We watched the Nevada City Council meeting on NCTV last night, and you could hear a pin drop when the discussion about Measure L (the sales tax hike came up). The Council looked a bit befuddled. One person spoke out in favor of the tax — but he wasn’t even eligible to vote on the Measure.
This proposed tax is also an informal referendum on the Council (and the Grass Valley Council) and whether people trust them to spend the money wisely. Voters already are casting their ballots.
Nevada City’s finances are improving, we learned last night. In addition, residents just got stung with a big increase in water rates. Last, memories still linger from the scathing “Asleep at the Wheel” grand jury report from 2007-2008.
The biggest visible backers of Measure L are the Council members (some of whom have “Yes on L” signs in their yards).
In Grass Valley, the issue also is one of trust: Will the Council spend the money wisely? A Citizens Oversight committee will meet at least annually.
But Grass Valley still suffers from the perception of being run by an “old guard,” which is not very inclusive or tolerant of divergent views. This continually raises trust issues with citizens, just as it does in Nevada City (where the “old guard” is called “the machine”).
Though campaign literature for Proposition N talks about spending the money on public safety and road repair, here’s how the language reads: “Section 20. DECLARATION. The proceeds of the taxes imposed by this ordinance may be used for any lawful purpose of the City, as authorized by ordinance, resolution or action of the City Council. These taxes are not special taxes within the meaning of Article XIII C, section 1(d), but are general taxes imposed for general government purposes. “
The same is true for Nevada City: “Funds generated by this tax would not be restricted to a specific use . . . .”
I’m confident that a well-written special tax could pass in both cities (despite a 2/3 majority rather than simple majority threshold). Unlike the South County, where a fire tax measure barely lost, the voter demographics in Grass Valley and Nevada City are more diverse.
That has created a trust issue in and of itself: Why did the Councils go for the lower, majority threshold instead? Just to make it easier to win approval?
The irony is that many of the same groups that support the local sales-tax measures also have been vociferous critics of waste in federal and state government (and the Democrats).
If the Measures do pass, congratulations to the supporters for winning over the electorate. If they do not pass, there should be some serious reflection on multiple fronts.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I believe the keyword here is “befuddled”.
Dear Jeff,
Nevada City is not the same as your 8th paragraph implies. The Resolution passed last night. The Whereas number 6 States “should Measure L be approved by the voters, the Nevada City Council will hold a public meeting to discuss and prepare a specific list of priorities for unmet needs, keeping Measure L funds segregated and provide the community an annual report on all expenditures and planned expenditures over the 5 year life of the measure; ” , One may read the whole resolution on the Nevada City website.
Our City Attorney listen to concerns of the Community and developed the Resolution to take care of the concern.
My best,
Niel
Niel,
Of course the resolution passed. City Council members have signs in their yards supporting Measure L. The people you have to win over are the citizens, like me! This is a sales-tax measure where the money goes into the general fund, as opposed to one that is earmarked for specific projects. The law is very clear about this. I would have gladly supported the latter. I am lukewarm on the former.
On top of these measures we just got our State Fire Tax assessment. It may have a negative effect on voting in a tax increase, all on it’s own.
I, for one, wholeheartedly support the State Fire Tax assessment, because it is targeted at fire prevention. Having said, that I understand:
1. Its impact on supporting other taxes, not to mention the steep water rate hikes in Nevada City.
2. The objection that it is for statewide fire suppression, not necessarily our area. Having said that, I still think it’s OK.
Call me confused, stupid, whatever. I gladly voted for the $50 tax–I’m almost next to a firehouse & put in a pool for extra water–but didn’t understand the new bill, though it’s not $150,
I’m with you on the local assessment, I voted for it. And the State Fee, well my hopes are they do right by us and are good stewards of our fragile watershed. I’ll get back to you on that-
My point is, If my neighbor can be used as an example, “what did they (the fire department) do with the money they got?” “I’m not giving them another dime”. He then turned around and bought a foreclosed house, for another rental. I’m sure those properties will be the first ones he’ll want those same firemen to save-
Go Giants-
Two competing State sales tax measures on the Nov ballot, City sales tax measure L on ballot,implementation of “Transfer Tax” on real estate effective in 2013 of almost 4%, sky rocketing water rates, what else can Nevada City residents expect next besides inflation of nearly everything we consume.