Property owners in Contra Costa County this past week received mail ballots for the "2012 Community Clean Water Initiative," which would add a fee to property tax bills to fund local government programs for reducing water pollution.
Our article Saturday about the non-traditional ballot measure, "," drew several reader comments on both sides of the issue. So we'd like to know what additional readers think.
Please cast your vote in our reader poll below and feel welcome to share your view in the comments section.
They object to the mailing which made it look like an official ballot from tehe County, therefore deceptive. JGA
This is not an "OFFICAL BALLOT". It is a completely illegal. A REAL ballot would need thousands of signatures to make it legal to ballot and then, if approved, be put into the NEXT local elections. Carol in Walnut Creek, is not in any position to send out and receive "OFFICAL Contra Costa BALLOTS" This is under-the-table politics at work. I can't believe they would even try this. Completely ILLEGAL. Do not vote this through. Call the CCC offices, and find out for yourself. Gee, I think I will send out an "OFFICAL BALLOT" to add a parcel tax to fund my gardening efforts to "make it a better world". You too can make up one of your own ...Politics ... Sleasy Politics ... by sleasy politicians.
if we do not approve this fee, the costs of compliance come out of local general funds, according to the website: http://www.cccleanwater.org/cleanwaterinitiative/index.html If an election is unsuccessful, Contra Costa County and its 19 cities/towns municipalities) will not have sufficient dedicated revenue to fund all NPDES Permit compliance mandates. Each Contra Costa municipality will need to determine how it will fund permit compliance activities. The most likely funding source will be a municipality’s general fund. Funding from municipal general funds for compliance with the Federal and State mandated stormwater rules will necessitate cuts in funding for other community services. Failure to identify and obtain additional funding for stormwater compliance mandates will result in municipalities not being able to fully fund all their stormwater compliance activities resulting in permit non-compliance and potential Administrative Civil Liabilities imposed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards up to $10,000 per day in violation and $10 per gallon of polluted discharge. Additionally, Contra Costa municipalities may face potential liabilities resulting from third party lawsuits allowable under the Federal Clean Water Act.
there are businesses in our area far more likely to pollute than any household, and i would prefer the costs of compliance rest more heavily on them. but it is literally penny-wise and pound-foolish to vote against this measure because you oppose taxes as a general matter. our community seriously needs to not be taking fines out of general funds. and also, who's against clean water?
Those that make and enforce rules have a financial interest and monetary incentive in the system that keeps them on the job. Less fortunate residents must make choices as to where to spend their scarce dollars and taxes grab those few dollars first. If the regulators wanted to show some compassion to the lower class who struggle to pay these fees, they'd postpone the tax until the economy improves and more people can find work.
Therefore, everyone should have to support and protect through taxes and /or direct fees, instead of just levies applied to those of us that own SFR's for personal use, our limited natural resources.
There is nothing to be gained by squeezing the local agencies charged with enforcement. If the regulations are the problem, then there is a process for having them repealed. Non-compliance does nothing to change the laws, but it will guarantee more pain, and will certainly cost more than a few pennies per homeowner per day.
I think you would too if you knew the CWI was out of the United Nations incarnations of Agenda 21 and OneBayArea's playbooks to subjugate the USA through environmental laws, regulation, and taxes. Their goals cannot be accomplished without violation of basic civil liberties and wholesale seizures of property. I think you would oppose the CWI if you realized the federal government’s mandate to carry out the will of the United Nations, whether the feds provided the money. Local governments should challenge the feds authority in purely local matters. I think you would oppose CWI if you knew they plan on forcing you into high-rise concentrations near transportation nodes. Housing could not, at best, be anything better than something like Section 8 housing. They simply need to find a convincing way of saying land-use is “unsustainable”, condemn property around nodes to build housing, and enforce it with police power. Does the term "jack-booted thugs" have any meaning for you? How could CWI election be found legal. The fact the board of supervisors called this election with large third-party expenses, votes counted by a 3rd party, non-secret ballot, and local governments and nonprofits having thousands of votes against its own citizens using the citizens own tax dollars means the CWI doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test. My friends, consider getting out your pitch fork and storm the castle.