Proposition 13 (1978) requires voters to approve certain tax increases by a supermajority vote. Proposition 39 (2000) lowered the threshold to 55% for certain bonds. Are you suggesting that voters pass an initiative that would require "all large investments by taxpayers" be required to gain voter approval? What is the definition of "large investment"? While I appreciate the sentiment behind giving taxpayers opportunity to weigh in on decisions involving their tax dollars, a line has to be drawn somewhere that separates "Voters, may we...?" to "Voters hired me to..." Voters have a voice on matters of tax dollar investments -- they can use that voice to vote incumbents out of office when they make poor decisions and can threaten to do so when incumbents are on the verge of doing so. I'm all for taxpayers having a stronger voice, but to cease all "large investments by taxpayers" until they receive election day voter approval is, in my view, a mistake. Ballots in California are confusing enough as it is with their multiple languages and so many propositions -- adding propositions for "all large investments by taxpayers" would make our ballots look like phone books. No thanks -- I'd rather elect smart, fiscally conservative, responsible, community-minded people to represent my interests.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine preliminary polling showed she started with a severe disadvantage and with so many challengers, she either faced losing in June by not placing in the top two (like incumbent Waters' did when he failed to secure a November 2010 runoff position since D. Fong and Ryan Chin ranked as the top two June 2010) OR losing outright to a challenger who would win 50%+1 (ala Ashby's historic 51-42-7 definitive defeat in June 2010 over incumbent Tretheway in a hotly contested three-way race). I think she saw how painful those defeats were to her former colleagues and she decided to end her political career on her own terms rather than subject herself to the humility of a defeat on election night. It's also worth noting that she had no challengers at all in 2008, so she did not have to campaign at all that year. Attending debates, walking precincts, etc., is all very hard work, let alone the emotional investment and the political attacks she would endure along the way. At 68 years old, that's a big commitment with very little down time without any assurance of success at the end of it all -- and even if she did manage to win the election, the council would no longer be the elitist officious impenetrable politically entrenched mob it was over the previous decade, so the four years that followed would probably be more challenging than in previous years. The timing is also interesting because Sacramento Police Officers' Association endorsed challenger Kim Mack a few days ago. It is therefore likely that Sacramento Area Fire Fighters Local 522 will follow suit. Those public safety employee associations supported Ashby very early in the 2010 race and their support was critical in delivering Ashby's grassroots message to voters in what was the most populous council district at the time. Now Sheedy is in the position of a lame duck councilperson between now and November 2012. That's a long time and a lot of damage can be done. She literally has nothing to lose because she has no accountability whatsoever to her constituents anymore. Let us hope she does not do anything too extreme against the wishes of her communities in a Hail Mary pass for the sake of her legacy at the expense of taxpayers. Let's keep our eyes peeled for efforts to have streets, public buildings, and/or parks named after her or her husband.

Do tell.

"And we don't want to see a bunch of sly foxes (Ashby) -- I-will-be-quiet when their [sic] is foul play, misinformation- just to get in office on the council." Care to elaborate on that accusation, Rhonda? Or is it just the usual empty rhetoric?

Interesting article. I knew it was a 1911 bridge and definitely looked it, but I didn't know it had undergone a renovation in 1993 and other interesting facts. I too would like to see the bridge made less, uh, gritty. Cities on both sides of the bridge are trying to develop that area. But if the bridge is privately owned by the railroad, then compelling them to make it more aesthetically pleasing is not a wise investment for them, and I don't think I'd want taxpayer money spent on that endeavor -- so I guess we're stuck with it.

I don't think you can reach that conclusion from the facts presented. I believe you when you say you didn't request emails from Sacramentans for Accountable Government and that the email address might have come from Sacramento for Obama -- but to assume Kim stole the addresses and later lied about doing so can't be proven by the above arguments. It might be true but there could be another explanation. I'm all in favor of holding people "accountable" but if we're gonna assasinate someone's character like this, let's connect all the dots if we can find them and not leap to conclusions without the evidence to support the assertions. For the record, I am not a Mack supporter. I have not made a judgement on her candidacy and I don't live in her district.

OR someone else added the email addresses of people who had not made contact with the group without Kim's knowledge before she sent the email. The question of "how did SfAG get the email addresses of Obama supporters" is a valid one and I don't have an answer for that, but to conclude they MUST have come from Kim defies logic. That may be true but based on the facts presented so far, it can't be proven. Kinda like if x + 2y = 6, x and y cannot be assumed to be 2 and 2 respectively because they could also be -4 and 5 respectively.

Could you post the "full headers" of the email sent on January 2, 2009? Feel free to obfuscate the "to" address and name as you did above. The full headers contain more forensics data that could be helpful in an investigation. It is plausable that she did send the email in question using an email marketing distribution service similar to Constant Contact or MailChimp, and that the "list" was being maintained by one or more volunteers, and that someone added some addresses in a way that violated terms of service. I'm not excusing the behavior, nor am I downplaying it. If she did in fact do what was alleged, it's not only bad, the lying about it is worse. However, I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to say with any degree of certainty that she did what was alleged. There are many scenarios I can think of that could explain what happened in a ways that would leave her completely innocent. I have volunteered on a city council campain in a capacity that involved email marketing, so I have experience with those kinds of programs. One of things I did not like about the service we were using is that there was no way to grant granular permissions to fellow volunteers -- it was "all" or "nothing" with a single username and password. As a result, that function was pretty much "siloed" in my corner.

