The
Measure V cell phone and land line tax is a bad idea. It’s too
expensive; hurts families, and with a $1.8 million dollar city surplus,
not needed. It's a blank check for City Council. The City rushed this
thing and did a real sloppy, inaccurate job.
One
of the five city council members, who voted to place Measure V on the
ballot, checked in last week in a column in this paper to explain why
Council needed V. The column read like all the other campaign rhetoric
coming out of the pro tax camp. Their high priced campaign consultant
could not have written a better column. Claims of inaccurate facts by
the no tax side are as empty as the "facts" the tax group bring forward.
Let’s
see, they claim that Measure V amends the 1983 PG&E gas and
electric tax. Amends! Nice word for “adds another tax”. A 60% increase!
It is true that in the 1983 version seniors received an exemption. What
they do not point out is that in the 1983 version, low and very low
income residents also got the exemption. This low income protection was
left out of the current cell phone tax because whoever authored this was
sloppy and the ordinance was poorly vetted, or the omission
was deliberate. Why would the proponents of this tax crow about helping
the low-income Resource Center while at the same time agreeing to tax
those least able to afford it! Unconscionable.
This
measure is way too complicated. Council will appoint an Advisory
Committee to monitor the proceeds of this tax. The budget for 2013-2014
has 75 pages of tables and descriptions. Good luck to the committee.
Steve Rhodes made note at the first council meeting where this tax was
discussed in late June that an oversight committee could not really
monitor anything. As the ordinance itself says “Proceeds of the tax
imposed by this section shall be deposited in the (unrestricted) general
fund of the City and be available for any legal purpose”. (Sec.3-11A.04
G) The money can be spent for anything this council, or any
future council, wishes. Finally, here's the real ordinance statement on
the advisory committee: " ensure the tax revenue authorized by this
chapter is expended within the city" Just how are they going to manage
that? Does this end contracting with out of town vendors? Another example of how poorly written the tax measure is.
The
pro tax advocates make a lot of claims about the tax cost. Let’s take a
look at some of these. This tax may raise $1,075,000. Now where did
that number come from? Turns out it was made up. We did a public
document request asking for analysis and sources for this number. THERE
WASN’T ANY! They could have plugged any number in there. Our bet is
their consultant told them that’s a good low-ball number to deliver to
the public. $6 dollars a month is being bandied about as a cost. Once
again, a public document request was made. Amazingly we received the
same answer back as our previous request. There is no support for that
claim, other than their consultant told them it was a number that would
not scare your average voter. You notice a pattern! We urge a NO vote
because we believe this tax will actually be higher than touted and hurt
families with children. We all know that most of our kids have cell
phones of their own. We also know that it is us, the parents that are
paying for them. We fear that this tax could approach several hundred
dollars a year.
On
June 10, 2013, council declared the budget balanced and a 1.8 million
dollar reserve. Less than 30 days later, City Manager Rhodes (now a lame
duck city manager) declared doom and gloom. Pacifica will now have a
deficit next year which will extend over the next 4 years, he reported.
Guess what the supporting analysis showed? Yep, you’re right, Mr. Rhodes
made those statements with no staff report, no supporting numbers, no
projections. These numbers were used to justify a phony fiscal state of
emergency for our city and further justify putting a tax initiative on
the ballot. Transparent? Doubt it.
Every
three or four years Council cries “wolf” and wants a new tax. This
poorly written and vetted tax increase is no different. The City’s own
documents, approved by Council, show the largest surplus in five years, a
balanced budget, and all programs are funded. Measure V is a bad idea
all around. Vote NO.
Submitted by Jim Wagner & Mark Stechbart
66 comments:
City council botched the community presentation & justification of this tax. Council bleating that a tax "update" is needed for the "future" of Pacifica is both lame and condescending. It has no substance.
Secondly, the Pacifica Democrats debate clearly showed a 1994 Pacifica tax increase effort exempted both disabled and low income residents. Various towns since then have also protected low income residents from a utility tax. Now we see the Pacifica effort also taxes kids in school since every kid HAS to have a cell.
