The District Attorney's opinion cited in your article appearing on page A4 in the Oct. 12 edition of the Appeal while technically correct as far as it goes, is functionally misleading, like these two misleading proposals.
When I stated that the Board of Supervisors could use the money raised for anything they wanted he stated that was false.
Fact: Carson City currently budgets approximately $5 million for roads. Nothing in the language of these two proposals REQUIRES the revenue raised to be additive to that which is currently budgeted for roads.
If these two proposals raise $5 million, as long as the Board of Supervisors budget an amount equal or greater than the amount raised by CC1 & CC2 they meet the requirements of the law. In other words it's nothing but a “shell game” that allows them to shift money at will and to use some or all of the money raised for any purpose they want! The DA's misleading response skirts the core issue: As written, CC1 and CC2 are misleading and would be bad law, with loopholes you could drive a truck through and should be rejected out of hand.
His bias on this issue is patently obvious and a gross disservice to the people of Carson City.
Raymond F. LaRochelle
Carson City
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment