No on Measure K
(Parks, not PERKS....   Nature walks, not TAX HIKES!)

Return to ACCT Home Go to Ballot Arguments

 

So What Is Measure K?

Measure K is the East Bay Regional Park District's outrageous 12-year bait-and-switch scheme for relieving EBRPD of certain obligations that naturally belong in the District's general fund.  The dollars thereby "freed up" would then be available for another round of salary and benefit increases for an already grossly overpaid full-time EBRPD staff of some 533 individuals who already average over $100,000 annually in salary and benefits!

And EBRPD considers Measure K just an "an excise tax on the privilege of using... property for residential purposes...." Bet you thought that was a right, not a privilege!

 

  Newsflash, March 1, 2002:  The Alameda Newspaper Group (including the 
  Oakland Tribune, Alameda Times Star, Fremont Argus, Hayward Daily 
  Review, and Tri-Valley Herald) recommends voting NO on Measure K, 
  the East Bay Regional Park District's irresponsible parcel-tax measure. 

  Read the full editorial here.

 

Allied with ACCT in attempting to defeat Measure K is an organization of long-time EBRPD supporters and local conservationists -- a group that includes EBRPD's retired Personnel Director.  Go to the Friends of Parks site, www.friendsofparks.com, or directly to the Friends of Parks Measure K Information Center

 

EBRPD's Use of Public Funds to Support Measure K

We find that EBRPD is -- and has been -- using public funds to promote Measure K.  The January 8 edition of the district's Regional in Nature tabloid, published at public expense as an insert in local newspapers, enumerated alleged benefits of the measure, with no mention of drawbacks, or the incredibly plush state of existing EBRPD finances.   The district plans to distribute its next issue of Regional in Nature exactly one week prior to the March 5 election -- and we can bet that issue will again promote Measure K at taxpayer expense, without fair representation -- or any representation -- of opponents' arguments.

 An EBRPD consulting firm, the "Strategy Research Institute," meanwhile notes that "THE DISTRICT'S OUTREACH EFFORTS ARE HAVING THE DESIRED 'EFFECTS.' "   The "outreach efforts" also include "taped PSA's (public service announcements) and/or video taped programs that have been aired on CNN..., an in-theater slide between shows at the movies inviting [viewers] to 'Enjoy the Serenity' of the East Bay regional parks and trails."

The "desired effects" include findings of high levels of "support for the proposed tax measure among voters" who've seen one of the three "communication outlets."  Reliable district attorneys, enforcing laws against public funding of tax campaigns, would prosecute agencies that ignore such laws.  As one of our members reminded EBRPD in a letter dated November 26, 2001:

From November 26, 2001 Letter to EBRPD...

California’s Supreme Court has ruled that "in the absence of clear and explicit legislative authorization, a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign....  A fundamental precept of this nation's democratic electoral process is that the government may not ‘take sides’ in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions." Further, "while past cases indicate that public agencies may generally publish a ‘fair presentation of facts’ relevant to an election matter, in a number of instances publicly financed brochures or newspaper advertisements which have purported to contain only relevant factual information, and which have refrained from exhorting voters to ‘Vote Yes,’ have nevertheless been found to constitute improper campaign literature." [Stanson v. Mott (1974), 17 Cal.3d 206, 209-210, 217, 222].

The Stanson court reflected in a related footnote upon an advertisement which "did not explicitly urge voters to ‘Vote Yes’ on the bond issue, but stated in large letters that ‘A CLASSROOM EMERGENCY EXISTS NOW AT MADERA UNION HIGH SCHOOL’ and listed a number of reasons why additional funds were needed by the school district.... After reviewing the relevant judicial authorities, the Attorney General concluded that although the advertisement did not explicitly urge a ‘Yes’ vote and did disclose relevant factual information, the use of public funds to pay for the advertisement would nonetheless be improper. The opinion reasoned: ‘Viewed as a whole, the advertisement cannot properly be held to be a publication primarily designed to educate the voters as to the activities carried on by or the conditions of the schools of the district. ... The style, tenor and timing of the advertisement placed by the board of trustees points plainly to the conclusion that the publication was designed primarily for the purpose of influencing the voters at the forthcoming school bond election’" [Stanson v. Mott (supra), 17 Cal.3d 206, at fn.8, citing 35 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 112, 114, emphasis added] .

The Stanson Court also concluded [at 226-227] that "public officials must use ‘due care,’ i.e., reasonable diligence, in authorizing the expenditure of public funds, and may be subject to personal liability for improper expenditures made in the absence of such due care."