Sloppy and unacceptable.
Obamacare will hurt family's more.
Regardless of the BS city council says, they are still trying to polish a turd.
Oh, it's a turd, is it? Well if Council manages to pass this turd, there will be no stopping them. They'll tuck a consultant under each arm and whip out the wish list. Anyone still unclear on how this Council plans to "develop" Pacifica?
The State of California currently charges sales tax on the full market value of a new or replacement cell phone.
Will the City of Pacifica charge The UUT on the Phone,chargers, Blue tooth and other equipment you buy from your cell provider?
I am waiting to hear from the City Attorney If the cost of the phones is also taxed and if so at what price point,the full market value or the plans discounted amount.
How many phones will you buy over the life of this tax?
Tom, speed of reply may very well be determined by the answer to your question. You'd get a no in a nanosecond, announced by angels and celestial music, but if the answer is yes, and this scam passes, well, we can probably expect a long list of Gotcha! moments from this City Council.
So how does this council differ from councils past?
You people claimed O'Neil was the towns savior!
My guess is that the answer is going to be "if it shows up on the bill it is taxed"
It does show how poorly vetted this tax is when no one at City Hall knows the answer to a simple question about it.
If there had been a real public discussion about the UUT we would all know what we were voting on and how much it was really going to cost.
A real discussion! hahahhhaa
Funny. I can't guess where they pulled this blue herring from but this ordinance stinks like day old fish. If council read this thing and then voted for it they should all resign. They didn't do there job or couldn't do there job because the job is too hard for them.
If you notice 325 if you open your eyes, Mike Oniell is nowhere to be seen hawking this tax.
But Ervin and the tax and spend council say its badly needed money for the city to function.
437 ...Mike O"neil is flying a Yes on V sign in front of his house. This equals hawking to me, LOL.
oh a sign, that's hawking? Haha. Mike has not donated nor has he been visibly campaigning like Ervin, Nihart and Stone have been.
Mike is hawking for V or scared of Kalimah. I'm betting the latter.
Mike is the biggest chicken hawk on the city council.
Well maybe a tie with Lennie.
Council will appoint an Advisory Committee to monitor the proceeds of this tax.
People from the school board? Where they learn how to tax and spend?
I love it that some of you are arguing about how much of a disappointment council member Mike O'Neil is based on how actively he's supporting Yes on V.
Lay off O'Neill. Let's give credit where it's due. Nihart and Stone drive the clown car. They hatched V. In the dark. It's their mutant. The rest are just showing that good old Council solidarity we've all seen before. With varying degrees of enthusiasm, I'm sure, but once Council votes, they want to show a unified face to the community to persuade their individual supporters and factions to support Council's direction. Must be in the How to Govern for Dummies text.
This Council speaks fluent tax measure. Nihart played Kalimah's role on previous school tax measure. Ervin and O'Neill served on the school board. Where do ya think the consultants came from? The only surprise is Stone's rapid conversion to a tax and spender. Drugs or a head lock?
953 Yeah. Had someone try to tell me at Safeway that "the community" would have a say and they had a promise from their fav councilmember on this. Major hiccup when I told them the "community say" would be a review after the money had been spent and the books cooked. Apparently, the "after" part was news. Bit of voter's remorse since they had already voted yes by mail. It would have been a deal breaker.
What will "hurt families" is parks and infrastructure that aren't maintained and programs that are cut. What will "hurt families" is if funding doesn't continue for the Pacifica Resource Center and senior programs are reduced or eliminated. What will "hurt families" is continuing to focus on bringing down the community versus supporting and strengthening it.
Services cost money. The $6.00 per month is the cost if one has a $92.31 monthly phone bill. $10.00 per month on a $155 phone bill. $13.00 per month on a $200 phone bill. $19.50 per month on a $300 phone bill, which would be a large bill, particularly with most companies offering family plans at little extra cost -- somewhat dismissing the expressed concern for kids / teens with phones. (Not sure why a public records request is needed to do the math, --though certainly the right of the authors of this article to request.)
