Wow. That's an interesting interpretation. Still, is there really a need to be so graphic? This $2 mandatory tax is a joke. I can't believe it! I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.
thespotlight | Homepage | 07.12.07 - 8:40 pm | #

Yes, "Zipper." I was scammed!
thespotlight | Homepage | 07.12.07 - 8:49 pm | #

LMAO
That's such a digustingly accurate funny picture of the $2.00 screw!
Mary | 07.12.07 - 11:55 pm | #

TheSpotlight,

The first step in dealing with a problem is recognizing you have one.
I’m glad you recognized you were duped. There is still hope for you young grasshopper.

I don’t know what the scammed link to the witch was all about but you leave my dog out of this or I’ll sick King Ahumada and his flock on you.
The Zipper | 07.13.07 - 1:48 am | #

What's wrong with keeping a campaign promise? Pat said if he was elected Mayor he would make this a priority. I salute him for being faithful to his promise. I wonder whether those who question his actions in fact voted for Pat or shared his priorities.

I am not saying 'to the victor go the spoils,' although I could. What I am saying is, again, what is so wrong with an elected official following through on a campaign promise?

As for the two dollar add-on to the monthly PUB bill, I look to the new PUB board to trim as much fat as can possibly be trimmed, which will in turn, I hope, result in lower operational costs, which will in turn, I hope, result in lower monthly PUB bills.

PMZ
Peter Zavaletta | 07.13.07 - 12:25 pm | #

Mr. Zavaletta

There is nothing wrong with keeping a campaign promise as long as you don’t do it by breaking another campaign promise. Mr. Ahumada repeatedly stated in the newspaper, tv, and radio that he would not raise taxes or PUB rates. You may have a good argument that this is not a PUB rate increase but you would have to be crazy to believe this is not a TAX!!!

As to trimming the fat at PUB, go for it. One thing though, no matter how much fat you trim my bill is still going to be $2 higher than it should be.
Broken Promise | 07.13.07 - 3:00 pm | #

In advance, my apologies for the long post.

It's not just the fee, it's the way it was implemented. Most didn't know about it 'til one or two days before the meeting. Ahumada challenged the opposing commissioners to offer ideas, but he should have done that first before putting it up for a vote. There should have been plenty of time for a public workshop and then after a few weeks or a month then have a vote. He shoved the idea down everyone's throats and lumped three very distinct issues together. You vote against one, you vote against all. This is the fastest way to get demonized. Why not have a $1 vote for each of the projects. And then there was the whole confusion about what constitutes a majority; that was embarrassing. I hope no one from out of town was watching. Also, excuse my ignorance, but is there a commission-appointed board that is going to oversee the Camille Playhouse and the BMFA. If the mayor created a dedicated source of public revenue for two enities, shouldn't there be public oversight like there is with BCVB, PUB, GBIC, BCDC, etc. Are these two organizations now considered public entities? I want more ambulances and ems staff, more arts and I love cats, so I like the idea of the city doing more with respect to these issues. However, there should've been some public brainstorming. I have no problem with paying the full $1 for the ambulances (there wasn't that much talk about the funding for emt's and for maintance), but I think it should be added to every utility bill in Brownsville, including Magic Valley. If they need to charge them $1.50 to cover the cost of Magic Valley collecting the fee, so be it; those furthest out, who have the choice of MV, would benefit the most from having more ambulances. As far as the revenue for the arts, maybe a $.50-1.00 fee could be added to the the rate/day for a hotel room. I don't think the difference in price will be detrimental to the industry and they are one of the groups who would benefit the most if there were more cultural events. I don't, however, think that it should just be split between two art entities. A percentage should be set for citizen-produced programming for channel 12 (the original intent for community television), another percentage could go to make Art in the Park more of a official arts festival that would attract more out-of-towners, and the rest could be given out as grants to different arts projects on an case by case basis. I think this would cover a more varied group of creative people and has a better shot at sparking more talent, than it would if the money is just spent on two specific organizations. Of course, all of this would be done through a commission-appointed oversight board. As far as the animal shelter is concerned, I really don't know enough about all public revenue sources and where a fee could be added. Maybe all municipal fines and all city-issued permits could have an added fee to cover an annual quota of partially subsidized sterilizations for those with proof of low income status (food stamps, housing,etc.) or those living in designated stray-dogs-problem neighborhoods. The truth is that while most speak of responsible pet ownership and love for animals, the reality is that a lot, if not most people, precisely because they live in low income neighborhoods, want a dog to feel safe. They can't afford the adoption fee or regular vet visits. They just take some comfort that if a stranger approaches the barking will deter someone with ill intentions from breaking in and will warn them that something is wrong. Sadly, I think euthanizations will have to be reinstated in order for the problem to decrease significantly. Well-advertised partially-subsidized sterilizations and continuing euthanizations, together will help. One or the other alone, I just don't think it will be enough. If the problem decreases significantly with these measures and more education, maybe in 5-10yrs, we could change to a no-kill policy and maintain it long term. Anyways, these are my thoughts. Someone who knows more about revenues and legal fees may correct me and offer other ideas. This is the point of having a period of brainstorming and public deliberation. We shouldn't be having this debate after the fact but we are becuase of Ahumada's tactics. Those in favor seem to have known about it for some time and were able to organize; the rest of us had to make up our minds in a few days, so oppossition was not well represeted at the meeting. The deliberative process suffered for it.
Patricia A | 07.13.07 - 10:06 pm | #

Oh peter.

