Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
REGION: 'Quality of life' tax advances
Bill would authorize sales tax ballot measure
By DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer | ∞
A "quality of life" measure that would boost the sales tax you pay at the mall is a step closer to reality after a vote Wednesday in Sacramento.
The Assembly Local Government Committee voted 6-0 to pass a bill by Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, that would set the stage for a potential hike of a half-cent on the dollar in 2010 to pay for billions of dollars worth of environmental endeavors.
Such projects could beef up North County's thinning shoreline, clean up area rivers and bays, purchase open space and fund trains and buses.
If it were to pass, the measure would boost the 7.75 percent existing sales tax in much of North County. The exception is Vista, where shoppers pay 8.25 cents on the dollar.
The legislation, Senate Bill 1685, would open a way for a regional planning agency, the San Diego Association of Governments, to place the measure on the ballot. It cleared the Senate on a 23-15 vote April 28. Now it is headed for the Assembly floor where passage is considered likely.
Under current California law, the association has authority to seek voter approval for a sales tax of up to 1 percent, but can use those funds only for transportation. The Legislature has to authorize spending for other purposes, such as the environment.
A sales tax measure is not a foregone conclusion, however, said Gary Gallegos, executive director for the San Diego Association of Governments. The association's board is considering other potential sources of revenue, such as hotel taxes, car rental fees and real estate transfer fees.
But the sales tax is one of the more lucrative tools for financing local public works projects and is at the top of the list of options.
"In today's dollars, a half-cent generates about $240 million a year," Gallegos said in a telephone interview from Sacramento following the committee's hearing.
Gallegos said the board is expected to appoint a panel in July to begin crafting an environmental measure, selecting projects to be funded and recommending a funding source. With a target election date of November 2010, the committee would have a little less than two years to map out a strategy.
The idea of a "quality of life" measure was broached in the months leading up to the 2004 TransNet extension measure, which funds freeway and transit construction projects through a half-cent sales tax.
At the time, local politicians were worried about the difficulty of passing the measure given the high bar required to clear for passage ---- 66.7 percent approval. And they figured any organized opposition from well-funded groups would derail the campaign.
Consequently, board members invited conservationists to hop aboard by offering to come back a few years later with a similar measure for environmental projects.
But San Diego County Taxpayers Association Executive Director Lani Lutar noted the specific promise called for exploring funding for habitat preservation. Nothing was stated explicitly about the other components being considered for the emerging measure, she said, and for that reason the taxpayers group opposes Kehoe's bill.
"We don't agree with the addition of beach sand replenishment, water quality and funding for transit operations," Lutar said.
If the association wants to expand the purpose, she said, it should ask for the public's help in determining precisely what should constitute a "quality of life" measure.
"Someone might argue that if you are talking about quality of life, fire protection should be at the top of the list," Lutar said.
Conservationists support the additions.
"We have to do something about beach closures," said Eric Bowlby, spokesman for the Sierra Club's San Diego County chapter. "Healthy water is important for our economy. We don't want the world to think that San Diego has polluted coastal waters."
Bowlby didn't take part in the 2004 negotiations. But Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League in Los Angeles, did.
Silver said habitat, water, the shoreline and transit all are wise investments.
"What this would do is allow San Diegans to invest in their future in a very broad way," Silver said. "TransNet, you might say, was part one. And now we need to do phase two."
Steve Aceti, executive director of the Encinitas-based California Coastal Coalition, which represents 35 cities and five counties, said, "Something like this is going to be crucial because the Army Corps of Engineers is not turning out to be a reliable partner in beach restoration. And who knows when the state will get its budget in order."
Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
No More Taxes wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:23 PM:Something is wrong with this picture. More sales taxes on everybody so the coastal cities can have sandy beaches. More sales taxes for transit governments that plunder what they are given already, and more sales taxes to buy open space land when most people are having a hard enough time buying gasoline and buying food for their family. The assembly Local Government committe (whatever that is) just think that there is no bottom to the taxpayers pockets.
No more taxes wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:43 PM:I'll be moved out of this over taxed state by then, as well as many other tax paying people and business.
What we should do , is drill OIL off the coast of California, take that revenue to eliminate state income tax.
If the indians Casinos can take care of their people through gambling, then the state should lower everything and use oil money for schools, social services and roads.
Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:19 PM:Whenever we have a sales tax increase with the greatest of intentions, the money get siphoned off for other purposes. Then we have a bond issue that is supposed to fund the items that the sales tax was supposed to fund and that gets siphoned into the general fund also. When will the people wise up and realize that the politicians just want all of our money so that they could redistribute it to their pet projects, all in the guise of the "public interest". I vote against all tax increases and bond issues. Let the politicians work with the money that they already have.