My cost of $10.00 per month is well worth it. Vote YES on Measure V to support Pacifica.
This pulling the heart strings for senior services and the resource center has to stop. The budget is balanced this year. The resource center is now holding their own fundraisers and getting good at it. I would rather give my money directly to them then hope the city of pacific remembers their pledge to support them and not a new trail or lawsuit payout to some upset about something. Keep your money and spend it on the services you want to support.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
What will "hurt families" is parks and infrastructure that aren't maintained and programs that are cut. What will "hurt families" is if funding doesn't continue for the Pacifica Resource Center and senior programs are reduced or eliminated. What will "hurt families" is continuing to focus on bringing down the community versus supporting and strengthening it.
Services cost money. The $6.00 per month is the cost if one has a $92.31 monthly phone bill. $10.00 per month on a $155 phone bill. $13.00 per month on a $200 phone bill. $19.50 per month on a $300 phone bill, which would be a large bill, particularly with most companies offering family plans at little extra cost -- somewhat dismissing the expressed concern for kids / teens with phones. (Not sure why a public records request is needed to do the math, --though certainly the right of the authors of this article to request.)
My cost of $10.00 per month is well worth it. Vote YES on Measure V to support Pacifica.
November 1, 2013 at 3:37 PM"
Oh little one, how delusional can one be?
Anonymous 5:00pm said.
"This pulling the heart strings for senior services and the resource center has to stop."
Reading the article on the "debate" it appears both sides have been "pulling on the heart strings' for senior services and the resource center.
Been living in Pacifica almost 30 years and I must say I have never heard a more impressive or lengthy list from any Council of what they will do with a million dollars. And they mention all my favorite budget line items and causes. Do I believe them? Like I said, been here nearly 30 years. I absolutely do believe they'll spend it like a skid-row lottery winner and be back for more. 30 years.
Anonymous 5:03 are you part of the yes campaign? You sure sound like it. Why are all the yes people afraid to use their real names on blogs? Possibly because they know most people see through them?
This tax is going to cost families $200 or more per year. There's no guarantee of where the money will go. The city already wastes millions of dollars on consultants and studies and has lied to us in the past as to where new taxes will go. Why should we give you more money? So you can give city staff raises? Because that's who is backing the yes campaign. tityar
The Pro tax people have cooked the numbers. Nothing the pro tax people have said is substantiated anywhere. The $6 per month cost is a fantasy. After the public records request, the City has no data at all that shows $6 is real. It's a fake campaign statement cooked up by the Yes side to lull you to sleep. No where does the city have an example on how to calculate this tax. That tells you something.
No proof of tax cost, you better vote NO. The eventual tax cost will be between $100 and $300 per family. Many will pay more than Safeway, a biz capped at $500. If the City was open about costs, families would have a cap.
Anonymous 9:50pm said...
"The Pro tax people have cooked the numbers. Nothing the pro tax people have said is substantiated anywhere. The $6 per month cost is a fantasy. After the public records request, the City has no data at all that shows $6 is real. It's a fake campaign statement cooked up by the Yes side to lull you to sleep. No where does the city have an example on how to calculate this tax. That tells you something.
No proof of tax cost, you better vote NO. The eventual tax cost will be between $100 and $300 per family. Many will pay more than Safeway, a biz capped at $500. If the City was open about costs, families would have a cap."
Do the math. Why do you need the City to advise you what you will pay? apply 6.5% to your phone (land line, fax and cell) bill. It's not all that hard to figure out. Note: To pay $500 a year, a family would have a $641 MONTHLY phone bill, almost $7,700 annually. Very doubtful that anyone will be paying that much or that it would be a hardship to those that are paying that much for their phone.
You guys are really starting to anger Mary Ann and Lennie.
