Saturday, March 31, 2012

Half Moon Bay - anything but develop, try a sales tax again


Avoid economic development, and don't tax us.  Does this sounds familiar?  Our city fees for "everything" are high, Half Moon Bay could learn from us.    

Half Moon Bay Review/Mark Novack, 3/29/12. "HMB floats new sales tax idea, public outcry dooms paid parking."

Charming downtown- no parking meters
"Dumping plans to charge for parking, Half Moon Bay leaders are now looking to a new sales tax as a possible lifeline for a local government that has cut services and laid off employees over the past several years.  But City Council members recall the difficulty they had little more than a year ago selling a tax increase to skeptical voters. City leaders tried and failed to pass a one-cent sales tax increase in 2010. The measure had support from business organizations, but it withered amid resistance from many individual merchants who protested they were still feeling the economic pinch from a nationwide recession.

Many of the same merchants rallied last week to urge the council to scuttle plans to charge drivers for parking downtown. “I think I heard what everyone said tonight — we’re not ready for paid parking,” said Councilwoman Marina Fraser during a public meeting March 20. “In the future, we’d like to see more community support (for a sales tax) … with the help of merchants on Main Street.”

At the March 20 meeting, a crowd of unhappy merchants and residents unanimously urged the city to consider some other way to generate revenues, saying paid parking would ultimately harm Half Moon Bay. Business owners complained the proposal would coincide with upcoming work on the Main Street Bridge to create a “double whammy” that would disrupt downtown commerce.
“We’d be ruining the charm of our town by (nickel and diming) people who come here to eat and shop,” city resident Marcia Traversaro said to the council. “If you’ve gotten a ticket in a town, it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”

At the tail end of the meeting, council members relented and a majority seemed to back the concept of a half-cent city sales tax that could go on a future ballot. The idea was first suggested by It’s Italia restaurant owner Betsy Del Fierro, who indicated it would be a better solution for Main Street merchants. Taking up the tax idea,

Try to pass a sales tax again
Councilwoman Naomi Patridge warned those in attendance that, if they were so firmly against paid parking, then the city needed their support for the tax. “If we’re going to have people fighting and stabbing us, then (paid parking) isn’t worth it,” she said. “I’m keeping all of you to your word that you’ll support this council with the sales tax. “If you don’t, I guarantee you, your streets’ (upkeep) and other things won’t get done,” she added. Patridge suggested a half-cent sales tax for the next three years — a proposal that could be more palatable for voters because it cuts in half the increase and time period proposed in 2010.

Other council members followed suit and agreed to lay to rest the paid-parking idea, but they reminded the audience more than once about the uphill battle they faced to pass a sales tax in 2010. Councilman Rick Kowalczyk, who opposed the past tax increase, admitted he was conflicted about backing a new tax. “The principle of a sales tax is counterintuitive,” he started, “But I would support it if … a significant piece was used to promote the community.”

Going into the March 20 meeting, city leaders had put their support behind paid parking downtown, saying the idea carried little risk and could actually rotate more customers into shops and restaurants. The proposal wouldn’t have come cheaply, costing the city about $500,000 in equipment and another $330,000 a year in maintenance and enforcement. Staff recommended the council charge a rate of $1.50 an hour to recoup the cost quickly."

Posted by Kathy Meeh

7 comments:

Hutch said...

Council can not see that the problem is (like here) the high union wages and benefits.

todd bray said...

Again, AB 506 seems to be the way forward. It allows a tax collecting agency, like a city, to restructure it's debt and labor contracts without harming the agencies bond status.

Considering HMB's financial issues AB 506 should at least be discussed and explained to it's residents and council by staff, even if AB 506 ultimately isn't the cure. At the very least the residents and elected officials will have a better understanding of options.

Steve Sinai said...

The source of Half Moon Bay's problem was that the local, no-growth hippies convinced the city to block Chop Keenan from developing his land by playing legal games. (Similar to the way Pacifica played games with the guy trying to develop the Fish & Bowl.)

The Chopster rightfully sued and won, and 1/3 of the town's revenues go to paying him off. HMB ended up having to disband their police department because of it.

Nice one, hippies.

Anonymous said...

With their problems they're better off with the Sheriffs and their resources. We will be, too.

todd bray said...

Steve it was the pro growth council that decided not to appeal the judgement that has cost HMB so dearly.

If we hadn't replaced Pacifica's pro growth council in '02 I'm sure the city would have settled with Fromm costing us dearly also.

Pro growth councils cost communities lots and lots of money. Much more than your favored scape goats.

Kathy Meeh said...

"I'm sure the city would have settled with Fromm costing us dearly.."

Todd (426), the 2002 pro-growth Pacifica city council majority 3 passed the North Pacifica LLC. The "joint and several" poison pill wording was added after they passed that development (so stated Maxine Gonsalves in her last letter-to-the-editor). Without the incoming 2002 "no growth" city council, there would not have been a court action from 2003. NIMBYS in this city have been perpetrators of our ruinous city economy, 60% unproductive "open space" speaks for itself. Such excessive "open space" is far off from suggested sustainable economic development city models.

Now what? We need economic solutions and that includes tax producing revenue growth. So don't just hit the NIMBY wall on this with default, last resort bankruptcy. Try to be part of the solution.

Steve Sinai said...

Todd, a pro-growth council wouldn't have blocked Keenan's development.

The chance of a successful appeal is relatively low. I don't know why the hippies are so convinced that an appeal would have been successful. If HMB lost the appeal, it would have cost the town more.

I found the following at http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl3/863/

"In fiscal 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reported a reversal rate in private civil cases of 13.9 percent. The reversal rate in private civil cases in all federal appellate courts was 11.7 percent. These reversal rates are modestly higher if you include partial reversals."