HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2002-11' RESOLUTION NO. 2002-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
IN OPPOSITION TO CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 20021
PROPOSITION 40
WHEREAS, the California State Legislature has placed Proposition 40, a $2.6 billion bond measure
on California's March 5, 2002 ballot and entitled it, The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe
Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, and
WHEREAS, California's economy is dependent upon maintaining a high quality of life that includes
attractive and safe public park and recreation facilities and services, and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar and its residents and businesses inextricably participate in the
economy of the State and as well as in the enjoyment of public resources, and
'WHEREAS, each generation of prudent and socially responsible Californians has an obligation and
has shown a willingness to be vigilant stewards of these resources and investments in order to pass
them on to their _children, and
WHEREAS, this proposed measure confuses the voters by taking commonly understood words and,
for the exclusive use of this measure, redefines those words, such as in the case where the word
"Development" is defined to mean "Preservation", and the word "Preservation" is defined to mean
"Development" as well as "Identification", "Evaluation", - "Recordation", "Documentation and
"Interpretation", and
WHEREAS, as a result of this deceptive practice, there is no prudent way for a voter to accurately
determine what any of Proposition 40's proposed expenditure of $2.6 billion in taxpayers' funds will
actually be used for, and
WHEREAS, Diamond Bar taxpayers may very well pay over $6,000,000 without a genuine probability
of receiving more than $220,000 in return benefits, and
WHEREAS, this proposed measure purports that the total proposed increase in expenditures related
to its passage to be $2.6 billion and in calculating this dollar amount, identifies and includes a one-
time allotment to the Wildlife Conservation Board totaling $300 million, however, also refers to this
'same $300 million elsewhere in its text as a "Continuous" allotment to the Wildlife Conservation
Board, and
2002--11
WHEREAS, the taxpayers are being asked to approve a $2.6 billion bond measure that will cost,
between $4.6 billion and $5.0 billion to retire at a time when the State faces a $12.0 billion shortfall,'
and
WHEREAS, the text of Proposition 40 states that the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy would
specifically receive an allotment totaling $40 million, but fails to explain this Conservancy's fiscal
interrelationship with the other programs, Boards and Conservancies identified. and implied to be
separately targeted for funding within Proposition -40, thereby grossly misrepresenting the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy's true potential subsidy that could result from Proposition 40's
approval, and
WHEREAS, as a result of this deceptive financial reporting used within the text of Proposition 40,
there is also no prudent way to accurately or confidently determine how these purported $2.6 billion in
taxpayers' funds will actually be ultimately distributed or what governmental entity — if any will
actually hold title to properties purchased with Proposition 40 funds, if in fact these funds are spent to
actually purchase any additional property, and
WHEREAS, no provisions are made within the Proposition to provide funding to maintain or'service
any properties actually purchased with the Proposition 40 proceeds.
THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The language contained in Proposition 40 confuses the voters as to the purpose and
use of $2.6 billion in taxpayer paid bonds.
- SECTION 2. Passage of the Measure will not necessarily result in California citizens having cleaner
water, cleaner air, safer neighborhood parks, or a better protected coast because of the vague
definitions of types of use for the funds and the unclear relationships between the agencies which are
named to receive funds and would qualify to otherwise participate in the bond proceeds.
SECTION 4. The City Council encourages the residents of the City of Diamond Bar to vote against
Proposition 40 on March 5, 2002.
SECTION 5. Be It Further Resolved that the Mayor and City Council directs staff to publicize the
resolution and recommendation in opposition to Proposition 40 to the voters of the City of Diamond
Bar,
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of February , 2002.
02-11
,I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar held on 19th day of February , 2002, by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Huff, zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: - COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None -
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Ly a Burgess, City a er k
City of Diamond Bar
1
2002-11