Anon 11:41, I know a lot of small business owners that will exceed your $600 mark. It's not unusual to have a $200 to $300 business phone bill counting fax and a few lines. Then you go home and have a land line and a cell plan with 3, 4, or maybe 5 phones tied to it. that could be another $300+ bill. Convenient to discount the small businesses in this town but they are the lifeblood of this city. This is an ill-conceived, poorly vetted money grab by officials that think we are all stupid drones. Vote No on V and tell a neighbor.
I want to see a cost spread sheet with all 5 council member's name on it verifying it's accurate, not some Anonymous shilling for the Yes side. I want to attend a study session where council explains how my bundled service is taxed without being on the phone to my provider for 2 hours to get mistakes unraveled.
920 Yeah and I want a pony. With the consultants we paid for, Council has done a great job of running a very targeted campaign that focuses on only the voters they can expect to vote. That's probably all they need to do. Smart and efficient. It's a side of them we've never seen before. Meanwhile, the No side is faced with having to appeal to a broader group of voters who are very unlikely to vote in this one no matter what they hear.
I'd be impressed with Council's masterful performance, but why does their (talking about that sub-committee) ability only surface when the task requires secrecy and sneakiness?
There's a clause in the ordinance that let's them tax out of town billing addresses if the phone is used the majority of the time in Pacifica. Will all our cops that live out of town get a tax bill for all the time they spend on their phones during "stake outs"?
I see the Yes side must have changed their strategy at the last minute. They finally put up some banners 3 days before the election. And you can barely read them. I see very few yes signs around and they wasted $20,000+ on 2 mailers that nobody saw.
They're into this for over $100,000. Not really a testimonial of why we should give them more money
Our side has had large banners all over town for over a month. All with different on point clear easily read messages. Over 100 lawn signs up since early September. And over 10,000 hand delivered flyers. And much more all for less than 2% of what the other side spent.
Maybe they should hire us for consultants next time?
You're sure fighting the good fight, Hutch, but I don't think winning the 'who has the most/best signs' was ever a part of the Yes side campaign strategy. The consultant we paid for told them exactly who they had to get to and how and when, and they've been busy doing that by mail and phone. Once they worked on that core group, there's time and apparently enough money for a broader effort. Almost seems kind of elitist, but the rest of us taxpayers just weren't a priority. But rest assured, if V passes, it's our money they'll be spending.
I'm not saying we got this thing down. We still need everyone to get out and vote next Tuesday.
I'm saying that the things we are doing are much more effective at reaching and convincing more voters than what the other side is doing. Phone calls and direct mail are not very effective, but are extremely expensive.
I'd be careful crowing about how well "our side" is doing on the basis of signs. The statement that "phone calls and direct mail are not very effective" is simply false. The only thing more effective than phone calls and mail would be door-to-door precincting targeting voters who voted in the last off-year election.
Notice the very expensive large signs from yes on v. Those have to cost a couple thousand each. Much of it paid for by out of town donors looking for a payday.
I'm still wondering why an out of town lawyer with no connection to Pacifica donate $1000 to the yes side. This tax is going to hit lot of people very hard, including the very people who rely on Resource Center help. When the government rushes into something that is not properly vetted, this is what we get. An ordinance that hurts families, poor, and business. Way to go council. Voter No on V
Hutch said...
"Anonymous 5:03 are you part of the yes campaign? You sure sound like it. Why are all the yes people afraid to use their real names on blogs? Possibly because they know most people see through them?"
The majority of comments on this blog, for both sides, are anonymous.
the no side is using blogs, new media, door to door flyers, the Tribune, talking in public, and signage all over town. Very smart.
Direct mail, or junk mail is very expensive and more than half are thrown out without even looking. The last piece the yes side sent out was crap. Nothing on it jumped out to say read me. So it probably had a 25% or less open rate. Out of those less than 5% were persuaded.
Phone calls from a stranger trying to get you to vote for a tax that you're concealing, well that's tough. I would not want to be making those cold calls and I'm sure volunteers do not either.
Who do you think has an easier time convincing people?
