Government School Officials Promotes SEGREGATED Graduation In Antioch, CA School

If you want segregated schools in America, you do not go to Mississippi—you go to Los Angeles Unified School District. Mississippi has just fewer than 40% white students enrolled. Los Angeles has 9.6%. So which has segregated schools—the Leftist city of Los Angeles, not the conservative State of Mississippi.

Now we found that a school official in the Northern California city of Antioch is promoting a graduation program—blacks only. Where is Sharpton and Jackson—why isn’t Obama or the bigoted Loretta Lynch complaining. If this was a white only program, you know this would be front page.

Thanks to the Antioch Herald for exposing this government school sanctioned segregated graduation ceremony? Where if Guv Brown? Where is the NAACP—or is bigotry and racism permitted in California government schools?

“Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. Why, therefore, did Pamela Price, a Student Support Counselor at Dallas Ranch Middle School, send out a notification of an Antioch Unified School District 8th grade African-American Promotion Ceremony, held on Friday night, May 29th at the Delta Bay Church of Christ?

Plus, the contact person was Dr. Lamont Francies, a counselor at Black Diamond Middle School, whose AUSD phone number and email address were included in both Price’s notification and a flyer promoting the event.”

Walton_High_School_New_Classroom

Watchdog – Black only graduation ceremony in Antioch violates Supreme Court decision

By Barbara Zivic, Antioch Herald, 5/31/15

Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. Why, therefore, did Pamela Price, a Student Support Counselor at Dallas Ranch Middle School, send out a notification of an Antioch Unified School District 8th grade African-American Promotion Ceremony, held on Friday night, May 29th at the Delta Bay Church of Christ?

Plus, the contact person was Dr. Lamont Francies, a counselor at Black Diamond Middle School, whose AUSD phone number and email address were included in both Price’s notification and a flyer promoting the event.

This, folks is discriminatory. There should only be one ceremony endorsed by the school district for all the graduating middle school students. Period. End of discussion.

If you feel the same way about this as I do, notify the members of the Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees:

Claire Smith, President – term ends 12/2016 – crcdsmith@yahoo.com

Diane Gibson Gray, V.P. – term ends 12/2016 – Diane@DianeGibsonGray.com

Barbara Cowan (married to Richard Asadoorian former trustee of the CCC School Board) – her term also ends 12/2016 – barbarajean.cowan@gmail.com

Walter Ruehlig – term ends 12/2018 – Walter.Ruehlig@gmail.com

Debra Vinson – term ends 12/2018 – debravinson@gmail.com

 

Hispanic City—San Fernando—Protests Choo Choo Train

Are those running the High Speed Rail scam not only fraud, but racists as well? We know they are signing contracts with no money for billions of dollars—with no money to pay. This is called a scam.   Now they are traveling around the State, holding “hearings”. To most people a hearing means they are allowed to ask questions—but not the High Speed Rail scam artists.

“The protestors, however,  many of them members of the Coalition Against Displacement, (CAD), persisted in stating their concerns to HSR representatives and attempted to ask them questions.  Xanaro Ayala, a long time activist,s peaking in both in English and Spanish said the SR 14 route proposed to go through the Northeast San Fernando Valley communities that include Sun Valley, Pacoima, the city of San Fernando and Sylmar told those in the room that it is the most disastrous route that impacts the greatest number of people, “We have seen this before when they’ve built the freeways and divided up our community.  We are saying, No to you, you are not going to displace our families.”

Theses elitists running the scam need to be stopped. They abused the families of the San Fernando Valley, the By Area and the Central Valley—only the bankers and unions have smiles from ear to ear. We have wasted billions—do we have another $200 billion to flush down the toilet?

high speed rail train

Residents Rally and Organize Against the SR 14 High-Speed Rail Route

By Diana Martinez, San Fernando Valley Sun, 5/29/15

Chanting, “The High Speed Rail Has Got to Go,” Residents from the city of San Fernando and Pacoima held a protest rally at Las Palmas Park, both outside and inside an Open House meeting organized by the High Speed Rail Authority (HSR).  Holding signs and a banner, reading “Hell No,” and “People First, No to SR 14,” the boisterous  group filed into the room, disrupting the start of the HSR meeting for about thirty meetings.

“We open our door to you, and you slam the door in our face.” Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Ballin said, referencing the agency’s  refusal to allow residents to ask questions at this meeting.

Talking into a microphone from the back of the room,  the protestors were able to drown out the HSR consultant who struggled in her attempts to get the protestors to leave.   “We have heard you,” Genoveva Arellano. told the protestors, “Now, we’d like to start our meeting.”

The protestors, however,  many of them members of the Coalition Against Displacement, (CAD), persisted in stating their concerns to HSR representatives and attempted to ask them questions.  Xanaro Ayala, a long time activist, speaking in both in English and Spanish said the SR 14 route proposed to go through the Northeast San Fernando Valley communities that include Sun Valley, Pacoima, the city of San Fernando and Sylmar told those in the room that it is the most disastrous route that impacts the greatest number of people, “We have seen this before when they’ve built the freeways and divided up our community.  We are saying, No to you, you are not going to displace our families.”

Most of the residents who were involved in the protest said they had attended previous HSR meetings and were fed up with the agency and their failure to have a public dialogue.  The City of San Fernando had requested that the HSR representatives allow for a question and answer period during the meeting, but were refused.  Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Ballin said that was a primary motivation for her to pick up a protest sign.  My first question is, will you answer our questions?” asked Ballin.  Arrelano refusing to change the planned power point presentation, still would not respond to questions.

