Hey conservatives, when you voted to elect (now Mayor Pro Tem) Brian Campbell, (now) Mayor Anthony Misetich, Councilwoman Susan Brooks and Councilman Jerry Duhovic, did you know you would be voting to elect folks who have no real trouble raising fees and generating revenue at the MAXIMUM level requested?
Being a very liberal person, I thought is was folks like me and the three former council members, Wolowicz, Stern, and Long who would raise fees to the highest level possible.
By a vote of 5-0, the R.P.V. City Council voted to raise the fees for Residential Customers of EDCO by the MAXIMUM allowable increase of 2.3%.
Sure, that's not really a big amount as far as how much we are going to pay, but what about the principle and campaign rhetoric we heard from all of the candidates.
With the MAXIMUM increase requested, our city's coffers also get an increase of about $10,850 this coming year from EDCO.
Then, let's take into account that everything that Marymount College's administration and supporters have asked for, from this council, has been approved.
It kind of continues to prove my point about the conservative-dominated City Council.
It looks like as far as they are concerned, business interests within and for our city come first.
Government size and increases in revenue come second.
Residential interests come last, of those three.
Is this a good thing? Not for me! I continue to think and feel that our elected representatives represent the residents who voted them into office, FIRST!
I then think the members should consider government working for RESIDENTS, second.
I would like to see business interests, especially one who are owned and/or operated by non-RPV residents coming in third, within the group of three.
Lower taxes? Well, considering the increase in revenue (tax) this council will require EDCO to pay, I guess all of them who claim or claimed they were interested in lowering your taxes might be saying something on one side of their mouths, but it comes out quite differently from the other side of they mouths.
Remember, the increase in revenue the city gets is from the increase in fees we are all going to now have to pay.
As for me, I didn't see my EDCO service improve even 2.3% during the previous year. We see a staggered collection time, during the day. Our waste is picked up fairly early in the morning and our recycle and green waste may hang around until late afternoon.
Sometimes we have to make trips at different times of the day to bring in our cans. Wouldn't a one-time period per day be better to bring our cans from the street, rather than taking one back in the morning or having it linger out there empty, until the last truck picks up the last container?
We all understand that costs go up. One chart in the package for the increase stated that there was an increase of 1.9% (in total for that graph), .4% less than the rate increase was approved for.
In one Email to one council member, I suggested that no rate increase should be voted on, but I did state that I thought a 1.15% increase could be considered favorable. As a liberal and someone who can afford the 2.3% increase, I really don't mind that too much, especially if it leads to raises for working folks at EDCO, they could all use a raise, I think.
Time and votes have demonstrated that business interests in our city, what businesses want and how they go about getting what they want, is going to be a major issue, for at least the next two years.
Watch Marymount get every extension they request. Sit back and witness Marymount being given an increase in student body counts at its Rancho Palos Verdes campus.
Consider what we might see in the awarding of contracts.
Gaze at the length of time it takes to make even emergency repairs necessary when dealing with San Ramon Canyon, when it could involve possibly great delays in traffic by our residents.
I'm the leftest. I'm the liberal, yes, you are most welcome to consider me a progressive. It would normally be odd for someone like me to mention the increase in fees to residents, approved of by this council. But after all the campaign jargon, literature, statements, ideals, mentions and now votes by the majority of members of our council, it appears they favor business more than they support our residents, in my sole opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I did not forget Councilman Jim Knight. He is a very fine council member and I don't remember him running as a more conservative candidate than Susan Brooks and Jerry Duhovic.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the vote might have been had Dave Emmenhiser won a seat on our council.
I'm 6 months late on this one - 2.3% covers inflation. Cost of gas, cost of health care, etc. Your rationale was very thin. Are you for the employee raises or not? Back and forth - yes increase, no increase. So what is it? Just a chance to bash conservatives?
ReplyDeleteThanks 'Anonymous', for your comments.
ReplyDeleteI talked with a couple of C.C members about the vote and they both basically explained that they had no choice in increasing the fees by the maximum level and it was simply a 'formality' per language in the contract and the increased fees for the landfill.
After a year in which 'conservatives' have been in the majority on our C.C. I think we can see that little in the way of growth in our community and positive things for our residents have occurred, save for a very few things.
At this point, the only 'good' result from the Council this past year has been the Western Avenue Beautification Project, which a person 'in the know' says will probably never happen.
Look how long it too to debate, discuss and otherwise approved the 'new' set of rules and procedures for this Council. If you see how different it really is, compared to previous sets of Rules, you have pretty good eyesight because I missed it.
Marymount still seems to be calling the shots and if an extension of Phase One's time frame is granted on December 18, it will continue to demonstrate that the majority of C.C. members are not willing or able to govern for the residents over governing on behalf of business interests in RPV.
The discussions about the Neighborhood Beautification grants took how long and led to what? Watch for more news about that, coming up.
There is still not enough money to begin the San Ramon Stabilization Project even almost half of the funds have been provided for by a Democratic held statehouse.
I know it's not the fault of our C.C., but I hope you watched the results of this past election when 'conservatives' were technically 'bashed' on the hill by the majority of voters here.
In this past year, many 'conservatives' have been very busy doing very little in support of the residents versus business interests and those business interests have done nothing to improve the lives of the residents, I feel.
It doesn't look like I need to further 'bash conservatives' because they apparently continue to do it to theselves and more and more folks are watching and reacting to it.
Mark Wells