☆ Perspectives (part 1): SCC's longstanding love affair with misleading measure titles
Image by Wikimedia Commons
It's hard to bubble in “no” on pleasant platitudes like “The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act” (which downplayed property theft penalties and—according to Mayor Mahan—wreaked havoc on SJ's downtown). And that, political watchdogs say, is exactly the point. In this exclusive, three Opp Now contributors (Pat Waite, Johnny Khamis, and Marc Ang) review some of the most egregiously titled ballot measures of recent years—and how taxpayers were “supposed” to read between the lines.
Pat Waite, Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility president:
Probably my favorite of the recent crop of misleading ballot measure titles is the Santa Clara County Water District 2022 Measure A proposal to “limit board members to four successive four-year terms.” This measure actually increased the time board members could serve from three successive terms.
That said, my true favorite is the gratuitous use of “without raising taxes.” A recent example is the city of Santa Clara’s 2022 Measure G, titled “City of Santa Clara No Tax Increase/Services Protection Measure” proposed that voters “protect essential services without raising taxes” by approving the proposal. It extended an expiring utility tax transfer that could have potentially lowered utility bills if ended. There are innumerable other examples, most notably the perpetual renewals of VTA sales taxes originally approved decades ago. I suspect that the County will take the same approach once the clock runs out on 2016’s Measure A affordable housing funds.
Once the government gets its hand in your pocket, it’s very hard to remove it.
Johnny Khamis, former SJ councilmember:
Last year, Measure A's headline was to “limit” Santa Clara Valley Water District board members to four consecutive terms. However, they were already limited to three terms, so this was actually an increase. Even Mayor Matt Mahan spoke out against it that April. At the time, there were a few articles circulating about the controversy, but not many.
And then Prop 6, which would have reversed the SB 1 tax, asserted that voting “no” meant taking away funding from highways (their words: “Eliminates Road Repair and Transportation Funding”). I suppose technically, this was true, but it should have been clear that it would reverse a sales tax—not directly remove money from repairing local roads. Many pro-business people were upset about how misleading Prop 6's title was.
I'm also reminded of Measure E from 2020. It's the example of marketing a general tax as if it's a special tax, so that it's easier to pass (as it's only required to get a simple majority, as opposed to a supermajority). Proponents made it sound like all the Measure E funds would go towards housing homeless people. It passed thanks to that false assumption. In reality, it was a general tax; so at the end of the day, the money could go to a variety of projects, regardless of what voters were expecting.
Marc Ang, Asian Industry B2B president, former Californians for Equal Rights outreach director:
The worst was California's recent (2020) Proposition 19: “Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment.”
This was a misleading proposition that hid the true negative outcome to most Californians in the guise of helping certain vulnerable populations.
It limited the parent-child exclusions for tax assessments and property taxes. Before Prop 19 barely passed, parents could transfer a primary residence to children without a fair market reassessment, whether the children chose to live in the property or used it as a rental. Now children who inherit real property will only get up to $1 million of the assessed value exempted from the increase in property tax, and only if they live in the property.
Bottom line: this was sneaky.
Related:
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.