Up until this week there has been no sign of organized opposition to Measure G, the $198 per year parcel tax. But yesterday evening Mary McDonald sent out a press release hoping to change that. But on Tuesday, the election is three weeks away.
Is it too late to change it? We will have to see. To date, though, there has been almost no organic opposition to the measure – few letters, little activity. As we have previously noted, in 2011, the parcel tax measure that came closest to not passing, Measure A, had tremendous controversy and pushback for weeks prior to the election.
This year there is a whole lot of nothing.
But on top of the late entry for the opposition, the worse news for the opposition is their argument is not only late, but probably not all that compelling.
Moreover, it’s factually wrong.
Mary McDonald, who sent out the press release, appears to agree that “our excellent teachers deserve higher salaries.” The problem is that she does not appear to understand school finances and how they work. That is going to make it even more difficult to gain traction here.
She says that “the good news is that funds for this purpose are already available! The generous parcel tax (Measure H) of $620/year, with annual increases, we voted for in 2016 does not expire until 
2024 and the school bond (Measure M) we voted for in 2018 lasts for 30 years.”
This is a faulty argument.
First of all, the school bond funds facilities, not instructional money. Many want to argue that we should spend money that is going for facilities and move it over to cover teacher salaries. It might sound reasonable. But just as you can’t sell or rent a property and use it for instructional money, you can’t move facility money to instructional money.
The problem is that state law does not agree that money is money. Money that is designated for facilities cannot by law be used in the classroom.
Thus you cannot by law use the money from Measure M for teacher salaries. That’s school financing 101. So that money is not available at all for raising teacher salaries. Ms. McDonald just made a huge mistake.
Parcel tax money is more complicated. Parcel tax money is nominally general fund money. It can be used for instructional money. But the trick there is that the money designated by the parcel tax has specific purposes and cannot moved around.
There is a work around, however – you can pass a new parcel tax at the same rate and put it to teacher salaries rather than the current uses.
But you end up with the same problem we have now. We can certainly take existing money in the district and give it to teacher salaries – however, that will require other cuts to offset it.
The problem is that you end up pitting teacher salaries against popular programs like counselors, music, art, librarians, math and science and, of course, the seventh period day.
And that is the main point missing from her counter-argument. She does not seem to recognize that, yes, the school district can raise salaries, but it has to come from programs. Nowhere in this does she mention programs.
If you go all the way back to 2008, the reason why we passed a second parcel tax in the first place was that when the schools needed cuts, the community did not want to see key programs cut or schools closed. The alternative was another parcel tax and that parcel tax passed overwhelmingly with more than 70 percent of the vote.
The community spoke. The question now is whether the community will continue to speak out in favor of programs and salaries.
In addition to not understanding basic school finances, Ms. McDonald appears to make a tactical error. She’s making an anti-tax argument on a school tax measure in the heart of blue country.
People keep wanting to raise the specter that we have too many taxes. In the abstract, we seem to be getting close to the line, as about 30 percent of respondents seem to agree with them. But when push comes to shove – are they going to vote to deny teachers a salary increase or force the district to cut programs?
That’s questionable.
The rest of the argument is a basic anti-tax argument. Measure G is unfair. She’s right, it is unfair. The state law is unfair. That’s because of Prop. 13. Nowhere of course does she mention Prop. 13, which she undoubtedly supports. Parcel taxes are in fact regressive, but they are the only permissible way to raise school funding.
Here are her arguments: “Measure G parcel taxes are regressive,” “Measure G raises taxes on thousands of acres of farmland,” “Measure G exempts school district employees,” “Measure G exempts even part time district employees who will do not have to pay these parcel taxes, “Measure G taxes cannot be deducted on your income tax return,” “Measure G never expires; It increases taxes yearly for generation upon generation of Davis homeowners.”
Measure G is regressive – as we have pointed out, a parcel tax is what the district can legally use to raise instructional money. So we are basically arguing that we don’t like the color of the sky.
