, the governance process becomes political, petty, and self-serving. You don’t provide honest, logical answers, but you “spin” things to get what you want.

    Measure M is spun as 1 cent, not 1 percent. Even the ballot language is spun like a sales job. If it was honest, it would simply say, “A one percent sales tax with no sunset date projected to raise $12 million a year which may be spent in any way the current or future city councils may choose.” Clear, simple, and to the point. Of course, the current council cannot mandate how the money will be spent a couple of years down the road, unless the measure puts it into writing for the voters.

    5) City salaries are massive. The city manager compensation package was $411,610 in 2019 per www.publicpay.ca.gov and growing. The president is paid $400,000 with much more responsibility. The challenge with BIG compensation is that you begin to believe you deserve it. In reality, many people could do that job just as well for $200,000 or less. See the salaries and video of how the city manger broke his “no debt promise” at votenoonm.org/no-spin-facts-about-m.

    6) When power is consolidated, governance becomes petty … and people are afraid of the city. So many people have told me, “Don’t use my name, because if the city finds out, there will be repercussions or social shunning.”

    7) When power is consolidated, self-serving dealings happen. Many vendors to the city (which are based outside of the city) poured tens of thousands into the Yes on M in a “pay to play” program. Stone’s Casino’s parent company donated $10,000! Amazingly, in the same month, the “sunset” clause in their contract with the city since 1997 was eliminated completely.

    Plus the city used taxpayer dollars to sell Measure M. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association stepped in to tell the city to stop illegally using public funds to advocate for Measure M. (See letter)

    8) Worst of all, when you consolidate power, you continue to protect your power. On Oct. 8, the city changed a 17-year policy where any two councilmembers could put an item on the agenda for discussion. Now it must be a majority. This change insures that the minority will never even have the chance to discuss an item which the majority opposes.

    Citrus Heights council votes 3-2 for controversial rule change

    Let me say, beware Citrus Heights citizens. Inside the white washed tomb, some things stink within the city. And, if you continue to give them more power and more money, and do not take ownership of your government, the stink will continue to grow.

    Bruce Lee is president of theSacramento Taxpayers Association, and a spokesman for the No on Measure M campaign.

    Want to share your own thoughts on this topic or another local issue? Submit a letter to the editor or opinion column for publication: Click here

  • Guest Opinion: A revealing week regarding business & Measure M

    By Bruce Lee–
    The week of Aug. 31 was a revealing week on how business feels about Measure M – the one percent sales tax proposed by the City of Citrus Heights on the November 2020 ballot! The new tax can legally be used for any purpose and has no end date … so it’s in essence a forever tax!

    The biggest news is that Kathilynn Carpenter, executive director of the Sunrise Marketplace, did a surprise survey of 310 of its members regarding the new proposed tax. According to her summary email that was sent to several council members and Chamber members:

    “(A)lthough we generally steer clear of campaigns …. we thought it would be interesting to see if our businesses had an opinion regarding the proposed (tax) increase. Please note, we did not send out any opposition information, just the City Council’s presentation.”

    She received a very respectable reply rate of over 16 percent, compared with the city’s survey of residents which only received responses from less than half-a-percent of the city’s 89,000 residents — when the city announced how much everyone would love this new tax increase.

    Of the Sunrise MarketPlace survey, a huge 54% opposed the new tax with scathing comments attached, compared to 36% in favor with lukewarm comments, such as, “1% won’t kill us. Being out of work as a hairstylist is what is killing me.” Or, “If it’s to help the schools, I’m for it, but I don’t want the taxes raised.” (Note – Measure M does not support the schools.)

    The 54% opposing wrote much harsher and four to five times more comments: “In a struggling climate it just adds insults to injury. The backers should be ashamed to put this out at this time!” Or, “We don’t need any other reasons (for) our customers to go to Folsom or Roseville for their shopping needs.” Or, “The request to increase sales tax a whole 1% in this areas is outrageous, especially during this unprecedented times. This is going to hurt people ….” Other comments were more colorful. And, that’s without any opposition material.

    And, with this tone of outrage, nobody should be surprised that local Citrus Heights businesses signed the petitions to oppose Measure M by the dozens last week, and the types of businesses covered all segments. A small sampling includes Chase Cleaners, Easter’s Catholic Books, Van Maren Barber, Rosa’s Restaurant, Grocery Outlet, Citrus Heights Smog and Wash, City Market, IB Tan, Alonzo’s Pizza Depot, Pastor Auto Care, Healthy Beauty, Mizuki Sushi, and the list goes on!

    So, I think we are getting a good idea that local business is not very happy with the idea of raising the sales tax for any reason … especially if there is no guaranteed purpose for the tax and it lasts forever – particularly during a pandemic and business is struggling to survive!

