Subscribe to Registered Statements from Citizens
Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.
A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:
- It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
- It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Peak Democracy.
- It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.
If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.
You can subscribe to unregistered statements here.
Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).
Check out some recent Registered Statements from citizens
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 March 21, 2018, 9:45 PM
My husband and I would not vote for an increase in sales tax or property tax. This and previous councils have expressed they want affordable housing in SLO but making property owners pay more property taxes will not make housing more affordable. Even though visitors pay a larger portion of our sales taxes, we residents have to pay it too, making costs of goods we purchase in the city higher--again making it less affordable to live here. The city needs to live within its means and not ask for money for "wants" as opposed to "needs." That's the way most of us budget our personal finances--the city needs to do the same. It's insulting to ask for more money from residents when our tax dollars have been squandered for expensive unnecessary things like retractable bollards and two way bike tracks that cost millions of dollars. We refuse to vote to fund these types of frivolous, unnecessary things.
Sheryl Mcintire inside Neighborhood 6 March 21, 2018, 11:17 AM
Thank you for this opportunity to give our opinions, I hope they are truly taken into consideration!
I feel it's asking too much of property owners to chip in more money to help city planners spend money on plans that are a bit eccentric, we are a small town( that was so much less crowded only a few years ago) not a European town built for bicycles and pedestrian only streets. Why not keep it in perspective, improve things we need to see upgraded, no changing the plaza ect.. I'm not sure what responsibility Cal Poly plays as a contributor to these funds, but shouldn't they shoulder some expense along with bed taxes for all they family that also arrives several times a year.? Also I feel they should pay a great portion of the money neede for more police and emergency responders because downtown seems actually like a big campus these days, and the students are a big part of the need for maintaining peace and control . Especially at night here.
It's a shame to see large buildings going up in town ( especially the one at foothill and chorro !!). Growth is fine and necessary, but I find the way this town is approaching it is disappointing. Such high density and all the track home projects will hurt us in the end. The lack of neighborhood character and charm will be gone, and downtown will be annoying because the sidewalks aren't wide enough to enjoy walking anywhere with all the crowds of people.
I have so many ideas, but don't want to bore you all at one time! I've lived here 32 years and I cry for the town we moved here to live in.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 2 March 21, 2018, 11:08 AM
What feedback do you have about the potential components of the Fiscal Health Response Plan?
I would rather see smarter decisions, and trimming of the fat first. Be more responsible with the public trust (money).
What ideas do you have for workable solutions to address the problem?
Look to privatize departments that are ineffective. Think outside of the box when developing new properties. The numbers I have seen tossed around for the new police station are crazy. How about converting an existing underused facility outside the core of the city? Keep part of the old location, but move the main station to a more affordable part of town. How about out on Prado Road?
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 12 March 21, 2018, 8:19 AM
I do not believe that any redevelopment of Mission Plaza is needed other than bathrooms at this time. As far as the emergency operation center, it's not at the police department (which could probably use some freshening up), it's at Fire station number 1 and when I toured it, it seemed perfectly adequate.
Other than bed taxes, I will not support any increase of any type of taxes.
Asking developers to fund these projects isn't going to help either since all that will do is increase the amount that they ask for new houses or for rent on commercial space. Putting a freeze on all this development however would be a great idea, we're getting way too crowded here.
I've paid property taxes for over 30 years in San Luis County and while part of it supposedly goes for the schools, I have not had a student in any of the schools. But have friends that have children in our schools and have friends that are teachers and always hear how they do not have the funds to properly buy supplies or for field trips. In fact I just donated to a friends daughter for a field trip. These teachers are dipping into their own pockets so they will be able to responsibly do what they love to do, teach our future leaders. That's not fair at any level and you want to raise our property taxes for other ventures? It's hard enough living here as it is especially with all the increased taxes from our state. The city needs to live within its means, put away money for a rainy day and save money to fund other expenditures like everybody else should be doing. If I want to buy a new expensive item, I have no one to ask to help me fund it; I have to save the money and then buy it since I don't like to go into debt. Our city and county should do the same thing.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 8 March 20, 2018, 4:37 PM
I am VERY against raising property or sales taxes. It’s hard enough to afford living here, if this goes through I will certainly be listing my house and moving to south county. The residents should not have to pay for the City’s inability to keep a balanced budget and hire and spend within their means. Modifying bike lanes on Broad is a huge mistake on a heavily traveled road. There are other safe options currently in place for cyclists that they can utilize. Mission Plaza does not need a cafe, there are a plethora of dining options in the downtown core that this would compete with. As it is, the plaza can accommodate larger events very well and shouldn’t be a primary focus of the city aside from installing some additional safety measures.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 1 March 20, 2018, 11:47 AM
I applaud the City for calculating all of the proposed projects and giving citizens a view of their overall cost. However, I find myself supporting some projects and opposed to others. I can see the need to upgrade the public safety buildings and some of the bicycle proposals. There are projects that I oppose, such as the redesign of Mission Plaza (I do not think that the redesign is an improvement), the Prado Road interchange, or the bicycle paths that disrupt existing neighborhoods. Consequently, although I am willing to support financing some projects, if presented to me as an entire group, I will oppose funding.