The farmland argument is a new one. Not sure how much that resonates with the public. In reality, it doesn’t raise taxes on acres of farmland, it raises taxes on each parcel – however, that farmland within the district is divided.
Two of her points object to the exemptions that were put into place. The district saw this as a way to give a slight increase in salary to district employees.
I do want to address the issue of Measure G never expiring. It is true there is no sunset date for the tax measure. That means in six or eight years the district won’t have to come back with a new parcel tax to be approved by the voters. That means, to end it, someone would need to put it on the ballot and pass a vote to repeal it.
It is a bit misleading to say, however, that it increases taxes yearly. It has an inflator to keep up with inflation, but otherwise the value of the parcel tax would decline over time. In constant dollars that is not an increase.
Basically she is making the standard anti-tax argument in liberal Davis. Might it work this time? I doubt it. Certainly not in three weeks. Certainly not without a lot more resources than they appear to have.
It doesn’t take a lot to defeat parcel taxes, but I don’t think this is going to do it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It will be interesting to see how the Cannery votes. As the newest subdivision, with its market rate tax base and the CFD’s larded on by the last city council, the question of over taxation there will be tested for the first time on this ballot.
Also, since this is a new kind of school parcel tax, it remains to be seen if the voters will get on board. Its worrisome. I have heard rumblings of discontent from people who I would have thought would be on board.
I think the case that needs to be made, front and center, and that I don’t think has been emphasized enough, is that this new tax is the result of a new funding formula that has underfunded Davis relative to other districts and made our teacher compensation non-competitive relative to those other districts.
That’s what I’m wondering about, as well. Does anyone know the total amount of CFDs that they pay per parcel, now? And, how it varies and is structured among the various types/sizes of properties?
Never mind, unless someone has more updated-information than this:
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/council-finalizes-community-facilities-district-for-the-cannery/
Yet, given the overall costs of acquiring the property, other taxes, $198 is de minimus… a thinking person would realize that…have no clue how many homeowners/voters @ the Cannery “think”.
But that brings up a point that I’ve made before, and applies (likely) to folk who bought property @ Cannery… and some can claim exemptions… if they have that kind of money to buy there, and with the income and property taxes, they may well exceed the SALT caps for deductions (courtesy of the Repubicons)… so, we’re considering taking our exemption from the parcel tax (and the DJUSD CFD#1), and “gifting” the same amount to DJUSD, IF such a gift can be recognized as a ‘charitable contribution’, which doesn’t have limits, yet. Otherwise will take that amount and add to our charitable giving elsewhere.
No one has responded as to whether such a gift would be recognized as a charitable deduction by State or IRS. Although I’ve posited that question at least twice (now, at least 3 times)… “crickets”…
It’s not about the $$$ per se, but we are disturbed, big time, about the exemptions, which are not “means based”. Exempting DJUSD employees, @ ~ $16/mo., seems like a craven attempt to garner more votes… that ‘stinks’ (to me)… just like the other exemptions that are not ‘needs based’…
Some (know of at least one poster) GB… who seems to believe, “my schools, right or wrong”… the proper [amended] quote (to me) to keep in mind is:
“My schools, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
I support the latter quote… some prefer the former… to them, after all, “it’s for the kids!”… or if a DJUSD employee, seeking add’l (rightfully) compensation, it’s all about me, and I’ll use “the kids” as a foil. Or shield.
Several years when I saw little/no increase in compensation… did not change the expectations I felt as to my work performance. It is a job, it is a ‘calling’. The $$$ was important… the ‘calling’, more so.
There are many DJUSD employees ‘just putting in their time’ (not concerned about their possible impact on student growth)[they should depart, make room for those ‘dedicated’]; there are many putting all their efforts [they should be rewarded, or at bare minimum, made whole as to medical coverage and salaries]… this measure is going to float all employees boats… it is what it it is… union things, state law things…but, David was wrong as to it “directly” affecting Senior Admin @ DJUSD… if you believe the measure, as written… it start by saying, “in no event…”. But perhaps David knows how there is a planned “work-around”.