    But, the local Chamber of Commerce missed the point. After the MarketPlace poll was released, the Chamber voted to favor Measure M. You see, the Chamber apparently never bothered to ask its own members how they felt about this tax increase before voting. Plus, the Chamber forum, billed as fair hearing of all points of view, was tainted. Oh, and by the way, the City gives thousands of dollars to the Chamber annually.

    Ten days prior to debate the Chamber announced the place, date, format, and who of the opposition would be allowed to speak (nonresidents could not participate). The coalition of opposition (including the Sacramento Taxpayers Association; Ted Gaines, Board of Equalization; County Supervisor Sue Frost; social welfare groups; Councilmember Bret Daniels; Planning Commissioner Tim Schaefer; and others) asked to discuss the format, the date, and who our opposition speakers would be? The Chamber replied, “No changes allowed.”

    It was not the desire or intent of the opposition to boycott the debate; we just couldn’t manage the Chamber’s arbitrary guidelines. Bret Daniels was working that evening, and I (a nonresident) was not allowed to speak, even though the City and County Registrar of Voters accepted me as an approved signer on the ballot arguments.

    As planned, I arrived at the Chamber forum about 6 p.m. to drop off a written opposition statement (since I could not speak) before the 6:30 p.m. forum was to begin on August 31. Tim Schaefer accompanied me.

    I was clearly advised by Diane Riehle (interim executive director for the Chamber and wife of Ray Riehle, debate organizer) that I was not welcome and should leave. In addition, they told Tim Schaefer that he could not speak on behalf of the opposition, since he had not notified Mr. Riehle at least six hours in advance.

    So, with two of the three opposition chairs literally empty, Tim and I left. The third opposition chair had been filled by Mr. Riehle when he allowed Mr. David Warren to speak against Measure M. I’m sure Mr. Warren did a good job, but as he said, he was speaking just for himself and not for the organized opposition.

    The whole thing seemed odd and unnecessarily arbitrary … particularly to tell the opposition who their speakers could or could not be.

    Then, guess what was discovered two days later? The Treasurer for the “Yes on M” political action committee (PAC) is Diane Riehle, the Executive Director for the Chamber and wife of Ray, the moderator. And, she filed the PAC organizing statement on August 10 … three days before the City Council even gave final approval to this crazy tax on August 13. I will let you read the “tea leaves” on that one!

    Bruce Lee is president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association, and a spokesman for the No on Measure M campaign.

    Want to share your own thoughts on this topic or another local issue? Submit a letter to the editor or opinion column for publication: Click here

  • Opponents mobilize to fight Measure M sales tax proposal in Citrus Heights

    Opponents mobilize to fight Measure M sales tax proposal in Citrus Heights

    Sentinel staff report–
    Opponents of a $12 million sales tax increase in Citrus Heights are beginning to mobilize to defeat the measure in November.

    In addition to an unsuccessful, last-minute attempt to derail the measure during Thursday’s council meeting, opponents have banded together and submitted a ballot argument against the measure, calling the timing of the one-cent sales tax proposal during a pandemic “the absolute worst time.”

    The statement also takes aim at the measure’s lack of a sunset date and says “nothing prevents Measure M funds from going to salary increases, pensions, or pet projects voters do not even want.”

    Key opponents who signed the ballot argument are Sacramento County Supervisor Sue Frost, City Councilman Bret Daniels, former City Councilwoman Jayna Karpinski-Costa, local American Legion board member Jim Monteton, and Sacramento Taxpayers Association President Bruce Lee.

    The statement lists a website of VoteNoOnM.org, but as of Saturday night the website did not appear to be set up with any content.

    Measure M: Citrus Heights council votes 4-1 to put $12M sales tax increase on ballot

    Proponents of Measure M also submitted their own ballot argument, highlighting that the sales tax is needed to help maintain roads, 911 response, homelessness reduction and other city services. Proponents also note that out-of-town residents who shop in Citrus Heights will be paying “their fair share” to help boost city revenues, rather than the tax burden only falling on residents of Citrus Heights.

    Additionally, the statement highlights that the measure would create a Citizens Oversight Committee for fiscal accountability, with all tax revenue required to be spent locally in Citrus Heights.

    Proponents who signed the ballot argument in favor of Measure M are local business owner and city “godfather” Bill Van Duker, Police Activities League representative Charles McComish, Sunrise Christian Food Ministry Director Rocky Peterson, lifelong resident Kathy Cook, and neighborhood watch community leader Rick Doyle.

    The statement refers to the city’s website, citrusheights.net, to learn more about the measure.

    Polling of 404 likely voters conducted by EMC Research in late-June found as much as 71% support for a general purpose sales tax measure, which requires only a bare majority to pass in November.

    See polling results: click here

    A city manager’s office spokeswoman confirmed Friday that the polling did not include criteria to see how results might change if organized opposition arose to the measure. A prior tax proposal in 2012, Measure K, failed after only garnering 44% support.

