Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Opponents of Measure W incite fear and confusion
Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:26 AM PST
The "No on Measure W" argument says that redevelopment will create $400 million in debt. Where did that figure come from?
It came from the State of California's survey of Lodi's proposed redevelopment area and its ability to "carry" debt. ON THE SAME PAGE of the state's assessment it says the incremental tax revenue through the redevelopment area will be $800 million, more than enough to pay that debt back should it even be borrowed in the first place!
This is exactly what each and every home owner does when taking out a loan to buy a house. If you have enough cash flow to make the payments, more than the debt you incur, banks agree the risk and debt is manageable. We did this when you and I bought our homes. Two things are certain in life, "Death and Taxes," the property taxes paid yearly in the redevelopment area is the cash flow to pay off the debt should it occur in Measure W.
The "no" argument is telling HALF the truth to make their fear-filled case. Creating fear through telling half the truth is deceiving the citizens of Lodi and robbing the Eastside of progress.
Here are some other half-truths: The "no" argument says our Lodi property tax dollars go to our schools, and run county programs. If that is true, why has the Lodi School Board voted UNANIMOUSLY in favor of YES on Measure W?
Because the appreciated backfill dollars from a Lodi Redevelopment Area (LUSD calculates) will amount to $58 million dollars coming to LUSD. Also if the county will lose so much, why aren't they objecting? Former County Supervisor Victor Mow even asked our mayor why we didn't have redevelopment — all the other San Joaquin County cities do. Once upon a time more of our tax dollars did indeed stay here but in 1992 the state created the ERAF-Shift which took money from cities to give to schools on a statewide basis.
So far the state has taken $28 million from Lodi. Do you hear the county or local schools or Delta College saying — "We will suffer if Lodi gets this redevelopment plan." No you don't, what you do hear them all saying is, the state is cutting us, not giving us what we need. People, where does the state get all its money? Our property taxes!
Redevelopment CREATES more by improving property values, LUSD knows that, we need YOU to understand it.
For 103 years Lodi government has been run by a five-person City Council. Three votes is a majority, decisions are made after citizens input. Every two budget years these five people make decisions on issues amounting to over $400 million dollars. A very misleading statement by JoAnne Mounce is that redevelopment creates a "new layer of government and gives the city council a blank check." Doesn't "a new layer of government" sound like more people and more expense? It does not. The same five people whom WE elect for City Council make up the Redevelopment Agency. If we don't like the way they govern we CAN vote them out. The staff that carries out the new Eastside projects will be the current city staff. The "new layer" is a separate meeting, so citizens can come forward to speak for the needs and projects they want or oppose within the redevelopment area.
And the "Blank Check"? How money is to be spent in the Redevelopment Agency is done in the same way the council spends money today and has for 103 years. Except that Lodi is running out of money. Redevelopment gives Lodi a new revenue stream to do a myriad of good things for the people and businesses on the Eastside for a long time into the future.
It is telling that Mounce does not trust the form of government she participates in nor her peers to make good decisions.
Every argument the no-side has ... comes from a fear of what "might" happen or a mistrust of local government. So are we to think giving our property taxes to the state is more beneficial? We trust Sacramento to do more for Lodi? We in Lodi can vote southern California legislatures out right? The best government is that government closest to the people, that government is local government. We can vote locals out if we are displeased with them. You can talk to any of our local officials with your concerns, and speak before them publicly twice a month or more. You can not do that with all the state's legislators. Who would you rather have spending the blank check?
The threat of eminent domain in the Lodi Redevelopment plan is a lie told to incite fear into those who are unaware. The city of Lodi (as all cities) has had the power of eminent domain and has since its inception. In the last 103 years the city of Lodi has used this power three times. All done peaceably, meaning the landowner was given full value for their property. The "no" voices fear a future City Council "might" reverse the two laws on the books that prohibit the taking of private property for another's use. By doing so, this same council will forge ahead and damn the sure-to-come lawsuits as it ignores state law created just this last year prohibiting the taking of private property. Really, what are the chances? Should this extra-long shot chance rob us of the opportunity to add millions of dollars for needed improvements?
