Back at You, Girl!! :-)

Rhonda, did you read the Bee article about Darrell? And Tyndale's comment? http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/08/4168924/enigmatic-councilman-a-political.html SPOA was angry at Darrell's vote on the city budget last June. Boss Tyndale's thuggish threat was: "Tyndale says that Fong could start making amends by voting to put Mayor Kevin Johnson's strong-mayor initiative on the ballot in June. Fong says he hasn't made up his mind, but did have a good talk with the mayor on Tuesday. If the councilman continues to buck the union, Tyndale warns, it will find someone to run against him: "If we don't fix the relationship, we don't want him on the council." Who is the community stewart? Tyndale or D.Fong? And a portion of my response to that article... "And to the leaders of SPOA, both Mark Tyndale an former president Brent Meyer....two individuals who don't live in this city....and have on numerous occasions stated how it can be dangerous to live in this city while being a police officer...for both them and their families..... I give you Darrell Fong....as a myth buster! And OMT, For Mr.,non-resident, Tyndale to suggest that charter revision is a bargaining chip: "... Fong could start making amends by voting to put Mayor Kevin Johnson's strong-mayor initiative on the ballot in June." Is insulting to say the least and "flies in the face" of the constitutional process ordained by the State of California. Sorry words from someone sworn to uphold the laws of this state!" That would be Mark Tyndale!

Throughout this debate of spending public dollars simply based on the approval of council has been the underlying question, At what monetary threshold is voter approval required? Our charter and ordinances place excellent retrictions on council needing to approve expenditures by the city manager, when the bill is $100,000 Dollars or more. Here we have a city department, that repeatedly produces dependable annual income for our general fund while at the same time providing stabilization of parking rates in our city. To proceed with the RFP process the city will need to spend 1-2 million unfunded precious dollars of the taxpayer to proceed. The anticipation is to generate a one time cash payment equvalent to About 1/4 Of Our Annual Budget and take it all for a downpayment on a project of highly questinable, if not outright deceptive, proforma. The ramifications of which will be with this city for 50 years. While the life span of any pro-sport arena tends to be 16.5 years on avg. Additionally, the comments from some councilmembers, who voted not to allow a vote of the residents, reflect acknowledgement that the information they have been receiving from the arena shill force is unreliable knowing that there is little support to spend these funds in that manner or more likely that they don't want the parking privatized at all. In a manner like the council restricts the spending by the city manager, it's time the residents restrict the spending by our council at a fixed monetary value. The action last night clearly demonstrated that.

I think Rhonda is correct. The game will become clearer as the filing deadline for candidates approaches. The wildcard now is the charter commission vote. If the voters vote against it, especially in light of what has transpired now for over three years, all of the mayor's arguments for revising the charter go out the window, his or anybody else's version. Will that stop him, especially if he were to gain a majority of support on council? Propably not, his pursuit for the "ring of power" is too great. Meet Mayor Gollum, seeking "his precious".

Under the category of Best Freebie in Sacramento, This gets 5 Stars! Just remember, the museums are free downtown...most parking isn't, unless your walking, riding a bike or using public transit, then you can park your tush anywhere you like!