Copperopolis, CA…The Calaveras County Taxpayers Association invited 7 candidates to answer 7 questions of issues of concern which were not addressed in other forums.  All responded and 5 agreed to participate. The candidates provided Yes, No and Maybe answers and had the opportunity for short comments. The questions with background reasons for posting the question are below, followed by answers and brief comments from candidates.  We also are conducting an online poll asking for public response to the questions as well.  The link is at the end below. We plan to publish the public result on this website.

1. Do you favor protecting Prop 13 in its present form?

(This law protects all property owners from large tax increases, allowing for readjustments at time of sale. There is a constant effort in the legislature to increase taxes on commercial property.)

Edson: Absolutely.

Mills: Yes, but at some point we need to get another referendum on the ballot for further protections as Prop 218 and the fire tax have proven the state still is finding ways to circumvent the intent of Prop 13.

Radford: Yes.

Smith:Yes. I don’t support an annual assessment of commercial properties.

Tofanelli:Yes.

2. Should property rights be a high consideration in the General Plan Update Process?     

(It is alleged that there is a successful movement to increase public control of private property using the land use planning process in California. In our county, almost all development has been denied, resulting in substantial negative economic consequences.)

Edson:Yes, property rights are my highest concern in the general plan.

Mills:Yes, to the extent all property owners can use their property as they see fit without government interference and aslong as the use does not limit the neighboring properties from their full use as well.

Radford:Yes

Smith:Absolutely.  Property rights are guaranteed in the Constitution and are a distinctive feature of the American experience.

Tofanelli: Yes.

3. Should all oath taking public officials take a course on the US Constitution?

(It is alleged, that due to wide spread ignorance of the Constitution, the Federal Government has substantially extended its powers into local government creating dependency and loss of local control.   The Sheriff Richard Mack case is an example, whereby the court found that the Federal Government was not in control of local law enforcement, but subject to it. )

Edson:Yes, I read our Constitution before I took my oath of office as I promised to protect and defend our Constitution.

Mills:Yes, not only oath taking but having to pass a test as in the case of drivers licenses to prove a working knowledge of the rights of people.

Radford:Maybe a refresher Course.

Smith:Yes.

Tofanelli:Maybe.        

4. Do you support local implementation of UN Agenda 2030 (Formerly UN Agenda 21)?

(This item is generally not known, however it is alleged to have a substantial influence in national, state and local public policies. Here is more information.)

Edson:No, I do not support UN Agenda 2030.

Mills:No, I do not support 2030 or any iteration of it as it is a forcing of people to live as the supreme government chooses, not as they desire. Elected people need to be vigilant as these controls arrive in many forms.

Radford:No.

Smith:No.  I do not support trying to implement state control over private property.  Who would be?

Tofanelli:No.

5. Do you support allowing return of the timber Industry?

(It is alleged that the industry has been unfairly attacked by state and federal regulators resulting in massive reduction of timber harvesting and planting in the forests.   One unintended consequence is mismanagement of the lands resulting in increased loss due to fire.)

Edson:Yes I support the return of the timber industry. I agree strongly the forestand the watershed in general has been mismanaged.

Mills:Yes, our timber industry could easily become one of our greatest job resources……Whether the carbon footprint is created by the burning of bio-mass or the burning of our forests, it still happens.

Radford:Yes.

Smith:Yes.

Tofanelli:Maybe.

6. Do you support a local public referendum on the question of our county joining 22 other rural counties forming a 51st state?

(It is alleged that rural counties are notproperly represented in the State Senate resulting in control of our rural county by high population counties. The controversial Fire Fee” is an example of this problem.

Edson: I support taking a look at a referendum. We are under-represented in the rural counties. I would have to dig into the specifics before making a choice.

Mills:  Yes.  I am concerned others do not understand the lack of representation and the resulting taking of our tax dollars, our resources, and our way of life by those that can out-vote us.

Radford:No.

Smith:Maybe

Tofanelli:Maybe.

7. Shall HUD money be rejected unless our county is made exempt from the Affirmative Fair Furthering Housing Act?

(Recently, the Federal Government is extending its control into the local land use planning process by the Affirmative Fair Furthering Housing Act. Colorado has rejected the HUD money.  Here is more information.)

Edson:Yes, as I have read more on HUD I have found the rules and requirements have changed. HUD should be rejected.

Mills:Yes, Not just HUD but Community Development Block Grants, FEMA, and others that seem to have strings attached to the cash….

Radford:Yes, as the act stands now.  It would cost too much money to implement.

Smith:Maybe.  The true solution requires more investigation.

Tofanelli:No.

Click Here To take public Poll