“We’ve seen your slides, and your power point presentation before,” said Michael Gonzales, “We know you are just checking off the boxes,” he told the HSR representatives.

Former Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez joined the protestors at the microphone at the back of the room, “I have fourteen questions,” she said.  Seeing that Arellano would not budge, Montanez asked, “Are you willing to make arrangements come to the city of San Fernando? I believe he’s a good man.”  Ballin chimed in, “He came [here] to Mission Hills when he was campaigning many years ago and I supported him then.” Before exiting the meeting room, Gonzales encouraged people to sign their petition to stop the process to place the bullet train through the Northeast valley.

San Fernando Mayor Joel Fajardo said previously, the High-Speed Rail Authority shouldn’t go any further and should remove SR 14 route from the next step, their environmental study. “The Authority would never entertain a proposal to build the High-Speed rail through Old Town Pasadena or Third Street Promenade, and they must afford us the same treatment they provide to more affluent communities,” he said.

“It is disingenuous for the High-Speed Rail Authority to claim that SR 14 must go through the environmental review process before they consider eliminating this disastrous route. They have already made significant revisions to alignments based on water well locations and other pertinent data, and San Fernando deserves the same level of consideration given the adverse consequences and irreversible damage SR14 would cause.” said Fajardo.

Speaking for residents who live in Pacoima, Michael Gonzales, the Co-Chair of Communities Against Displacement,  said the SR 14 route will impact the greatest number of people.

“We believe the cost to human beings should be the biggest consideration.  Our community is dense and has the largest population,  the SR 14 route will impact thousands of people and displace them from their homes.”

The nonprofit community based organization, Pacoima Beautiful cites as many as 8,000 people could be forced from their homes and as many as 10,000 structures that include businesses, schools and churches would be affected.

Residents have taken notice that other than San Fernando city council, their elected officials including — local, state and national representatives —have not supported them in their opposition to the route.

Assemblywoman Patty Lopez represents both the East and Northeast Valley where routes are being considered both in the East Valley of rural Shadow Hills and through the Northeast Valley communities.  At a meeting in Lake View Terrace attended by the “horse community,”she announced that she would represent the concerns of her constituents even if it went against the wishes of the Governor Jerry Brown, to oppose both of the High-Speed routes in her district.

Lopez, however, now appears to be taking more of a wait and see position.  When asked for comment this week  by the San Fernando Valley Sun/El Sol,  Lopez  replied in a statement: “With such large public works projects creating consensus can be difficult. However, I am currently researching all options by listening to my constituents, meeting with other stakeholders, and reviewing all pertinent information. I am going to meet with High-Speed people so they can’t say I didn’t listen to their side before I take a position on that issue.”

Lopez added that she supports the concerns of her constituents but “needs time.”

The San Fernando Valley Sun/El Sol requested comment from Congressman Tony Cardenas’ office and received the following statement from his spokesperson Paul Kincaid, “The Congressman has been in contact with the folks working on planning the routes and wants them to continue talking to people in the area, to make sure they have the most input possible before they figure out what route they want to use. Because it’s early in the process and there have been no environmental or other studies done, and because this is more a state and local issue, he’s not taking a position on any specific route.”

Los Angeles City Councillman Felipe Fuentes, at a previous community meeting in Pacoima told residents that there were incentives and the High-Speed Rail would bring improvements to the community/  But residents aren’t buying it.  Pacoima Beautiful has countered the HSR public relations presentations with a power point presentation of their own that indicated the scores of residents that would be displaced and businesses that would be lost.

The High-Speed Rail Authority hired Latino public relations firms to help facilitate the HSR meetings in the Northeast Valley. There has been Spanish language translation at some of the meetings.

“We know that they’ve got deep pockets, but they should save their money. Whether they speak to us in English or Spanish, our community knows when they are being hustled.” said a long time business owner who requested anonymity. “My business will be one of those hit by this route, where are we supposed to go? We can’t trust anything they tell us and we know whatever amount of money they’ll give us, won’t be enough to get us back on our feet and rebuild customers.”

“Do they  think that they can just carve through our Latino communities for their luxury train? Ballin asked. “Our kids and families can’t afford a ticket to ride it but will have the pleasure of just waving at it as it races by and it will be our community that will be harmed.  It will be the poorest people in the valley who will have to put up with it the noise, vibration and safety issues as it speeds through. It’s important that the High-Speed Rail Authority see that we will come together as a community to protect our city from the destruction and devastation by the proposed Sr 14 route

We won’t be their dumping ground and we won’t quietly accept this,” said Ballin. “There is a name for their plans and it’s called economic and environmental injustice”

 

Elise Richmond: Unionization of the Republican GOP – Part 1

Why are we Republicans? We are not Republicans first, we are conservatives and we looked for a political party that came closest to our values, principles and ethics. We expect our GOP elected officials to support the families of California. That does not mean we vote against them if we disagree with them on an issue or two. But, it is important we understand who they listen to, who whisperers in their ear, who buys them dinner and who donates to their campaign. In the world of political today, all of that is public record. It is interesting to note that some Republicans and the California Republican Party are taking money from unions. The unions get their money by telling workers either pay us money or you do not work.

I have been waiting for years for workers to sue candidates that take union money, on the basis it was not freely given, it was stolen and used against their will, mostly without telling the workers the money will be used to raise their taxes, make government schools worse and create regulations that make life difficult.

This is the first of two articles on the “unionization” of the Republican Party. Could this be part of the reason the GOP registration is down—or is it because folks no longer trust the GOP—or the Democrat Party—to represent them? Either way, the fastest growing “Party” in California is the “Decline to State Party”.

