Town Square

Post a New Topic

Multi county parcel tax sought by San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority -

Original post made by Jack Hickey, Woodside: Emerald Hills, on Mar 13, 2016

The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority(SFBRA) Web Link was established by the Legislature in 2008. Web Link It is now seeking funding so that it may take on a life of it's own. A parcel tax with a 20 year life has been chosen as their taxing mechanism.

SFBRA is comprised of 9 Bay area counties.
By location they are:
North Bay (Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano),
East Bay (Contra Costa and Alameda),
South Bay (Santa Clara), and
West Bay (San Mateo and San Francisco)


The Authority has placed a regional $12 parcel tax, (Measure AA) on the June ballot in the nine Bay Area counties, which would generate about $25 million per year in revenue.

I am opposed to Measure AA

I have proposed 2 alternative funding mechanisms:

Why not raise the necessary funds by selling naming rights? Don Edwards might not mind if it got the job done.

See: Web Link

Another possibility, consistent with my “no new taxes” approach, would be to tap into the 1% General Property tax by providing a .004 (that’s 0.4%) countywide increment in the TRA? In my county(San Mateo) that would produce more than $6,000,000/year (and GROWING)! See: Web Link

Surely the other agencies sharing that 1% tax wouldn’t mind. My Sequoia Healthcare District would have to give up $40,000/year but that’s no problem. They no longer own a hospital, but are still collecting $10,000,000/year in property taxes. We could take it out of CEO Lee Michelson’s $200,000 salary.





Comments (12)

2 people like this
Posted by Voter
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 13, 2016 at 10:45 pm

Read my lips,

NO NEW TAXES,


2 people like this
Posted by Another Authority seeking money
a resident of another community
on Mar 14, 2016 at 7:48 am

How many new bureaucracies will be created and funded for "motherhood and apple pie" causes that are concocted? How about a special district that specializes in filling sand bags with, let's say, sand? The CEO should get at least a million dollars a year and private-sector baggers will be needed. No sense in considering competitive bids. The CEO could just hire his friends and family members.


Like this comment
Posted by guy
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 14, 2016 at 11:09 am

Yep, count a NO vote from me.

I was wondering what all the billboards on 101 and the direct mail that I have been ignoring was about. Somehow I just knew it was going to be about voting for additional taxes.

Sorry, but I actually do my own taxes and read my property assessments and sadly, I do not think I am getting what I am already paying for. Once the schools are funded, roads are paved, I will consider thinking about the need for "more" agencies.

Sorry, but this has got to STOP until then.

VOTE NO!


btw: is there anywhere one could look up how much money this org has already spent on marketing for the tax campaign, where do they get the money for the ads. or is this simply spending tax money that was supposed to "restore the SF bay"???


Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Mar 14, 2016 at 11:27 am

Jack Hickey is a registered user.

See: Web Link and, Web Link more info.

They have yet to collect any tax money.


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 14, 2016 at 11:53 am



This is getting sickening, These clowns must sit around all day and try to figure what new taxes they can come up with to occupy their time and justify their job.

We live in one of the richest areas in the country and have terrible infrastructure with our taxes amongst the highest.

Doesn't make sense.

No New taxes.


Like this comment
Posted by Apple
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 14, 2016 at 1:17 pm

It's fairer if coastal cities and coastal parcels formed their own special districts to tax themselves to pay for this flood mitigation instead of this nine county-wide tax.

The coastal properties and cities get the direct benefits, which is more valuable property values. And with greater property values, they can afford to pay this tax.

Those more inland see no change to their property values, but they have to pay the tax. Why should those inland subsidize property protection for those who live near the water?

For example, the federal government requires flood insurance to be purchased only for home buyers in flood prone areas. Anyone living outside that area does not have to purchase the insurance. That prevents inland property owners from subsidizing coastal property owners.


Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Mar 14, 2016 at 5:20 pm

I will be voting NO on Measure AA


Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Mar 16, 2016 at 10:16 am

Jack Hickey is a registered user.

Ballot Arguments can be found here:
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by JU
a resident of Atherton: other
on Mar 16, 2016 at 11:45 am

Great. Let's create more bureaucracy, more administration, fund more pensions and make more bureaucrats rich. Where can I get a position like that?

What accountability is there to measure progress on how the "wetlands" have been restored? NONE.

If the coastal cities want to build dams, they should tax themselves to pay for it.

I will vote NO.


2 people like this
Posted by RJ
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Mar 16, 2016 at 1:03 pm

Twelve bucks?

hmmmm, have to make a whole pot of coffee tomorrow rather than go to Peets to afford that MASSIVE tax hike!

Count me as a yes.

Though I'd prefer it if the Sun Quentin/Facebook parcel paid more...


Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Mar 16, 2016 at 4:11 pm

Jack Hickey is a registered user.

The amount is irrelevant. They could and should seek funding from within the existing 1% ad valorem General Property tax. That would comply with a no new taxes policy.

As I said before, my Sequoia Healthcare District would have to give up $40,000/year but that's no problem. They no longer own a hospital, but are still collecting $10,000,000/year in property taxes. We could take it out of CEO Lee Michelson's $200,000 salary.


2 people like this
Posted by Laurel
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 16, 2016 at 5:10 pm

Works for me - I'm a YES


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Local Transit to the Rescue?
By Sherry Listgarten | 24 comments | 3,087 views

Morsey's Creamery brings buffalo-milk gelato to downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 1,911 views

"You Gotta Have Balls [to do counseling] . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,732 views

Eating Green on the Green – August 25
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 961 views

Lessons from visiting great grandma
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 190 views

 

Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More info