Measure B may or may not
be the answer ,
depending on who and what you believe;
 |
This is a TAX.
| ||||
|
Who and How will the money be distributed? | ||||
|
Will Thousand Oaks get it's fair share of the money? | ||||
|
What projects will be allowed? | ||||
|
Will mitigation for Traffic Noise be provided? |
A ticket to fast growth
By Mark Burley
October 24, 2004
I hate the traffic congestion on the freeways and roads in Ventura County.
Measure B sounds like such a great solution, it seems almost petty to point out
that this measure, if passed, is a disaster that
will haunt us for years to come.
The pro-Measure B mailers don't even mention that you would be voting for a tax
and certainly don't mention that it will last for 30 years. What is going to
happen with the $1.5 billion that this sales tax will raise?
Measure B is designed to fix a number of serious congestion problems in Ventura
County. Currently, three projects have been delayed due to lack of state
funding. The widening of Highway 23 from Highway 101 to Highway 118, estimated
by Caltrans (July 2004) at $51 million; the widening of Highway 118 from Tapo
Canyon to the Los Angeles county line, estimated at $46 million; and the
widening of Lewis Road to California State University, Channel Islands, for $32
million.
The total cost of these projects is about $129 million or about 9 percent of the
money that Measure B will raise. Only 20 percent of the measure's funds will go
to improve public transportation. The remaining billion dollars will go to pave
over Ventura County.
This wonderful fast-growth idea was brought to you by the Ventura County
Transportation Commission. This governmental body was created by the state in
1988 with the purpose of coordinating traffic needs in the county. It controls
the use of federal, state and local funds for
transportation. Most people hadn't even heard of VCTC until earlier this year
when it started sending out postcards countywide, at taxpayer expense, to
promote the need for this sales tax.
The voters of Ventura County have no control over VCTC. We can't vote for who is
a member nor can we vote people off the commission. And this is the body that
wants you to give it more than a billion dollars to control the future of our
county. Big Brother wants to spend your money.
The relationship between growth and transportation infrastructure is a close
one. New development in Ventura County creates the need for new and improved
roads. Up to now, developers in Ventura County have had to pay fees whenever
they get a permit to build. That system has obviously failed.
Now, VCTC wants to shift the burden of paying for transportation needs to local
residents. Your sales tax dollars will be paying for the transportation problems
created by builders. If the fees charged to developers by the county and cities
are not enough to cover the needs, then they should be increased.
The other side of the coin is that planners will tell you that creating new
infrastructure leads to more building. It is growth-inducing. Put a four-lane
highway through the Las Posas Valley and you'll see development follow. Maybe
the Save Open-space and Agricultural Resources initiative will control the
density, but it won't stop it from happening.
Additionally,
S.O.A.R. expires in only 16 years, in 2020, but this massive tax will continue
until 2035. With more than a billion dollars to spend, you'll soon see the end
of rural Ventura County.
Californians have already voted to provide funding for transportation needs. In
2002, almost 70 percent of voters supported Proposition 42. That required
existing revenues from sales tax on the sale of Gasoline to be used for
transportation purposes, such as fixing the freeways. However, a provision in
the bill allows the governor to divert the revenue to the general fund by
declaring a fiscal emergency. This loophole continues to allow transportation
money to be diverted from this "dedicated" revenue stream.
Very little Proposition 42 money has ever gone to transportation. And with the
rising cost of gasoline, the motorist is paying an ever-increasing amount of
sales tax, but not seeing any money go to improve roads. Maybe we should get the
benefit of the tax we're already paying before we vote to give more money to
another government agency over which we have no control.
Vote
NO
on Measure B.
Mark Burley, of Camarillo, is a member of the Santa Rosa Valley Municipal
Advisory Council and co-chairman of Save Our Ring Of Green (SaveOurRingOfGreen.com)
and a member of the board of directors of Save The Conejo 2000
(conejo2000.org).
The following information was provided by Tom Ritch ( tritch@adelphia.net )
Skeptical of Measure B promotion
Examination of legal documents and tapes of
meetings allows voters to learn for themselves the truth.
All THOUSAND OAKS Council members except Fox recommended placing Measure A on
the ballot, and ADVOCATED VOTER SUPPORT FOR A. (www.ci.thousand-oaks.ca.us City
Hall/Agendas and Minutes/Minutes/City Council/July 27, 2004)
In strong contrast, Council discussed Measure B with comments such as “Thousand
Oaks is shortchanged,” “20% for public transit is not enough,” “Thousand Oaks is
unfairly subsidizing County and State projects,” “The 23, 118 and 101 need
widening but this bill is flawed.”
