By Jose Granda and Thomas Randall
No sooner the Davis School District put to sleep the parcel taxes issue after Measure E last year that the Davis City Council woke it up again. This time with a two prong attack on Davis voters. A sales and use tax increase in the June ballot and their announced plan for a parcel tax in the November election. After prevailing in their legal challenge to Measure E, which brought the Davis School District in compliance with the law, Granda and Randall had gone on with their separate ways until the two new taxes the sales tax in June and the parcel tax in November that the City Council wishes to impose on Davis residents has brought them back together into action again.
“We are reviving the Political Action Committee we had formed to oppose the parcel taxes, now with a new focus and purpose, to oppose the City Council new increase to 8.5% in sales tax Measure O in June and to oppose their planned parcel tax in the November election. It is also our intent to oppose the re-election of Yolo County Clerk, Freddie Oakley. Our Political Action Committee NO PARCEL TAXES PAC has been legally constituted and obtained the respective number from the Secretary of State. It is a general purpose committee at the county level” said Jose Granda about the reorganized Political Action Committee.
Their argument against Measure O is that: ‘The Davis City Council has not justified it. Why should Davis residents pay for their mismanagement of $5.1 million of taxpayer’s money? They needed to explain their spending habits and why they have caused a $5.1 million deficit and now they are turning to Davis residents to pay for it. They are treating Davis residents as an ATM machine where money is readily available every time they run the City’s budget in the red.” Said Granda.
Granda appeared in front of the City Council to complaint that the ballot language of Measure O is false and misleading. The measure as published reads:
“Shall Ordinance No. 2432, which would authorize the City of Davis to continue to collect a sales and use tax for general government purposes at the total rate of one percent through December 31, 2020, be adopted?”
Granda speaking to the council told them the language has several problems:
1. – “It is deceptive. It makes it appear that we are voting to continue what already exists. If that is the case why we are having a special election in June?
2.- Are we voting to continue a tax that has not expired because it is in effect until 2016. So why are we voting in a special election while it is still in effect until two years later 2016?
3. – Unaware the voters will be extending a tax already in effect until 2016 without the corresponding election. By lumping both taxes into one and both elections into one the Council is presenting a false and misleading measure.
4.- How do you extend a tax and at the same time continue a tax on the same sentence, same election. It violates the single subject requirement of the California Constitution regarding ballot elections.
5.- The phrase is unintelligible. Is the public voting to continue a tax? Is the public voting to increase e tax? How does the word continue does both things?
6.- Also says “sales and use tax” as if you get a bargain two for the price of one at 1% which would appear a bargain when what the consumer will pay is actually 8.5 %
7. The public is completely mislead into thinking they are “continuing” a tax already in existence at 1% while the reality is that the council is increasing the sales tax to 8.5%.
8. The .5% is still in effect until 2016. So how do you approve a tax that already exists? Now the other .5% is a new tax to from 2014 until 2020. What the council is doing is jamming both in one and extending the existing tax without an election for its renewal in 2016. This is completely dishonest.
9. – They use the word “total” to 1% is misleading. The appropriate figure for the total sales tax is 8.5%.
10. – The word increase .05% or is in addition to the 8% for a total of 8.5% is never used.”
The Opposition to Measure O has set up a web page at: www.noparceltaxes.org They are asking concerned citizens to contact them and join the opposition to the tax increase.
Granda and Randall make some great points.
“How do you extend a tax and at the same time continue a tax on the same sentence, same election. It violates the single subject requirement of the California Constitution regarding ballot elections.”
Is this true, does it violate the law?
No it doesn’t violate the law. Everything deals with a sales tax. What can’t you can’t do is pass a sales tax with a rider to build housing.
Again, form over substance. Ideally, we can get to the point where we can decide whether to extend the existing levy, and add to it, or just keep trucking with the status quo. Now we are headed toward game-playing. Let me make it simple. Either we keep trucking, and deal with the consequences, or approve the extension and increase, and deal with the consequences. Everything else is irrelevant. This situation is perfect for Dunning and David. Stir things up, make yourself heard, sell newspapers, increase blog hits. Wonder if William Randoph Hearst is an ancestor of one or both.
More right wing propaganda from the Davis Vanguard. Didn’t these guys sign Munn’s nomination papers?
You don’t like an open submission policy?
Nah, just stirring the pot. Remember when, for example, David urged patience on the VB issue? How many times since then has he opened the door for more “impatience”?
I guess if you want your blog to be a platform for anti-tax right wing ideologues that mimic your own Grover Norquist, starve the beast philosophy. Its America you can give voice to whoever you want but then don’t deny this is a conservative venue on the internet.
Toad, yes it’s America. Your pro-tax left wing never saw a tax I didn’t like rhetoric is also free to be voiced.
Who wrote this article? The byline says it is by Granda and Randall, but much of it seems to be written about Granda and Randall.
I take issue with the characterization of the City Council putting something on the ballot as a “two-pronged attack on the Davis voters.” I quit reading after that line.
I guess it could be a two-pronged gift if they cut taxes for Davis voters.
You got further then me.
After prevailing in their legal challenge to Measure E, which brought the Davis School District in compliance with the law,…
I find this ironic. A key criticism that Granda made of Measure E was that apartment residents paid so much less than home owners — $20 v. $204. The result of Granda’s lawsuit against the district, most apartment owners paid less than $20. The $20 per unit rate was abolished, and the cost of $204 was spread out over all the tenants in the apartment. More than 10 units and the rate decreased below $20/unit.
wdf1: most apartment owners
*most apartment dwellers
Not just apartments. Our limited equity co-op housing with 60 units went from $1200 to $204.
“the sales tax in June and the parcel tax in November that the City Council wishes to impose on Davis residents”
Since when is having people vote on something an imposition? I guess under that theory, if I disagree with any law, then it has been imposed on me and thus is not good. This sort of thinking is akin to nullification. I don’t live in Davis and thus won’t be personally effected by these votes, but I do prefer to stick up for democracy.
We still need a comprehensive solution, including tax increases, spending cuts and investment in economic development. When will the City Council take up the challenge to lead us to that goal?
Crickets….
Shame!
when do you expect them to do this? you have two candidates running for assembly. rochelle working full time and running for reelection. pinkerton running for the hills. when is the comprehensive strategy supposed to happen?
This is a valid point and a good reason why we should reject candidates that are only in it to launch or further a political career. We have two lame ducks out of five potential leaders. And those two lame ducks are filling the agenda with crap that serves to help their careers over doing what is needed.