Redwood City officials are exploring two new taxes, which includes selling them to the voting public — yet, they are going about it the wrong way. These taxes include a new city tax on the sale of people’s homes in a particularly challenging environment.
In addition, the city is implementing a +26% increase in sewer rates over three years, +29% annual increase in 20-gallon garbage rates, and +14% annual increase in water rates.
While citizens learned of this, the City Council in January raised the salaries of top city positions. And we have a deficit? And the county controller recently announced that property tax revenue (the city’s largest funding source) increased 84% over the last decade. That’s a lot of dough.
Given these facts, the city’s challenge to convince voters to approve a property transfer tax whenever they buy or sell a home is formidable.
However, the city is proceeding with its campaign, in part using misinformation, ostensibly to try to sell voters on the tax.
On Feb. 12, I shared with the council a petition signed by more than 160 residents requesting the city stop any misinformation in its transfer tax campaign.
The examples are cited but include the assistant city manager stating at the Nov. 27 council meeting that “the city currently charges (a transfer tax of) $.55/$1,000 of assessed value.” This claim was repeated in this paper the following day and is false. The city has no transfer tax. The county charges a transfer tax whose proceeds it shares with the city.
The city’s “Revenue Generation” section on its website states: “The city is not considering new taxes.”
The city is considering a new city transfer tax on the sale or purchase of any property in Redwood City. Period.
Another example: The city shows other cities that have property transfer taxes, leading one to believe it is common practice; cherry-picking the entire Bay Area including cities such as Hayward. The truth: Only 7% of cities have such a tax, and only one out of 20 cities in our county (San Mateo) has such a tax.
Additionally, the city appears to have gone too far in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to help get more money in city coffers.
Recommended for you
A public records request revealed the city has executed nine consulting contracts costing $1,023,000 in their pursuit of new taxes, fees and utility rate increases.
Lew Edwards Group, one of the consultants, was hired to lead the communications regarding new taxes.
The city can hire consultants to help educate and inform the public. But LEG literally brags in its proposal how it gets “95%” of clients’ ballot initiatives passed. Its scope includes “strategic recommendations” and work on “message delivery” and “message discipline.”
If one asks — “why are my tax dollars being spent on campaign consultants to convince me to vote for a tax increase?” — it’s a legitimate question.
LEG’s scope also includes “collaborating” on the all-important ballot question.
California Election Code 13119 says the ballot question “must be true and impartial and neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against.”
This same consultant’s contract also includes surveying residents on policy issues and can test which type of expense cuts voters are most sensitive to; and hence manipulate the ballot question to reflect this for successful passage.
If this sound like an exaggeration, let’s examine the city ballot question with Measure RR (sales tax increase) from November 2018: “Shall the ordinance to fund essential city services such as protecting rapid 911 emergency response times; preventing the number of on-duty firefighters/paramedics/police officers; continuing after-school/recreation programs for children; and maintaining local library hours/programs by establishing a 0.5% sales tax, providing approximately $8,000,000 annually until repealed by voters, with exemptions for essential purchases like food/medicine, annual audits and all funds staying in Redwood City, be adopted?”
You’ll see here the city used the threat of cuts to key services (police, fire, 911 response) to sway the voter despite the fact that the measure did not mandate any proceeds be spent on any of these services. In fact it was a “general fund“ tax; two words that somehow couldn’t make its way into the question you read as you voted.
Yes, Redwood City is working in a challenging environment for tax increases, but isn’t it reasonable for residents to expect and get the whole truth?
Christopher Robell, a Redwood City resident and retired CFO, can be reached at chris_robell@yahoo.com or (650) 245-7395.
(7) comments
San Mateo County needs a good "tax-accountability" group to keep the tax and bond bandits in control. The Bay Area and California have been bailed out by the venture capitalists spurning the information age and now AI. Are there anymore gold strikes to come in California? All of this can be done out-of-state.
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Robell. I think we all know the push to use taxpayers as ATMs is to fund increasing pensions and benefits and of course, giving themselves raises. Voters get the government they deserve so unless voters change their so-called leaders, expect more in the near and far future, as long as Democrats are the majority in office.
Prices and taxes are getting so bad that "California has to collapse before it can recover from nonsense like this".
Why exactly do San Mateo County residents vote so badly every election? Aren't there a lot of "highly educated" voters?
Because the majority are uninformed democrats.
I had always believed that use of public funds for campaigns is illegal. Yet this is exactly what cities county-wide have been doing for years; spending our tax dollars to actively campaign FOR raising taxes, and oftentimes using deceptive or flat-out false information in the process. But it seems the officials responsible for enforcing campaign laws are in on the scam.
Echo Chris' perspective! This is wrong on many levels: (1) The use of public funds to campaign for new bonds (taxes) is not allowed. (2) The deceptive nature in how these types of measures are pushed forward lacks transparency and erodes trust in our local government and (3) Where is the fiscal responsibility as opposed to continually looking for more channels to essential tax constituents (who are already over taxed). Shame, shame, shame!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.