Measure B requires Thousand Oaks taxpayers to pay $13 million each year and
receive only $3 million for local uses, a net tax loss of $10 million per year
for thirty years. Loss of sales tax may explain Council’s lack of support for
the Transportation Tax. Council did recommend placing Measure B on the ballot;
not surprisingly COUNCIL DID NOT ADVOCATE SUPPORT FOR B. (www.ci.thousand-oaks.ca.us
City Hall/Agendas and Minutes/Minutes/City Council/May 25, 2004) Is
Thousand Oaks’ lack of support for B what you have been told?
What other funding is available for transportation? Gasoline taxes are
dedicated to transportation by Proposition 42, although in extreme years other
uses are allowed. Indian gaming pacts recently negotiated by Governor
Schwarzenegger provide $1.2 billion in additional revenue dedicated to
transportation “... commencing on January 1, 2005.” Schwarzenegger’s gaming
compacts become void if Propositions 68 or 70 pass. (www.governor.ca.gov Press
Room/Press Releases/June 2004/06/21/04 Governor Schwarzenegger Signs
ReNegotiated Gaming Compacts with Five Indian Tribes, www.no68and70.org) Is
resumption of state funding of transportation on January 1 2005 what you have
been told?
Existing taxes plus Indian gaming money will widen the 23 freeway in 2006, the
118 in 2007, improve the 101 in 2006 with more major improvements in 2009, plus
provide for other public transportation. The California Transportation
Commission web site lists funding allocation. (www.catc.ca.gov 2004 STIP
Recommendation- Counties and other links). Is WIDENING OF THE 23 IN 2006
WITHOUT MEASURE B what you have been told?
The VC Transportation Commission assures us we will get “all the state money due
us,” and “none of Measure B moneys can be diverted to other uses.” Will “the
state money due us” decrease if B funds our roads?
Or will B plus the Schwarzenegger plan provide twice as much road construction
as we need? A huge amount of local construction is mandated and not modifiable
under B, much more than “repairing potholes.” (www.bforvc.org) In my
neighborhood Gainsborough is in good condition and needs less traffic, yet B
marks it for expansion. Do you truly understand the development B will require
in your neighborhood, or the financial implications of Measure B?
State budget troubles will not last 30 years; Measure B will. After state
funding resumes Measure B will still tax you, a $1.5 billion pork barrel.
Building more roads is the path to more development and worse traffic
congestion. Measure B’s inflexibility hinders adoption of new approaches.
Julie Chase supports Measure B as chairwoman of the Ventura County Taxpayers
Association board. Ms. Chase also owns an asphalt company. (September 21,2004
League of Women Voters Forum on Measure B speaker biography. This source is
available but not online, sorry.) Will an asphalt company executive properly
guard taxpayer interests against excessive paving contracts? Is it ethical for
Ms. Chase to represent herself as a proponent of taxpayers’ interests without
fully divulging her conflict of interest?
Inadequate reporting of alternate transportation funding prospects and Thousand
Oaks non-support of B, plus conflict of interest in a major proponent of B, all
fit a pattern of faulty ethics. This pattern was established by the
questionable legality of VCTC promoting expansion of its bureaucracy through
“information” postcards, and the use of VCTC facilities to promote B by
bureaucrat Ginger Gherardi. Unethical promotion of taxes is not new in
politics, but is still disturbing when it occurs.
Automobile Club of Southern California president McKernan said “… By reinstating
Proposition 42, California can infuse cash into projects that are ready to be
built, thereby lowering construction costs since delays cost money. Only after
the state has made good on its current obligations to motorists can it be in a
credible position to ask for additional transportation funds. …”
Thousand Oaks City Council said “let the voters decide” if they want a thirty
year $1.5 billion sales tax which exports from Thousand Oaks $10 million per
year to build roads and city streets in other municipalities, construction now
funded by state gasoline taxes. For advocates of less taxes, less development,
and better ethics, the choice seems clear.
To insure existing gas taxes fund reasonable transportation, vote against all
three: Measure B, Proposition 68 and Proposition 70.
