Steve,
Since this "SMARTER" plan benefits the City of Moreno Valley you are
supporting it. I wonder what your position would be if it was detrimental
to your City. It appears that you are taking a selfish view of this
proposal and not being morally and intellectually true to this issue. This
is a wholesale change of the rules of the game. One that should not be
taken lightly and one that should not be voted on based on your city's
cost/benefit.
"Robin Hood" may be romanticized in our culture but he was still a
thief/robber and stole from others.
We already have our modern day "Robin Hood" in Washington. We are living in
the days of the most massive wealth redistribution in this nations history.
The founders of this nation would be appalled at what is going on today.
R O N A H L E R S
CITY of GLENDALE
141 NORTH GLENDALE AVENUE SUITE 346
GLENDALE, CA 91206
818-548-2085 {voice}
818-956-3286 {fax}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Chapman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 2:51 PM
To: 'Brian Moura'; 'Karen Jackson'
Cc: CSMFO Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [CSMFO Members] The Controller's "Smarter" report ?
Many cities would disagree with a position of objecting to the 100% per
capita allocation of sales tax as offered in the Smarter Plan. Moreno Valley
sees the Smarter Plan as the modern day Robin Hood.
Initially, it provides us with an additional $800,000 per year. I
understand the drafters guarantee that nobody loses revenue, and we no
longer need to fight with each other over malls and discount outlets, that
erode our quality of life.
Of cities over 100,000 population (140,000), we probably have the lowest per
capita sales tax in the state. We say "YES" to the Smarter Plan.
Steve Chapman
Finance Director
City of Moreno Valley
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Moura [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 1:32 PM
To: 'Karen Jackson'
Cc: CSMFO Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [CSMFO Members] The Controller's "Smarter" report ?
We haven't prepared a detailed analysis of the "Smarter" report. But we
have the same objections to it that we had to the original. Some of the key
points:
* PLACE A CAP ON ERAF PROPERTY TAX SHIFT - Yes
* RETURN A PORTION OF ERAF TO CITIES & COUNTIES - Yes; would like to
see a larger return
* APPORTION FUTURE SALES TAX GROWTH ON PER CAPITA BASIS - No
* CONVERT ALL SALES TAX REVENUES OVER 20 YEAR PERIOD TO PER CAPITA -
No
* ELIMINATE UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES TO CITIES - Yes; need for court
order is impractical
* PROPOSAL SHIFTS MORE REVENUE TO COUNTIES; REDUCES FUNDS TO CITIES
- No
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Jackson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 10:54 AM
Subject: SMARTER report
I have a question regarding Ms. Connell's SMARTER report. I have seen the
League's analysis on the SMART report. However, I have not seen an
analysis on the SMARTER report. I was wondering if you or any of your
colleagues have an opinion on this report? Thank you for your help.
Karen Jackson
City of Fremont
(510) 494-4763
