Two measures, rejected by Shasta voters in 2024, could return to ballots on taxpayers’ dime
Two years ago, dual ballot measures related to land rights and filing midterm vacancies both failed to gain the 50% of votes needed to pass. Supervisor Kevin Crye wants to try again. He may have enough support to do so.
In 2024, voters rejected two controversial ballot measures that dealt with how the county acquires land and how it fills midterm vacancies for elected officials.
Yesterday, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors restarted a process that could place both back on the ballot, potentially with some modifications. The proposed initiatives, if moved forward by the board, would ask voters to amend the county’s charter, tailoring local law in ways allowed by state law.
Supervisor Kevin Crye, who originally championed both measures, was also responsible for bringing them back up for discussion at yesterday’s meeting. He attributed the failure of a measure known as P, which was rejected by just over 50% of voters two years ago, to a lack of public understanding. He also proposed changes to a measure that was known as Q to make it more palatable for voters.
Supervisors didn’t make any final decisions yesterday. But placing the revised measures back on Shasta ballots would come at taxpayer expense. Each county-wide ballot measure comes with an estimated price tag of $20,000 to $50,000, according to a staff report provided to the board yesterday. The costs are related to staff time and printing, the report says.
California’s ballot initiative process allows for two main types of initiatives: those led by public agencies and those led by the people.
Measure B, a controversial election initiative now under suit from the state, was a citizen-led initiative that received about 7,000 verified signatures before being placed on ballots in June. In contrast, Measures P and Q were the brainchildren of Crye and were placed on the ballot after a majority supervisor vote in 2023. The decision to do so was supported by Crye, now-Chair Chris Kelstrom and former Supervisor Patrick Jones. Former Supervisors Tim Garman and Mary Rickert voted against it.
What are the ballot measures about? And what’s next?
One rejected measure, known at the time as Measure P, sought to restrict the state or county from transferring ownership of private land from one property owner to another.
It’s something that’s already forbidden at the state level by Proposition 99, as County Counsel Joseph Larmour pointed out yesterday, something which would make the proposed county measure duplicative. After board conversation, Supervisors Matt Plummer and Allen Long voted against further discussion about placing a measure such as this on the ballot again, but all three other supervisors voted to bring it back anyway after Crye said he believed the public had a renewed “appetite for protection of private property.” He added that if Proposition 99 was ever repealed, the new measure would act as a “safeguard” for the county.
Supervisors also discussed revising and bringing back a second ballot measure, formerly known as Measure Q, which dealt with the process by which vacancies left by the early departure of elected officials — not including board members — would be filled. State law calls for the board to appoint a replacement for these vacated offices, leaving it up to the board to decide whether that appointee will fill the seat until the next election or through the rest of the term. Under the rejected Measure Q, the board would have chosen between calling a special election or appointing a candidate to fill midterm vacancies. It was rejected by over 58% of voters.
An update to the language of the measure, proposed by Crye and shaped by Plummer, would mandate that if there’s a regularly scheduled election within 12 months of a position being vacated, then the position must be filled by election. However, if the next election is farther than 12 months away, the board would appoint a candidate, but must do so with a 4/5 vote. Crye’s motion to bring this proposed measure back for future discussion passed 4-1, with only Long opposed — out of concern for taxpayer cost.
Throughout public comment, a number of community members voiced their opposition to bringing both measures back to the table. Crye responded from his seat, speaking out of turn to express negative ridiculing remarks about commenters just off microphone in a voice loud enough to be heard across parts of the room.
His behavior led to a brief reprimand from Chair Chris Kelstrom, eliciting an apology of sorts from Crye, who’s undergoing treatment for colon cancer.
“Sorry chair,” he said lightly, “it’s the chemo talking.”
The proposed measures will return to the board at a future meeting for further discussion and another vote.
Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.
Author
Comments (23)
Comments are closed.
Related Articles
Supervisors eye replacing Steve Kerns as planning commissioner
The agenda item was brought forward by Supervisor Corkey Harmon, who hopes to replace Kerns with civil engineer Kevin Butler. Kerns said the first he heard about his replacement was from a community member who read the board’s agenda. Harmon disagrees.
Redding’s fire chief has retired. The announcement came Friday, which was also his last day
After serving as chief for six years, Vanlandingham’s sudden departure is part of a wave of turnover among Redding’s leadership in recent months.
Could Shasta’s elections official actually hire Tina Peters?
The answer is complicated and would involve factors at both the county and statewide levels.
These lames need to stop wasting our money and time!!! Start doing for the tax paying citizens or leave!!! Crye is out. Good riddance
Of course, drugs used in chemotherapy treatment can exacerbate anger, especially if the anger is already there or if one is known for having impulse or anger issues anyway. So can losing an election you counted on winning. Combine all of this, and anything goes.
.
Meds can be adjusted, and so can anger issues via therapy.
.
I don’t know about anyone else, but an hour of Tini Peters, a delusional convicted criminal on the radio, would piss me off almost as much as listening to an hour of Crye acting like he’s still the Chair of Shasta County BOS.
.