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image2256608

Unionization of the Republican GOP – Part 1

By Elise Richmond, 5/26/15

Do you believe that public sector unions like the SEIU and the teachers’ union are looking out for the best interest of all the people in California? Are the unions in politics to help conservative ideas move forward in the state of California? Do the union bosses have the best interest of Republicans in mind? Would any Republican answer, “yes”, to any of these questions?

On one day alone in 2014, the unions gave $1.59 million in campaign contributions to the California State Democrat Party. $7 hundred thousand came from the California Teachers Association alone.

I read an article from Jon Fleischman in Breitbart.com, entitled,“Big Labor Scorecard reveals slavish Loyalty of California’s Legislators”.

Jon Fleischman’s article begins by saying that a couple of weeks ago a freshman Republican member of the State Assembly said to him, “You were right, this place is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the unions.”

Some additional excerpts from the article are: “The good news (or the bad news) is that if you actually want to see in great detail how much say these unions have in passing or killing legislation, you don’t have to do much in-depth research. Every year, the California Labor Federation actually puts out its own scorecard, listing its top legislative priorities and scoring California’s 120 legislators on how well they towed the union line.” “The scorecard, using a total of 33 different bills that ran the gamut of labor issues, a huge percentage of them are bills that either increase the number of union positions, increase benefits for union members, or require particular types of projects to be reserved forunion workers.” “From 2003 to 2012 the California Teachers Association and the Service Employees International Union together spent a stunning $214,022,424 directly on candidates, independent expenditures, or ballot measure campaigns.”

The article ends with, “California: the best legislature big labor money can buy.”

I was excited to look at that score card to see how well our Republicans were fighting the fight for us against the unions. These are the same unions that work to defeat all of my Republican friends at election time and fight against the Republican Party that I want to continue to believe in.

I first looked up my friend, Tim Donnelly, who has been on my radio show many times. I hosted him on live remote with the Heritage Palms Republican Club. Tim went from a lifetime voting record of 6% with the unions to an 8% voting record with the union in 2014. That’s not bad, as I am a more moderate Republican than he is.

When I looked up my husband’s friend, Assemblyman Eric Linder’s score, Bob and I were flabbergasted. Remember that Bob has always supported Eric from the beginning of his political career. Eric’s voting record with the union went from 22% lifetime to 42% in 2014.You can well imagine our surprise and disappointment. Voting with the unions 42% of the time, when you are a Republican is unacceptable.

The next elected to check on was Melissa Melendez. Melissa has been a guest on my radio show. Bob has also always supported her. As chairman of the Riverside County Republican Party, Bob wrote her an endorsement in her first political campaign for city council. Melissa’s lifetime support for union bills was 15%.That was acceptable to Bob and me.

In my lifetime, I have found that I agree with the Democrats maybe between 10 and 15%, as both Bob and I are more moderate than some Republicans. I was a registered Democrat for 24 years, before growing up. In 2014, Melissa’s vote for the union backed bills went up to 27%. This is too high for me, are formed Democrat.

In fact, after checking the scorecard, all Republican legislators scored higher in 2014 than their lifetime averages. This is all unacceptable to me. Is this unacceptable to you? Republican legislators are being led more by public sector union bosses than led by conservative voters’ ideals.

Remember the ad campaign, Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. Do whatever it takes to stop them.The ad was very effective in encouraging people to take action, so their friends didn’t bring harm to themselves and others. The ad empowered friends to take the responsibility to stop their friends from unacceptable behavior, DRIVING DRUNK.

The new Republican ad campaign that Bob and I are starting is:                                            Republicans don’t let Republican legislators vote union, do whatever it takes to stop them. We want to encourage the Conservative Grassroots to tell our Republican legislators to stand up for us against the union bosses that control the state legislature. These are the same bosses that need a 2/3 majority to pass legislation, even if it means the vote of one Republican senator and four Republican assembly members.

Now, I started to look for the reasons that the scores went up. I began connecting the dots that might have caused this voting trend to go up, move to the left and so I checked all Republican legislators’ union votes. Let’s connect those dots now.

Prop 14,”top two” open primary, was passed by the voters and authored by the moderate Republican Senator Abel Maldonado. It was supported financially by money from moderate Republican Governor Schwarzenegger’s Dream Team Pac.

“Conservatives and liberal activists are treated like fodder by this system. Special interests and the wealthy are outspending each other for control of the legislature. At the end of the day those elected, mostly with few exceptions, report to their donors instead of their constituents”. Stated by Stephen Frank Capital News and Views.

Charles Munger Jr. spent $3 million in 2010 registering independent voters, figuring they’d support Prop. 14, which enacted California’s “top-two” open primary, according to George Skelton Los ANGELES TIMES

“Prop 14, the initiative to put in place California’s new top-two primary system, was backed by business interests and rich folks, such as Charles MungerJr. “Joe Matthew

I simply think that the unions try to influence the election with money and endorsements to the most pro-union moderate Republican candidate. Wow! Prop 14 was sold as a law to stop the gridlock between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party for a better California. It has not turned out to be better for California, but rather better for the union control of our state.

Under the leadership of Chairman Jim Brulte, the California Republican Party accepted contributions of $25 thousand from the SEIU and teachers union in 2013.In 2014 a donation from the SEIU sponsored PAC,Caring for Californians,gave $530 thousand to our California Republican Party. Caring for Californians is sponsored by the SEIU, the United Healthcare Workers West & California Association of Hospitals & Health Systems. That same SEIUPAC also gave $1.5 million to the Democrat State Party in 2014.

