Truth about Measure P Opposition's
"Carpet Bombing" letter campaign
Short cuts: See these copies of cityhood opponents' letters, annotated to show false and misleading material.
These letters, especially those of Helen Baumann and Joe Harn, also raise several issues of ethics for individual political
activity by public officials.
Helen Baumann's letter is remarkable. She criticizes the high level of growth in El Dorado Hills even though she led the movement to adopt this maximal level of growth and to minimize investment in roads in the county's 2004 General Plan.
Under her leadership the political campaign on the referendum of
this General Plan used the slogan "Control Growth, Fix Traffic".
Why does she do this? The
best clue is in her campaign discosure forms for election in 2004. She
received over $120,000 in campaign funding, almost entirely from the
real estate and construction interests (RECON network) that produced
about $2 million to save the General Plan (Measure B) by a vote of
50.9% to 49.1% in the public vote. A large part of the electorate voted
yes on the simply because of the need to have any General Plan.
Measure P has gained a sudden influx
of support from what I call RECON, the El Dorado County Real Estate and CONstruction network.
This includes massive increments of funding by developers, reported at
the rate of about $10,000 per day at the time of editing the second
draft of this web page. The Second Pre-Election Campaign Disclosure
Statement is consistent with a likely final total expenditure of about
$250,000, with contributions timed to arrive as late as possible to
minimize pre-election disclosure.
Campaign disclosure forms at this date already identify the major
contributors as developers who funded the campaign for the
referendum on the El Dorado County 2004 General Plan. County
supervisors whose own campaigns were funded by many of the same sources
adopted this General Plan by choosing alternatives that maximize housing growth and minimize road construction.
This web page contains links to annotated copies of
the letters.that I refer to as crapet-bombing campaign materials.
The original letters to date claim fiscal insolvency for a new
city, excessive growth, and inadequate law enforcement.
Annotated copies of these individual letters will be added here as quickly as this web author's personal time permits:
At least the two most prominent individuals on this list, and possibly
all, supported the maxiimum housing growth/minimum traffic
infrastructure growth County General Plan. This General Plan and the
county-adopted Specific Plans focus housing growth in El Dorado Hills
and route almost all through traffic from the rest of the county
through El Dorado Hills.
General notes about all of the carpet-bombing mailers
The truth is that the CFA (Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis)
for EDH incorporation is based on assuming the same level of service
now provided by the County and projecting the balance of revenues and
costs after incorporation as a city.
Abbreviated notes:
- The CFA fiscal sensitivity analysis predicts city budget surpluses accumulating to from $12 million to $49 million by 2015.
- CFA growth projections are based on County land use designations, zoning, and Specific Plan entitlements, which the city is required by law to accept.
- CFA projections for law enforcement are the current level of service
that we receive from the County Sheriff, there is no reduction in service when the city incorporates. Ability of city police to perform traffic patrol increases the level of service for that function: The CHP has no resources to provide that function.
More information on the these points:
- The CFA
fiscal sensitivity analysis predicts city budget surpluses accumulating
to from $12 million to $49 million by 2015. See tables A-1, E-1, E-2, and E-3 in the CFA or click on either image below for details.
EPS, Economic & Planning Systems, produced the El Dorado Hills CFA.
This is the most respected organization in California for such studies,
LAFCO agencies throughout the state prefer to contract their CFA
studies to EPS. Its record for conservative analysis is illustrated by
the report of an independent auditor regarding the City of Goleta,
contracted by the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury. Opponents of Goleta
incorporation argued in 2001 that it would run budget deficits for 10
years as a new city. Its CFA, produced by EPS, forecast instead a $3.2
million accumulated surplus. The auditor found an actual surplus of
$9.9 million. The auditor projected finances into the future and found
that the City of Goleta is fiscally "clearly viable in the next five
years and beyond". (Here is the auditor's report, the Goleta Draft CFA, and the Goleta Final CFA Appendix A)
- CFA growth projections are based on County land use designations, zoning, and Specific Plan entitlements, which the city is required by law to accept.
As an incorporated city
El Dorado Hills can gain control of land use planning and zoning when
it adopts its own General Plan, no later than 30 months after
incorporation, except for Specific Plan areas. The city can gain land
use and zoning authority for Specific Plan areas no later than 8 years
after it incorporates and may be able to renegotiate Development
Agreements with developers. These Development Agreements are inherited
from the county.
- CFA projections for law enforcement are the current level of service
that we receive from the County Sheriff, there is no reduction in service when the city incorporates. Ability of city police to perform traffic patrol increases the level of service for that function: The CHP has no resources to provide that function.
Initial
police staffing assailed by opponents as inadequate is what we have now
from the county and is much lower than is typical for incorporated
cities: About 0.4 to 0.45 sworn officers per thousand population.
Mature cities grow their law enforcement to a higher level of service.
For example, Placerville has 1.8 sworn officers per thousand
population, South Lake Tahoe has 2.3. The CFA
recognizes that maintaining the county's level of service will produce
budget surpluses, that a future city council can choose to apply part
or all of these services to increasing law enforcement level of
service, and that a stated objective for incorporation is to do
precisely that.
State law reserves general law enforcement in unincorporated areas to
the county sheriff and traffic patrol to the CHP. A city supports both
functions through a single police force.
A realistic level of staffing for appropriately serving each function is 1 sworn officer per shousand.
Unincorporated, we need 2 per thousand: One from the sheriff, one from the CHP.
Incorporated, we need only 1 per thousand from the city police force.
The alternative is inadequate staffing, which is what we have now:
We have no traffic patrol on surface streets because the CHP has no resources for it.
At some times of night we have as little as one CHP officer for the
entire west slope, which includes 994 miles of county roads plus US 50.
CHP operation is mainly restricted to response to accidents and
incidents, it cannot perform the routine traffic patrol that deters
offenses ranging from speeding and stop-sign running to parking in
front of fire hydrants.
