It is a weird thing to be talking about Election Day, when just about everybody other than me has voted, but that is where we are. I have had numerous conversations in the last few days with people in all sorts of capacities.I still predict that Measure C passes. I do not think it will get three-quarters of the vote as Measure W did back in 2008, but I also do not think this is going to be the squeaker that Measure A was last year.
For one thing, Measure A was, in fact, in all respects, a tax increase. Measure C is simply not. It is a tax extension. If Measure C passes today, you will not pay more in taxes next year than you did this year.
Also, the district and the Yes on C Campaign managed to avoid the missteps and controversies that beset it last year.
I do not sense an overwhelming amount of anger or frustration.
So I predict about a 70% yes vote today. That will ensure that we are not trying to figure out how to find $10 million in cuts.
So, for the supporters of Measure C and the schools, that is the good news.
In a lot of ways, this analysis really begins where this election began. In the back of people’s minds right now is the surface water project and the likely water rate hikes that have now been pushed back until the end of this year, but still may be very much on the minds of many.
One person related to me that, for seniors especially, the water rate hikes are very much on their minds. And while some will point out that the parcel tax has senior exemptions, it is clear that apprehension is creeping into their mindsets and very much could influence their votes.
In a way, going forward this year was the most logical progression of measures. We have the school parcel tax first, followed by the parks tax this June, and then the water rate initiative on the ballot for the fall.
The big concern that I think a lot of school officials have is how all this will play out in the end. Right now, you have a situation where the school district, even if it gets Measure C, which I predict it will, is still $3.5 million short.
They are going to be relying on teachers to take some sort of concession to reduce that $3.5 million so they don’t have to exercise another huge round of layoffs, right after voters approve a $6.5 million tax measure.
Moving past that issue, for a second, is a bigger looming problem. What happens in 2013?
In 2013, Measure A sunsets. I think that will pose a problem in two possible directions. Right now the economy is starting to improve in the state. We see that in the reduction of unemployment and the addition of jobs. Thus far, it has not translated into revenue for the state. I think it will, at some point, but revenue for the state is a lagging indicator and one question is how far it lags.
We saw this year, even with no cuts, the district ended up in a $3.5 million hole. If Measure A sunsets, that’s another couple of million the district will have to find. I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the legislature increases education funding by enough to counter the current structural budget and the loss of Measure A funding.
The first dilemma that the district faces is how to deal with that loss of funding. I think it is very difficult to ask the voters to renew Measure A. It was billed as an emergency measure. The voters were uneasy but ultimately, by a very narrow margin in probably the worst year for asking for school funding, passed it.
In November, one thing to watch is the governor’s tax proposal. The problem that it faces is competition. The voters seem willing to approve a tax measure. The problem is that there are three tax measures on the ballot and the voters are likely not going to vote for them all and maybe three creates enough confusion and splits enough votes that none of them pass.
As we saw yesterday, the millionaire’s tax is not going away and is, in fact, quite popular with the more progressive crowd.
If the governor’s tax measure or the millionaire’s tax passes, then it is more likely that the district will not need to run another parcel tax. But if they fail, it likely might be tempted.
Adding to the complications are the teachers. The teachers have been asked twice to take concessions. They have not had a salary increase in six years. The second that revenue ticks even modestly upward, teachers are going to say, hey we were asked to engage in a shared sacrifice and they are going to expect to get rewarded for sacrificing and not taking salary increases for over five years.
The district, on the other hand, is going to need that money to supplement the loss of parcel taxes which come off the books, and to replace the millions in programs that they have lost.
Either way, the district has a problem on its hands.
As I mentioned yesterday, in the long term, the district really needs to develop multitiered approaches depending on future revenue. They need to plan that state money might not come back. They need to plan that, perhaps with huge water rate hikes over the next five to ten years, the voters might be less willing to pass parcel taxes.
The good news for the district is that they seem likely to have dodged another bullet. They are basically now trying to run out the clock and not have to make huge decisions or changes until they see what the future holds, but the future does not necessarily look bright.
Until California fixes the revenue problems at the state level, funding might continue to be tight and scarce. Money taken from education might not return.
I believe personally that the stalemate in Sacramento, coupled with the budget crisis, has caused a generation of young people from kindergarten through graduate school to have been thrown under the proverbial bus, because they were the most politically expendable.