Red State blogs has a great article, describing how the union wants to destroy the California Republican Party.There is another article by Stephen Frank on the SEIU, taking control of the state party. All of these articles were written before anyone knew about the $500 thousand donation, secured by Jim Brulte, the chairman of the state GOP. Before reading this article, how many of you knew this was going on?

Ed Ring fromUnion Watch thinks this is wrong. A quote from ED’s article, “Public sector unions own California, and they own California’s Democratic Party. If you accept Brulte’s premises, his logic is unassailable. And union money going to the California Republican party, which in-turn is allocated to Republican candidates in strategic races, is not quite the same as union money going directly to the candidates. Either way, the more money the unions give, the more influence they will have. How can this play out?”

Ed didn’t even know about the $530 thousand that the SEIU gave to Jim Brulte, the leader of the Republican Party in 2014. Did Jim this donate? He has said that his job, as leader, is to raise money. How did he convince the SEIU to give him the money? What was in it for the union bosses? Or, did the check just show up in the mail one day?

Have any of our state chairmen ever lobbied the unions for money? Would any of the chairmen have accepted this amount of money at a time, whether the party was in debt or not?

Do any of them think this is a good idea for our Republican party?

This is what I want you take from this article. When unions donate money, they expect something in return. What do they expect? Votes! It is my opinion that the union bosses are out to influence our Republican leadership and state legislators and to destroy our party.

Republicans don’t let Republican legislators vote UNION! Do whatever it takes to stop them.

“Obviously, at the end of 2013 someone needs to create a voting record (with percentages and ranking) of how Republicans voted on labor issues in the California State Legislature. Then there will be some accountability to the voters.”Kevin Dayton from unionwatch.

Don’t forget Jon Fleishman’s saying, “California: the best legislature big labor money can buy.”

Part 2 will follow Thursday.

About Elise: Talk Radio Host of The Elise Richmond Show, “Conservatively Speaking and Saying what you’re Thinking”!

 

http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1339150&session=2015 Link to GOLDEN CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES

 

http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1339150&session=2013&view=received&psort=AMOUNT  page showing 300,000 from SEIU PAC

 

http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1339150&session=2013&psort=AMOUNT&view=contributions page showing contribution made

SEIU to CRP  500,000  http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1372740&view=late2&session=2013

 

Moody’s Downgrades Richmond, CA

Just as a reminder, Richmond is the Bay Area city that tried to get rid of Chevron, its largest employer. So you understand why those running the city are not the brightest bulbs in an area of dim lights. They are so poorly run that Moodys has downgraded them due to self inflicted financial disasters. First, the city is controlled by the unions, of the Pension system is dragging them down—no great surprise.

If the job killing increase in the sales tax does not help the city. Now the citizens have to expect higher taxes—just to go bankrupt. No Republican has been a leader of this city in a generation—did you expect a different outcome?

“Under California law, an unlimited ad valorem pledge of the tax base means the issuer must raise property taxes by whatever amount necessary to repay the obligation, irrespective of its underlying financial position. The city’s pension override tax levy is limited to the pre-Proposition 13, voter-approved rate, regardless of any declines in the pledged revenues. Declines in the pledged pension override revenue could require the city to rely on other resources, which are currently extremely limited.”

price cost expensive money:

Moody’s downgrades Richmond, CA issuer rating to Baa1 from A1, pension bonds to Baa2 from A2, and places city and wastewater enterprise ratings under review for possible downgrade

Moody’s Global Credit Research, 5/13/15

City has $396M in combined governmental and enterprise debt; rated debt includes $12M POBs and $12M wastewater revenue bonds

New York, May 13, 2015 — Moody’s Investors Service has downgraded the City of Richmond, CA’s issuer rating to Baa1 from A1 and the rating on its 1999 Taxable Limited Obligation Pension Bonds (POBs) to Baa2 from A2. Concurrently, all city ratings were placed under review for possible further downgrade, including the wastewater enterprise’s revenue bonds currently rated A2.

SUMMARY RATING RATIONALE

The downgrade to Baa1 of the city’s issuer rating (implied GO) reflects the city’s seriously weakened financial position, evidenced by negative available operating fund balances and very narrow liquidity. While the tax base is large and grew in 2015, total assessed valuation (AV) remains well below pre-recession levels. The tax base has high taxpayer concentration, with Chevron Corporation (Issuer Aa1/Stable) representing over a quarter of total 2015 AV. In 2014, despite declining revenues, the city increased expenditures, reflecting unusually weak budgetary management. With a $45 million cumulative deficit over the last six years, the 2014 audit emphasized that any further deficit spending would reduce the likelihood that the city will be able to continue as a going concern. This weakness is offset somewhat by new revenue in 2015 from a voter-approved sales tax increase. Debt levels are elevated, with exposure to variable rate debt and derivatives. Pension and OPEB liabilities are large and growing.

The downgrade of the POB rating incorporates the same elements mentioned above, as well as a one-notch distinction from the issuer rating to account for the limited levy available to pay debt service. Under California law, an unlimited ad valorem pledge of the tax base means the issuer must raise property taxes by whatever amount necessary to repay the obligation, irrespective of its underlying financial position. The city’s pension override tax levy is limited to the pre-Proposition 13, voter-approved rate, regardless of any declines in the pledged revenues. Declines in the pledged pension override revenue could require the city to rely on other resources, which are currently extremely limited.