Why don't you just come out of the closet? Everyone knows what you really are.

The board and everyone at the port know the truth. Everyone who has ever watched the way you talk at the board meetings you chose to attend knows what you really are.

Your whole family knows for a fact what you really are, they may or may not approve of it but I’m sure they’ll love you just the same.

Mr. ”I’m a felon” reyna knows exactly what you are. We all know bobby at that other site knows the real you.

So see Peter, so many people already know what you’ve been hiding for so long. It’s not worth wasting so much time and energy hiding the fact that you’re ……REPUBLICAN.

theouter | 07.14.07 - 9:10 am | #

Outer - that's funny.

And untrue.

Conservative? Yes.

Republican? Nyet.

Oh, and the only meetings I've missed lately are the secret ones. I don't get invited to those. Do you?

Abrazos,

PMZ
Peter Zavaletta | 07.14.07 - 10:10 am | #

What's with the appointments to boards? Is there an attempt to load the boards to get jobs for specific people? Maybe I'm paranoid, perhaps it's just that time of year.
Wonderwoman | 07.14.07 - 3:33 pm | #

"Mr. Ahumada repeatedly stated in the newspaper, tv, and radio that he would not raise taxes or PUB rates. You may have a good argument that this is not a PUB rate increase but you would have to be crazy to believe this is not a TAX!!!

A great point. To the conservative democrat above, what's the score on your official "I just got Punked meter", now?

Chris Davis | Homepage | 07.14.07 - 3:54 pm | #

Port Commissioner Zavaletta

It shocks me to read your comments on this $2 tax. If the other commissioners had tried this at the port you would fought it to its death. Why do you feel its fine to tax the poeple more than they already are?

Did you make a deal with the mayor to appoint your dad to the PUB board if you went along with this tax?

Did you have to return the favor of having the mayor come down to the port meeting to back you on that business deal?

Are you in office for the people or for yourself?

I'm starting to have doubts!!!
Shocked | 07.14.07 - 7:40 pm | #

Please beware! The $2 fee is ALREADY on our PUB bills, even though it may not be legal and did not pass according to City Charter. It is listed as City Contribution Fee $2. I will not pay it and urge others not to.

Boy, it didn't take them long to screw us huh? I guess those organizations are in DIRE need.
pub ratepayer | 07.16.07 - 10:25 am | #

Drop me a line via e-mail below, Ratepayer. I've got some questions about this.

Thanks,
Chris Davis | Homepage | 07.16.07 - 10:41 am | #

Section 15. Ordinance enactment.
Each proposed ordinance or resolution shall be introduced in written or printed form; shall not
contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly stated in the title, but general appropriation
ordinances may contain the various subjects and accounts for which moneys are to appropriated.
No ordinance, unless it be declared an emergency measure, and passed by unanimous vote of all
members of the commission present and voting, shall be passed on the day on which it shall be
introduced.
thespotlight | Homepage | 07.17.07 - 8:39 pm | #

Chris, we all know, thanks to you about the conflict between the Charter and Roberts Rules. Jim was pressed for an answer and foolishly gave one based on Roberts Rules and not the Charter. However, Jim's mistake does not excuse a Mayor and some commissioners who really dont care what the law is. What no one is checking out is that ploy Pat Ahumada tried with Dr. Sandra to get a recyling firm to volunteer to provide recycling services to the City for a pilot program. The purpose was to give that company an advantage in the event that deal went out for bids. The contract is worth millions and Ahumada and Garcia were obviously trying to bypass the competitive bid process by getting their buddies in on the contract. Finally, I am glad Rick finally grew some balls.
Silas Dogood | 07.18.07 - 6:44 pm | #

I concur with Mr. Dogood's previous posting. At this past meeting Rick Longoria displayed the testicular fortitude which I have always known he possesed. Rick refused to follow the mob to a public lynching, and instead made at least two votes on principle and not based on the bidding of Pat and Charlie. Whether or not you agree with his votes, one thing can be said about Rick, he seems to be acting like his own man.
blaster | 07.18.07 - 11:09 pm | #

Just for the record. I like commissioner Longoria and think he has tons of potential. I am not however going to continue to support him if he gives up his independence and continues to act like Pat Ahumada's yes man. I was frankly relieved when Rick stood up to Pat on taking the contract away from Cubco. Chopping up the contract into tiny pieces was only going to screw it up. Rick made a good point about having to rip up new roads to put in utilities. By using one contractor, there is only one person accountable. The job better be done right. I realize Rick wants to keep a majority but it cant be at the price of rubber stamping moronic decis ions by Pat.
Silas Dogood | 07.19.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Has anyone noticed that Dr. Sandra and Mayor Pat spend a lot of time together?
Sancha Claus | 07.19.07 - 4:04 pm | #