The Eye, as many others in our community, are tired of the incompetence of our City’s Leadership. The Eye is asking that you tell ten people to VOTE “NO” on all bond issues and “NO” on the Red Light Cameras. What does this mean; it means no more new taxes and the City continues as it is now. It also means, no more supporting Redflex; a company who is not in Albuquerque, let alone in New Mexico.
We are in the worst economy that we will ever see in our lifetime and the City is demanding the citizens pay more and more to compensate for their incompetence. So many people are out of work, losing their homes and cannot put groceries on the table and the City leadership is still trying to “squeeze blood out of a turnip.” New Mexico is the second poorest state in the Country. According to Channel 7 News (see it here) the average yearly income is the same amount of money that Reflex donate to a local fly-by-night outfit to keep the Scamera’s in place. We are a struggling community and any new taxes hurt our kids and our families directly. This is wrong on many levels.
Until the City’s leadership is able to handle (budget) the money that we have already entrusted them with and are able to bring the City up to where it was prior to Berry; we do not trust giving this incompetent group another penny. Mayor Berry wants his Faire Berry Land on the Bosque with our tax dollars. Ask this question, if we don’t have the money to run the City now, how is the City going to pay for costs associated with Faire Berry Land? Where are the additional law enforcement personnel? Where are the maintenance and grounds keepers, supervisors and other required staff and equipment? Who is going to pay for it? This is going to cost the tax payers a fortune!
This is plain stupid. The City leadership needs to become competent and prove they can handle it. Maybe then the tax payers might consider more taxes. For now, we are in the “Great Depression of our era.” The City needs to learn to “live within its’ means; just like the rest of us.” No New Taxes!
And for those liberals who have stated, “Well, it will only cost this much more per household per year…” If you think the cost is “affordable,” then you can pay the tab and there should be no need for any tax increases.
Redflex who owns the Red Light Scamera’s donated $45,000.00 to Safe Streets Albuquerque in hopes of fooling the citizens of Albuquerque into keeping their “Gravy Train.” Don’t be FOOLED! Send a true message to Redflex and the City Leadership and VOTE “NO” on the Scamera’s!
One last thought, Berry owns a few goons on the City Council and it is time to create an equal playing field for the citizens. It is time to get rid of a few problems. The Eye is recommending that you do not vote for Brad Winter who has failed to do his job with the council and continues to wreck APS. The Eye also recommends that you do not vote for Trudy Jones; “Tutti Frutti” who has shown that she cannot handle the job or responsibilities of the position. We are not endorsing anyone and especially NOT endorsing Winter or Jones. Remember these two clowns have been covering Berry’s track, including blocking a federal investigation into the twenty police shootings. If nothing was done wrong why would they oppose an outside investigation? Think about it before you cast your vote. The Eye is not asking you to vote Republican or Democrat; the Eye is asking you to make a better choice. This is not a partisan issue but a logical one.
Please commit to tell ten people to VOTE “NO” on all bonds and the Scamera’s! Ask those ten to tell ten more people to VOTE “NO!”
Showing posts with label General Obligation Bonds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General Obligation Bonds. Show all posts
Sep 25, 2011
Oct 1, 2007
Election Day 2007
This is the most important election in the history of Albuquerque or the world even! Ok, maybe not but we hear it every cycle so what the heck. In truth, they're all important not because a single election will forever change Albuquerque, but because every election is a small step in a direction that all too often, no one can predict. Unless we are involved in the process and take the time to learn where these steps will take us, we'll all end up somewhere we didn't expect and probably don't want to be.
In district 2 we've got the race between incumbent Councilor Debbie O'Malley (D) and Katherine Martinez (M). This is a race where there's a lot more at stake for the Almighty Mayor than for the people of district 2. In our opinion, Councilor O'Malley spends an awful lot of time finding ways to spend tax dollars on programs and things that the city shouldn't be paying for in the first place. On the other hand Ms. Martinez's association with his 11th Floor Highness could result in the Almighty Mayor being able to find ways to spend our tax dollars on programs and things that the city shouldn't be paying for in the first place. We guess it all comes down to who is going to spend your money because the choices in this race almost assure that it's going to be spent. Our prediction is that Ms. O'Malley will retain the seat but by a smaller margin than most people expect. We'll put this at 58% to 42% in O'Malley's favor.
