Voting "NO" on Prop 3 Means Voting to Tax Yourself
Based on everything I've seen and hearing it straight from a city rep who voted AGAINST the stadium, if voters vote down Proposition 3, they are essentially voting to tax themselves for the ballpark. Voting against Proposition 3 is NOT voting against the stadium. The people telling you it is are either mistaken or lying to you.
The question before voters on Proposition 3 is how it will be financed. Period.
I've included some video of a Representative Acosta's community meeting just last night in which I posed the question personally. There is an argument that is made by those in opposition to the ballpark that is made consistently, and I was able to get video of Stephanie Townsend-Allala and former State Representative Norma Chavez, both opponents to the ballpark and propositions, making the argument.
Representative Acosta and Ms. Arrieta (city finance staffer) respond consistently that Proposition 3 is not about the ballpark.
The argument made by opponents to the ballpark and proposition 3 is that the question before voters is about the venue and if they vote it down it will mean the end of the stadium. They don't present any data, evidence, or official legal opinion from the Attorney General's Office to support their claim, so its basically just an argument on their part...for now.
I saw for now because they may ultimately be right, but the only way to know if they are right, at least from what I can tell, would be to litigate after the fact.
If Proposition 3 fails.
But based on the questions and answers last night, its pretty clear. Proposition 3 is not about whether or not we are going to have a stadium. Its about who's going to pay for it. If you vote NO on proposition 3, you are probably going to vote to ad more taxes to your bills or they will have to cut services to pay for it.
Those are the facts.
The question before voters on Proposition 3 is how it will be financed. Period.
I've included some video of a Representative Acosta's community meeting just last night in which I posed the question personally. There is an argument that is made by those in opposition to the ballpark that is made consistently, and I was able to get video of Stephanie Townsend-Allala and former State Representative Norma Chavez, both opponents to the ballpark and propositions, making the argument.
Representative Acosta and Ms. Arrieta (city finance staffer) respond consistently that Proposition 3 is not about the ballpark.
The argument made by opponents to the ballpark and proposition 3 is that the question before voters is about the venue and if they vote it down it will mean the end of the stadium. They don't present any data, evidence, or official legal opinion from the Attorney General's Office to support their claim, so its basically just an argument on their part...for now.
I saw for now because they may ultimately be right, but the only way to know if they are right, at least from what I can tell, would be to litigate after the fact.
If Proposition 3 fails.
But based on the questions and answers last night, its pretty clear. Proposition 3 is not about whether or not we are going to have a stadium. Its about who's going to pay for it. If you vote NO on proposition 3, you are probably going to vote to ad more taxes to your bills or they will have to cut services to pay for it.
Those are the facts.
Comments
Post a Comment
We encourage constructive community dialogue, debate, and conversation - but we reserve the right to refuse to publish a comment or delete a comment if we feel like it. Be a respectful adult. Use common sense.