These ratings have been placed on review for possible downgrade, as well as the A2 rating on the city’s wastewater revenue bonds. The wastewater enterprise has maintained a significantly better financial position than the city. The city’s history of inter-fund borrowing and lending for cash flow and operations, including its enterprise funds, and its significant financial pressures going forward pose some risk to the wastewater enterprise. Our review will focus on the city’s financial management, including what steps it will take to bring its operations into structural balance in the current and subsequent fiscal years, address large accumulated deficits in its operating funds, and manage the inherent revenue volatility stemming from its highly concentrated tax base. Additionally, our review will assess the level of risk posed by high levels of both variable rate debt and derivatives, the large sums advanced from city funds to support its port and storm water enterprises, and potential for financial pressure on the wastewater enterprise.

WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATING GO UP

  • Strong management action to bring city operations into structural balance
  • Steady and strong growth in the tax base
  • Favorable resolution of contingent liabilities

WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATING GO DOWN

  • Further deterioration of financial position and liquidity through continued deficit spending
  • Decline in the tax base

OBLIGOR PROFILE

The City of Richmond, CA encompasses 34 square miles on the western shore of Contra Costa County (Issuer Aa2/Stable), with 32 miles of shoreline on San Francisco Bay. Established in 1909 at the western terminus of the Santa Fe Railroad, the city is a center for oil refining, shipping, and transportation. The city burgeoned during World War II, with the Kaiser Shipyards and naval fuel depot, but experienced significant decline thereafter. Richmond is a charter city, providing a full range of municipal services, as well a library. It operates the housing authority, sewer system, storm water system, deep water port, and marina as enterprises. Residents receive water service from East Bay Municipal Utility District (GO Aa1/Stable). Like other California cities, Richmond’s redevelopment agency was dissolved in 2012. It had been an active agency with a large staff and numerous project areas, generating over $19 million in annual tax increment prior to dissolution.

LEGAL SECURITY

The 1999 Taxable Limited Obligation Pension Bonds are secured with a senior pledge of the city’s 0.14% ad valorem secured pension override property tax levy. It is a general obligation of the city, which receives sufficient revenue from the county for its debt service, which is then paid by the city.

The 2005 Taxable Pension Convertible Capital Appreciation Bonds are secured by a subordinated pledge of the 0.14% ad valorem secured pension override property tax levy. It is a general obligation the city. The county collects the pledged tax revenue and pays it directly to the trustee, net of the senior pledged revenue paid to the city for the 1999 POBs.

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has the power and obligation to levy and collect the city’s ad valorem secured pension override property taxes upon all property within the city subject to taxation, limited to the voter-approved rate of 0.14% (except certain personal property taxable at limited rates) for use by the city for identified pension obligations.

The lease revenue bonds are secured by payments made by the Richmond Financing Authority, which are the derived from rental payments made by the city to the authority for the use and occupancy of recently renovated civic center complex, and by the port enterprise to the authority for use and occupancy of certain terminal facilities at the Port of Richmond.

The wastewater revenue bonds are secured by the net revenues of the wastewater enterprise.

USE OF PROCEEDS

Not applicable.

RATING METHODOLOGY

The principal methodology used in the issuer rating and pension obligation bonds was US Local Government General Obligation Debt published in January 2014. An additional methodology used in rating the pension obligation bonds was The Fundamentals of Credit Analysis for Lease-Backed Municipal Obligations published in December 2011. The principal methodology used in rating the wastewater debt was US Municipal Utility Revenue Debt published in December 2014. Please see the Credit Policy page on www.moodys.com for a copy of these methodologies.

REGULATORY DISCLOSURES

For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody’s rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider’s credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.

Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review.

Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody’s legal entity that has issued the rating.

Please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each credit rating.

Lori Trevino
Analyst
Public Finance Group
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
One Front Street
Suite 1900
San Francisco, CA 94111
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

Christian Richard Ward
Analyst
Public Finance Group
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

Releasing Office:
Moody’s Investors Service, Inc.
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
U.S.A.
JOURNALISTS: 212-553-0376
SUBSCRIBERS: 212-553-1653

 

Who Needs $15 an Hour Inexperienced—May or May Nor Show Up Workers—When You Have Robots?

In about a month Fox is bringing a new show on the schedule, “Mr. Robot”. It is about how computers, and robots, are changing the world—not for the good. While this is a show about criminals, it could be about the criminal Leftists that are raising the minimum wage, in order to kill off jobs. Wal Mart has decided to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour. What they do not say that that through computers, robots and efficiencies they will have fewer employees next June 1 than they have today.

“Panera Bread (PNRA) is the latest chain to introduce automated service, announcing in April that it plans to bring self-service ordering kiosks as well as a mobile ordering option to all its locations within the next three years. The news follows moves from Chili’s and Applebee’s to place tablets on their tables, allowing diners to order and pay without interacting with human wait staff at all.”

The one growth area for employment has been the restaurant/fast food industry. When employment has gone up, the wages are still mostly at the minimum wage level. Now, even those jobs are being killed off by the greed of unions and Leftist crony capitalists.

Work_in_the_computer_lab

Robots at Chili’s, Applebees, Panera

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, 5/30/15
High wages means fewer jobs. CNN accurately reports Robots will Replace Fast-Food Workers.
Panera Bread (PNRA) is the latest chain to introduce automated service, announcing in April that it plans to bring self-service ordering kiosks as well as a mobile ordering option to all its locations within the next three years. The news follows moves from Chili’s and Applebee’s to place tablets on their tables, allowing diners to order and pay without interacting with human wait staff at all.

