Saturday
Readers' Forum
Staff Report
Marin Independent Journal
Article Launched: 08/03/2007 11:03:31 PM PDT
ROSS VALLEY FLOOD VOTE
Ballot not that complicated
Maybe the Ross Valley flood vote was a sort of litmus test. It was
curious that of the 1,678 disqualified votes, 56 percent were against
the fee.ÊThey were too stupid to vote correctly and they
voted
wrong as well. The voting process was not that complicated - the ballot
clearly said it had to be signed. You should have to be able to read in
order to vote.
I voted for it, even though I fear that the money will be squandered
with no result. But it is worth a shot. My "fee" is $110 - big deal -
less than a latte per week. It will buy about an hour with a soils
engineer.
In talking to voters, it seems that my friends up in Sleepy Hollow said
"no," while people like me who live on the creek and had costly damage
voted for it. What the hillside people fail to see is if downtown San
Anselmo floods again, the downtown could become a ghost town. The loss
in property values as a result will make $110 per year seem cheap.
Art Wasserman, San Anselmo
Confusion and controversy
The Ross Valley flood election should be held again in November.
Any election in which 21 percent of the voters had their ballots thrown
out should be subject to suspicion. Yes, the voters were instructed to
sign their ballots, but in very small print on the opposite side of the
voting card. Why were the instructions for signing not made clearer to
the voter?
I believe that those 21 percent, whether their votes were for or
against the measure, voted in good faith and sincerely thought their
votes would be counted, otherwise they would not have gone to the
trouble of mailing in their ballots.
There also is a problem with the fact that many homeowners in the
district did not get the ballot in the mail at all, thus leaving them
out of the opportunity to vote at all. The county has spent $300,000 to
have the job done badly by a consultant, but it still should let all
the voters of the Ross Valley flood control district vote on this in
November.
This time, the job should be done by the Registrar of Voters. Let's do
it again and do it right.
Nancy Oswald, San Anselmo
'Process is flawed'
When more than one-in-five Ross Valley property owners fails to follow
the ballot instructions, then the process is flawed.
Consultant MIG Inc. should be held accountable to a major degree. Among
the questions it should publically answer are: "Why was the signature
requirement not explained in the immediate area of the box that a voter
checks?" And, "Why did they even include a signature requirement?"
Sure, it will cost a lot of money to re-do this. However, here are some
ways to offset the costs:
Require MIG Inc. to return the fees paid to it. It's the least MIG can
do to help correct the damage it has caused.
The "fee" should be paid on government-owned parcels as well. This
reduces the revenues needed for the project, and also saves the legal
fees that would be spent fighting potential lawsuits.
Ask the businesses on San Anselmo Avenue to make a modest contribution.
Their location makes them a major beneficiary of the project.
Pat Kenefick, San Anselmo
Voters rejected flood fee
Regardless of whether you were for or against this measure, it is now
crystal clear what the intent of the voters was when they cast their
ballots in the recent Ross Valley flood control election. The voters'
intent was to reject this measure.
Our local politicians and officials need to come to grips with this
very important fact. They would do well to remember the words of John
Quincy Adams, on this subject. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever
may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion,
they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
Gene O'Sullivan, San Anselmo
'Baffled' by IJ editorial
What was the IJ's Editorial Board smoking?
I am baffled at the IJ for taking a position on such a "disputable
issue" (Aug. 1, "Ross Valley flood vote should stand").
The credibility of the IJ is questionable, if not reprehensible. The
editorial's comment, "The county should resist calls to hold a new
election," is absolutely unbelievable and ridiculous.
The IJ should never take a position on a controversial political issue
such as the Ross Valley flood tax. The IJ should report facts - not
personal opinions. That is what your editorial was.
This worthless editorial encourages most of us not to subscribe and
others to stop subscribing to this "so-called newspaper" (my personal
opinion).
Nancy Luporini, San Anselmo
Fee a huge step forward
Your editorial hit the mark on the Ross Valley flood protection vote
(Aug. 1, "Ross Valley flood vote should stand"). This is our community
and the residents need to take responsibility for making it a safe
place to live. The flood protection fee is a huge step in addressing
the ongoing flood problems our valley faces.
Where is money to alleviate flooding going to come from if not from our
area? Ignoring or postponing dealing with the problem certainly isn't
going to fix anything, and waiting will only increase costs. I, for
one, don't want to spend more money on another election.
