379 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

That's not entirely true, either. Pedestrians aren't allowed on highways or expressways. You have to buy a car, and pay additional fee's to register and fuel it.

Mylo,

One could be a passenger in a vehicle and still get to use all the roads in the county free of charge. I'm not aware of any tolls on roads or bridges anyone has to pay to use where those roads or bridges were constructed with dedicated funds from a specific sales tax.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Mylo,

One could be a passenger in a vehicle and still get to use all the roads in the county free of charge. I'm not aware of any tolls on roads or bridges anyone has to pay to use where those roads or bridges were constructed with dedicated funds from a specific sales tax.

Or, a friend could buy one of those poor folks a ticket, then it's free just like being a passenger.

[Robert Giacometti]

Roads may not be the best analogy, though I have heard the 'privatization' fans talk about making freeways toll roads.

Citizens are forced to pay for many things they will never use, such as, a park on the other side of town, an opera house or theatre, a new library, or just about any public facility. They aren't for everyone.

Steve,

You have said this in the past and I have asked you where is this happening. You have never responded back on previous occassions.

What park has been paid for in the county with what specific sales tax increase that the poor can not use because they have to pay a fee to enter?

The proposal to raise taxes to build an arena will affect everyone including the poor. Once built one will have to pay fee to enter the arena and those poor who have contributed to building the Arena probably can NOT afford to pay for those fees to use the Arena....this is what makes this approach wrong! Of course this also makes this measure illegal under Propostion 218.

Please show me a specific example where a citizen was forced to pay a specific tax to build something specific they can not use?

[Chad Vander Veen]

Please show me a specific example where a citizen was forced to pay a specific tax to build something specific they can not use?

Light Rail

[cw68]

Light Rail

Good one.

The arena deal brings so much more to the region that just the basketball arena. It brings jobs, development and everything else. If the only positive thing this deal would bring was a new basketball venue, I'd vote no. But it's so much more!!

But I have to stop because all this is right now is this:

[jafount]

Light Rail

Owned.

I'd ask the question to Robert G another way...

so which projects are available and accesble to the poor that weren't funded by any specific tax?

How do you know this?

Can you cite a credible source that would cooberate this answer?

[Robert Giacometti]

Light Rail

Really? Light rail was entirely funded by a specific sales tax?

What specific sales tax did we pay that paid for the entire cost of construction of light rail....like this proposal is requiring for the Arena?

[Steve Heard]

Steve,

You have said this in the past and I have asked you where is this happening. You have never responded back on previous occassions.

What park has been paid for in the county with what specific sales tax increase that the poor can not use because they have to pay a fee to enter?

The proposal to raise taxes to build an arena will affect everyone including the poor. Once built one will have to pay fee to enter the arena and those poor who have contributed to building the Arena probably can NOT afford to pay for those fees to use the Arena....this is what makes this approach wrong! Of course this also makes this measure illegal under Propostion 218.

Please show me a specific example where a citizen was forced to pay a specific tax to build something specific they can not use?

Robert, I didn't mention a specific tax. I said, "Citizens are forced to pay for many things they will never use, such as, a park on the other side of town, an opera house or theatre, a new library, or just about any public facility."

I don't care if it comes from a specific tax or the general fund. My taxes pay for lots of things. For example, my kids are past the soccer playing years, and never played baseball. Though I'll never use them, my taxes pay for our soccer and baseball fields.

I don't object, however, since I understand the benefit of youth sports, and know that people are attracted to communities that offer sports and recreational opportunities for their children.

In the case of the arena, the poor may indeed benefit, in that there will be more jobs for people who build and staff arenas, and of course the new businesses that will spring up around it. The arena will keep the Kings here, and that means that the Kings charitable contributions to programs that help the poor will continue. Visitors to the arena and surrounding area will pay taxes that will help the city-funded programs for the poor.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Really? Light rail was entirely funded by a specific sales tax?

What specific sales tax did we pay that paid for the entire cost of construction of light rail....like this proposal is requiring for the Arena?

That'snot what you asked before. You changed the question now to include "entire cost"

[Robert Giacometti]

That'snot what you asked before. You changed the question now to include "entire cost"

Cv,

Your right, I did change the question. I just assumed since we were talking about entire funding for an Arena....any response with an example would be the same so we could compare apples to apples.

My bad for assuming this!

[jafount]

Cv,

Your right, I did change the question. I just assumed since we were talking about entire funding for an Arena....any response with an example would be the same so we could compare apples to apples.

My bad for assuming this!

Really? well then, maybe you should specify "any response with an example that is also partially funded by private monies. I mean, since you want to be fair and compare apples to apples and all...

[Robert Giacometti]

Concentrating on the minutiae of my post(s) rather than the substance. This makes me chuckle in spite of the fact that I expected it. Once again, I'll ask the question in two parts:

(1) if the "poor" of YOUR county cannot afford to be consumers other than the basic neccesities of life, and the MOST basic neccesitiy is FOOD, which is untaxed, just how much of an impact will this short term tax have on their lives?