In a widely cited paper released last year, University of Oxford researchers estimated that there is a 92% chance that fast-food preparation and serving will be automated in the coming decades.

Delivery drivers could be replaced en masse by self-driving cars, which are likely to hit the market within a decade or two, or even drones. In food preparation, there are start-ups offering robots for bartending and gourmet hamburger preparation. A food processing company in Spain now uses robots to inspect heads of lettuce on a conveyor belt, throwing out those that don’t meet company standards, the Oxford researchers report.

Darren Tristano, a food industry expert with the research firm Technomic, said digital technology will “slowly, over time, create efficiency and labor savings” for restaurants. He guessed that work forces would only drop as a result by 5% or 10% at a maximum in the decades to come, however, given the expectations that customers have for the dining experience.

“If you look at the thousands of years that consumers have been served alcohol and food by people, it’s hard to imagine that things will change that quickly,” he said.

I think Darren Tristano is in fantasyland. The higher the wage, the bigger the incentive to get rid of people.

Central banks have mush for brains in their attempts force wages and prices up in this type of environment.

Question of the Day

How much do you tip a human server, when the server did not even take your order? The question will eventually be moot when robots bring food to the table.

Your Choice of Deodorant Is Target of Socialist Democrat Senator

Government controls every bit of education our children receive, the food they are allowed to eat, how they think and what they are allowed to think about (spiritual thoughts are outlawed). Via regulations, government controls our jobs and communities—and the cost of living. Only the Internet and Cable and Premium TV are allowed First Amendment Rights—anybody believe that the new NBC anchor replacing Brian Williams (he is being replaced) will be more like Sean Hannity than Al Sharpton?

Now Senator Bernie Sanders, the openly and proud Socialist Senator from Vermont thinks America’s real problem is that we have too many choices of deodorant. This is NOT a joke—except on the American people. In Sanders world, like the old Soviet Union, government will decide the brand you are allowed to use. A very sick man.

“Self-proclaimed socialist and progressive favorite Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) laments the idea that Americans can choose between “23 underarm spray deodorants” as children go hungry under President Obama’s economy.

“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country,” Sanders told John Harwood in an interview posted Tuesday.”

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Condemns Existence of 23 Different Deodorant Brands While Children Go Hungry

BY: Alyssa Canobbio, Washington Free Beacon, 5/26.15

Self-proclaimed socialist and progressive favorite Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) laments the idea that Americans can choose between “23 underarm spray deodorants” as children go hungry under President Obama’s economy.

“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants when children are hungry in this country,” Sanders told John Harwood in an interview posted Tuesday.

Sanders will make his official campaign Democratic presidential announcement alongside the Ben and Jerry’s cofounders in Burlington on Tuesday.

Sanders said he would not condemn Hillary Clinton for bringing in millions of dollars in speaking fees but said it would be hard for her to separate fighting for the middle class and fighting against corporate interests. Sanders also said the Clintons have grown accustomed to a worldview that has led to them losing touch with the world around them.

Sanders has advocated for returning the personal income tax rate to 90 percent for top earners, as it was in the 1950s. He brushed off the comments from businesses that have called his “revolution” for the transfer of wealth from the top earners to the middle class, similar to Nazi Germany.

“These people are so greedy, they’re so out of touch with reality,” Sanders said. “You know what? Sorry, you’re all going to have to pay your fair share of taxes.”

The New York Times reported that Sanders is fine with reducing economic growth if it reduces income inequality.

 

CA: 2 GOP State Sens Want More Limits on Where Concealed Permit Holders Can Carry

We know there are Republicans in Sacramento that vote for higher taxes. In another article in today’s’ edition of the California News and Views we are examining GOP members of the legislature that take money from the unions. Now, thanks to Breitbart California, we find two Republicans that side with Guv Brown and the Democrats on the Second Amendment. They supported a Democrat bill.

“Senators Pat Bates (R-Orange County) and Jim Nielsen (R-Roseville) both voted in support of SB 707, a bill which repeals the exemption allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry guns on campus for self-defense.

Neither Bates nor Nielsen cited an illegal use of a gun on campus by a concealed carry permit holder prior to siding with the Democrats to further limit the number of places in which people can defend themselves.”

Could this is part of the reason the fastest growing political “Party” in California is NOT a Political Party, but Decline to State? Most people register with a Party because they believe, mostly, in the values and principle of the Party. There are Democrats that support Israel and freedom, unlike most US Senate Democrats and the President. Most Republicans support the Second Amendment and lower taxes. The legislative world is too confusing for most people—Dems voting like Dems, GOP’ers voting likeGOP’ers and Dems. Confusing.

handguns

CA: 2 GOP State Sens Want More Limits on Where Concealed Permit Holders Can Carry

by AWR Hawkins, Breitbart CA, 5/30/15

During the past week. two Republican state senators in California voted to further limit the places in which concealed carry permit holders can carry a gun for self-defense.

Senators Pat Bates (R-Orange County) and Jim Nielsen (R-Roseville) both voted in support of SB 707, a bill which repeals the exemption allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry guns on campus for self-defense.

Neither Bates nor Nielsen cited an illegal use of a gun on campus by a concealed carry permit holder prior to siding with the Democrats to further limit the number of places in which people can defend themselves.

SB 707 is sponsored by senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis).

The Davis Enterprise reported that Wolk believes a ban on concealed carry on college campuses is necessary because concealed permits “are becoming more prevalent and easier to obtain.” Ironically, her statement comes as several lawsuits are filed in California over the difficultly of getting a concealed carry permit in the state.

