quick take
Lookout political columnist Mike Rotkin supports all 13 local tax and bond items on the Nov. 5 ballot. No one likes to pay, but the combination of 1978’s Prop. 13 and the current tax system, which puts a burden on businesses, is important, he wrote. The homeowner is responsible. Local cities need more funding to provide services, he wrote.
Is there anything you want to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor from readers within our policies. Click here for guidelines.
Santa Cruz County ballots are once again loaded with local tax and bond measures. Thirteen of the 16 measures on Santa Cruz County’s ballot propose increases in local taxes or bonds that would ultimately have to be paid for in local taxes. The only exception is Measure U in the San Lorenzo Valley, which ignores the reality of rising water production costs and proposes lowering the fixed rate required for water customers in the Valley.
Fortunately, all of these taxes and bonds, with the exception of Measure Q, only apply to certain local jurisdictions. Therefore, voters only face one or two local measures on each individual ballot.
Measure Q is a countywide tax that raises money for clean water and fire protection purposes. The only organized opposition comes from a few fire chiefs, who support the measure’s content but don’t want to give the district specifics, according to Mark Bingham, a spokesman for the Boulder Creek Fire Protection District. He is angry that a reasonable amount of funding has not been secured.
There is no reason to believe that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors will not use the money raised in Measure Q for clean water and fire protection. Supervisors have already expressed support for fire protection in the county budget, pledging to use a significant portion of the funds raised by Measure Q for this purpose. The reason this bill does not include specific allocations to specific fire departments is because including such specificity in the bill would require a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority vote.
November voting measures: Find Lookout’s local and state coverage here
Therefore, unless you have deep doubts about the motives of the county board of supervisors, I recommend voting yes on Measure Q.
Two of the local ballot measures would amend the Watsonville City Charter. One of the charter changes is a minor and innocuous update. The other, Measure V, would change the Watsonville City Charter to allow the City Council to appoint non-citizens to boards and commissions, which is currently not allowed. While it makes perfect sense to restrict voting to U.S. citizens, there are undocumented immigrants in Watsonville who contribute to the community, pay taxes, and otherwise should be allowed to participate in community events. There are many. Young people who are not old enough to become citizens and serve on Watsonville’s boards and commissions under the current charter will be held accountable by the elected City Council members who make these appointments to ensure that young people contribute to the well-being of the community. If they believe this is the case, they should be allowed to participate.
But why are there so many local taxes on every election ballot?As we’ve previously written about on Lookout, the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 provided funding for local governments, schools, and special districts. The property tax that had been levied was taken away. This left local governments and other elected bodies without the funding they needed for essential services. The problem is exacerbated by states preventing cities from passing on income taxes, a less regressive tax.
As a result, local agencies are forced to increase their funding through local taxes, such as business taxes, parcel taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, admission taxes, and other more regressive forms of taxation. If local residents really want essential services, they have little choice but to support local taxes and municipal bonds, even though the costs will increase over time.
What’s the answer to this? I’ve been advocating for a split tax roll that would protect residential real estate from taxes based on runaway real estate values in California, but I’ve also advocated for split-tax rolls that would protect California’s residential properties from taxes based on runaway real estate values, but I’ve also advocated for split-tax rolls that would protect California’s residential properties from taxes based on runaway real estate values, but not for corporations that own more than half of the real estate in the state. It will impose a fair tax burden. With this kind of income, all local taxes are no longer necessary. However, passage at the state level has proven difficult due to large amounts of campaign funding from large corporations.
So my message is simple. Vote yes on every local measure on your ballot this fall, except Measure U in the San Lorenzo Valley. Our community needs your support.
