On September 25, Phil Veerkamp wrote: "It is alleged that PLACERVILLE'S INFRASTRUCTURE is crumbling. I believe those allegations. Placerville's Capital Improvement Plans over the years have not kept apace with the projected expiration of the useful lifetimes of the water and sewer lines. Nor are many Placerville streets and sidewalks in proper repair. Placerville has not been "proactive" in replacing aging infrastructure. Proposed tax increases to fund these issues predictably fail.
There is another proposal, MEASURE L, before the voters in November. Allow me to borrow from Hillel the Elder or, more recently Mitt Romney. "If not us, who? If not now, when?"
I say the time has come to "pay the piper". [pun intended]
On September 28, Kenneth Stemmle asked: Could you explain to those of us not in the know? Is measure L suspect in some way? Why?
Phil Veerkamp replied: outside the small but POWERFUL group of activists the need for infrastructure replacement is accepted as fact.
The primary arguments against this measure seem to trend along the lines of:
1) - The City Council has been rude and dismissive of citizen input. (true)
2) - The City ignored the will of the people regarding the Cedar Ravine roundabout. (true)
3) - The City wastes money. (all cities waste)
4) - The people trying to move the Courthouse are the same people pushing Measure L (true)
5 - etc. etc. etc . . . irrelevant dissatisfactions
Kenneth, The Infrastruce deficiencies of Placerville are analagous to the infrastructure deficiencies within EID. I am retired from EID. I have worked on water and sewer problem at the interface between EID and Placerville. The problems are real. Placerville still has old tar paper (Orangeberg) sewer lines. Many of the water mains are beyond the their projected useful service life . . . leaking . . . breaking. I made a LOT of money as an EID utility worker in the trenches of EID (and Placerville).
The activists' arguments are mostly a nebulous collection of non-sequitur and disgruntled arguments astride logical fallacy.
A counter-point was provided by Dave Pratt: -- So it sounds like the rebuttal to Measure L has not yet been written and no one is willing to address the potential talking points.
Understandable from a political positioning perspective. A "trip down memory lane" reveals the Measure I objections which did not include any alternative solutions...
Arguments against: "The following was submitted as the official arguments in opposition to Measure I:[1] {{Quote| We of Placerville strongly disagree with the City Council's move to raise Sales Tax by 0.5% for a period of 10 Years. We agree that roads must be maintained.
A General Sales Tax increase does not guarantee that the money will be used for road improvements. The council promises 75% of the funds will be for road improvements and 25% for other projects without a legally binding guarantee that the funds will be used as promised. The Council is pushing for a General Sales Tax in order to pass this measure with a simple majority of 50%+1 rather than a 66.7% majority which would be required if this tax measure was put on the ballot as a Specific Tax.
Tourists are not the only ones who will be affected. A ½% sales tax increase will impact all City residents and merchants. A tax increase could very well drive tourist and locals to shop outside of Placerville since this increase will put Placerville at a higher tax rate than surrounding jurisdictions. Increasing the tax could actually impact Placerville's overall sales and lower the gross sales tax collected.
This General Sales Tax increase will hurt the local economy adding an extra financial burden on local citizens. It all adds up. With increasing food and gas prices, the City Council is asking an already struggling local economy to pay more over the next 10 years for the City Council's past mistakes. This proposed solution demonstrates the Council's inability to fix the current General Budget. Vote no on the General Sales Tax increase.|author = Stephanie Sorensen, Jennifer Nixon, Jacob Mingle, and Jeff Meader"