OK, that's way over the top -- but I know one restauranteur (a legal immigrant from an asian country) who feared for his livelihood based on an implied threat from someone who conducted an investment scam that cost him tens of thousands of dollars, and he feared reporting it to the authorities because the scammer threatened to ruin his business with a barrage of unfavorable online reviews. So while this "jehova" person is way out in left field, I do believe that extortion does happen and it is probably more likely to happen where corruption and extortion is common in the native homelands of the victims.

It is a little pricey but I'm sure that's because of all the ADA retrofits. We all pay for that. We pay for that when businesses large and small are sued or threatened with lawsuits and then legally extorted to settle for thousands of dollars. We pay for that in the form of deprivation when businesses and attractions are shuttered because complying with ADA is too expensive. And we pay for that in the form of lost opportunity when businesses never even get off the ground due to the costs of complying with ADA. I'm looking forward to taking the tour sometime.

...not unlike some people I've come to know... ;-) Agreed -- nice enhancement. I can think of a couple of pieces I wrote that I should have been more forthright in my personal affiliation and interest in outcome. The inclusion of this field and the expectation of its use will lead to greater transparency and credibility.

"the unrepresented in 10 and 14" -- what does that mean?

One more... "IG: Last, what advise do you want to share with you successor?" Should be "advice," not "advise." But I feel like I'm nitpicking. EXCELLENT work, Isaac. Thank you.

I've been wondering about fleet management lately. It seems most non Public Safety city vehicles I see on the road are relatively new and appear to be in top condition. This is in contrast with some of the vehicle from other agencies I see out and about in our region that appear to me to be much longer in the tooth. Are there opportunities for operational efficiency improvements by stretching our city's vehicle fleet to longer service intervals, and is there a surplus of vehicles today, given the staff reductions that have occurred in the past couple of years? If there is a surplus, could there perhaps be an auction of these vehicles and could proceeds flow to the general fund to help cushion the blow of the next round of budget cuts? We know the State of California was bought fifty Toyota Priuses back in 2009 and then put them into storage (http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2009/10/view-the-state-invoice-for-12.html). I sure hope the City of Sacramento isn't doing anything even close to that with our tax dollars. An independent audit of the city's Fleet Management department would go a long way to give us taxpayers the assurances we deserve that our money is being spent wisely.

I believe it is wrong for any organization to disqualify any individual from any level of participation using one's skin color as a qualifying factor. A policy to disqualify Caucasians is a racist policy, just as it would be racist to disqualify Blacks. Note that the user named darrywh1 has replied to three individuals here who have called this policy what it deserves to be called -- racist -- and in none of those replies did he deny it was racist. It is a racist policy, and no, one need no further facts to reach that conclusion.

"You have a right to have short term guests in your residence that don’t have to be on the lease agreement..." Most rental agreements I have signed in the past limit house guests to stays of three days or fewer.

"The debate on whether property owners should pay the costs of maintaining parks has been put on hold...." CORRECTION: property owners already pay the costs of maintaining parks. This is especially true in North Natomas homeowners, many of whom pay an additional property assessment tax for city park maintenance, and that tax is not even earmarked for use within the neighborhoods being taxed. I would therefore recommend the first sentence be changed to: "The debate on whether property owners should pay AN ADDITIONAL TAX TO HELP COVER the costs of maintaining parks has been put on hold..."

Crime is a function of need? I hardly think that's accurate. It implies -- states outright -- that good people do bad things because they have no choice. No, crime is a byproduct of a moral deficiency. Acquisition of money and stuff may be a factor in terms of providing a motivation, but resorting to crime as a means to acquite simply demonstrates a disrespect of the boundaries of decency. What causes the moral deficiency is arguable, but it's surely not strictly economics.

"Roth may be known to some residents because he was covered extensively by the local media last April, during Tretheway’s campaign against Ashby. The local media reported on a YouTube video that showed Roth watching Tretheway campaign manager Corin Choppin remove Ashby signs. 'Never has standing on a sidewalk with my hands in my pocket caused me so much drama,' Roth said." That says a lot about you, Dan. Still trying to make it about you being treated unfairly, you being the one who "only" stood there on the corner with your hands on your pockets. Never mind the numerous witnesses who saw you tampering with signs a few minutes before I shot the video. Though not caught on camera, you're just as guilty as Corin. Never mind that you lied to reporters about how you were supposedly acting on a complaint sent to 3-1-1 -- such a complaint was never sent. And when you were caught in that lie, you fabricated another lie, claiming to BE the one who INTENDED to send it to 3-1-1 but forgot to?! It's a great metaphor, really -- crap going on right in front of you, but you just stood there "with your hands in your pockets" as you say, refusing to act, refusing to stand up for what is right, refusing to act with dignity for the people of District One. I imagine you'll still manage to schmooze yourself into a job in this town of political hacks... Probably for someone with similar virtues (or lack thereof) as you have. Someone who will stand with his hands in his pockets, or his hands in the pockets of others perhaps, doing nothing whatsoever...

Best-researched article I have seen on Sacramento Press to date. Excellent work, Suzanne. Darned "thumbs up" thing only lets me click it once.