Ron wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:20 PM:Whenever we have a sales tax increase with the greatest of intentions, the money get siphoned off for other purposes. Then we have a bond issue that is supposed to fund the items that the sales tax was supposed to fund and that gets siphoned into the general fund also. When will the people wise up and realize that the politicians just want all of our money so that they could redistribute it to their pet projects, all in the guise of the "public interest". I vote against all tax increases and bond issues. Let the politicians work with the money that they already have.
Morons wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:27 AM:Our leaders in Sacremento can't spend manage the money that is already siphoned out of our wallets and purses, so now we are going to give them even more? I also find it ironic that the conservationists support this increase since it probably wouldn't be needed if they didn't file lawsuit after lawsuit to stop building projects that could add to the revenue in this state. Why don't all of the "tree huggers" contribute their dollars to this cause and leave the rest of us alone?
Tuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:33 AM:While I hate any increase in any tax, this is the one I would prefer. In fact, I would like to see them raise the sales tax to 25% and due away with the income tax. That way, all people living in the state pay their way, not just those working on the books. As an added bonus, a higher sales tax will encourage people to save.
Walt wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:26 AM:Most would perfer funds of this magnitude going to new concepts for more mobility and congestion relief, #1 on the public list. That would facilitate a more innovative prosperous community and real quality of life improvement.
To Tuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:45 AM:Not only would it encourage people to save it would give them less to save when the businesses they work for have to close due to lack of business. Great idea.
Billy wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:16 AM:Wouldn't you know it? Just when everything is about to settle down in our world some hey whole comes along and wants to increase taxes by #15.00 bucks a month for the average family. Not only that, but it seems that the NCT thinks it is a good idea - that is to say that I, living all the way inland by 15 miles or more will pay for putting more sand on the beaches over on the coast, which didn't have any in the first place. Them beaches have been that way as long as I have been here, and I am older than the sand - that ain't there. Let the business along the beaches that will profit from it pay for the sand.
OK - next problem!
Better vote for this wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:43 AM:this is the Environuts dream. The problem is folks we have approved bond after bond for these same things. Clean water acts, clean rivers acts etc etc and they still want more. High gas, poor econemy etc and what does a Democrat come up with? Hit the folks harder for money they don't have. Any wonder this state is so screwed up.
Tuck wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:01 AM:As a nation, we have a negative savings rate and we are addicted to credit. For sure, there will be a few closed shops, but it will be benefit the great good. Also, keep in mind, no income taxes equals more disposable income. Thanks for listening and God bless!
George wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:21 AM:Don't forget -- SANDAG is planning a public opinion survey to determine if we would be willing to pay this tax ("At Odds With Agency's Priorities", NCT March 8). We'll get a chance to tell them "no" before they put the measure on the ballot. Be ready for some carefully-crafted questions such as "Should government money be used to improve your quality of life?" that makes it possible for them to interpret your answer as support for a tax increase.
Escondeeter wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:39 AM:This is probably the least representative possible way to impose a tax. The public would be required to pay for a program imposed by an agency with a majority of members they didn't elect. If sales taxes are to be increased, the proceeds should go directly to local government to spend in the way the local population wishes them to be spent, not into the hands of a group of people who wish to impose their self-proclaimed 'superior vision' on all of us. SANDAG is doing enough of that already by grabbing local taxes, then doling them out to communities who bend to their will.
sue wrote on Jun 19, 2008 1:26 PM:The tourism economy of San Diego depends on our natural resources. Wide sandy beaches, clean rivers and bays and money for natural habitat helps all in the County.
Levels of Taxes are inversely proportional to quality of life wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:52 PM:Don't take my word for it, see the recent research by generally considered "Liberal" researchers @ USC, published in the BC Law review.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/docs/95327542005griffith_on_progressivity__happiness__2005_.pdf
I love the mastery of newspeak demonstrated by the socialists that call themselves Democrats. What's next? "Freedom regulations"?
Lest anyone forget, we authorized a sales tax increase to Sandag to improve transit. What did we get? The sprinter, reduced bus routes, and more congestion.
NO NEW TAXES. FIRE THE WASTERS!
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (9869)
- TEMECULA: Protesters line intersection (6024)
- ESCONDIDO: 3 DUI arrests, 46 impounds at checkpoint (4858)
- ESCONDIDO: City's dreams of an 'upscale' downtown may be dying (4565)
- ESCONDIDO: Victim's roommate recalls July 4 shooting, friends gather for vigil (4343)
Advertisement