These calls are not robo-calls or even cold calls. They're more personal, people you know directly or indirectly or share an interest with. Very effective. Direct mail to a small targeted group with an interest is also very effective. The Yes side had the tremendous advantage of being able to identify the interested and active voter group at the start. We paid for it! It's about turnout and money. I doubt that any sign is enough to motivate an otherwise passive voter to get out and vote, but who doesn't love a surprise? Or the underdog?
If you were at the debate at the Golf Course you know the Yes side is in trouble with the comments made by the Yes side speakers and their overly emotional presentation.
Anonymous at 2:54pm said
"If you were at the debate at the Golf Course you know the Yes side is in trouble with the comments made by the Yes side speakers and their overly emotional presentation."
Reminder Fact: After the debate, members of the Pacifica Democrats Club voted more than 2 to 1 to support Measure V.
When you vote by mail, the fact that you voted is recorded and campaigns have access to that info. So the phone calls are to people who have previously been identified as Yes votes who have not yet voted. They are getting out every yes vote they can. They are also putting door hangers on known yes voters who have not yet voted. Very effective and smarter than just using blogs, new media, door to door flyers, Tribune, talking in public, and signs.
Democrats=tax and spenders
Anonymous 9:19am said...
"Anon 11:41, I know a lot of small business owners that will exceed your $600 mark. It's not unusual to have a $200 to $300 business phone bill counting fax and a few lines. Then you go home and have a land line and a cell plan with 3, 4, or maybe 5 phones tied to it. that could be another $300+ bill. Convenient to discount the small businesses in this town but they are the lifeblood of this city."
Did you miss that businesses have a $500 annual cap? If you have a business and live in Pacifica, even the more reason you should want and support great city services.
1002 Easy to overlook those little details when you're blowing smoke like that earlier poster.
@254 Wishful thinking? A whopping big crowd of 80 heard those speakers. The key message in the Trib's coverage of the debate was that club members voted to support Measure V by a more than 2 to 1 margin. What about that says the Yes side is in trouble?
626 Exactly. Money buys you info and expertise on how best to use it. The Yes group had a much easier task and they had insider access to the cookie jar to fund their campaign. The architects of this measure, both of them, sure stacked the deck. How humiliating if Measure V fails to pass.
Anon 10:02, do you really believe what you are pushing! I'm a business so I should agree to tax myself $500 for the good of the city! You mean for the good of the salarys and pensions of the city employes. When do we get to pass a tax on city employees fund small business owners pensions?
Oh, and your $500 nonsense. I get to pay for my business phones AND my home cell and land lines.
As a wise man (or woman) said once "figures don't lie, liers figure".
Pac Dems shows the Yes in trouble. There were probably 100 people attending. 38-39 people voted because they were members. The majority (60 people) were not members and did not vote.
So, this is why the Yes side will lose. Correct, Pac Dems voted 2-1 to endorse. Fact, majority were not members, did not vote and many signed up with No side outside the debate room.
Have to be able to count and making stuff up, a well used Yes tactic, gets you beat. Voters want specifics on costs to their families; programs funded, rigorousness, not happy talk.
The city says it wants new business then turns around and taxes any new business up to $500 for their phones.
Mix messages, much !!!
"Democrats=tax and spenders"
What a supid statement.
I'm a Democrat and I hate government waste and inefficiency and rarely (if ever) support new taxes.
The real tax and spenders are the Republican war criminals who plundered our treasure, killed , maimed and mutilated a whole generation of our young and fed their rich energy and war buddies with our tax dollars.
Go Teabaggers!!!!
This is a users tax so who does the City target with their get out the vote campaign "senior"
How do they get senior to vote for this tax
1. They threaten cuts to Meals On Wheels and other senior services funding if the tax is not passed. ( the stick)
2.They promise seniors that they will not have to pay for the tax if they vote for it. (The carrot)
So who pays if measure V passes
1. Small business up to $500.
(Large businesses like Safeway are already capped out with the PG&E portion of the UUT)
2. Every other citizen of Pacifica who has a phone. Single moms, the working poor, the disabled Veterans,even the kids that Mom and Dad are trying to keep safe.
