No on K and L regressive tax measures
I recently received a 11x17 color glossy mailer urging me to vote Yes on L (K is a sister measure on the ballot that would raise sales tax in the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County). The mailer reads; YES ON L: REAL SOLUTIONS FOR HOMELESSNESS. Finally!
Tell me more. The mailer explains that with the help of onetime state and federal funding (more than $14 million) some real progress has been made. As evidence it states 74 people found long-term stable housing; 724 tons of trash were removed from public spaces and 725 emergency beds were provided during severe weather events, but the funding for these accomplishments is running out. There was more including 185 tent spaces but still it seems like more could have been done with $14 million.
Suspecting Measure L must have higher objectives I went online to learn more and yes, indeed there is more. When I asked what Measure L would do, I found it will “Protect and maintain essential services including homelessness response/prevention, emergency shelters, case management/ connection to services; cleaning up/addressing the impacts of encampments; keeping pollution out of local rivers, creeks, and streams; supporting local food programs; preparing for wildfires; maintaining/repairing streets/potholes; and improving/maintaining neighborhood parks, beaches, and public safety shall the City of Santa Cruz enact a one-half of one percent sales tax.”
Just as I was beginning to think OK, this is worth voting for, I began to have what might be described as a deja vu. In 2018 Santa Cruz County voters passed Measure G to increase the sales tax by onehalf cent for 12 years. The ballot measure explained that proceeds from the additional tax revenue could continue funding 911 emergency response, paramedic, street repairs, mental health services, homelessness programs, parks and more. All funds collected by this tax were to be subject to annual audit and independent citizen oversight.
After passage of Measure G, members of the public expressed concern that Santa Cruz County government was not honoring provisions contained in the measure. The 2021-2022 Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury investigated the accusation and concluded the ballot language was misleading, Measure G did not address the ballot spending priorities and county staff had no intention of providing accountability for the provisions of Measure G. The Grand Jury further found that county staff contracted with a consulting firm that specializes in crafting ballot language to help assure passage. The Grand Jury report found ballot questions commonly begin with a list of important government services that the tax could fund, but general revenue taxes need not be spent on any stated purposes while special purpose taxes that typically have a higher approval threshold must be spent on specific purposes.
Measure L (and K) will raise funds that can be used for any legal purpose. City Attorney Anthony Condotti stated, “Measure L would authorize a 0.5 percent transactions and use tax, which would increase the total sales tax rate to 9.75 percent. If approved, this additional increment would go exclusively to the city's general fund and be available to support the full range of local municipal services.” Presumably this could include anything from staff compensation to a parking structure.
Only seven of California's 52 countries have a higher sales tax rate than the current rate in Santa Cruz. Perhaps Santa Cruz's difficulty in providing for the public good is an issue more of spending than revenue. Is the number of city/county employees as a percentage of residents in line with other state counties? How about salaries and pension? Surely the tax revenue resulting from the unprecedented building boom taking place in the city must be making a significant contribution to the city's coffers .
Vote No on this highly regressive tax. Vote No on K and L.