Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsVentura County Taxpayers Assn
IN THE NEWS

Ventura County Taxpayers Assn

FEATURED ARTICLES
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
November 22, 1990
On Nov. 6, California voters not only said "enough is enough" in the spending department, they also said they want to limit the terms of the politicians who try to make a living out of running our state into the ground. This is a good first step, but we must maintain our focus and intensity. They'll be back. STEVE BARNARD, President, Ventura County Taxpayers Assn.
ARTICLES BY DATE
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 31, 2000
Re "Taxpayer Group Seeks Tobacco Deal," May 17. Cheers to the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. for choosing not to oppose the tobacco lawsuit settlement initiative. Something Supervisor Frank Schillo said in this article stood out. He said, "I think we rely on the Taxpayers Assn. to alert the public to things that are happening with their money." The tobacco settlement money is not "theirs." This money comes directly from tobacco companies, not from taxpayers. I am unsure whether any of our supervisors comprehend this concept.
Advertisement
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 18, 1993
Just as I was about to join the Ventura County Taxpayers' Assn., I read that Jere Robings has been removed from his job as executive director. Whew, am I glad I saved my money. Why contribute money to a group so they can ask polite questions? We need results, not a popularity contest. Nice try, Mr. Robings. MICHAEL ALLREAD, Ventura
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 14, 1998
Evidently, there is a movement in Sacramento to reduce the required two-thirds majority necessary to pass school bonds to a simple majority. The president and chairman of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. were diligent enough to point this out to readers ("Protections Needed When Only a Select Group Pays," June 7). Their hearts seem to be in the right place but in pleading their case, Fred Buenger and Mike Saliba are guilty of perpetuating two myths: that in 1993 voters overwhelmingly shot down a similar initiative only because they thought property owners deserved continued protection and that only property owners pay property taxes and special assessments.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 10, 1992
While the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. is aware that there have been generous supplemental payments to top county officials, we recognize that in the entire scheme of the county budget of $760 million, it is a very small percentage. However, there is a perception that some of the benefits are so generous as to not consider the taxpayers' point of view at all (e.g. six months salary bonus for an official who loses an election or retires). The Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. has always stated that it will support appropriate wages for highly skilled and competent people.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 1, 1992
An RV park on the beach or a view tax? Those are the options offered to the citizens of Port Hueneme to bring in $400,000 of additional revenue for the city. Neither option has received a positive response. The Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. suggests one more option: abolish the city's Police Department and contract with the county Sheriff's Department for police services. At the very least the city and the county should conduct a study to determine the annual savings, currently estimated at $300,000 to $400,000, then allow the citizens to make their choice.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 27, 1991
It is reasonable for taxpayers of Ventura County to believe that their tax dollars designated for education will go toward educating children. With overcrowded classrooms and concern over test scores, it is imperative that our education dollars not be diverted to other uses. Now, however, we must contend with the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and its Rule 210, which requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide incentives for those employees to ride share.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 14, 1998
Evidently, there is a movement in Sacramento to reduce the required two-thirds majority necessary to pass school bonds to a simple majority. The president and chairman of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. were diligent enough to point this out to readers ("Protections Needed When Only a Select Group Pays," June 7). Their hearts seem to be in the right place but in pleading their case, Fred Buenger and Mike Saliba are guilty of perpetuating two myths: that in 1993 voters overwhelmingly shot down a similar initiative only because they thought property owners deserved continued protection and that only property owners pay property taxes and special assessments.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 2, 1993
In this whole diatribe over Ventura County officials' salaries, I keep waiting for someone to come to their defense. While I know nothing about these people or whether the total compensation package is in line with those in other counties, I do know that these people worked for a full year in good faith, expecting to be paid according to a predetermined plan. How can anyone, especially the Ventura County Taxpayers' Assn., expect them to forfeit their vacation reimbursements at this time?
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 31, 2000
Re "Taxpayer Group Seeks Tobacco Deal," May 17. Cheers to the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. for choosing not to oppose the tobacco lawsuit settlement initiative. Something Supervisor Frank Schillo said in this article stood out. He said, "I think we rely on the Taxpayers Assn. to alert the public to things that are happening with their money." The tobacco settlement money is not "theirs." This money comes directly from tobacco companies, not from taxpayers. I am unsure whether any of our supervisors comprehend this concept.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 28, 1996
The gouging of taxpayers by county employees is nothing unusual. Rather, it is typical of the waste and abuse seen at all levels of government and a major reason why the size and cost of government must be dramatically scaled back from Ventura County to Washington. While we should expect government to function at an even higher efficiency level than the private sector, that is, more effective work at lower cost, quite the opposite is usually true. RON LUTEY Camarillo Your story on the high salaries and benefits for county employees has certainly brought out the most hypocritical, insincere comments I have read in years.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 18, 1993
I was very surprised to hear about Jere Robings' firing from his position as executive director of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn., after all the successes he has had. But I was even more shocked to learn the reason: The taxpayers board didn't like the fact that Jere was aggressive and made waves. Instead, they want someone who will be less confrontational. That's ridiculous. What possible good is a taxpayers organization that doesn't aggressively defend the interests of the taxpayers?
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
January 2, 1993
In this whole diatribe over Ventura County officials' salaries, I keep waiting for someone to come to their defense. While I know nothing about these people or whether the total compensation package is in line with those in other counties, I do know that these people worked for a full year in good faith, expecting to be paid according to a predetermined plan. How can anyone, especially the Ventura County Taxpayers' Assn., expect them to forfeit their vacation reimbursements at this time?
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 10, 1992
While the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. is aware that there have been generous supplemental payments to top county officials, we recognize that in the entire scheme of the county budget of $760 million, it is a very small percentage. However, there is a perception that some of the benefits are so generous as to not consider the taxpayers' point of view at all (e.g. six months salary bonus for an official who loses an election or retires). The Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. has always stated that it will support appropriate wages for highly skilled and competent people.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 1, 1992
An RV park on the beach or a view tax? Those are the options offered to the citizens of Port Hueneme to bring in $400,000 of additional revenue for the city. Neither option has received a positive response. The Ventura County Taxpayers Assn. suggests one more option: abolish the city's Police Department and contract with the county Sheriff's Department for police services. At the very least the city and the county should conduct a study to determine the annual savings, currently estimated at $300,000 to $400,000, then allow the citizens to make their choice.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|