Listen to the "no" voices and their arguments. The common threads are FEAR and MISTRUST propped up by half-truths and misinformation. Voting "no" means no meaningful progress will come to the Eastside if Measure W fails ... what you see today on the Eastside will not be getting better on its own, only further deterioration.
City departments and services will all vie for dwindling local revenue streams ... that is the truth like it or not. If you want something to be fearful of ... vote "no."
Lodi needs to pass Measure W, cast a "fear-less" vote ... please, vote "YES" on March 3.
Pat Patrick is CEO of the Lodi Chamber of Commerce.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
danielh wrote on Feb 25, 2009 6:31 AM:
Lodi voters were not impressed. "
danielh wrote on Feb 25, 2009 6:30 AM:
The deepest pockets are public businesses, not the private sector, and these are the pockets that are usually asked for campaign donations.
Every one of the campaign donations is given with an understanding that the political candidate will represent the interests of the Donator.
This is why the construction companies donate to CC candiates. Usually, a business that doesn't donate isn't eligible to win a job if it didn't donate.
Additionally, candidates who accept large funds from construction companies have a financial advantage in the elections. "
danielh wrote on Feb 25, 2009 1:15 AM:
Compound this question upon the thinking of the voters.
Ask yourself if you would vote for me, or for one of the big business names that you have seen in Lodi for all of your life. "
danielh wrote on Feb 25, 2009 12:54 AM:
These theories ignore the fact that CC does not encourage business investment which would increase property values and justifying the economics of home improvements.
Without business investment, property values will go down, and then local citizens are looking at their government to divert funding away from general welfare (police, fire, roads, libraries, parks, etc) into special interests.
Sorry, with the disasters at Plummer and Geweke Dodge, these will reduce property values further. these are unrelated to Lodi politics. These are related to national banking fraud. "
danielh wrote on Feb 25, 2009 12:48 AM:
Example: El Rushbo: "Plain and simple." -What in the world does this say? "
danielh wrote on Feb 25, 2009 12:45 AM:
As a matter of fact, I have walked door-to-door for a candidate who was running for CC in Lodi. If you were on my list of previous voters, I might have come by your house.
I considered running for CC myself.
I decided it was wisest to endorse a candidate who had a like-mind.
I think I'm more effective for Lodi in the newspaper and the comments. "
danielh wrote on Feb 25, 2009 12:39 AM:
Madman wrote on Feb 24, 2009 6:12 PM:
You are foolish if you think you can trust them with your RDA money. They will spend it where ever they feel like it. In 20 years the east will still be the same and your city will be more in debt. "
Aimee wrote on Feb 24, 2009 12:11 PM:
I know it is a bit off topic here but I am unable to post on the Record's site (no account) to respond to that particular post.
Thanks! "
Observer wrote on Feb 23, 2009 4:07 PM:
mp wrote on Feb 23, 2009 1:31 PM:
Not on this issue!
From the very beginning, they have treated the community like mushrooms. You know keep them in the dark and feed them b....
All bets were off when cc sent these color brochures inviting me to learn all about redevelopment. Only problem was they sent the invitation two days after the meeting!!!!!!
I had to do my own homework on the issue and what I found was not pretty.
Lodi has been for all of my 56 years - a very conservative town. Nothing about redevelopment is conservative.
It seems to me that I am doing exactly what the Lodi News is allowing by offering these blogs. I am offering my opinion.
Now I know full well that EVERY voting citizen has the opporunity to weight in on redevelopment on March 3.