The continuing actions of Marin United Taxpayers Association and other
anti-tax/fee organizations and individuals are keeping the community
from helping itself. The lawsuits and threat of lawsuits by them cost
us so much money and time that they are becoming our oppressors. They
will earn a little of my respect when they actually support a local tax
initiative. Where's their solution?
Ask yourselves this question: If the election results had been 65 votes
against the flood fee, would MUTA or Ford Greene be crying for the
invalidated votes to be counted? I think not.
Maureen Durnell, San Anselmo
Entire county should pay
Thank you for the complete discussion of the Ross Valley flood ballot
issue in the Sunday IJ.
I voted against the measure, but not because I am opposed to the
project. I feel that it should be a countywide project and funded by
the entire county. I did not like the election ballot or the basis for
the levy. Because of all the controversy, I feel the issue should be
placed on the general election ballot in November. The special election
ballots should be disallowed and a new election held.
I do not appreciate attempts to bypass the two-thirds majority rule for
tax revenue issues. Some measures that I have opposed, have passed and
I grudgingly agree to go along with the majority and fuss no more. This
tax may well have passed by two-thirds if it were part of a general
county-wide tax for flood control but if it were so, the actual tax
rate would probably have been less per parcel and more folks would
benefit.
Jim Hougen, San Anselmo
Vote again and include renters
What should county officials do?
The flood ballot was deceptive and originators should be held
accountable.
Should the unsigned ballots be counted? Absolutely. The ballot was
unusual, out of routine and difficult to understand.
Should the election be held again? Yes. With no signatures, and renters
should be included.
Roy Domenico Petri, San Anselmo
Ballot went to 'my old address'
I always open my mail. I never received "letters and mailers or
ballots" referred to in the letter to the editor from Gina Feiner (Aug.
2), I erroneously believed that this issue didn't affect me. Recently,
after the fact, I wondered if it did concern me. I called Supervisor
Hal Brown's office to inquire and was told that yes it did. I said I
hadn't received a ballot.
Now, I have discovered that the ballots came from the Department of
Public Works and not the assessor's office. I was told that the ballot
was sent to my old address, a home I had sold more than nine years ago.
If there is a new election, I hope it is for a property tax, not a
"fee," because at least a property tax is an IRS deduction.
Susan Leipsic, Greenbrae
Thank you, Ford Greene
Thanks to Ford Greene for paying to count the unsigned ballots and to
the IJ for an editorial (July 25, "Ross Valley vote gets even messier")
that hit the mark on the flood control issue.
The issue is the process and ballots that were used. I own property
with two relatives. Only one of us was allowed to vote because it was a
"fee." It seems to me that this is a tax because I still am responsible
for my third of the amount.
"There ought to be a law": The Registrar of Voters should handle all
elections. Why was it necessary for the Public Works Department to
oversee this election? Strange.
Politicians who circumvent our rights need to be controlled. Have
another election in November.
Dolores Forni, Fairfax
'New election should be held'
The "vote" of the Ross Valley flood measure was flawed. It is not a
democratic process when nearly 50 percent don't vote and then 20
percent of those who do are disqualified. All voters and property
owners were not permitted to participate. It was wrong to label a $40
million property tax as a user fee to avoid the required two-thirds
vote. It was misleading to have a confusing signature requirement.
County officials should not know how I voted.Ê Paid
consultants
and attorneys should not administer elections.
The results should be voided. A new election should be held. If it
requires a two-thirds majority, so be it. That's the law.
All voters should be eligible, with complete information, pro and con,
available and with secret ballots - you know, the way we usually
conduct elections in the United States of America.
Garrett Scales, Kentfield
Count all the ballots
Since people took the time and effort to vote, I think all ballots
should be counted - signed and unsigned. Another election in November
would just cost more, so let's count all ballots now.
Shirley Thompson, San Anselmo
Never received a ballot
I would have voted for the flood fee if I had received a ballot in the
mail. I've never before had a problem receiving mail sent to my Post
Office box (except for the days the Post Office was too flooded to walk
through).
Because it was shortly before the deadline that I first became aware of
this impending vote, it was too late to call in a request that another
ballot be mailed to me.
Hopefully, the ballots looked like first class and not junk mail, and
were mailed to the official mailing addresses of property owners, since
the physical properties themselves are often occupied by tenants.
Becky Romanowsky, San Anselmo |
|
|