Comments by laplayaheritage

Pretty slick, City

Proposition 26 broadened the definition of taxes to include MANY payments considered to be fees or charges. MANY, but not ALL fees turned into taxes. Some fees still remain through Exemptions to the new law such as Parking Districts, Special Benefit Assessments Districts, Maintenance Assessments, and limited Business Improvement Districts (BID). Proposition 26 in 2010 passed with only 52.4% of the vote, not 67%. Section 1, Article XIII C "Voter Approval for Local Tax Levies" of the California Constitution was amended to read: "(e) As used in this article, “tax” means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government, EXCEPT the following: (1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege. (2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. (3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. (4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property. (5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law. (6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. (7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D. The local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. (Sec. 1 amended Nov. 2, 2010, by Prop. 26. Initiative measure.)" California Constitution Article XIID Assessment and Property-Related Fee Reform states: Section 2 (b) “Assessment” means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. “Assessment” includes, but is not limited to, “special assessment,” “benefit assessment,” “maintenance assessment” and “special assessment tax.”
— August 28, 2014 2:46 p.m.

“Free” city land just got pricey

Great job Cory. Hopefully the City will change and someone will get fired over the purposeful violations of the Municipal Code and State laws against the original gifting of public park lands. Hopefully next time the City Council will not just go along with the City Attorney's legal recommendation that is okay to gift public Park land assets to any Developer who challenges the fee requirement. Hopefully the City Auditor will Investigate the administrative violations of law regarding the Sunroad Easement giveaways and the usurping of the Office of the Mayor by bringing forth the first City Council Agenda Item with just the Approval of City Council President Todd Gloria and City Attorney Goldsmith, bypassing City Staff. Violating our City Charter. Therefore requiring a Mayoral Veto, in order to NOT set a new legal precedent in favor of the City Council. Note at the first public hearing on Sunroad's Public Park Easement giveaways, the City Attorney approved bypassing and Upsurping the Office of the Mayor, and giving Sunroad the gift of public park land. It was only after the Mayoral veto that the City Attorney wrote his CYA Legal Memorandum on the proper way of determining the costs of the easements and the use of overriding legal City Council Policies. Set Up. Shady. Self Serving. Pathetic. First in exchange for "NOTHING", Second a very questionable $100,000 payment, and Third for nothing "Again."
— August 25, 2014 4:40 p.m.

Manchester wins a Navy Broadway battle

The United States Navy approved the limited Seismic Hazards fault investigation, without input from USGS, or the California Geological Survey (CGS) who never seen, yet approved, the Federal Environmental Assessment, or CEQA, and NEPA documents. Susan Hough of the USGS never approved the initial fault investigation as was reported by then-Navy Admiral Len Herring in the Federal Environmental Assessment (EA). [Against Propositions B&C Barrio Logan Plan] In 2006 Michael Kennedy of the California Geological Survey (CGS) stated that it is imperative that the exact location of the Coronado strand of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ) be confirmed or denied by the City. Never happened. In 2007, the former City Geologist Landry stated in the NBC public hearings that he requires more scientific evidence and information before approvals and fault buffer setback are established. A subsequent fault investigation was conducted, but never turned into the city for review or approval. See Pages 4 to 17 that documents several foundations for the Coronado Bridge are on top of known active faults. If the bridge or Navy Broadway Complex was built today, first a fault investigations would be conducted, then fault buffer setbacks would be established, and the location of planned pile foundations would be relocated away from the active faults.
— May 29, 2014 3:55 p.m.

Auditor, ethics director back plan to purge emails

The IBA, Financial staff, the City Attorney and all who signed the Purge are also in collusion with regards to the plundering of the $908 million in Successor Agency assets for the benefit of the City's and County's General Funds, instead of justice for the poor. There is also ongoing manipulation of the City Council as it related to Civic San Diego and their unfunded $20.4 Million in Administrative costs from our General Fund Reserves that they all agreed to erased and write off in the FY-2013 CAFR as part of the total $211 Million Write Off based on bad legal advice by the City Attorney. Just last month on February 10, 2014 as Item S404 ROPS-6, due to purposeful misdirection by staff, the City Council approved another $4,073,823 in unfunded Administration costs for 6 months of Civic San Diego staff and unknown outside consultants.
— March 11, 2014 10:27 a.m.

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!