FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA
Web_OurView_YourView

Letters to editor

Sales tax increase unnecessary

By From page A8 | October 13, 2012

The city of Fairfield wants to increase your sales tax by 1 percent. What do they spend 75 to 80 percent of the funds they collect on? It is wages for city employees.

They use about 20 percent to pay for services for us, the citizens. They have increased the wages until we have many who retire with well over $10,000 per month. Do you have that kind of retirement? One recent employee retired and collected almost $500,000 in bonus money before he started to collect his retirement. Is this what you want your taxes used for?

The city has enough parcels of land throughout the city that it could sell and run the city for years, but it continues to hold onto this land, which pays no tax. Did you know the city owns two golf courses it loans thousands of dollars to every year? You and I pay a portion of the fee for every golfer who uses one of these two courses. Will you be willing to continue this relationship?

I say vote no on the increase to our sales tax. Sell the excess land that the city is not using until the economy increases. I don’t know about you, but I pay too many taxes already. We do not need another one.

William D. Sanders

Fairfield


Letter to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 9 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • CD BrooksOctober 13, 2012 - 8:53 am

    Mailing my ballot today. It rests in the hands of the majority now...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • S KOctober 13, 2012 - 9:12 am

    I agree, already going though my sample ballot, maybe filling it all out some time tomorrow, then mailing the REAL ONE. And I plan to personally vote NO for any and ALL tax increase initiatives, especially prop 30 & 38. Let Brown go cry on someone else's shoulder LYING about the state having no money as they discover an extra 50+ Million here or there, and being willing to spend over 60 Billion on that train, which will end up being over a trillion. That OLD MAN needs to be RECALLED IMO!!!!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • S KOctober 13, 2012 - 9:15 am

    Dang Gary after PROOF READING, I still made a TYPO>>LOL. Meant, GOING THROUGH, my sample ballot. Do not hire me as a PROOF READER, if y'all have any :-)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • G-ManOctober 13, 2012 - 9:49 am

    Yeah but I read it as "through"..it's like those word" jumbles" that your mind in someway understands...I normally don't comment on your local issues save for maybe a joke or two...but we all have to end pensions for elected officials and curtail those for employees...500K in bonus money?...Your State and no doubt your city are bankrupt..what's the bonus for?..thinking up new ways to defraud the people?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Joe PikeyOctober 13, 2012 - 12:37 pm

    You need to look at who are collecting those $100k retirements. You will find it's PD, Fire & Management. 75% of the General fund goes to safety. Remember, "Measure P" for Police. Why do PD & Fire get to cash out a portion of there annual sick leave? Why can't the City sell a piece of property with out giving away a $1.5m piece of property? Fire Sale?!...Heck, the're giving it away. Money Pit Golf Coarses, Money Pit Pool, Money Pit Firing Range. And why do Department heads & Management get Retirement Medical. Why do they still offer this perk, David White? In the push for Measure P-olice you have Moy & Mraz stating that they had cut from the top. Now if you believe that you might believe that they can sell all this "City Property" with out taking a Huge lose. They gutted public works & other departments first but all they can think of is the top. So why did they (Council) get little to no concessions from PD? Remember FF has the highest number of sworn offices NOW than it has ever had.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • We can't afford it!October 13, 2012 - 4:53 pm

    It sure doesn't help that EACH Fairfield safety employees ONLY cost taxpayers $250,000 annually....OUCH! Before 2009, these employees were seeing their wages going up by almost 7% annually, mostly because the City had tax revenue and money they could count on. NOW WE CAN'T AFFORD THESE EMPLOYEES! I can't afford paying anymore in taxes. If the City has to cut 20 police officers and 10 firefighters to make next years budget...that's just the way it has to be!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • G-ManOctober 13, 2012 - 5:07 pm

    Are you all on acid?..STOP IT...the people are the power..your leaders are arrogant and don't think the populace poses any threat to their perverse agendas or livelihoods..GOD man..it's not right or left...it's your survival...Do you have the stones to stand up for your very lives...AMERICA AWAKE!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Joe PikeyOctober 13, 2012 - 5:38 pm

    Thought you didn't comment on OUR local issues?!...Slow day in Verona?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Joe PikeyOctober 13, 2012 - 5:56 pm

    I wouldn't say 20 cops. Just maybe the 9 they claimed (and FFPD chose) to layoff. Don't expect FF to layoff any cops. They are still on the hook for the "Grant" officers. They may cut vacant positions (due to retiree's) but cuts will come else ware as usual.

    Reply | Report abusive comment

Special Publications »

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
Copyright (c) 2015 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.