(2) if quality of life, which includes recreation, is what brings business and people to said region who CAN afford to be consumers thereby increasing the tax revenue generated for YOUR county, won't the "poor" potentially benefit from an improved job market ultimately creating the possibility of them actually becoming consumers themselves?
Why would you assume this? I shop at Costco, Lowes and Home Depot in Folsom. I buy my children clothes at Old Navy and Kohls. Hell I even Grocery shop at the New Raleys on E. Natoma.

Those who live outside Sacramento also use the museums and the roads and the airport and the civic center and the memorial auditorium. Need I go on? I mean if this is your argument, it's a poor one. Sacramento is a very unique city in that it is the ONLY place in the region that has any recreational offerings. This is what brings people to the region at all!
Wow, what a pleasant utopian society you envision. Everyone should be able to attend everything or olse NOBODY gets to. Wow, how socialist of you.
I never said your beliefs were inconsistent. I'm saying that the bulk of people I've met who boo hoo about "the poor" tend to posture at certain times of the year so they feel better about themselves and perhaps asuage any guilt feelings they might have as a result of personal success. 'Nuff said.

As for the "invite" to see who's manning the soup kitchen, I have no doubt there are people there. I also have no doubt they are there because the people they are helping can't afford to buy things themselves, which means they wouldn't be affected by a tax increase regardless.

I guess I didn't see the substance in your posts other than trying to challenge those personally who feel raising sales taxes on the poor and giving it to the Kings is wrong.

I'll try and answer your questions.

#1. I don't know how much of an impact this tax will have on the poor. I do know one concerned senior citizen who has told me privately she is very worried about the future. In talking with some people who work with those who are getting assistance, they told me the number of people seeking help is growing. I don't understand how taking money from senior citizens on a fixed income is going to be a positive impact

#2. Its been said there has never been a study that shows Arenas generate what you are saying! Maybe you could share your source. The poor includes all different types of individuals including those who are retired and on a fixed income....maybe I'm missing something but I don't believe they will be excited about the prospects of getting the chance to go back to work to all these new jobs... you seem to believe will be created.

You then asked "why would I assume this?'' in regards to me believing that you probably don't spend as much in taxes in Sacto county as I do. Have you bought a car recently or do you think you might over the next 15 years? What will be your tax rate be compared to mine in Sac county? You may make a contribution to paying taxes in Sac county but you won't pay as much as I do. I just wanted to clarify this since you brought it up.

I didn't understand the beginning of your next paragraph so you will need to go on. Most of us in Folsom & other cities would probably disagree with your statement that "Sacramento is the ONLY place in the region that has any recreational offerings" Although CV may be agreeing with you as he didn't indicate otherwise in his response.

In the next paragraph....you say, "Wow what a pleasant utopian society you envision. Everyone should be able to attend everything or olse NOBODY gets too. Wow, how socialist of you." Where did I ever say this or did you just judge me based on your preconceived bias? Haven't I outlined a plan to build an Arena without raising taxes on the poor? Building an Arena using my plan actually keeps more dollars in the local citizens pockets including the poor so they may actually have enough to go to an event!

The next paragraph....you talk about people you met... Have we met? If not then I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't talking about me, after all you wouldn't judge someone you never met and then publically make comments about them would you?

Finally, your last paragraph. Maybe you should reconsider that paragraph, before someone really nails you on it. I'm in a kind and foregiving mood tonight so I'm going to pass on it.

I see you also added 2 more posts, I'm sorry but I don't have a clue as to what you are asking me to do. If you can clarify that for me I'll respond.

Maybe we just have different values. So let me ask, Do you feel its morally OK to raise sales taxes on the poor to build an Arena that the poor probably can not afford to attend?

[Chad Vander Veen]

Maybe we just have different values. So let me ask, Do you feel its morally OK to raise sales taxes on the poor to build an Arena that the poor probably can not afford to attend?

Boy, Robert, you should run for office. That is a great question that plays on emotions instead of facts. At what point is one too poor to go to a game? Who's the poorest person to ever attend? Are poor people incapable of saving a few dollars every now and then to buy a ticket? Something tells me the morality of taxing the poor is not your real problem with this issue.

[jafount]

I guess I didn't see the substance in your posts other than trying to challenge those personally who feel raising sales taxes on the poor and giving it to the Kings is wrong.

I'll try and answer your questions.

#1. I don't know how much of an impact this tax will have on the poor. I do know one concerned senior citizen who has told me privately she is very worried about the future. In talking with some people who work with those who are getting assistance, they told me the number of people seeking help is growing. I don't understand how taking money from senior citizens on a fixed income is going to be a positive impact

If you don't know how much impact it will have on the poor, why have you been hanging your arguent on "it's unfair to the poor"? Now you've switched tactics to "it's unfair to seniors". What gives? Are you saying they can't buy food or medication because of this tax? Food isn't taxed, and I'm pretty sure meds aren't either. So again, I'll ask you...where's the impact??

