There are a lot more changes to the charter than just those you have mentioned. According to the new charter, Mr. Johnson would be able to continue to vote on the council on his own proposals, until a new council seat is created in 2010. This appears to be a huge conflict of interest. There would most likely be legal challenges to the charter changes, costing the city of Sacramento even more money at a time when budgets are being slashed and workers let go. The changes to the charter make our city government bigger. They add to the beauracracy, and do not in and of themselves make for better government. Concentrating more power in the hands on one person does not make for more democratic governance. It reduces it.

I completely agree with klenox. I have also received emails from people who have been told that when they sign the petition they are signing for more accountable government and/or an independent audit of the city finances. They are not told that it is the "strong Mayor" petition. I would advise people to call their city council member and complain that they have not heard enough debate on the merits of this change to the city charter, before being asked to sign petitions. I also believe that people are not aware of the cost to the city for this special election. And, I think that Sacramentans should be suspicious as to who exactly is paying the cost for collecting the signatures to put this on the ballot. How will they benefit from the changes in the city charter? It may well be that special interest groups will benefit immensely, while the average citizen will not, and may in fact, be harmed by the changes.