District 4 is the home port of the Paulette de'Pascal(M) pleasure cruise. Well, actually Ms. de'Pascal spent quite a bit of time in other ports (or at least districts) recently but has dropped anchor in district 4... for now. We've found out quite a bit about why she's running and her past problems stemming from her divorces. We also know that she's favored by the mayor whose minions have been involved in her campaign. The Mayor's Chief of Staff Barry Bitzer has been involved with the Honey Bee's pleasure cruise through the campaign waters of this election cycle and Transportation Director Greg Payne is allegedly its captain (read the Sandra Richardson Honey Bee email here).
The current representative from district 4 is Councilor Brad Winter(R). He's the longest serving member of the council and seems to becoming more effective as time passes. No doubt his experiences with Mayor Chavez two years ago reshaped his opinion of the current administration and their willingness to work with others. While we know who put de'Pascal up to running, we can't believe that they couldn't find anyone better and with at least a passing acquaintance with the truth. We see Councilor Winter winning this one going away with 60% of the vote or more.
Our friends over in district 6 have 4 candidates to choose from for a seat being vacated by Congressional hopeful Martin Heinrich. Unfortunately, there really doesn't seem to be a whole lot of philosophical difference between the 4. The candidates Rey Garduno(D), Joanne Griffin(M), Blair Kauffman(D), and Kevin Wilson(R) all espouse similar views about government goodies. Unfortunately, we'd like to see a little more care when spending our money; money that we have no choice but to hand over to people like those who aspire to represent district 6. Our call on this one is that Sticky Fingers Garduno will end up replacing Councilor Heinrich, but our Eye Poll indicated a surprisingly strong showing by Kevin Wilson so we see a slight chance that Griffin and Garduno could split the vote leaving Wilson in the cat bird seat or at least the councilor's chair.
Meanwhile district 9 will tackle the question of whether or not to retain Councilor Harris(R) who has been under fire from a determined group whose main objective is to see the back of him. If successful, it would be the first time a sitting city councilor has been recalled by angry constituents. We believe that the recall will not only get the 1,800 plus votes necessary to for the recall but will also be successful by a point or two margin. If so, you can bet that Councilor Harris will be calling for a recount and perhaps even challenging the initial signatures that were gathered in order to force the recall election in the first place.
The only downside here is that the Almighty Marty would name Harris' replacement if the recall is successful. Our Eyes tell us that should Harris resign the district would be allowed to choose a replacement in a special election. If Councilor Harris is truly concerned about the mayor choosing his replacement, he could always take the choice away from the Almighty Mayor by resigning.
Moving on to the bond issues. We are typically treated to the line that voting in favor of the proposed bonds won't raise our taxes and this election is no exception. The one thing that they don't tell you is that voting against these bonds is a step towards lowering your taxes. This bond package is a mixed bag of things some of which government shouldn't even be involved in.
A prime example is the Affordable Housing Bond that we told you about last week. The bond is required to support the affordable housing ordinance o-06-8 that is supposed to create opportunities for "workforce" affordable housing. Like many types of government assistance, this creates a system of dependency and makes the City of Albuquerque what can only be termed as a Slum Lord. Since these properties must remain "permanently affordable" the "owners" can't benefit from the natural accrual of equity; making them little more than renters. This "Affordable Housing" program only creates the illusion of ownership. In reality the program is more like forcing people to buy on credit from the company store. It's a tremendous disservice to those who it's supposed to help, we'd urge voters to vote against it despite the robo-dial campaign being waged by proponents.
You will notice that your ballot contains 5 propositions. Proposition 1 clears up little inconveniences like being forced to vote on holidays when they fall on first Tuesday of October which is the election day required by the City Charter.
Proposition 2 is designed to prohibit donations to candidates for mayor or councilor by businesses who have contracts with the city. It all sounds good, stopping undue influence by businesses that stand to gain financially from elected officials that they have supported. First of all this thing has a loophole large enough to drive one of Greg Payne's Rapid Ride buses through. Businesses can form PACs (Measure Finance Committees in city lingo) in order to write checks to candidates. What's worse is that it doesn't address other groups like unions who also do business with the city. Look, courts have held that money is speech and the best thing the public can know is who has got their elected official's ear whether it be unions or businesses. This thing is a bad idea but we'll bet it passes.
