Arguements Agains Measure W San Mateo
From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
| Voting on taxes | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||
| Ballot measures | ||||||||
| By country | ||||||||
| By year | ||||||||
| Not on election | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Measure out info Corporeality: 0.5% |
A sales tax mensurate was on the ballot for South San Francisco voters in San Mateo County, California, on November iii, 2015. It was approved.
Measure West authorized the city to impose a 0.5 percent sales tax for 30 years. The measure was designed to transfer the sales revenue enhancement revenue, amounting to near $vii million per yr, into the city'south general fund to exist used for any government purpose. Without Measure Due west, the total sales tax in the city would have continued at 9 percent—seven.5 percent mandated past the state and a 1.5 percentage sales tax. The approving of Measure out W increased the total sales tax in the metropolis to 9.5 percent.[i] [2]
Measure W as well authorized the urban center to increment its debt, with repayment made past sales tax acquirement, in social club to accelerate projects in the metropolis.[1]
Election results
| South San Francisco, Measure Due west | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upshot | Votes | Percentage | ||
 a Yes | 4,494 | 59.91% | ||
| No | 3,007 | xl.09% | ||
-
- Election results from San Mateo County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the election:[one]
| " | To maintain Southward San Francisco services, including maintaining neighborhood police patrols/9-ane-1 response, programs for seniors/disabled residents, crime/gang suppression programs, repairing potholes/streets, maintaining youth/teen educational/recreational programs, providing a police operations eye that meets earthquake safe codes, and other urban center services; shall S San Francisco levy a 1/2 cent sales tax for xxx years, with authority to incur debt to accelerate projects, annual audits, citizens' oversight, no funds for Sacramento and all funds for South San Francisco?[3] | " |
Impartial analysis
The post-obit impartial analysis of Measure West was prepared past the office of the urban center chaser:
| " | Measure W is a ballot measure that, if approved by the voters, would authorize a one-half percent (0.v%) transactions and use revenue enhancement. Because Measure Westward does not limit the utilise of tax acquirement generated past this tax to specified uses, it is a "general" revenue enhancement. Therefore the City may use the funds for any legitimate governmental purpose. If approved by the voters, the tax will exist deposited into the City of South San Francisco'south general fund and may exist used to pay for services, such as maintaining neighborhood constabulary patrols/911 response, programs for seniors/disabled residents, crime/gang suppression programs, repairing potholes/streets, maintaining youth/teen educational/recreational programs, providing a law operations heart that meets convulsion safety codes, and other city services. Tax revenue could also be used to pay the debt on bonds or other financing to accelerate projects. The revenue enhancement would terminate automatically 30 years afterwards collection begins unless extended by voters. If approved, Measure out West would besides crave independent citizen oversight, mandatory financial audits, and yearly reports. Additionally, the Urban center Council would be required to appoint a five-member citizen oversight committee that would review expenditures and an external auditor's report annually on the use of the revenue enhancement funds. In the event that bonds were issued, the committee would also review use of bond funds. While Measure West, which was placed on the ballot by the City Council, is a "transactions and use revenue enhancement", it is commonly understood by residents as a sales tax. The proposed transactions and utilize tax would add together half a penny to the price of an item that costs a dollar (if the item is ordinarily bailiwick to sales taxation). Currently the cumulative tax on retail sales in South San Francisco is ix% of the purchase price. On a taxable sales transaction of one dollar, South San Francisco currently receives one cent from the State and the remainder is paid to other public agencies, including the State and the County. A transactions and utilize taxation is levied on the same purchases as the existing sales revenue enhancement with some minor exceptions. Examples of sales that would not be subject to the tax would exist: unprocessed food, such every bit groceries from a grocery store or farmers' marketplace; real estate transactions and services. Retailers and other businesses that collect the tax at the time of sale remit the funds to the State of Equalization which administers the tax. The State Board of Equalization then transmits the City's share of the revenue enhancement to the Urban center. Acquirement from the tax would go to the City's general fund and be available to support the full range of municipal services. A "Yes" vote is a vote to corroborate a half cent transaction and apply tax for 30 years. A "No" vote is a vote against the tax. Mensurate W would exist canonical if it received a bulk of "Yes" votes.[3] | " |