I am simply offering an opinion in an attempt to foster NO VOTES on a very dangerous move - IN MY OPINION! "
gardengal wrote on Feb 23, 2009 12:41 PM:
gardengal wrote on Feb 23, 2009 12:31 PM:
OTH wrote on Feb 20, 2009 6:10 PM:
mp wrote on Feb 20, 2009 10:57 AM:
venues: Stockton Ballpark, Bob Hope Theatre and Oak park lce Arena.
All Redevelopment projects.
The arena deficit has climbed to more than $7 million since 2006, the arena's first full year of operation. lt lost $2.4million in 2008, about $300,000 more than in 2007, according to officials in a statement provided by the city.
Included in a note accompanying a building operations line item on one statement was mention of $43,000 for ice
generator repairs and $25,000 for "Elephant Dung Clean up." .
The ballpark lost $335,801 in 2008, a modest improvement over the previous year. The theater did worse than in
2007, losing $350,784. Oak Park lce Arena lost 934,853.
The four facilities built with redevelopment funds.
The $69 million arena was not intended to be a profit center.
The extent of its burden on the city's already-tietering general fund is staggering.
Maintenance and upkeep of new facilities built with redevelopment will be a greater burden to Lodi's general fund than without RDA. "
Observer wrote on Feb 20, 2009 8:17 AM:
loadeye wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:13 PM:
mp wrote on Feb 19, 2009 5:59 PM:
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
Today
San Diego's downtown redevelopment agency is cutting loose two of its six-figure-paycheck executives.
Barbara Kaiser, vice president for real estate, and Phil Bona, assistant vice president for architecture and planning, lost their jobs this week at the Centre City Development Corp.
CCDC Chairman Fred Maas called the move reflective of the times. He said the decision was made after examining where there was duplication of effort in the agency's workload. CCDC is a nonprofit city agency that plans for downtown redevelopment.
Kaiser usually sat in the president's chair at CCDC board meetings after the resignation of former president Nancy Graham last summer. Maas said he will act as the agency's top executive for now. He, like the agency's other board members.
He also said the 55-employee agency will lean on longtime executives such as Chief Financial Officer Frank Alessi and David Allsbrook, assistant vice president for contracting and public works.
Another layer of government. "
Observer wrote on Feb 19, 2009 5:08 PM:
patton1 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 2:17 PM:
patton1 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 2:15 PM:
patton1 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 2:14 PM:
mp wrote on Feb 19, 2009 11:44 AM:
When it is all over and the lies and mis-truths have stopped bring rda back and include strick checks and balances. "
mp wrote on Feb 19, 2009 11:40 AM:
loadeye wrote on Feb 19, 2009 10:20 AM:
lodidian wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:38 PM:
I will vote no on measure W, not because I don't want the money for our community but because I do not believe the current council can manage this project fairly or effectively. "
loadeye wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:36 PM:
OTH wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:15 PM:
Hang in there, You have done a lot for the citizens of Lodi and they appreciate it. I'd take one of you over 15 Pat Patricks. Some people are just legends in their own minds. "
OTH wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:10 PM:
As I said before have another glass of the grape but by now you've probably climbed in. You can always tell when it gets close to election time.
I don't want the CC with the exception of Ms Mounce to get anywhere near that amount of money. It would be like a teenager in a whorehouse. They couldn't spent it fast enough. I'm with the blogger who said why not wait a year see what happens.
Unfortunately that's not Lodi. There's money to be made and a lot to be spent. So let's spend, spend, spend. Whether ewe have it or not. "
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:08 PM:
You must be one of the CC members. "
real one wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:50 PM:
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:21 PM:
I couldn't finish reading through your own hatred, when I found you were accusing someone else of hate.
This is the classic golden rule, and the NOTICE for the unenlightened. You have 3 fingers pointing at yourself. "
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:18 PM:
CC members are responsible to the voters, not to Joanne. "
patton1 wrote on Feb 18, 2009 4:32 PM:
Smoot wrote on Feb 18, 2009 4:06 PM:
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:51 PM:
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:49 PM:
The Stockton Record has a long track record of endorsing their CC members. Look at the poverty in Stockton! The Stockton Record had a strong role in what now stands there.
gardengal: Your research can't help, because you're straight out of an Orwellian novel. "
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:46 PM:
Voters read the signs to decide how to vote. Voters don't care if the signs are correct or not.
