☆ Opinion: How local government's frittering away your valuable taxpayer dollars
Creator unknown: Madhava in a tent before a ruler, c.1700. Image by Wikimedia Commons
Water District bonds flood the ballot. BART's budget bloats. Local leaders cry out for more taxes, lavisher utilities, gaudier union wages. David Eisbach (San Jose real estate broker since 1975) surveys the damage from systemic and out-of-control gov't spending in the Bay Area. An Opp Now exclusive.
Living in the Bay Area, you don't have to look far for examples of wild and ineffective government expenditures. Santa Clara Valley Water District recently said Anderson Dam’s cost rose from $648 million to $2.3 billion. They’ll want us to vote on a bond in 2024. Furthermore, the PUC has awarded San Jose Water $25.1 million, and rates rise 6%. They want another $18 million in a shortfall.
Meanwhile, PG&E has permission to charge an additional $32 a month to improve fire safety, this after a three-year average of 12.7%. This Electric Monolith has estimated another $8.1 billion to continue the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant until 2030.
Also, BART tripled its SJ extension bid to $12.2 billion!
San Jose has a high office vacancy, somewhere between 27% and 31%; hotels are hurting, too.
City Hall has given a generous raise to its employees, before negotiations with police and fire.
High taxes persist for San Joseans. There are two areas of taxation. Look at your property tax. It’s divided in two: the actual property tax and the special projects taxes (like schools, libraries, and open space). You will notice that the special taxes in total are almost the same cost as the property tax.
In a 3-year period, costs for construction projects, public and private, exploded 2 and 3 times what was anticipated. Labor and material are the main suspects. It takes 5 years to complete construction of apartments; time is the enemy! Cities, fearing loss of local building codes, have used slow walk permitting; and opponents of any construction have militarized environmental reports to further stretch time. But Scott Wiener’s “builder's remedy” has curtailed city permitting powers in an effort to cut the long building durations.
The state’s deficit, $68 billion, doesn’t bode well. Governor Newsom's new deficit of $37 billion was reached at the expense of the environment, housing, and some accounting wizardry.
The state, county, and city realize the enormity of this fiscal dilemma. Will they be curtailing huge money-sucking programs? Will they apply Mayor Mahan’s accountability program? Or will they just seek more tax money?
It seems, at least in part, that they're looking to hike your taxes more. Dave Cortese’s SB 335, with the approval of the voters, will allow transactions and use taxes (general or specific) to break the current 2% cap. And “yes” votes on ACA 1 and 13 will alter the state constitution and allow local governments to tax above its cap for virtually any special need and drop the 66% vote to 55% for passage of money bills. State propositions like ACA 1 and 13 are deceptive; they're written to fool. A 55% vote has a greater chance to pass. Thus, the selection of bonds and taxes would be limitless. San Jose’s City Council thinks it’s a great idea!
Related:
Viewpoint: SJ's office space vacancy rate soars—as City's budget tightens
Citing SF's new “economic reality,” Breed demands drastic budget cuts
2021 in review: CA’n fiscal abuse siphons Bay Area’s residents, tourists, businesses
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.