| —South San Francisco Metropolis Attorney[1] | ||
Support
Supporters
A Vote Yes on W campaign was created to support the proposed sales tax.[iv]
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of Measure West:[1]
- Mike Brosnan, retired deputy police chief
- Kristy Camacho, local parent and customs volunteer
- Bill Benavides, local community emergency response volunteer
- Betty Battagia, senior and library abet
- Sam Shihadeh, local business owner
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official statement was submitted in favor of Measure W:
| " | Every bit residents, nosotros care about public safe and enhancing the quality of life in S San Francisco. That is why nosotros are voting Yeah on W. YES on Due west ensures our City can maintain rapid 911 emergency response times for police, burn down safety services, neighborhood patrols, and crime prevention and gang suppression programs without worrying nigh public prophylactic budget cuts. Yeah on W improves the quality of life in Southward San Francisco by maintaining our streets that are in need of over $18 one thousand thousand in repairs, fixing potholes, and preventing our roads from falling into further disrepair. YES on W maintains and enhances recreational and educational programs for senior citizens and disabled residents. Yes on W provides quality services for residents of all generations! Aye on W expands condom recreational and library spaces for seniors and students, including afterwards school and summer programs for youth and teens so important to keeping them off the street, out of problem, and away from gangs and drugs! YES on W keeps our taxpayer dollars LOCAL to fund OUR services and priorities! We need local command for local needs. Let'due south keep OUR money in Due south San Francisco to maintain and enhance our quality of life, our services, and our community. Measure out W is fiscally accountable, including: Independent Citizens' Oversight; no taxation increases without voter approval; mandatory financial audits; and public reporting to ensure funds are spent on OUR priorities. By law, ALL funds from Measure W must stay in South San Francisco. Measure W is Not a tax on your home or property and non-metropolis residents who benefit from city services will share the costs of those services. Measure W was adult after receiving input from hundreds of South San Francisco residents! YES on W. Join us in voting to go along our community safe and raise our quality of life![3] | " |
| —Mike Brosnan, Kristy Camacho, Beak Benavides, Betty Battagia and Sam Shihadeh[i] | ||
Editorials
- The San Mateo Daily Journal editorial lath wrote an article endorsing a "yes" vote on Measure out W. An extract of the editorial is below:
| " | The quango and urban center staff are trustworthy and responsive and see a tremendous opportunity to have visitors to the city share in the burden of paying a fraction more on each purchase to create a new affiliate for the storied city — ane that will meet South San Francisco refreshed and enlivened. Vote yes on Measure W.[3] | " |
| —San Mateo Daily Journal editorial board[2] | ||
Opposition
Opponents
Mark W.A. Hinkle, the president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, signed the official ballot argument in opposition to Measure out W.[v]
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to Measure Westward:
| " | The South San Francisco City Council had funds for a downtown parking garage, fire station, recreation edifice, maintenance chiliad, and countless improvements to Metropolis parks, even in recent downturns without raising taxes. Why can't they prioritize capital projects specified in Measure Due west without raising taxes? Budgets reveal an organization's true priorities. The South San Francisco Metropolis Council is maxim that every dollar spent today is going to something they consider a higher priority than to "address ... street repairs." Practise you agree? If street maintenance is a priority, doesn't information technology deserve a spot in the Urban center'southward almanac budget? Isn't street maintenance an essential city service? The reply is clear: It's not a priority for the South San Francisco City Council. Tell Urban center Hall to get their priorities straight past voting NO on Westward. The Metropolis Quango says information technology is "worrying most future budget cuts" but mayhap they should look at the budget they passed: 2013-14 revenues of $121,644,042 versus 2015-16 revenues of $126,300,000 That's a $4,655,958 increase in revenues. Since when is a acquirement increment a "budget cut"? In that location are ii means to balance a budget: one. increase revenues 2. cutting expenses But the Metropolis Council has increased revenues AND increased expenses. From the 2014-xv adopted budget, revenues are Upwards $16,014,782 but the large spenders accept increased expenses by a whopping $23,828,603. Where is the "upkeep cut?" If y'all can spend your coin more wisely than the big spenders on the City Council, yous should vote NO on Measure W.[3] | " |
