comments

Reader supports Measure K

-A +A
I stand in support of Measure K and of a much-maligned candidate for the City Council, Richard Pearl. The rhetoric is reprehensible. Much of the information printed in the letters to the editor (Sept. 23) is full of misinformation and misunderstandings. Points: The chief financial officer position was a replacement position for the city’s finance director. The title of assistant manager was added to the job resume. This was not an additional position. The responsibilities of the CFO were also increased. The Measure K UUT, if passed, has a sunset clause. Council members will not be able to arbitrarily extend it without a vote of the taxpayer. The shortfall of revenue is a direct result of a) reductions in revenue to the city such as the lowering of property taxes because of value reductions, b) sales tax revenue decreases both due to the economic downturn over the last several years and c) our city redevelopment funds were taken by the state of California. Employment contracts in effect now were negotiated during a much more favorable financial time and thus were not considered exorbitant at that time. Now we live with the consequences while future negotiations continue. There seems to be more interest in finger pointing and accessing blame rather than solving the grim financial problems facing our city. Shouldn’t we have a City Council in place experienced in solving these challenges going forward? Whether Measure K passes or fails, our leaders must deal with the consequences; thus support or non support of Measure K should not be the rationale of your vote for or against a City Council member candidate. Michele Hutchinson, Lincoln