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