Am leaning, more and more, to a “no” vote, based on the “pro” arguments on this site…
Bill,
Assuming you are talking about me with this as you just called my initials out directly,
If you refuse to answer a legitimate question about your concerns, that is on you. If you cannot back up your rhetoric with facts and specifics, that is on you. If you then choose to attack the questioner instead of responding to the topic, working to undermine their credibility in multiple posts, that again, only reflects poorly on you.
I don’t understand what you are doing other than to maybe troll me, but you aren’t helping your case, or reputation here. Please refrain from further misrepresentations about me.
Thank you.
Greg
It’s about time that someone said this.
Jeff Hudson of the Davis Enterprise in a recent article notes that a similar kind of measure, Measure P, was passed in 2007 to support the Davis public library.
I actually have no problem with that concept (no expiration)… the concept of “inflation adjusted” is a tad troubling… in the 70’s that was double digits. Lived thru that…
Our primary income is SS and pension. The pension (main income)rises at the lesser of inflation or 2%…
On that, I’m cool on ‘rolling the dice’ … not big $$$ at this point.
There are no ‘caps’ as to adjustments to the current measure rates… but none on the “pro” side even come close to admitting that… if they had an annual %-age cap, would go to leading me to vote “yes”… but, it doesn’t have a ‘cap’. Guess DJUSD employees want to be ‘more equal than others’… which is a very logical response.
Contrast to City employees… in 1979 the city’s official goal was to be in the upper quartile as to other comparable agencies… then, went to median… now, no comparisons are used. No “guarantees” as to matching inflation as to compensation… nada.
The cap is determined by the CPI — Consumer Price Index — in that given year. Not sure if that was your question or not.
So, if CPI (and that varies by region, etc.) goes up 10% [in a given year], so does the levy?[year following]
I’ve experienced double digit CPI/inflation in the past ’70’s early ’80’s)… our primary income is ‘inflated’ by lesser of CPI/inflation or 2%. So, if inflation goes up double digits, we’ll just need to ‘suck it up’…
The choice is up to the school board trustees. They have the option, annually, to raise the added inflation factor up to what is determined by the CPI, less than that, or not at all. There was a year or two when the school board did not raise the inflation factor at all. In recent years they have.
Hiram…
You said an half-truth, half-untruth… read the ballot measure.
The measure says “it shall be adjusted annually… to the CPI for all urban customers, CA”. Shall is mandatory. Default.
In same paragraph, of the measure there is a provision that the Board “may” [permissive, and discretionary] forgo the full CPI… but the “default” remains… guess what is is likely… the mandatory/default, or the discretionary.
Words are everything… putting SHALL and MAY in the same paragraph is bad form, and misleading…
Goes to my assertion that both sides are putting out half-truths/distortions. You are correct that they will have “the option” to go for less, but the full truth is it will be “the max”, unless they exercise “the option”. Which I believe [opinion] is unlikely… too easy to accept the default, and point to the “shall” language, which goes to why shall and may should not be in the same thought… contradictory… hope a competent, educated person did not craft that language.
Bill: I watched (streaming video) a school board agenda item in May/June a couple of years ago, and that was what I remembered and interpreted from what I saw. Several years years ago I also remember the school board foregoing any increase although they had the option to increase. I’m sorry if you think I’m deceiving you; not my intent. If you want that level of detail, I suggest contacting a school board trustee.
Hiram… was just going by the language in the measure… GB has challenged me to justify my assertion that neither side is ‘innocent’ as to half-truths/distortions… saw your post shortly thereafter… call it ‘collateral damage’ in my response… apologies…
You have been pretty straight-forward as to facts, and I truly do appreciate it…