Crye decided to leave the meeting for whatever reason. Perhaps he had a doctor appointment, or he knew what was coming from the SCBOS, as in telling Curtis and the Jones-Crye-Hobbs Coalition, “Yeah, but no thanks, you’re on your own.” I would recommend turning Peters off as well… for mental and physical health reasons. Go have some fun doing something else.
.
The measures Q and P have been decided, so why advocate putting more money into P unless it’s a way to snub the citizens on the way out, or there’s a hidden agenda, like a friend whose property is about to be taken in an eminent domain case… I wonder…
I’m a two time cancer survivor. Chemo is definitely no fun and I don’t wish it on anybody. That said, Chemo can potentially make you nauseated, tired, etc. What Chemo doesn’t do is turn you into a rude, snarky, mean-boy. Sounds like pre-existing “conditions”?
Bingo! Here’s to your continued good health!
Putting Measure P on the Ballot at taxpayers’ expense, when there is already a State law pertaining to the issue, is a waste of County funds, ie, taxpayer money. Does Crye care about wasting Shasta taxpayer funds? No, because he won’t be around to deal with funding shortages again. So much money has been wasted on Crye’s ideas!
As to his “chemo talking” excuse, if he can’t control his mouth, maybe he should take medical “chemo” leave for the next seven months.
I will struggle to objectively examine each of the measures and vote on them based on their merits alone. I admit it will be tempting to vote no on both if only to contribute to handing Crye a pair of losses as a parting gift. Crye blaming his bullying on chemo is a repugnant ploy to garner sympathy—he’s been a crude, rude rectal orifice* since the day he slithered onto the scene.
.
*No allusion to his colon cancer intended when I wrote it—but now that I see it, it’s staying.
I am truly sorry that Kevin Crye is suffering from colon cancer, but “that’s Chemo talking” is no excuse for ridiculing members of the public from the dias in a stage whisper. That is the behavior of a childish bully afraid he won’t get his way. Kevin, you need to learn when to STFU. That time is now. The people don’t need or want another Measure P or Q. We already voted on it.
Measure P lost by 0.44% in an election with a 7% error rate.
The county did a full manual count of only 1 contest in that election, the Happy Valley School Board race, which changed its results from Jacque Brousseau winning a seat by 0.31% to Josh Hancock winning that seat by 0.08%
Only the second proposal should be considered. The BOS appointed an inexperienced out-of’-stater to the ROV position and look what we got. I can’t imagine that the people would have picked Curtis in an election.
I would favor even more that if time remaining is less than 12 months, the position be automatically filled by the assistant on a temporary basis. At least we’d know that person had some experience and qualifications to temporarily fill the position.
It would be logical the 2nd in charge fill in until an election was held but as we all know there was a personal vendetta by Jones and Crye with Kelstrom following suit to make every effort to exclude Joanna Francescut from any consideration. The personal and professional insults made by those three supervisors and their voting record speak volumes. To not consider what’s best for the county and continuity but rather their personal politics were the main consideration to go with election deniers and skeptics as first choice for the ROV position. It is why Kelstrom needs to be voted out as well in November.
“Sorry chair,” he said lightly, “it’s the chemo talking.”
The change in Kelstrom’s attitude is purely to get himself re-elected. I wonder if his new attitude will continue if re-elected? I’m thinking not
Sing along with me…
He’s so vain he probably thinks the measures lost on the merits.
He’s so vain he hasn’t clocked that his name on the cover is the merits.
Crye is a lame duck and it remains to be seen if the other two still follow him but who knows maybe as rewritten they may be ok. One thing for sure is that appointments where they are needed to fill in for the duration of an elected vacant position needs revision.
Headline spell check pls.
Crye has a poor record for trying to get things passed by the voters. If this is his effort to make some type of a grand exit I say we should shut his lame duck down. Way down.
All he has to say is Newsome doesn’t like it and the low iq maga toadies will vote for it.
Weren’t they just talking about respecting the will of the people? I guess that’s only when it aligns with their will 🤷♂️
Crye appears to be taking his decisive rejection by the voters as expected, like a petulant 5 year old. Wish I could say I was surprised. Plus, Kelstrom shut him down, so Kevin is no longer the MAGA alpha on the Board. Another seven months of tantrums. Tick tock, Kevin. Tick tock.
Selah
Coogle AI
“Impulse Control: Chemotherapy, and especially accompanying medications like steroids (often prescribed for nausea or inflammation), can alter moods and reduce your normal filters. This can lead to increased irritability, mood swings, or blurting out unfiltered thoughts.”
“blurting out unfiltered thoughts.”…Like truth serum…
Meaning he has those nasty thoughts normally about Shasta County Supervisors meeting commenters, just not filtered.
Unless he’s been on chemo his entire life, his bitchy under-handed statements are not related to his cancer treatment.
Crye- what a petulant man-child. So glad he got voted out. Good job district 1
Crye said it’s the “chemo” talking? Bullshit he has always been an ass and a bully! This only going to get worse until he is off the Board completely ! He cannot fathom that he lost! And his behavior is showing that! He will do anything to destroy Shasta County before he leaves!