Education is an investment in the future, and by mortgaging our future, the roosters at some point will still have to come home to roost.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m just glad that after today, the nauseating pro-school/pro-school board crap will die down in the enterprise.
David, stop writing and get out and deliver your vote!
David, It is not just a tax extension. It is written so the amount may increase each year. Just to be clear…
It’s written so that the amount is constant in real dollars rather than decreases due to inflation over time.
Yep.
“I’m just glad that after today, the nauseating pro-school/pro-school board crap will die down in the enterprise.”
You’ll understand when you’re a parent someday.
[quote]For one thing, Measure A was, in fact, in all respects, a tax increase. Measure C is simply not. It is a tax extension.[/quote]
I agree with your analysis here. By way on analogy, even Prop 13 allows for inflation increases (up to 2%).
However in politics perception is reality and its not clear to me that the average voters perceives the measure as you or I do.
Does anyone have an idea when elections may post the results on their site? Will DCtv be ‘reporting’ on it tonight?
Just after 8 pm we should have a good idea.
It just means that in addition to the State now enforcing the rule that only the property tax associated with the assessed value of your home can be deducted from your income taxes, the school tax will also raise according to the rate of inflation. So the rise in “property tax” may be slightly more than the 2% each year. It is good to be clear about the financial impact of these votes on the homeowner’s finances, so people are making informed choices. Not saying that people should vote it down for this reason, but it wasn’t until I read the ballot that this was clear to me.
My official crystal ball says for Measure C: The Yes vote will win. The final tally will be 72.3% Yes and 27.7% No.
If my prognostication is exactly right, as it was with Measure A, everyone in Davis, of course, will owe me a beer. I don’t always drink beer. But when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.
Advertising image removed! For current ad rates, contact David Greenwald.
[quote]”Measure C is simply not a tax increase….It’s written so that the amount is constant in real dollars rather than decreases due to inflation over time.”[/quote]It’s difficult why the argument continues about whether this is a new tax or whether it increases the amount when it’s so obvious that we’re voting to replace the old tax measures (that are ending) with a new one (that locks in future tax increases but not reductions).
Your strained, awkward response to Ryan (“constant in real dollars”) makes it clear you know that voting for Measure C is voting to pay for higher parcel taxes, if not “next year,” then the year after and the year after. This kind of sleight of hand attempt just pisses off the “no” voters even more, so why perpetuate the argument?
Where are you going to drop off your ballot? And, why are you still writing this “extension of an old tax and not a tax increase” stuff instead of delivering your vote? Everyone who reads the [u]Vanguard[/u] who plans to vote “no” already has done it. Your missing vote could’ve be the one that put “yes” over the top, in case you decide to drive to Oakland or something else.
Rifken, you are almost 2% off. And, what’s the deal with this Don Shor guy, pulling your enlightening illustration?
What’s wrong with [s]Dos Equis[/s]…[s]Dos Equis[/s]…[s]Dos Equis[/s]? (There he goes again. I give up. ¿Es posible que el racismo podría estar entrando en “[u]La Vanguardia[/u]”?)
P.S.–I note that at least one City Council contestant has sprung for [u]Vanguard[/u] ad rates. Will the others be far behind?
JS: I guess you don’t believe in inflation and that we need to adjust 2012 dollars to have ample comparisons with previous year. An interesting position.
For the record, we are running three ads for council candidates presently.
[quote]”JS: I guess you don’t believe in inflation and that we need to adjust 2012 dollars to have ample comparisons with previous year. An interesting position.”[/quote]I certainly acknowledge the existence of changes in the cost of living. I just don’t see the value in agitating the opposition by repeatedly pretending that a provision that pretty much guarantees higher taxes in future years isn’t calling for a tax increase. That’s all.
I voted “yes” weeks ago. How about you?
Glad to hear the smart politicians are supporting the [u]Vanguard[/u] by advertising here.
[i]”I note that at least one City Council contestant has sprung for Vanguard ad rates.”[/i]
I’ve spotted Souza and Wolk ads on Vanguard. However, it should be noted that in real, inflation adjusted dollars, those ads are costing the members of the Council running for reelection less every week.
“You’ll understand when you’re a parent someday.”
lol, I’ve been through the davis school system from start to finish. so I understand perfectly.
and the love affair in the enterprise with davis schools is nauseating, and to be quite frank, unfounded.
lol, and I love the vanguard: we aren’t “raising your taxes” we are “adjusting for inflation” – thats an increase in my book. I think we had an argument earlier on the vanguard about not lying or something, or having some sort of obligation to correct lies?
