I am writing in support of two important ballot measures in Palo Alto.
The first one, Measure K, will provide almost $10 million annually to the Palo Alto budget to fund critical efforts in the community.
I understand the concerns some have about imposing a tax on businesses, especially as we are trying to recover from the pandemic. City leaders, however, have crafted this measure through detailed negotiations with the needs of both residents and the business community.
I applaud Mayor Pat Burt and the rest of the council for their efforts to reach this consensus. By including exemptions for businesses under 10,000 square feet and an annual cap of $500,000, Measure K protects small businesses while encouraging our largest employers to continue to grow within the community.
Palo Alto is the only major Bay Area city that has not implemented some form of business tax — in San Francisco, approximately 15% of its budget (nearly $1 billion) is funded through its business taxes. The funds raised through Measure K will be put toward affordable housing, train crossings and rail safety, and public safety efforts.
Measure K funds have been targeted for a variety of transportation and mobility programs. As Caltrain increases service in the coming years, track crossings will become increasingly time-consuming without re-aligning our local streets. Palo Alto is already working on grade separations at four existing rail crossings. These projects will improve traffic flow and improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Measure K also will help address homelessness and the shortage of affordable housing in our community. Building affordable housing in the Bay Area is difficult and expensive. The high cost of land throughout our region limits the opportunities for housing for low- and moderate-income households and the loss of redevelopment agencies a decade ago took away cities' best option for financing these types of projects.
As a result, cities now have to explore different options for producing needed affordable housing. Measure K is a critical component of our work toward this goal. Creating more affordable housing reduces traffic congestion and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Measure L is an important component of our climate goals that will help reduce our reliance on natural gas (which many now call "fossil gas").
Measure L will help us accomplish this goal, along with funding critical city operations like emergency services and street maintenance. For 70 years, Palo Alto has transferred funds from its utility to the general fund for day-to-day operations. A recent change in state law requires a vote to continue the practice. For 70 years, your representatives have used these monies responsibly; they should be allowed to continue doing so.
Palo Alto has earned a well-deserved reputation as a great community to live, work and raise a family. It is home to some of the world's most brilliant and creative minds developed by world-class educational systems. And we are strengthened by the diversity of our residents.
But to preserve that high quality of life and sense of community, we need to invest in its future. We need to provide housing for teachers so our schools remain among the best in the state. We need to improve transportation to, from and around our city so our streets remain safe and our businesses can thrive. And we need to continue efforts in Palo Alto to address the effects of climate change on our community.
Together, Measure K and Measure L will ensure that Palo Alto continues to be the city we love. It is important that both of these measures pass this November.
I strongly encourage a "yes" vote on Measures K and L.
Comments
Registered user
Downtown North
on Oct 14, 2022 at 9:34 am
Registered user
on Oct 14, 2022 at 9:34 am
Sen. Becker's arguments in support of Measure L are disingenuous at best and hurt his case to support the measure. He says that passing Measure L will support our climate goals, but he doesn't explain how it does because it does nothing of the sort. All this measure does is allow the city to divert revenue for natural gas sales to the city general fund. It says nothing about reducing natural gas use in the city. There are other initiatives and programs in the city for that which we can debate the merits of each.
He also notes that the city has been doing that for 70 years, but now due to state law the voters must approve. That is not what the City Attorney says in her analysis of the measure. The reason this is on the ballot is because the city lost a lawsuit against this practice and has to refund customers for years of this transfer. It might be the right thing to transfer the money to the general fund as has always been the practice. The city attorney's analysis on the ballot says that a no vote would remove approximately $7 Million from the General Fund. If you think it is the right thing, make that argument and not the falsehoods written in this Op-Ed.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 14, 2022 at 12:42 pm
Registered user
on Oct 14, 2022 at 12:42 pm
Only specific tax measures come with the guarantee that revenue will be spent as promised. There are many demands on the General Fund and no predicting which ones will percolate to the top each year and be funded.
I am also voting no on this measure. I don't like being asked to make legal a practice that the courts have determined to be illegal. I hope Mr. Jackson's idea gains traction so that it is at least studied.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 14, 2022 at 2:17 pm
Registered user
on Oct 14, 2022 at 2:17 pm
I am also voting no. I resent the city's original law suit contenting Miriam Green's claims and then suing to set aside the court-ordered settlement and THEN paying an outside law firm to APPEAL the settlement and THEN stalling paying out the refunds for ANOTHER three years unless those owed their money are 65 years old and/or in ill health.
They've dragged this out since 2016 meaning it will be almost a decade before people get their checks. Without interest.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Oct 15, 2022 at 3:37 am
Registered user
on Oct 15, 2022 at 3:37 am
I cannot agree that Measure L promotes sustainability. If the City relies on revenue created from gas use, will it pursue measures that will reduce gas use, as it promised? When gas use declines, as it must, won't the city lose revenue? Knowing that budget cuts will follow, will the City pursue measures that reduce gas use, as it promised?
IMHO it is rarely wise for rewards (revenues generated from gas use) to conflict with goals (electrification and the transition to renewable energy sources). As such, this tax strikes me as off the mark.
Similarly, Measure K caps its tax rate on the biggest companies, resulting in larger companies having lower rates than smaller companies. This makes it regressive. And, by taxing tenants and exempting landlords, the tax creates a (usually unconstitutional, and definitely irrational) situation where the size of the tax burden is based on the size of a company's expense rather than the size of a company's revenue, as is normally done.
It's too bad that the City chose not to propose a large business tax, like Mountain View's recent Google tax, East Palo Alto's Amazon.com tax, and EPA's large landlord tax, all of which passed by more than 70% of voters. Instead our Council chose a gas transfer tax and a regressive business tax that exempts billionaire landlords.
At a time when we urgently need to invest in climate action and sustainable infrastructure, these taxes may move us in the opposite direction.
The City really needs the money. But some of California's biggest problems were caused by bad taxes that proved impossible to repeal - e.g. Prop 13, particularly its windfalls for big corporate property owners. So I am not sure that a bad tax is better than no tax -- especially when the bad tax discourages the sustainability measures we urgently need to take, on behalf of current and future generations, our children and their grandchildren.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2022 at 11:51 am
Registered user
on Oct 15, 2022 at 11:51 am
@Rebecca Eisenberg,
"Measure K caps its tax rate on the biggest companies, resulting in larger companies having lower rates than smaller companies. This makes it regressive. And, by taxing tenants and exempting landlords, the tax creates a (usually unconstitutional, and definitely irrational) situation where the size of the tax burden is based on the size of a company's expense rather than the size of a company's revenue, as is normally done."
Measure K (which the Weekly headlines as "modest," as if it was a virtue) has bothered me the most. Especially that done right business lobbyists would have had no reason to hold City Hall hostage. One more week in their "negotiation" we would have been paying them.
@Weekly,
I wonder if we would have an elected Mayor system, if Roy M's, Ms Eisenberg, Annette and Online name's posts above would get more airing in the press. With the current system - for the tough issues -the press mostly repeats political talking points and does not produce or expose things outside that bubble... which is a vicious cycle because then our elected leaders just have to cater to what you think is good enough to print.
Registered user
Midtown
on Oct 15, 2022 at 2:25 pm
Registered user
on Oct 15, 2022 at 2:25 pm
"No" on Measure L from me.
Don't hide revenue collection for other programs in our utilities bill. Separate the two so we can see what we are paying for and make informed, explicit decisions about tradeoffs we make on programs / services.