| —Marking Due west.A. Hinkle, the president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Clan[ane] | ||
Path to the ballot
Measure W was put on the election through a vote of the South San Francisco Metropolis Council.[6]
Recent news
The link below is to the near recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Due south San Francisco sales tax Measure West. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See as well
- Local sales tax on the ballot
- City tax on the ballot
- San Mateo County, California ballot measures
- November 3, 2015 election measures in California
External links
- San Mateo County Elections Part website
- Yeah on W website
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.one i.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 San Mateo County Elections Office, "Measures actualization on the ballot on November iii, 2015," accessed September 29, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 ii.one The San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Yes on Measure out W," October 23, 2015
- ↑ iii.0 three.1 3.ii 3.iii three.4 Notation: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Vote Yes on W, "Home," accessed October 25, 2015
- ↑ Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, "Argument Against South San Francisco Sales Tax Mensurate Due west," accessed Oct 24, 2015
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedAnalysis
| Local ballot measures in California | ||
|---|---|---|
| Counties | Alameda • Tall • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba | |
| Analysis | Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures | |
| 2022 | Apr 12 • | |
| 2021 | March two • May four • June 8 • June 29 • August 31 | |
| 2020 | March 3 • April fourteen • May v • June 2 • June 23 • Baronial 25 • November 3 | |
| 2019 | February 26 • March 5 • March nineteen • March 26 • Apr ix • May 7 • June iv • Baronial 27 • November 5 | |
| 2018 | Jan 23 • Jan thirty • February 27 • March vi • June 5 • November vi | |
| 2017 | January 10 • February 28 • March seven • March 28 • April iv • Apr 11 • May 2 • May 9 • May 16 • June 6 • July 11 • Baronial 22 • August 29 • Oct 17 • November 7 | |
| 2016 | Jan 26 • February 23 • March eight • April 12 • April 19 • May iii • June vii • November 8 | |
| 2015 | Jan half dozen • February 24 • March 3 • March x • March 24 • April fourteen • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • September 1 • October half-dozen • November three • Nov 17 | |
| 2014 | February 4 • February 11 • March four • Apr 8 • May half-dozen • June 3 • July 8 • September 2 • November 4 | |
| 2013 | March 5 • March 12 • April ii • April 9 • May 7 • May 21 • June iv • June xi • June xviii • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • Nov five | |
| 2012 | Feb vii • March 6 • March thirteen • April 6 • April 10 • May i • May eight • June v • July 10 • August 28 • September 18 • November 6 | |
| 2011 | Jan 25 • March 1 • March 8 • April five • April 12 • May 3 • June seven • June 21 • July 12 • August xxx • November 8 • Nov 15 • November 22 | |
| 2010 | January 12 • Feb 2 • Feb 23 • March 2 • March 9 • April 13 • May iv • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July xiii • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November two | |
| 2009 | January thirteen • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • April 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 9 • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • August 25 • August 28 • Nov 3 • November 17 • Dec eight • December xv | |
| 2008 | February 5 • March 4 • April 8 • June iii • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November four | |
| 2007 | March 6 • May 7 • Nov half dozen | |
| 2006 | March 7 • Apr 11 • May two • June 6 • Nov vii | |
| Political topics | Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business organisation taxes • City charters • Ballot and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Packet taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • Schoolhouse bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land utilise | |
| Local taxes on the election in California | |
|---|---|
| Business concern taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes | |
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/City_of_South_San_Francisco_Sales_Tax,_Measure_W_(November_2015)
0 Response to "Arguements Agains Measure W San Mateo"
Post a Comment