#2. Its been said there has never been a study that shows Arenas generate what you are saying! Maybe you could share your source. The poor includes all different types of individuals including those who are retired and on a fixed income....maybe I'm missing something but I don't believe they will be excited about the prospects of getting the chance to go back to work to all these new jobs... you seem to believe will be created.

Well...maybe you can share a source that shows the studies that have been done that prove an arena DOES NOT have an impact on the community? Look at the development in the Natomas area. Can you conclusively say that Natomas would have experienced the same unprecedented level of growth had the arena not been there?? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question because you CAN'T answer it.

#You then asked "why would I assume this?'' in regards to me believing that you probably don't spend as much in taxes in Sacto county as I do. Have you bought a car recently or do you think you might over the next 15 years? What will be your tax rate be compared to mine in Sac county? You may make a contribution to paying taxes in Sac county but you won't pay as much as I do. I just wanted to clarify this since you brought it up.

Uhhh...I did buy a car recently. A $40,000 pickup in fact. Guess what else? I bought it in YOUR county. Now here's the kicker...if I buy another $40,000 car after this tax is in effect, that's gonna cost me an additional...wait for it...$100.00. Wow...there's a deal killer. Give me a break. I can forego two dinners out and make that back.

I didn't understand the beginning of your next paragraph so you will need to go on. Most of us in Folsom & other cities would probably disagree with your statement that "Sacramento is the ONLY place in the region that has any recreational offerings" Although CV may be agreeing with you as he didn't indicate otherwise in his response.

It's really hard for me to beleive you were incapable of understanding that statement...I suspect an ever so slight degree of patronization there. I'll try to simplify the comment to make it easier to understand....are there other cities in the region that have significant museums? Memorial auditoriums? Pro sports franchises?

In the next paragraph....you say, "Wow what a pleasant utopian society you envision. Everyone should be able to attend everything or olse NOBODY gets too. Wow, how socialist of you." Where did I ever say this or did you just judge me based on your preconceived bias? Haven't I outlined a plan to build an Arena without raising taxes on the poor? Building an Arena using my plan actually keeps more dollars in the local citizens pockets including the poor so they may actually have enough to go to an event!.

I don't have faith your plan will work...after all, by your own admission, you weren't even able to figure out some of my comments. I somehow doubt your ability to come up with a brilliant plan.

The next paragraph....you talk about people you met... Have we met? If not then I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't talking about me, after all you wouldn't judge someone you never met and then publically make comments about them would you?

No, I wouldn't and this comment is just stupid, argumentative and pointless.

Finally, your last paragraph. Maybe you should reconsider that paragraph, before someone really nails you on it. I'm in a kind and foregiving mood tonight so I'm going to pass on it.

By all means, take me to task I dare you to PROVE otherwise. After all...as you said above, you haven't met the people I've met.

I see you also added 2 more posts, I'm sorry but I don't have a clue as to what you are asking me to do. If you can clarify that for me I'll respond.

Maybe you should actually read them. There are questions there which again, aren't really hard to understand. If you can't understand them...well...I don't even need to go there.

Maybe we just have different values. So let me ask, Do you feel its morally OK to raise sales taxes on the poor to build an Arena that the poor probably can not afford to attend?

I'll say this one more time. If they are POOR what are they actually consuming that will cost them so much additional money? Finally...I'm pretty sure the tax isn't "on the poor" as you like to say. Everybody who buys things pays. IF THEY BUY THINGS. Food and medication aren''t taxed and therefore don't count!

Boy, Robert, you should run for office. That is a great question that plays on emotions instead of facts. At what point is one too poor to go to a game? Who's the poorest person to ever attend? Are poor people incapable of saving a few dollars every now and then to buy a ticket? Something tells me the morality of taxing the poor is not your real problem with this issue.

Agreed, CV. Standing room tickets are 10 lousy bucks. That's only two packs of smokes!

[benning]

Agreed, CV. Standing room tickets are 10 lousy bucks. That's only two packs of smokes!


I just tried to buy standing room tickets (sorry, chair not included) and they were $10 each plus a $3.90 ticketmaster charge per ticket. You have to buy them this way or make a special trip to Arco boxoffice (and pay the parking charge?) because they have so few places to stand in the back (did I mention that you don't get a chair?)
Also, parking is $10 and food is outrageous. There is no practical way a family could get out of there for under $100

Just trying to keep you guys honest.

I agree with you, however, that not all opportunities have to be given to all people equally. Also, most entertainment is expensive - there are tons of people who can't afford it going to the state fair, Kings, Disneyland, etc.

I just think the development deal stinks, is very lopsided and isn't in the public's best interest to do this type of so-called partnership.