Proposition 3 gives the city council the ability to create an ordinance that allows them to appoint members to city committee. We're not sure this is a good idea. Right now, we know who to blame if a member is an idiot or a complete dud. If this passes we'll add 9 others to the list of culprits. The council has "advice and consent" authority now, we fail to see the pressing need for the change.
Proposition 4 links the pay of city councilors to that of county commissioners. We agree with most of our readers that the council should be paid more - maybe we'd get some better candidates if we did. But, linking that pay to that of the county commission seems like a cheap way to shift blame for council raises to the county commission. Like the 11 other times pay raises have been proposed, we believe that this one will go down to defeat.
Proposition 5 is the Councilor Protection Act. This is the bill ghost written by the embattled Don Harris shortly after he found out that he was the target of a recall. It ups the signature requirement from 25% to 33% while only allowing a recall for "malfeasance or misfeasance" as determined by a district court judge. Despite this cycle's recall and last year's attempt at recalling Councilor Mayer, it is not necessary to make it harder to recall an elected official. After all, up until today there has never been a successful recall here in Albuquerque and only one other recall effort that managed to get it on a ballot. If there's anything nice about the system that the framers of Albuquerque's Charter created, it's the ability to recall a sitting elected official for any reason including just pissing them off. We're going to hope and predict that this one fails once the chads hit the floor.
(Sidebar)The most visible part of this election is of course the council races in districts 2, 4, and 6. District 8 has already been decided since there was only one person in the district willing to step up to the plate and run, soon-to-be Councilor Trudy Jones. It's not everyday that an unopposed candidate results in a good councilor (look no further than Ms. Jones predecessor) but we think in this case the folks in district 8 got lucky and are getting a good one.
A quick note about this post. You will see party affiliations indicated by a D, R, or M. D is for Democrat, R for Republican, and M is for Martycrat. The Martycrat is an affiliation that you will only find here in Albuquerque. It can be either a Republican (Greg Payne) or a Democrat (Paulette de'Pascal) whose primary allegiance is to the Marty in Chief.
(End Sidebar)
In district 2 we've got the race between incumbent Councilor Debbie O'Malley (D) and Katherine Martinez (M). This is a race where there's a lot more at stake for the Almighty Mayor than for the people of district 2. In our opinion, Councilor O'Malley spends an awful lot of time finding ways to spend tax dollars on programs and things that the city shouldn't be paying for in the first place. On the other hand Ms. Martinez's association with his 11th Floor Highness could result in the Almighty Mayor being able to find ways to spend our tax dollars on programs and things that the city shouldn't be paying for in the first place. We guess it all comes down to who is going to spend your money because the choices in this race almost assure that it's going to be spent. Our prediction is that Ms. O'Malley will retain the seat but by a smaller margin than most people expect. We'll put this at 58% to 42% in O'Malley's favor.
District 4 is the home port of the Paulette de'Pascal(M) pleasure cruise. Well, actually Ms. de'Pascal spent quite a bit of time in other ports (or at least districts) recently but has dropped anchor in district 4... for now. We've found out quite a bit about why she's running and her past problems stemming from her divorces. We also know that she's favored by the mayor whose minions have been involved in her campaign. The Mayor's Chief of Staff Barry Bitzer has been involved with the Honey Bee's pleasure cruise through the campaign waters of this election cycle and Transportation Director Greg Payne is allegedly its captain (read the Sandra Richardson Honey Bee email here).
The current representative from district 4 is Councilor Brad Winter(R). He's the longest serving member of the council and seems to becoming more effective as time passes. No doubt his experiences with Mayor Chavez two years ago reshaped his opinion of the current administration and their willingness to work with others. While we know who put de'Pascal up to running, we can't believe that they couldn't find anyone better and with at least a passing acquaintance with the truth. We see Councilor Winter winning this one going away with 60% of the vote or more.
Our friends over in district 6 have 4 candidates to choose from for a seat being vacated by Congressional hopeful Martin Heinrich. Unfortunately, there really doesn't seem to be a whole lot of philosophical difference between the 4. The candidates Rey Garduno(D), Joanne Griffin(M), Blair Kauffman(D), and Kevin Wilson(R) all espouse similar views about government goodies. Unfortunately, we'd like to see a little more care when spending our money; money that we have no choice but to hand over to people like those who aspire to represent district 6. Our call on this one is that Sticky Fingers Garduno will end up replacing Councilor Heinrich, but our Eye Poll indicated a surprisingly strong showing by Kevin Wilson so we see a slight chance that Griffin and Garduno could split the vote leaving Wilson in the cat bird seat or at least the councilor's chair.
