Education or scare-tactic?

You know it’s election time when those mailers start showing up in your mailbox.

And in Pico Rivera, not everyone is happy about a particular mailer backing Measure P — a 1-percent sales-tax increase initiative the voters will be asked to approve come Nov. 4.

Whittier Daily News reporter Airan Scruby has a story running in tomorrow’s paper about the issue.

Here’s a brief look at the story:

According to Public Information Officer Bob Spencer, the City Council allotted $35,000 for an “educational outreach program,” and so far about $30,000 has been spent, mostly on glossy mailers sent to voters.
********
The mailings assert that money to fight crime may dry up, recreational programs will disappear and staff will be fired if the tax measure fails, leaving a $4.8 million budget gap.
********
Mailers have also announced the support of four of five council members, Sheriff Lee Baca and the El Rancho Unified School District.

Opponents to Measure P, including Councilman David Armenta, say the campaign by the city to educate is really about fear mongering.

“It’s not an information program,” Armenta said. “It’s a scare tactic campaign.”
*********
No formal complaints have been filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission, organization spokesman Roman Porter said.

According to Porter, materials put out by the city could seem to lean in favor of the tax, but would not necessarily violate the law.

Have any of you guys seen these mailers? What do you guys think: is this educational or propaganda?

  • El Monte Voter

    I can’t wait to see the glossy mailers in El Monte supporting the same issue. Scare tactics will also be used to get the voters to approve this b.s
    Gutierrez, Gomez, Barrios and Ishigaki will be shouting out the orders.
    Who will back this and more impotantly who will pay for the printing and postage?

  • Anonymous

    El Monte Voter…why do you keep forgetting to mention Pat Wallach when you complain about the measure. She voted for it too.

  • Anonymous Responding

    In response to last comment, Pat Wallach voted but she explained it that we had to put the house in order first and stop giving away raises to the police when we do not have the money and also for your information when emergency situations like the other 4 members called it after the gave the fat raises, it must be unanimous decision and that means all 5 council members had to vote yes in order to continue and be sent to the polls.Look at the Recorded Meeting she said i vote yes with a contingency and that means i do not agree but i do not need another war against me because looks that she is the only member that protects our money….

  • Anonymous

    Anonymous:

    I respect and even sympathize with your reasoning…but a yes vote is a yes vote no matter how you want to parse it.

    But enough about that….it’s on the ballot…and yes, the money SHOULD NOT BE WASTED ON SALERIES FOR HIGHER-UPS.

    We (you, me and others) can make sure that DOES NOT HAPPEN by raising HELL anytime there is another big salary increase recommended. Pack the council meeting and first DEMAND that residents be put on the oversight committee to make sure that true priorities liking fixing streets and building reserves are dealt with first.

    That’s how you get things done.

    I respect what your are saying…boy do I ever…but there are ways to deal with it that don’t let the city slip further.