Of course with the $100 donation limit in Davis your campaign donation buys less and less.
My hope is that David gets his vote in to cancel 1/2 of some no vote. I’m sorry being busy is no excuse for David or Meg Whitman especially when he could have mailed it in for free weeks ago.
As for calling the vote I just hope it passes. My guess is that the no vote will be about the same as last time but the yes vote will be bigger because the tally from the last one shocked the casual voter into action except for David whose failure to lead by example is disturbing to say the least.
[quote]”My hope is that David gets his vote in to cancel 1/2 of some no vote. I’m sorry being busy is no excuse for David or Meg Whitman especially when he could have mailed it in for free weeks ago.”[/quote]What you apparently haven’t considered is that David has just been trying to keep an open mind on the Measure C issue, waiting to consider all of your (and others’) wise observations, before he decides and casts his ballot.
[quote]”Of course with the $100 donation limit in Davis your campaign donation buys less and less.”[/quote]And, that’s why the [u]Vanguard[/u] has its little known practice of rebating part of its ad charges whenever the cost of living goes up, called the “no inflations increase policy” which allows advertisers to maintain constant costs in inflated dollars.
[quote]I don’t always drink beer. But when I do, I prefer Dos Equis.[/quote]Wow. That’s really interesting! Oh, wait….
Stay thirsty, my friends.
“What you apparently haven’t considered is that David has just been trying to keep an open mind on the Measure C issue, waiting to consider all of your (and others’) wise observations, before he decides and casts his ballot.”
Yeah right. Its a no brainer to vote yes. Voting no you are a no brainer.
David is a political animal. He wouldn’t pass up the chance to vote. I think he and his family like to make something of a cermony of the event on the final day, with I voted stickers and all, much like Bob Dunning and family do.
Rich: [i]”The final tally will be 72.3% Yes and 27.7% No.”[/i]
Just: [i]”Rifkin, you are almost 2% off.”[/i]
The first returns have been posted on the County’s website ([url]http://www.yoloelections.org/returns/[/url]): [quote] Yes 11,624 72.5%
No 4,409 27.5% [/quote]I am thirsty, my friends!
I noticed. It appears you (or someone at your behest) were able to view the mail votes, just as charged by the “no” guys. Did I really mean .2% off? No, but, just wait until the votes from the outlying precincts come in.
As of 11:08 p.m., the tally is 72.3% Yes, and 27.7% No. I think Granda will probably want to know how Rifkin knew the exact totals before 8 p.m.
Rifkin the Nate Silver of Davis politics,
[i]”Rifkin (is) the Nate Silver of Davis politics.”[/i]
I happen to know Nate. We met and hung out at a SABR (baseball research) convention in San Mateo back in the late 1990s. The following year, when the convention was in Scottsdale, Arizona, we met again and I got to know him better, but I have not seen him in person since.
Nate is most famous now for his NYT 538 blog and I suppose his TV appearances talking about politics and elections. But he became one of the most well respected sabermetricians in the 2000s with his research and writings associated with Baseball Prospectus, especially for his development of the PECOTA ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PECOTA[/url]) player forecasting system. He is a pretty sharp guy.
[i]”I think Granda will probably want to know how Rifkin knew the exact totals before 8 p.m.”[/i]
If you look at the comments here ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/dunning/your-vote-does-matter-make-it-yes/comment-page-1/#comment-127275[/url]), you will see I forecast this election down to the exact percentages 75 hours before the polls closed.
[b][X] Yes[/b]… it is a tax increase…
[b][X] No [/b]… on the Dos Equis…
[quote][i]”This is genuine coin of the realm. With a dollar of this, you can buy ten dollars of talk.” [/i][/quote]
[b]Kasper Gutman[/b]
Pliny the Elder is genuine beer of the realm. It is worth ten Dos Equis…
The Beer Advocate rates Pliny The Younger as the best beer ([url]http://beeradvocate.com/lists/popular[/url]), a little ahead of Pliny The Elder*. I have a good friend who lives in Santa Rosa and my intention, the next time I visit there, is to stop at the Russian River Brewing Company. They seem to make a lot of very good beers.
*I confess that I have not tasted either Pliny.