As a senior I am Voting No on measure V because, in good conscience I can not impose this tax on others who are less able then me to pay for it while I reap the benefits.
Both sides got their victory speech ready? This is going to be fun to watch.
$5,000 more from unions to Yes side. Reported friday....
Payday!
Pushing $85,000 total spent...
Yeah, another $5000 from out of town interests.
Gosh, you think there's any strings attached to union money donated to a tax measure or a candidate? Easy enough to follow the money, just follow the smell that goes with it.
Anonymous at 12:46am said...
"Anon 10:02, do you really believe what you are pushing! I'm a business so I should agree to tax myself $500 for the good of the city! You mean for the good of the salarys and pensions of the city employes. When do we get to pass a tax on city employees fund small business owners pensions?
Oh, and your $500 nonsense. I get to pay for my business phones AND my home cell and land lines.
As a wise man (or woman) said once "figures don't lie, liers figure"."
Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. How good is it for your business and for your on family if the streets are in poor repair, programs that provide for all ages in the city are diminished and positions are eliminated decreasing levels of service.
Some of the potty mouth and demeaning statements from the No Phone Tax side that say a lot about character are another reason to vote YES on Measure V.
5k in more union money. How convenient. I disagree with the
85k estimate. 57k from the city on their "education process? and now, what, 32k for the committe which the majority of money has come from unions and for some reason, $1000 from an attorney in Millbrae. I'm at $89,000 and still counting. To pass a poorly written vettedless ordinance that hurts everyone. What kind of a payday are they looking for and at who's expense? How many favors were called in? And, what are those favors going to cost Pacifica? All things to think about when you cast your vote tomorrow. Vote No on V.
Anon 422 They don't want this money to fix roads or improve service. Look at where the yes sides big donations come from. Out of town labor unions. They want this tax to give staff a big raise.
100% of the No On V sides donations come from inside Pacifica.
And as far as character goes we didn't; hatch this scheme in secret, deceive voters, make up an emergency, use taxpayers money, target seniors, run a phony phone poll, purposely write a confusing measure, etc..
Hutch at 7:35pm said...
"Anon 422 They don't want this money to fix roads or improve service. Look at where the yes sides big donations come from. Out of town labor unions. They want this tax to give staff a big raise."
Hutch, Can you provide documentation supporting these allegations about how money will be spent? If not, then you are using the scare tactics you write about. Stop blowing smoke. Review the list of local supporters that are voting YES on Measure V, all facets of the Pacifica community, many with long legacies of active community involvement. Many that have also made contributions, surpassing what the No campaign has received.
Is there additional support? Sure. That doesn't diminish but only adds to the county-wide support for Pacifica.
937 Hutch is usually a tad over the top for me, but this time he nailed it and you. Say, when you guys type stuff like "additional support" are you dizzy? You can spin! Pacifica has never seen a campaign of such sophistication. Golly! If you win and come back for CATV and the library are you gonna whip out the drone? Apply some fancy algorithm to all that taxable telecommunicating?
422 and 937 sound like they're very much inside the Yes campaign. It's beyond bizarre to hear them try to sanitize union donations to the Yes war chest. Pretty obvious this town has developed a deeper and more troubling divide besides growth vs no-growth. Lot of people wearing blinders and looking the other way. It's easier to stop them now. Vote No.
Unless you have been living in a rabbit hole for the past 30 years you would realize that special interest give money with a wink and a nod of a return favor. Lets see who's up for election next and what they will need to win. $$$$ That's what they will need. Call in union favors, give them raises for their members, then squeeze them again for money for their reelection. Dirty, dirty, dirty. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone disprove it? No. In fact, can anyone prove that the money will go to anything other than salaries and pensions. As soon as they give any raises that money is gone. So, will council have the gall to say that the money for raises didn't come out of Measure V part of the general fund but a different part. Figure that out "citizens oversight committee"!
Unions and politicians. Bad news for taxpayers.
Post a Comment