Without an indepth examination of your suggestions, they seem to make sense; however, if you fully consider the outcomes, they lose thier appeal. Let me give some examples: -Replacing sworn officers with civilian personnel usually only slightly cuts costs (civilian personnnel are still paid a living wage and get benefits) but when you call the police because you really need them, non-sworn personnel will not respond to crimes in progress. -Contracting out services, especially to Mexico hurts our economy. American workers spend thier money in America. They buy homes and shop in their communities wicth helps local economies reamain financially stronger. Every dollar sent to Mexico permantly leaves our economy. -Regional services tend pull money from well managed communities to supplement poorly managed communities. The workload does not change. -A thirty year career in Law Enforcement still leads to an average 7 year decline in lifespan. Stress is a killer and very few professions reach the levels of Law Enforcement. -Red light cameras are not a replacement for a patrol officer vigilantly patrolling the neighborhood. They do generate revenue from the law abiding citizens, but what about drunk drivers, reckless drivers, those driving with suspended licences, etc.? They are all still on the road to wreak havoc among all the other drivers. The bottom line is this.... Even though I'm a cop, I don't see patrol officers the street where I live as much as I wish I did. Everytime I see some shady looking character walking through the neighborhood, possibly casing for opportunities, I know that the odds calling the police and getting an officer there in time to do something is continuing to get lower. There were 26,000 arrests in the City of Sacramento last year. There are still a lot of criminals out there who have demonstrated thier willingness to break the law. What you're talking about is shifting the costs from a dollar amount paid by the government to a non-dollar amount paid by society.

Do you work for Capitol Campaigns?

I hope the Council drafts up the language and puts it on the ballot. Let the residents of Sacramento have thier weigh in on the matter instead of being silenced by union leaders.

Of the three groups you named, the neighborhoods are the group that controls the overwhelming majority of the votes. If what you are saying is true, then you should not be afraid to see an Executive Mayor proposal presented to the voters in the form of a charter change. If the majority of Sacramento Citizens want that change, then do you agree that it should be implemented? And the question you raised in your article regarding the police and fire unions to use their members' dues money to cover the shortfalls of the City is laughable. Two years ago Fargo and Tretheway voted to spend $650,000.00 to count trees while City Management was already approaching public safety unions for salary concessions. That's the kind of dysfunctional leadership that has paralyzed Sacramento for decades. Kevin Johnson has stepped up more than any previous mayor in regards to accountability. I know people like bbbbmer with his rabid hatred of Kevin will always oppose any Charter revision that may allow Kevin to possibly be successful as our Mayor; however, the effort to keep the decision out of the hands of the people smacks of pure socialist elitism.

I think that using the word "steal" to describe the legal purchase of a domain name reflects a clear misrepresentation of the facts. I think dirty politics is not really correct either. It seems like more of a case of a tech savvy opponent taking advantage of an unprepared candidate.