One of the most prominent suits revolves around California’s “good cause” requirement, which forces law-abiding citizens to demonstrate a need for carrying a gun before being approved for a permit. The continued existence of this requirement automatically limits permit issuance to the few people who can walk into a county sheriff’s office and detail a specific threat against their lives. Only then are they justified in the carrying of a firearm for self-defense in the eyes of California law.

It should also be noted that concealed carry has been legal on Colorado campuses since 2003. In those twelve years, there have been no mass shootings or crimes on campus by permit holders.

In short, the argument that concealed carry permits are too easy to get is demonstrably false, and any concern over the behavior of college-age concealed carry permit holders is answered by Colorado’s example.

 

$15 an Hour: If This Ain’t Socialism, Then What SHOULD We Call It?

If you give something to someone they did not earn, it is called a gift, a give away and in a political context, it is called socialism. Seriously, should the ushers at the Pantages Theater in Hollywood get paid $15 and hour for showing you to your seat? Dos the staff at a restaurant deserve $15 an hour for showing you to your seat and filling the salt and pepper shakers—if they remember. Does the person at a fast food joint, mixing up your order deserve $15 an hour for giving you fries instead of onion rings? The good news is that the restaurant business is going high-tech and these workers are no longer needed. Were it not for unions demanding $15 an hour minimum wage they could still have jobs—but at $15 an hour that is pure socialism.

“But the Merriam-Webster definition of “Socialism” is as follows:

“a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies”  (Check out Webster)

So now it’s beyond a simple “you didn’t build that”.  As the City Council just proved, amidst all the hoopla and self-congratulations and adulation of their fan bases, there is virtually no such thing as owning one’s business. In the City of the Angels, the City Council (which has CLEARLY proven time and again their expertise on budgets, business, balancing expenses/tax flow, etc.) owns the businesses, and will inform businesses how to operate.”

PileOfMoney

$15 an Hour: If This Ain’t Socialism, Then What SHOULD We Call It?

Written by Ken Alpern. City Watch LA, 5/29/15

CONSIDER THIS-Funny how when you accuse, or even suggest, to a liberal (or is it “progressive”?  or is it “reformist”?) that he/she is socialist, they get all bent out of shape.  One reason that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is so respected is that he says it like it is–he’s a sincere socialist who means what he says and says what he means. One may not always agree with him…but even his political opponents know that his heart is in the right place.

So why the big deal about “socialism” when we talk about the Los Angeles City Council decision to support an elevation of the minimum wage to $15/hour?  Perhaps it’s an echo of the Cold War, where we fought the communist Soviet Union; perhaps it’s a reference to the failed and failing economies of the former economic powerhouses of Europe.

But the Merriam-Webster definition of “Socialism” is as follows:

“a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies”  (Check out Webster)

So now it’s beyond a simple “you didn’t build that”.  As the City Council just proved, amidst all the hoopla and self-congratulations and adulation of their fan bases, there is virtually no such thing as owning one’s business. In the City of the Angels, the City Council (which has CLEARLY proven time and again their expertise on budgets, business, balancing expenses/tax flow, etc.) owns the businesses, and will inform businesses how to operate.

And then…the other shoe dropped.

An eleventh-hour proposal by unions to exempt businesses from the minimum wage ordinance if their workers were unionized is either: 

1) An admission by the unions who fought for the minimum wage increase that the increase will truly, as its opponents argue, lead to layoffs and cutbacks in worker hours. 

2) A ham-handed attempt to force businesses to employ unionized workers and lose even further control over their ownership. 

3) Both.

The question of whether union and/or City takeover of businesses will lead to layoffs and economic misery for low-skilled and low-wage workers is already being answered in the enlightened Cities of San Francisco and Seattle, where the jump in minimum wage is so high and so fast that even leftist/progressive/liberal/whatever-you-want-to-call-them experts fear economic impacts.

Similarly, the question of whether income inequality is destroying the middle class and our collective way of life is also already being answered.  There’s a reason why both former Presidents Reagan and Clinton are revered for their eras of economic progress for the middle class, and why former President George W. Bush and current President Obama are…well…not revered so much.

Income inequality and rising costs of living (despite all the nonsense being spouted about decreased unemployment and low inflation) DO exist, and entities such as the City Council of Los Angeles appears hellbent–despite their good intentions to make income inequality and rising costs of living increasingly unbearable for the average Angeleno who is fighting mightily just to make ends meet.

Insufficient education for training our young and middle-age workforce in trade and business skills?

Whatever!

 

Gas Tax Replacement ‘Road Charge’ Being Discussed In Fresno

Some in Sacramento and Washington are promoting a new car tax—a mileage tax. While they claim it would replace the gas tax, no one believes that—this is just another transfer of wealth, using your need to get around town, go to work and visit family.

The claim is that since we are using fuel-efficient cars, there is not enough gas tax money to maintain our roads and streets.

But, our gas tax money is being spent for trains and buses walking and bike trails, along with horse trails. If the gas tax was spent for roads, there would be no financial problem. The bureaucrats steal the money then claim there is not enough money—stop the theft.

“The California Transportation Commission estimates the state needs 137-billion dollars in repairs to roads, highways and bridges over the next ten years.

Commission Executive Director Will Kempton says the existing gas tax is not nearly enough to cover the expense, and charging by the mile could be one way to replace that tax but still raise the funds.”

GSA Vegas Party Needs Your Taxdollars

Gas Tax Replacement ‘Road Charge’ Being Discussed In Fresno

By Jeffrey Hess, Valley Public Radio, 5/29/15

A California Transportation Task  Force is starting a statewide tour in Fresno to look at a controversial proposal for raising more infrastructure money. The task force is examining a so-called ‘road charge’.

