Writer encourages a 'yes' vote on W

In response to Mr. Knauf's letter, published Dec. 30, 2008, regarding redevelopment and the transparency it requires, I am wondering how transparent his argument is intended to be?

I believe that his letter is another attempt to dissuade the voters of Lodi to vote "yes" for W based on scare tactics.

Mr. Knauf is suggesting that redevelopment is the brain-child of three city councilmen in Lodi, yet of the 163 cities in California with populations over 50,000, only eight cities do not have a redevelopment plan in place. Additionally, Susan Hitchcock, a fourth City Council member, is firmly in favor of redevelopment, as is our financial watchdog, John Johnson. This doesn't sound like "backroom politics" but a consensus opinion by city leaders who generally don't agree on anything!

Mr. Knauf also suggests that inflation will cause the city to raise property taxes. The city has no control over the raising of property tax; nor does redevelopment raise property taxes. Redevelopment takes the future growth of property value and gives the majority of the increase in taxes to the city of Lodi instead of the State of California.

Redevelopment is a revenue source that has been overlooked and could help the city of Lodi to make improvements without raising taxes.

Vote "yes" on W.

Mike Georguson
Lodi

Reader Feedback

El Rushbo wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:31 PM:

" loadeye, u dont know what youre talking about. Hansen is as good of a man as youre possibly ever going to meet in Lodi. He is NOT lining his pockets with whatever meeger pittance you imagine. BJ has always wanted to make Lodi like LA, and Phil is......Phil. What Pat Patrick says.... Phil does.... "

Report Abuse

Curveball wrote on Jan 6, 2009 6:16 PM:

" Wow Loadeye,,what a piece of work. "

Report Abuse

loadeye wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:55 PM:

" The real problem I have with redevelopment is that the same three ayemeegos will be doling out those taxpayer and government funds to themselves and their business partners, like Auriga consultants. "

Report Abuse

loadeye wrote on Jan 6, 2009 5:52 PM:

" reality and patton1, tell me your real names and I'll tell you if you're one of those skimmers. I'm sure you are since you and your other identities still think Lodi is in great shape and your worthless ayemeegos are merely doing what they're told. They remind me of one of my former heroes: Sheriff Baxter Dunn. "

Report Abuse

reality wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:54 PM:

" loadeye i think you really need some therapy. your 9:30 post was one of your all time best "

Report Abuse

patton1 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:24 AM:

" What are you talking about? What crooks has Mounce exposed? She is in favor of RDA herself althought she says she woiuld like a more detailed list of projects. Why shouldnt Lodi keep the same amount of revenue as 95% of other cities? Your hatred of our city government has clouded your judgement. RDA is a good thing, a very good thing. "

Report Abuse

loadeye wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:39 AM:

" Those streets and sewer lines should've been fixed years ago by the city, not redevelopment money. The sewers should've been repaired by the gross polluters like Katzakians' Lodi Printing and the Lodi News-Sentinel owned by the Weybrets if they would have been ordered to pay their share of the $50 million or so instead of the peanuts these council reps and manager let them settle for because they're the good old boys. Why should redevelopment fix up those homes and properties owned by Lodi's wealthy slumlords? Shouldn't they pay to fix them up themselves and not the taxpayers? Patton, debt is debt, and Lodi is up to its neck now. Property values are cut in half, so how do you surmise these property taxes are going to be a gold mine? Ex-mayor Mounce already exposed the rest of you crooks and yet you continue to spend Lodi into oblivion and more debt. Manager King is an RDA specialist for 20 years or so nowand he'll bring those bay area business partners of his to Lodi to rape and pillage this town for what little it has left. Vote no on RDA until the economy stabilizes in 2011. "

Report Abuse

patton1 wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:45 AM:

" Loadeye, please get informed! How does replacing streets and sewer lines etc.
benefit the wealthy? Lodi needs the extra revenue that 95% of other cities now receive. Passing measure W just evens the playing field with the rest of the other cities. I am tired of Lodi receiving back a lower amount of our tax dollars than the other 95% of cities in California. One other thing, RDA debt is different than general fund debt. One is unsecured, the other secured by property taxes. "

Report Abuse

reality wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:38 AM:

" excellent letter packed with facts rather than the blown up scare tactics utilized by loadeye and the others who oppose measure w "

Report Abuse

loadeye wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:18 AM:

" If redevelopment is so good, why did the city council of Lodi vote to raise the city debt limit to 400 or 500 million dollars from its current 250 million or so it's currently in debt? Why does redevelopment incur more debt? While redevelopment will benefit the already wealthy and slumlords and slum property owners with free government money, Lodi will wallow further in debt. "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Archives

Story Tools

Indexes

Writer encourages a 'yes' vote on W

Reader Feedback

Special Sections

Photo Reprints

Find Ads

Weather

Services

Contact Us

Office

Newsroom

Subscriptions

Advertising

Classifieds