As we consider this transportation district, an analysis of
the numbers is revealing. This $50,000,000 per year for 30 years tax (called
"revenue generation" in the report) would extract $13,000,000 per year, 26% of
the total tax collected, from Thousand Oaks. Use of this tax
would be divided among State Highway Projects (40%), Regional Transit, Rail and
Pedestrian Projects (20%), and Local Transportation and Street
Projects (40%). The State Highway and Regional Transit projects which
consume 60% of this proposed tax were funded by existing taxes until
the budget collapse led the State to confiscate those moneys. By
financing state expenses, this Transportation
Sales Tax will enable
State officials to maintain their charade of not raising taxes. 15.7%
of the Local Transportation and Street Projects, or 6.3% of the total
collected (6.3% = 15.7% X 40%), would be returned to Thousand Oaks for
Local Transportation. Thus Thousand Oaks would
contribute 26% of the total tax collected, and receive 6.3% for local uses,
while 60% would go to general county-wide projects. In dollars, Thousand Oaks
would
pay $13,000,000 and receive $3,100,000, for a net loss of local taxes
dollars of $9,900,000 per year, or 19.7% (= 26% of tax collected
locally - 6.3% for local use). This inequity would continue for 30
years, even though hopefully the state finances to recover in a much
shorter time.
For comparison, many of you found the Open Space District fund distribution
formula unacceptable due to 4% less spent than taxes
collected in the east county. 39% (43% X 90%) of the tax would be collected in
the east county, but only 35% (39% X 90%) necessarily
spent in the east county, with 10% of the total to be spent anywhere as needed.
Because the OSD tax rate is half the Transportation District
rate, 4% of the OSD tax is equal in dollars to 2% of the Transportation
District tax. If this small difference led you to reject the OSD, will
you now reject the proposed Transportation Tax District due to the
much greater difference in local tax collected versus expenditures?
Here are the subsequent actions of Council on these Measures:
On May 25 Council considered the Transportation Tax initiative. Council members
all raised objections. Bill-de la Peña stressed that
20% was too little for public transit. Wilson said by contributing $5 million
and getting back only $3 million, Thousand Oaks is
shortchanged. Fox seemed confused as to how the formula for collection of taxes
had been determined, even though it is to be a straight sales
tax. Staff recommended placing the measure on the November ballot
without taking a position. Other possible options were taking a
position in favor of Measure B, taking a position in opposition to
Measure B, and not approving placing the measure on the November
ballot. Council voted 3 - 1 to approve placing the measure on the November
ballot, without taking a position in favor of or opposed to
the issue. Councilwoman Bill-de la Peña cast the dissenting vote,
noting that the highways should be built but Measure B was too flawed
to support. (Gillette was absent from this meeting.)
On July 27 Council considered the Open Space District proposal, Measure
A. Staff reported that Thousand Oaks would
provide $6.7 million and the east county (Thousand
Oaks, Moorpark and Simi Valley) would receive $10
million annually. Wilson noted that a recent LA Times story
detailed 17 new housing developments in Ventura County but none in
Thousand Oaks. Wilson continued Measure A does not reflect dollar-in,
dollar-out, but something has to be done to help the parts of the
county which do not have the economic base Thousand Oaks has. Wilson
said we should let the people decide. Gillette noted the City opinion survey
gave preservation of open space highest priority. Further
Gillette said the language had been clarified so east county money
would stay in the east county, and that it would be administered by an
Open Space Committee, not the County Board of Supervisors. Fox said he could
not support the OSD because the City survey does not say spend
money for open space in places other than Thousand Oaks, and that it
would be completely controlled by the Board of
Supervisors who he did not trust. Bill-de la Peña
said values of parcels included in the recent update of the COSCA inventory of
land to be purchased summed to $40-50 million, showing
the immediately local need for the funds which would be provided by Measure A.
She noted the Mount Clef wildlife
corridor would be an immediate beneficiary of Measure A. Options
available were to support, oppose or remain neutral on the measure.
Masry stated that because the need to purchase land to preserve open space was
clear he was reversing his earlier neutral position. Masry
moved for Council to take a position in favor of Measure A. The motion
to support Measure A passed 4 - 0, with Fox present but not voting.
Summarizing,
1. Thousand Oaks City Council urges residents to vote in favor of
Measure A to create a Ventura County Open Space
District.
2. Thousand Oaks City Council takes no position supporting nor
opposing Measure B, but urges voters to form their own opinions on this
issue.