For those of us who believe that school funding cuts are criminal and that we are risking our future investment for momentary illusive fiscal balance, the results of the last parcel tax election were too close for comfort.
The district knew it was a close call before entering the fray – the final results were actually almost identical to the polled level of support. But it did not help that the district and supporters of the parcel tax committed a series of errors or perceived errors along the way. That was coupled with the fact that the district was asking for a $200 increase in the tax, and we had a dog fight.
Things are different now because the district is not asking for an increase, but rather a renewal. We are two months away from the election, and the biggest issues are the two clowns that are fumbling over each other trying to reach for an argument that does not exist.
I am a big believer in things like democracy and open government, but the ballot arguments submitted by Jose Granda and Thomas Randall are an embarrassment. That they then try to hide behind free speech to justify their off-topic and completely inaccurate arguments is farcical.
And I would be laughing all the way to electoral victory were it not for the fact that they are wasting the time and money of the taxpayers and their representatives in government. However, it is ironic that they claim to be out for saving taxpayers money.
As Bob Dunning wrote this week, “According to a news release emailed to me by Measure C opponents – both of them…”
If this is the best that parcel tax opponents can do – you might as well go home. Stop wasting our time.
As we noted earlier this week, Mr. Granda is pounding on the table here because he does not believe that the parcel tax is going to lose on the merits. Perhaps I was giving him too much credit.
The dispute in court is over the ballot argument that suggests: “When you vote absentee, you make the choice yourself to waive your right to a secret ballot. When you put that envelope in the mail, you know and accept that any election personnel who come in contact with your ballot know your name, your address, your signature and can look at how you voted.”
As we argued earlier this week, it is not only untrue but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding for how the process of opening a vote-by-mail ballot works. They are opened in a transparent manner in a process that has a good deal of oversight including over the possibility of public viewing – just as they have when they count election night ballots.
As Tony Bernhard, who understands this process better than most and certainly better than Jose Granda, who gets his facts completely wrong, writes, “All mailed ballot elections are conducted lawfully in accordance with California Elections Code Sections 4000-4108 (pertaining to all mailed ballot elections) and Sections 9100-9168 (pertaining to county elections).”
He continues, “Contrary to the assertions contained in these Arguments, there is no diminution or abrogation of the opportunity of supporters and opponents to observe all aspects of the election process.”
Furthermore, he writes, “Observers are welcomed to observe any and all parts of the election process, including the signature verification, opening and counting of mailed ballots.”
He notes that there are public notices provided both to the Grand Jury and in the Davis Enterprise “inviting observers to the election process. Written notice inviting observers is also posted outside the Elections Office.”
The only question is whether there is a constitutional right to make false and misleading comments on ballot statements.
For that we go to Bob Dunning’s column. Mr. Dunning put his law education to use.
He writes, “The news release [by Mr. Granda and Mr. Randall] brings up the case of “Huntington Beach City Council v. Superior Court,” where “the Court (Court of Appeal, Fourth District) noted that any restrictions on ballot language must be drawn narrowly because the First Amendment right to freedom of speech is implicated.”
Writes Mr. Dunning, “In the case at hand, however, the charge against Granda and Randall is that their ballot statement – ‘This all vote-by-mail election is an undemocratic process, which significantly reduces oversight to maintain the integrity of an election’ – is in itself false and misleading.”
He notes, “The court in Huntington noted that ‘Official voters’ pamphlets are limited public forums provided by the government, so the government can constitutionally impose what would be an otherwise unlawful prior restraint of speech by way of precluding false or misleading statements.”
In fact, reading the entire ballot statement is, in essence, an exercise in false and misleading statements.
They argue: “Proponents of Measure C claim that this is a renewal of existing taxes. NO, it is a NEW tax.”
Really, it’s a new tax? Based on what?
They argue: “If it were a renewal, they would be asking tax payments for four more years at a cost of $1,280 ($320) per year. Instead, this NEW TAX is for five years at a cost of $1,600.”
One problem: $1600 over 5 years is the same per year ($320) as $1,280 over four years. The school district is not assessing a new tax, it is assessing a longer tax than the previous one.
They add, “You do not know exactly how much you will end up paying.”
The basis for that statement is: “The School Board tacked on an automatic increase per year based on the CPI ‘Consumer Price Index’ which goes up every year. This new tax is acquiring a variable interest debt where you do not even know much the payment is going to be.”
Putting in an inflator does not in itself make it a new tax.
Second, while we do not know exactly what the tax will be, we do know that the increase will not be greater than 3% per year – therefore, we know what the maximum rate will be five years from now.
They next argue, “The School Board has set up this measure with questionable ethics. They will exempt seniors from paying the tax but want their votes to pass the measure forcing someone else to pay.”
There is nothing questionable about this other than maybe the reasoning of those writing this argument. It is completely legal under the current laws.
Finally they argue that “the school board is out of control.” Their basis: “They hit us with Measure A in May which raised the taxes by 62% to $520 per year.”
Okay. “Now, before the year is out, they hit us again with two measures Q and W combined into a NEW tax.”
Actually, all they have done here is renew the existing tax, as we previously noted. That is hardly a case for a school board being out of control.
Their final argument is the one that has drawn the attention of Tony Bernhard and Freddie Oakley.
There is no argument here on the merits. There is no argument here that is going to carry the day in a largely liberal community that has supported every single school parcel tax and most taxes in general.
They have nothing. I understand why they would want to pound on the table. This time the district is likely not going to hand them such an easy issue to polarize the electorate.