    Rebuttals to ballot arguments can also be submitted by each side. The deadline for each side to submit rebuttals is Monday, August 17. Full statements can be viewed online here:

    Yes on M: click here

    No on M: click here

  • Guest Opinion: a new ‘forever tax’ isn’t the answer for Citrus Heights

    By Bruce Lee–
    I listened with great interest to the July 23 Citrus Heights City Council meeting regarding the proposed one-cent sales tax increase for the city.

    Measure M: Citrus Heights council votes 4-1 to put $12M sales tax increase on ballot

    I wanted to hear the rationale behind this significant tax increase, particularly after Measure A (the Sacramento Transportation Authority half-cent, 40-year sales tax increase) was just pulled off the November 2020 ballot. The measure was deemed unviable at this time of massive unemployment due to the COVID crisis and economic meltdown. Indeed, many jurisdictions pulled their sales tax proposals off the ballot due to this very poor timing.

    Measure A: $8B tax measure to fund roads, transit won’t go on Nov ballot

    Last month the Placer County Transportation Agency pulled its proposed sales tax increase. The Bay Area and Riverside did the same. A Contra Costa tax measure failed in March, after earlier positive polling.

    Per the July 15 staff report on Measure A, “should any organized opposition materialize, the measure will not be viable.” That was a 40-year, half-cent increase; and with the Citrus Heights’ “forever,” full cent increase, I am sure that “organized opposition” will materialize. If Sacramento County with its population of 1.55 million can organize opposition, how much easier in a city of 89,000.

    As President of SacTax (Sacramento Taxpayers Association), our duty is to advocate for taxpayers within Sacramento County and many issues will add to the burdens of residents and taxpayers… including the Split Roll Property Tax Proposition which would erode Proposition 13 protections for homeowners.

    I do understand the financial concerns of Citrus Heights. I served in local elected office for years, and am familiar with roadway, public safety, and other various issues. The city has a two-year problem until millions of property taxes are returned annually. This does not negate that fact that certain taxes are wiser than others.

    Though several council members implied in their comments, that there may never be a “right time” to increase taxes, some seasons are more foolish than other times. A forever, full-cent tax during a pandemic when people are struggling to survive portrays the city council as being heartless … which I am sure is not their intent or the public perception they want to extend.

    Over 12 percent of your population lives below the poverty line, and that was before the pandemic. Almost 17 percent are economically disadvantaged minorities. 67.5 percent have no college AA degree or less education.

    As the Coalition Chair to defeat Measure A, I worked with a wide array of constituents, including the NAACP, National Action Network, and SacLatino community. It was eye opening to see life and taxes from their perspective.

    According to Alice Huffman, President of the California NAACP:

    “We believe that Sacramento families and local businesses simply cannot afford another cost of living increase. In every corner of our community, we are experiencing sudden job loss and a drastic reduction in income due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Regarding Measure A), placing a tax increase on the ballot would be done in bad-faith with the voters … and severely limit … the ability to generate revenue in the future.”

    Per Dr. Tecoy Porter, President of the Sacramento National Action Network regarding Measure A:

    “Simply put, consideration of the … tax increase on the November 2020 ballot is at odds with the mission of our organization and best interest of our members. Should the measure appear on the ballot this fall, we will have no choice but to oppose it. …. It is clear to us that the appetite for increased local taxes is at an all-time low. … Voting yes … on a tax plan simply so ‘we can see what happens in November’ is a sad void of leadership ….Postponing the measure until 2022 communicates to constituents … that their input is not only valued but listened to.”

    Perhaps you or I may not be adversely impacted by a tax increase. Maybe we have comfortable incomes. Maybe we have government or union-protected jobs that provide security. However, the vast majority of people do not have these luxuries. I know these people. I work with these people, who live and struggle paycheck to paycheck, or today without any paychecks.

    Let me please conclude:

    • A “forever” tax with no sunset is generally a poor policy (and to say that the people can rally together in the future to rescind the tax is “pie in the sky.”)
    • The proposal increases government revenue in a regressive manner. Other options exist.
    • This matter had very limited public exposure. Evidently Citrus Heights spent 20 months talking to people about their general priorities, but that is not the same thing as talking with people about a specific tax measure at a specific time. The city did poll 404 people of 89,000 (less than ½ percent), but that is not a replacement for earnest public debate.
    • The Citizen Oversight provided in the measure is after-the-fact, with no authority – it’s virtually useless.
    • There are no spending guarantees. Nothing prevents these taxes from going to salary increases, pensions, or pet projects voters do not even want.

    My comments are not exhaustive. However, I believe they should cause everyone to reconsider the pursuit of this tax increase and its viability.

    Bruce Lee

    SacTax stands ready to aid Citrus Heights as it seeks its way through the next couple of years until its full measure of property tax revenue is restored to the city. Indeed, a two-year problem does not necessarily warrant a “forever” solution.

    Bruce Lee is president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association.

    Want to share your own thoughts on this topic or another local issue? Submit a letter to the editor or opinion column for publication: Click here