City still unsure about 2014 ballot measure
Original post made on Oct 29, 2013
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, October 29, 2013, 12:32 AM
on Oct 29, 2013 at 6:55 am
There is so much wrong in this process and in the way many of council members are thinking about this problem.
First, Scharff has stacked many of the committees, not just the infrastructure committee, with himself, Klein & Shepard, leaving out any diversity in viewpoints. The committee crafts what proposal gets put before the council to vote on.
Second, the committee only considered taxation, and never considered funding using existing revenue. At this same council meeting, they heard a proposal for putting in wifi hotspots around town (if implemented, would cost $3 million to build out), and spent $300,000 to remodel the 6th & 7th floors of city hall (this on top of the million or so already spent on remodeling other parts of city hall).
Third, Mello Roos taxes not on the basis of assessed value, but whatever the council determines to be the formula (ie. it's not limited to prop-13 values). So let's say the council determines to tax on the basis of current market value; Let's say I bought my house in 2009 for $1.2 million. In 2013 that same house because of the crazy market if now worth $1.7 million, the council could tax my house on the $1.7 million of value. This type of taxation authority affects property value, and it's specifically a disclosure item when selling your house.
Over the past 10 years, the CPI has gone up 23% while the city general fund budget has gone up 41%. Over the past 15 years that the city government has been talking about the police building, if they had taken the 1/2 of the excess growth over the CPI, they could have paid for the police building.
And just remember, Mitchell Park Library, which was suppose to open many, many months ago, still isn't done; so the track record isn't good on getting these type of major projects done.
on Oct 29, 2013 at 8:32 am
I will not support or vote for any new funding for infrastructure until the Council and Staff demonstrate that they are not giving away the city to developers and special interests (i.e. Stanford and affordable housing groups). They view the residents as revenue generating opportunities rather than the voters they are to represent.
No on all new schemes to part us from our money until Council and Staff demonstrate that they are competent and trustworthy.
on Oct 29, 2013 at 12:09 pm
In the Mercury News 10/29/13 Gail Price defended her Yes vote of Measure D indicating that there is an inequality in the city regarding housing. The reverse is true - there is extensive new building on El Camino for apartments/ new houses end to end, including the Stanford new housing, new housing on East Meadow Circle, new housing behind Miki's market. New housing on Alma moving towards the University corridor, and additional housing projects planned for the California corridor. There is more I have not listed. All multi-resident projects. There is a large tax base improvement for this wealth of new housing. I do not see where this is tallied up and reported. We have exceeded the ABAG requirements already - the planning department should publish the amount of new housing by year.
We have started projects which are still not completed - the Mitchell Park Center, Main library on Newell, we need to publish the current cost and project cost for completion of these infrastructure projects. Finish what is on the table now, finish it well, tally up the cost before thinking up new ways to spend money. The current in-process projects will require much funding to complete..