Meanwhile district 9 will tackle the question of whether or not to retain Councilor Harris(R) who has been under fire from a determined group whose main objective is to see the back of him. If successful, it would be the first time a sitting city councilor has been recalled by angry constituents. We believe that the recall will not only get the 1,800 plus votes necessary to for the recall but will also be successful by a point or two margin. If so, you can bet that Councilor Harris will be calling for a recount and perhaps even challenging the initial signatures that were gathered in order to force the recall election in the first place.
The only downside here is that the Almighty Marty would name Harris' replacement if the recall is successful. Our Eyes tell us that should Harris resign the district would be allowed to choose a replacement in a special election. If Councilor Harris is truly concerned about the mayor choosing his replacement, he could always take the choice away from the Almighty Mayor by resigning.
Moving on to the bond issues. We are typically treated to the line that voting in favor of the proposed bonds won't raise our taxes and this election is no exception. The one thing that they don't tell you is that voting against these bonds is a step towards lowering your taxes. This bond package is a mixed bag of things some of which government shouldn't even be involved in.
A prime example is the Affordable Housing Bond that we told you about last week. The bond is required to support the affordable housing ordinance o-06-8 that is supposed to create opportunities for "workforce" affordable housing. Like many types of government assistance, this creates a system of dependency and makes the City of Albuquerque what can only be termed as a Slum Lord. Since these properties must remain "permanently affordable" the "owners" can't benefit from the natural accrual of equity; making them little more than renters. This "Affordable Housing" program only creates the illusion of ownership. In reality the program is more like forcing people to buy on credit from the company store. It's a tremendous disservice to those who it's supposed to help, we'd urge voters to vote against it despite the robo-dial campaign being waged by proponents.
You will notice that your ballot contains 5 propositions. Proposition 1 clears up little inconveniences like being forced to vote on holidays when they fall on first Tuesday of October which is the election day required by the City Charter.
Proposition 2 is designed to prohibit donations to candidates for mayor or councilor by businesses who have contracts with the city. It all sounds good, stopping undue influence by businesses that stand to gain financially from elected officials that they have supported. First of all this thing has a loophole large enough to drive one of Greg Payne's Rapid Ride buses through. Businesses can form PACs (Measure Finance Committees in city lingo) in order to write checks to candidates. What's worse is that it doesn't address other groups like unions who also do business with the city. Look, courts have held that money is speech and the best thing the public can know is who has got their elected official's ear whether it be unions or businesses. This thing is a bad idea but we'll bet it passes.
Proposition 3 gives the city council the ability to create an ordinance that allows them to appoint members to city committee. We're not sure this is a good idea. Right now, we know who to blame if a member is an idiot or a complete dud. If this passes we'll add 9 others to the list of culprits. The council has "advice and consent" authority now, we fail to see the pressing need for the change.
Proposition 4 links the pay of city councilors to that of county commissioners. We agree with most of our readers that the council should be paid more - maybe we'd get some better candidates if we did. But, linking that pay to that of the county commission seems like a cheap way to shift blame for council raises to the county commission. Like the 11 other times pay raises have been proposed, we believe that this one will go down to defeat.
Proposition 5 is the Councilor Protection Act. This is the bill ghost written by the embattled Don Harris shortly after he found out that he was the target of a recall. It ups the signature requirement from 25% to 33% while only allowing a recall for "malfeasance or misfeasance" as determined by a district court judge. Despite this cycle's recall and last year's attempt at recalling Councilor Mayer, it is not necessary to make it harder to recall an elected official. After all, up until today there has never been a successful recall here in Albuquerque and only one other recall effort that managed to get it on a ballot. If there's anything nice about the system that the framers of Albuquerque's Charter created, it's the ability to recall a sitting elected official for any reason including just pissing them off. We're going to hope and predict that this one fails once the chads hit the floor.
Sep 27, 2007
City Slum Lords
We've all heard of affordable housing and by and large we all want affordable housing. October 2nd voters here in Albuquerque will get the chance to vote for a General Obligation Bond whose stated purpose is to provide affordable housing to those who can't afford their own home.
