No on SC Measure A: Unnecessary, fiscally unsound

Measure A is the only matter to be voted on for the Nov. 2, 2021 election.

If passed by a majority vote, it raises the existing percentage allocation of the Cannabis Business Tax to support youth and early childhood development programs and services by 60% from the existing 12.5% level established by a Santa Cruz City Council action in 2017 to a Charter Approved Amendment of 20%.

Because this would be an Amendment to the City Charter, this new 20% level would effectively be permanent and could only be altered in the future if desired for one reason or another (demographic change resulting in fewer youth in our community, other more pressing needs and/or higher priorities emerging over time, etc.) by a subsequent majority vote of the electorate in a future election.

It’s worth noting that the voter pamphlet itself included no detailed information pertaining to this issue relative to performance or program specifics over the past five years, the number of youth helped, evidence of performance success or the like, and, unfortunately as a matter of relevant public information, it failed to include the estimated public cost of holding such a single-issue election itself.

Now here are some things to consider before casting your vote:

First, while support for our youth is of unquestionable general value, it’s important to recognize that priorities and critical needs of a community inevitably change over time and that passage of Measure A locks in this portion of general fund monies permanently ... that is unless there’s an initiation and an assumption of associated costs undertaken at some point in the future that results in a successful vote to do so through the passage of another City Charter Amendment in another election. So under most any circumstance, handling budget adjustments in this way is decidedly not a smart or flexible way to manage City finances now or at any time.

Second, I’ve heard varied estimated costs for this special election as being in the $130,000 to $180,000 range. Whatever the final number turns out to be, one thing is absolutely clear, the City Council decision to hold this kind of single issue election was an expensive one and easily equal to more than 50% of the City’s existing annual current expenditure level for these youth and early developmental programs and services.

Or for another perspective, think of it this way: Even at the midpoint of these estimates, the expense spent here on this election represents an amount greater than the increased monetary allocation that will be made to these programs in the first year of Measure A’s implementation.

... handling budget adjustments in this way is decidedly not a smart or flexible way to manage City finances now or at any time.

... the City Council decision to hold this kind of single issue election was an expensive one and easily equal to more than 50% of the City’s existing annual current expenditure level for these youth and early developmental programs and services.

Third, what makes the City Council’s decision to proceed with this one issue election particularly disturbing and egregious is the simple fact that it was absolutely and completely unnecessary. All the City Council had to do was simply conclude at one of their regular council meetings that the youth programs and services were of such merit, need and importance that an adjustment to the current approved percentage allocation was warranted. And it would have been done as it had previously been done once before! All it required was council action and the change would have been made. No added expense would have been incurred and future City Councils wouldn’t have found their financial decision-making flexibility diminished. A definite win-win!

Considering these factors, it’s hard not to conclude that approval of Measure A would be fiscally shortsighted at best and an endorsement of a governmental judgment and policy-making process woefully short of good common sense. Because it’s an unnecessary waste of tax-payer money and lacking in good governmental judgment, it richly earns and certainly deserves your “no” vote.