Name not shown inside Neighborhood 7 March 20, 2018, 10:48 AM
I'm supportive of taxing visitors first and not taxing residents more. Therefore I'd support increasing TOT first, then possibly raising the sales tax higher (since 70% is paid by non-residents). With all the new hotels being built this should raise a significant amount of $. Also look into other creative ways to generate tax/fee revenue from visitors. The City Mgt/Council should wait to see how much revenue this generates before considering other options. I'm against any increase to property taxes or other taxes that are solely borne by the residents.
JEAN'NE BLACKWELL inside Neighborhood 6 March 19, 2018, 10:49 PM
Save the city $5.000 a year and improve the quality of our water and life by not putting fluoride in the city water. San Luis Is the only remaining municipality in SLO county that still puts fluoride in the water. Fluoride in the water can really be doing more harm than good. Naturally occurring fluoride is not the same as fluoride manufactured from the waste by products of the uranium manufacturing industry. The idea that the waste dumped into water supplies was so “low level” as to be completely harmless is likely dubious and hopeful at best. Fluoride, a by-product of the nuclear power industry, was one of those constituents, and was transformed from being known as a rat poison to being known as a dental benefit by the original spin doctor and propagandist, Edward Bernays.
In his book The Fluoride Deception, author Christopher Bryson revealed how the nuclear industry also used fluoridation of the public water supply as a means of secretly dumping industrial waste after fluoride was a major by-product in the uranium enrichment process for building the atomic bomb. Bryson told Democracy Now:
The Manhattan Project needed fluoride to enrich uranium. That’s how they did it. The biggest industrial building in the world, for a time, was the fluoride gaseous diffusion plant in Tennessee the Manhattan Project and Dr. Hodge as the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, were scared stiff less that workers would realize that the fluoride they were going to be breathing inside these plants was going to injury them and that the Manhattan Project, the key — the key of U.S. Strategic power in the Cold War Era, would be jeopardized because the Manhattan Project and the industrial contractors making the atomic bomb would be facing all these lawsuits from workers, all these lawsuits from farmers living around these industrial plants and so Harold Hodge assures us that fluoride is safe and good for children.
More recently, an Associated Press investigation found in 2011 that 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States were leaking tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, into groundwater supplies via corroded pipes and tunnels. AP found at least 37 locations were in direct violation of federal drinking water standards for tritium, in some cases hundreds of times over.
Fluoride has never been approved by the FDA, http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/fluoride-never-fda-approved-for.html Children could inadvertently be getting too much causing unnecessary harm. Dentist give kids drops, fluoride in toothpaste and the fluoride in the water. There is always a way to get fluoride voluntarily so my suggestion is save the city $5,000 a year and improve the quality of the water by eliminating fluoride in our water. thank you.
Hilliard Wood inside Neighborhood 4 March 19, 2018, 3:57 PM
The property tax is extremely inequitable due to Prop 13. Therefore, I think it not a viable choice for use to fund any City expenses; and would vote against any Propositions using that funding method.
Lydia Mourenza inside Neighborhood 1 March 19, 2018, 2:26 PM
I oppose raising property or sales tax at this time. The present Council is spending money unnecessarily and utilizing staff time on projects with no purpose other than feeding their own egos. Plastic straws only if you ask or take it yourself, no purchased water bottles unless an athletic event or someone at City Hall says okay, new developments plumbed for solar ( but not installed). Measure G funds have been subject to bait and switch and any funds here will be too. The assertion that we need to raise taxes to fund approved projects demonstrates the error in the thinking and attitude of the CC, City Manager and City Attorney, it is high time to live within our means. Although the City Manager claims the funds won’t be used to pay down our unfunded pension liabilities, these funds will pay for projects that should come from the general funds thereby allowing general fund money to be used for that purpose. The largest sales tax items like car purchases will affect residents and those businesses. The TOT is quite low and not a determining factor in where visitors choose to stay. With all the call for affordable housing, property tax increases will only raise rents and render housing more costly.