The result of this type of affordable housing program is predictable; run down properties that have little or no value due to the cap on equity imposed by the affordable housing ordinance. Why would an "owner" invest any of their own money in a property where their investment can't grow? It would be better to rent a house or apartment where the property owner at least has some financial motivation and legal obligation to keep the property in good repair.
Another requirement of this legislation is that "affordable" housing must be included in new developments. Look, impact fees have already added $10,000 to houses being built on the West Side; $10,000 that contrary to assertions by socialist politicians is not paid by the developer but added to the price of the home.
Only government logic can justify raising the price of homes by $10,000 and then complain about the price of homes and the need for affordable housing. Like impact fees, the cost of the "affordable" units will be paid for by the other home owners in the development raising the cost of homes and pushing homeowners out of Albuquerque; and yes, that means more sprawl.
In 20 years, you'll be able to spot the "affordable" eye sores in every development where this short sighted socialist scheme is in effect and the neighborhood slum lord will be the City of Albuquerque. What do you bet that the Almighty Mayor's Safe City Strike Force won't answer your calls when you're complaining about one of their properties?
No matter how you slice it, these ordinances create a series of hidden taxes and fees that are borne by the rest of us. The system is deceitful and dishonest and right now the only way to put an end to it is to make sure the program is not funded.
"Shall the City of Albuquerque issue $10,100,000 of its general obligation bonds in support of the Workforce Housing Act to provide resources towards the construction and rehabilitation of high quality, permanently affordable housing for low to moderate working families, including affordable senior rental?"Wow! Sounds great doesn't it? We're going to use our tax dollars to help working families afford their own homes; and more importantly these patches of paradise will be "permanently" affordable. The Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board (not surprisingly) came out in favor of this G.O. Bond just yesterday.
"This bond represents the first of three installments over the next six years into a Workforce Housing Trust fund. Every dollar from the city's trust would leverage $4 in private money, focusing those resources on Metropolitan Redevelopment Areas and properties along transit corridors.The tricky part is the last part, that says "this program maintains affordability by limiting the amount of equity that accrues to owners and keeping the sales price below the market level for subsequent buyers." The ordinance creating this affordable housing "opportunity" is O-06-8 and was passed just a little over a year ago. The Ordinance explains it this way:
Some programs are more beneficial for the first buyer, who later sells the property at market prices. This program maintains affordability by limiting the amount of equity that accrues to owners and keeping the sales price below the market level for subsequent buyers."
"In a neighborhood with increasing housing prices the goal is to preserve a mixed income environment and avoid the dislocation of low income residents by creating a reserve of permanent workforce housing protected from price increases and danger of converting to market rate housing, allowing renters to own their housing, and otherwise financially insulating low income residents from financial burdens of gentrification while accruing its benefits."What that means is that the city will use our tax dollars to help "low to moderate" income families buy homes that are "protected" from the market, making them "permanently" affordable. In other words, these "owners" will be paying a mortgage on a property that they don't truly own because they won't be getting the equity that is naturally created through time and the free market increase in property value. In short, their financial position will be only slightly better than renters because most of the equity they receive would be the equity that they put directly into the property through their payments.
The result of this type of affordable housing program is predictable; run down properties that have little or no value due to the cap on equity imposed by the affordable housing ordinance. Why would an "owner" invest any of their own money in a property where their investment can't grow? It would be better to rent a house or apartment where the property owner at least has some financial motivation and legal obligation to keep the property in good repair.
Another requirement of this legislation is that "affordable" housing must be included in new developments. Look, impact fees have already added $10,000 to houses being built on the West Side; $10,000 that contrary to assertions by socialist politicians is not paid by the developer but added to the price of the home.
Only government logic can justify raising the price of homes by $10,000 and then complain about the price of homes and the need for affordable housing. Like impact fees, the cost of the "affordable" units will be paid for by the other home owners in the development raising the cost of homes and pushing homeowners out of Albuquerque; and yes, that means more sprawl.
In 20 years, you'll be able to spot the "affordable" eye sores in every development where this short sighted socialist scheme is in effect and the neighborhood slum lord will be the City of Albuquerque. What do you bet that the Almighty Mayor's Safe City Strike Force won't answer your calls when you're complaining about one of their properties?
No matter how you slice it, these ordinances create a series of hidden taxes and fees that are borne by the rest of us. The system is deceitful and dishonest and right now the only way to put an end to it is to make sure the program is not funded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)