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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

"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.