Sometimes called a vehicle mileage tax, a road charge would tax California residents based on the number of miles they drive.

The California Transportation Commission estimates the state needs 137-billion dollars in repairs to roads, highways and bridges over the next ten years.

Commission Executive Director Will Kempton says the existing gas tax is not nearly enough to cover the expense, and charging by the mile could be one way to replace that tax but still raise the funds.

“Notable because we are seeing a substantially more fuel efficient fleet. So a road charge or vehicle mileage fee may have some merit in California. First thing we need to do is test it. Does it work,” Kempton said.

Kempton says 15 other states are looking at a mileage charge.

The task force is beginning a seven-stop statewide tour to hear public reaction to the proposal in Fresno Friday.

 

Will Value of California Homes Decline as Artificial Turf “Grows” on Lawns?

California homes have curb appeal—lots of lush green, well kept, lawns. With colored flowers and trees, a dream for new home buyers. But will the value of the home be the same with gravel or wood chips on the front lawn, no grass on the back lawn, and drought resistant plants (cactus like, spiky) all over. Add to that the $10-12 a square foot artificial turf—step on it during a heat spell and you will jump to concrete for foot relief. Kids will cry walking barefoot in the summer on artificial turf.

AB 79 has passed the Assembly Committee. This bill would mandate that homeowners associations would be forced to allow this turf to be used. The value of a whole community could be reduced. Government agencies are looking toward lower property taxes—meaning less tax dollars to spend.

“According to the Post, a “vast majority” of Californians cashing in on lawn rebates have opted for the low-thirst foliage prevalent in desert cities. “But a growing number of homeowners are rejecting spiky deer grass and scratchy sagebrush and paying up to $10 per square foot to luxuriate in plastic’s convincing lushness.”

Front yard water

CA follows NV lead on desert-style lawns

James Poulos, Calwatchdog, 5/28/15

Nevada, where lush lawns have largely become a thing of the past, has become a landscaping model for California.

Buying brown

Although it was once unthinkable for Nevadans to give up on green grass, a combination of incentives eventually succeeded in changing attitudes. “Using community outreach and cash incentives,” the Los Angeles Times reported, the Water Smart Landscaping Program created in Nevada “has removed nearly 4,000 acres — 173 million square feet — of lawn space.”

It took years to get East Coast transplants in and around Las Vegas to accustom themselves to the notion of desert-style yardscaping, but cash incentives helped. “The Southern Nevada Water Authority pays $1.50 per square foot of lawn replaced with desert landscaping, up to 5,000 square feet. After that, it’s $1 per square foot,” according to the Times.

Amid the current drought, in an effort to get Californians on board with a similar transformation over much less time, Gov. Jerry Brown urged residents to brown their lawns, and water agencies ratcheted up payouts:

“Even before Brown’s order, some of California’s 411 water districts offered rebates — now as much as $3.75 per square foot — to persuade homeowners to give up on grass.”

A synthetic boom

But the loss of California’s natural lawns hasn’t yet inspired a wholesale embrace of cacti and stylish rock formations. Especially in Southern California, where artifice hasn’t always been seen as tacky, artificial turf has started catching on.

“Comprehensive numbers are hard to come by, but makers and installers of synthetic turf say they are experiencing an unprecedented spike in residential business in California,” the Washington Post reported. “From middle-class families who don’t want to forfeit the patch-of-green part of the American dream to megawatt celebrities who are mortified by TV coverage of their sprawling water-hog lawns, homeowners across the Golden State are ripping up sod and replacing it with plastic.”

According to the Post, a “vast majority” of Californians cashing in on lawn rebates have opted for the low-thirst foliage prevalent in desert cities. “But a growing number of homeowners are rejecting spiky deer grass and scratchy sagebrush and paying up to $10 per square foot to luxuriate in plastic’s convincing lushness.”

Turf battles

Homeowner associations, however, have long viewed permissiveness toward turf as an invitation to neighborhood eyesores. Sometimes, the attitude trickled up to the municipal level. In Glendale, for instance, artificial turf was banished to the backyard. But now, the stigma has begun to slip away. “Glendale officials said the idea of lifting the ban is about the drought as well as improvements in the look of the fake grass,” the Times noted.

Meanwhile, in cities across the Southland, residents have begun reconsidering their own regulations, which sometimes impose greater restrictions on turf than on landscape watering. “Both Anaheim and Tustin held public hearings Tuesday evening to discuss options,” according to Southern California Public Radio. “Santa Ana officials are also wrestling with options.”

In Sacramento, the shift in priorities has given a boost to new legislation designed to give homeowners the option to replace real lawns with green turf. AB349, introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, sailed through committee on a 7-0 vote; that bill would require homeowner associations to grant homeowners the option to reduce water usage by laying down turf.

“Water conservation is no longer just the responsible thing to do, but a legal requirement,” said Gonzalez in a press release touting the vote. “We need to make sure homeowners are able to replace their lawns if that’s how they choose to comply.”

But another trend in Sacramento has underscored just how far some homeowners will go to keep the look and feel of all-American lawns: spray-on green. One flourishing lawn painter, David Bartlett, told USA Today that orders have spiked as residents look for alternatives to dropping thousands on low-water yardscapes. “The procedure takes Bartlett and his team about an hour to complete,” according to the newspaper. “He said the dye is an all natural earth pigment and is not harmful to people or pets.”