—David M. Greeenwald reporting
I think an argument certainly can be made that adding one year onto the tax renewal and adding a CPI inflator makes this a “new tax”. I think you can also make an argument that it is merely a “renewal”. In a sense, it falls somewhere in the middle of the two. IMO, this is much ado about nothing, and will probably not effect people’s decision one way or the other…
To argue that the tax is “new”, or to argue that it is a renewal are both male bovine manure. It is a revision, and significantly, will continue a levy that otherwise would “sunset” this year, saving money for those who pay it… yet those seniors (and others?) who opt out and who do not pay, will get to vote to decide whether the rest of us do. Arguably, representation w/o taxation.
[quote]It is a revision, and significantly, will continue a levy that otherwise would “sunset” this year, saving money for those who pay it… yet those seniors (and others?) who opt out and who do not pay, will get to vote to decide whether the rest of us do. Arguably, representation w/o taxation.[/quote]
Ah, you put your finger right on it – a REVISION of the existing tax. As for the “representation w/o taxation” comment, very interesting point!
Somewhat related… as our discussions about the parcel tax center around our retail as a tax revenue base. Many have blamed Target for Alphabet Moon closing and for lackluster sales. However, as I have pointed out, it is the Internet “big box” that ALL retail should be concerned about.
This from Target Corporation:
[quote]In one of the starkest signs yet that chain stores fear a new twist in shopping, Target is asking suppliers for help in thwarting “showrooming”—that is, when shoppers come into a store to see a product in person, only to buy it from a rival online, frequently at a lower price.
Last week, in an urgent letter to vendors, the Minneapolis-based chain suggested that suppliers create special products that would set it apart from competitors and shield it from the price comparisons that have become so easy for shoppers to perform on their computers and smartphones. Where special products aren’t possible, Target asked the suppliers to help it match rivals’ prices. It also said it might create a subscription service that would give shoppers a discount on regularly purchased merchandise.[/quote]
The problem stores like Target have is that they have serious overhead to pay (the physical store and staffing), whereas Amazon or whatever has an infinitesimal fraction of the overhead cost (a mere phone bank of a few people)…
What Target is asking its suppliers to do amounts to collusion in pricing and restraint of trade. Big retailers have already been sued successfully over these practices (ToysRUs in the 1990’s), but that hasn’t stopped them. In many product categories, the bigger retailers are much more vulnerable to this kind of ‘showroom shopping’ than small independents who seek unique product lines in order to differentiate themselves. The larger retailers are also more vulnerable to the herd mentality of price-oriented shoppers — the roughly 30% of consumers who are driven more by price than value, loyalty, or convenience.
If you’re marketing yourself on price primarily, your customer base is more fickle. Wal-Mart’s same-store sales dropped for nine straight quarters, while their Sam’s Club same-store sales increased; they were cannibalizing their own sales at a lower margin. Then they cut their prices at their regular stores and finally saw a same-store sales increase — at a cost to profit margins. And their number of customers continues to decline.
If a community brings in big-box stores to boost sales tax revenues, you can see the problems it can create. Retailers in direct competition are harmed, the sales tax per square foot of the bigger stores is lower, and the long-term effect is adverse. The ultimate effect depends on the mix of retail that existed before, because big retailers also tend to stifle new retail development. And harm small shopping centers and strip malls.
But of course, sales tax doesn’t go directly to the schools. So this is only pertinent to the broader funding issues faced by state and local governments.
[quote]What Target is asking its suppliers to do amounts to collusion in pricing and restraint of trade. [/quote]
I wondered about that – it certainly does seem as if Target is trying to gain the system so they don’t have to lower the prices to keep up with the competition…
Sales tax is one issue… consumers don’t pay it for most of their Internet purchases. Although shipping costs can be a price-leveler between Internet and big box bricks and mortar stores. For me it is a convenience benefit too. Several years ago Amazon offered free life-time second-day shipping for a one-time cost of $99. I signed up right before they canceled the offer due to overwhelming demand. Add their “one-click” feature on their website, and now instead of me having to drive to Woodland, Vacaville or Sacramento to purchase some product that generally is not carried by Davis stores, I can do a quick search on Amazon.com and click the One-Click button… then the product shows up on my door step in two days.
This is an issue we need to be thinking ahead on. The Internet is doing to big box what big box has done to mom and pop. Even though we lament the hit to mom and pop, there is beauty in this process of creative destruction as free market capitalism constantly looking for ways to improve customer value to win market share. The consumer wins even as the local retail tax base suffers. We cannot win this battle shaming locals into doing charity shopping to support mom and pop.
We need to be thinking about the types of retail that are resistant to competition from aggregators and make it a focus of our downtown. It is why I advocate for a core of service, entertainment and specialty shops downtown… like the San Diego Lamp Light District and Santa Barbara State Street. Including a great mix of office and residential property creates a base of activity… especially during the morning and afternoon. However, we need to attract more people from outside the area in the evening hours.
One opportunity I see is to expand on our UCD viniculture connection. Some of the best winemakers in the world have been educated here. We should redevelop parts of the downtown and consider a tax incentive for attacting wine shops, wine tasting bars and high-end restaurants.
Dunning talks about the judge’s final decision on Monday on the ballot language issue in today’s column: link ([url]”http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/dunning/keep-this-diamond-in-davis-crown/”[/url]). It’s a couple of paragraphs in.
And Jeff Hudson’s take on it: link ([url]”http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/judge-strikes-portions-of-anti-measure-c-ballot-arguments/”[/url]).