Voters had at least one candidate who I know for sure would have turned the vote into 3-2 instead of 4-1. With a 3-2 vote, then there would be 2 members talking to the newspaper, and the 3 would have to justify their positions.
Next election, I am sure, voters will forget all about this Measure W, even if it is eating holes in their pocketbook.
Sounds Orwellian, doesn't it? "
gardengal wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:42 PM:
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:42 PM:
Politics and money power don't work like that.
CC has been working on this project for a lot of years, and they don't appreciate someone like Joanne coming into their chambers and mouthing off to the newspaper. "
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:40 PM:
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:39 PM:
Caveman wrote on Feb 18, 2009 12:26 PM:
Smoot wrote on Feb 18, 2009 11:03 AM:
While Lodi Unified is struggling to pay it's bills, you'd say no to $58 million dollars in new revenue for schools - without a tax increase. Betcha those Eastside kids will appreciate your vote when their schools lack A/C in the summer and heat in the winter. Oh what the heck..it'll toughen 'em up, right?
You decry redevelopment as government subsidizing the private sector but freely vote for CDBG funding on the Eastside - what is that? At least redevelopment pays it's way - CDBG is nothing more than a government handout.
All those folks who need quality jobs on the Eastside can kiss off the potential for new employers. How does that help those you represent?
The Redevelopment Agency already exists - the City Council governs it. You're a part of the City Council. Are you saying you lack the ability to persuade your colleagues to make good decisions? Or is this the political equivalent of sitting in the corner and holding your breath until you turn blue? "
patton1 wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:42 AM:
patton1 wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:41 AM:
patton1 wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:39 AM:
patton1 wrote on Feb 18, 2009 10:36 AM:
mp wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:39 AM:
My electric bill is sky high and our cc is in charge of that money.
The city is in debt by $247 million dollars and the cc is in charge of that!
I wanted Walmart and the cc doesn't listen to that!
We pay for sewer and water upgrades but the cc spent 9 million on something else!
The eastside has been asking for help for 25 years and they didn't listen to that!
Now they want to give my tax dollar to developers and I am to trust them !
Forget it!
Stop the WASTE Vote NO ON W! "
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:24 AM:
Wake-up Lodi. All you have to do to see what will happen to you, is just look 15 miles down the street.
(I don't think Mr. Patrick will wake-up.) "
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:22 AM:
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:21 AM:
Also, if Measure "W" passes, its foundation (incremental tax revenue) is based upon speculation that it will go up. "
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:19 AM:
You wrote, "But Joanne, with all due respect, I would much prefer our local elected officials be in charge and have use of that money than County, State or federal officials."
This philosophy supports a "NO" vote on Measure "W."
There can be nothing further from the truth than the proponents' campaign slogan to keep the money in Lodi. "
danielh wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:17 AM:
How about police, fire, roads, library, and parks? "
loadeye wrote on Feb 18, 2009 9:04 AM:
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090218/A_NEWS/902180332 "
loadeye wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:23 AM:
loadeye wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:20 AM:
loadeye wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:18 AM:
Observer wrote on Feb 18, 2009 8:09 AM:
joanne wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:44 AM:
RDA is a new layer of government giving our city council new powers and a new pot of money to do with what that choose. The RDA is a new board and I call that a new layer.
As for the "blank check". You bet it is! 20% of RDA monies is to be spent on affordable housing. (The state average is 6%) So, that leave 80% of $400 million dollars that the city council can spend as they please. I call that a blank check.
Mr. Patrick, I appreciate what you are saying, but respectfully disagree with you. "
Comments on this story are now closed.