Meanwhile, California Fair Political Practices Commission regulations require that "if a mailing or brochure or any other communication taken as a whole unambiguously urges a particular result in an election," the expenditures associated with the communication count toward assignment as an independent expenditure committee, with attendant campaign-finance reporting requirements under law. "The public is entitled to know who is paying to pass a ballot measure, especially if it their own government spending tax dollars to persuade them." In this context, the FPPC’s authority goes only so far as requiring the filing of campaign-finance disclosures, and assessing penalties for failure to file the required statements, whether or not the filing entity is legally permitted to solicit and spend campaign funds. The FPPC fined the Contra Costa Community College District $16,000 for 8 counts of violating these requirements in 1996, after I filed a complaint with the FPPC.

I recommend and request, in order to avoid any taint of impropriety in the March 5 election and the lead-up period thereto, that the projected February 26, 2002 publication of Regional in Nature be delayed until at least March 6, 2002.  I recommend and request further, should the projected January 8, 2002 issue of Regional in Nature contain any mention or implication regarding EBRPD’s new tax measure beyond the simple fact that it will appear on the March 5 ballot, that opponents’ arguments be given fair representation, and equal space as compared with any material that directly or implicitly promotes the tax measure. Other taxpayers and I believe that responsible application of existing resources would obviate any "need" for new sources of EBRPD revenue, and can support that position with relevant facts.

As expected, the District denied any wrongdoing.  EBRPD, for a multitude of reasons, deserves a resounding "NO" vote on Measure K.

 

Since 1996, EBRPD's budget for "Repairs and Maintenance" has dropped by 9.6% -- while the District's budget for salaries and benefits has exploded upward by 54.6% !! Such massive irresponsibility on the part of the tax promoters should NOT be rewarded with new sacrifices by already overburdened taxpayers.  See the graph and table below for fuller perspective.

 

EBRPD GROWTH IN SALARIES AND BENEFITS VS. POPULATION AND INFLATION, 1987-2002

("Y" axis represents multipliers of 1987 base-year values.  See data summary in table below)

Inflation: Up 74% since 1987
Population: Up 24% since 1987
Inflation + Population Combined: Up 98% since 1987

EBRPD Salaries + Benefits: Up 182% since 1987 !!!

Measure K is an outrageous assault on taxpayers. Had EBRPD salary and benefit growth been limited to the rate of inflation + population increases, EBRPD would have over $16 Million more each year in its general fund to spend on park staffing and maintenance -- more than twice the proceeds of Measure K, should this bait-and-switch scheme pass. Taxpayers should just say "NO" to such double-dip shell games!

 

EBRPD GROWTH IN SALARIES AND BENEFITS VS. POPULATION AND CPI INFLATION 1987-2002

YEAR

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Salaries, Millions

$15.55

$16.80

$17.78

$19.12

$20.21

$20.91

$21.70

$23.41

$24.09

$25.11

$25.81

$27.75

$29.16

$30.78

$34.34

$36.32

Benefits, Millions

$4.30

$5.06

$5.78

$6.39

$7.43

$8.31

$9.27

$9.04

$10.04

$11.05

$10.77

$11.93

$12.33

$14.67

$16.60

$19.58

Salaries + Benefits 

$19.84

$21.86

$23.56

$25.51

$27.63

$29.22

$30.97

$32.44

$34.12

$36.15

$36.58

$39.68

$41.49

$45.45

$50.95

$55.90

Below:  Population Increases in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties + Consumer Price Index Growth

Population, Millions

1.949

1.976

2.015

2.060

2.100

2.139

2.176

2.217

2.248

2.226

2.257

2.320

2.363

2.384

2.435

2.416

CPI, 1982-84 = 100

115.0

120.1

126.2

131.6

137.6

141.9

146.1

148.1

151.7

155.2

160.0

165.5

171.8

179.1

190.9

200.5

The table below reprises the numbers above, now as multiples of 1987 base year figures.

YEAR

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Population

1.000

1.014

1.034

1.057

1.078

1.098

1.117

1.138

1.154

1.142

1.158

1.191

1.213

1.224

1.250

1.240

Inflation

1.000

1.044

1.097

1.144

1.197

1.234

1.270

1.288

1.319

1.350

1.391

1.439

1.494

1.557

1.660

1.743

Salaries + Benefits

1.000

1.102

1.187

1.286

1.393

1.472

1.561

1.635

1.720

1.822

1.844

2.000

2.091

2.291

2.568

2.817

 

Measure K's "Sunset Clause"

"Sunset clause"?  As Will Rodgers is reported to have said, there is nothing so permanent in all the world as a "temporary tax."  Bay Bridge tolls, originally 25¢, were supposed to end in 1956.  Today, they're still there, holding up hurried commuters and charging us $2.00 besides -- with even that amount likely to increase again soon.  The tax promoters will take as much as you let them take.  Will you now resist?

 

Measure K Tax-Promoter Connections 

The pro-tax Measure K website is registered to "The Next Generation," which styles itself as providing "environmental organizing."   Next Generation's founder, Doug Linney, listed in ballot-argument submissions as the pro-tax Measure K campaign contact, is also an EBMUD director.  And through "Green Capitol," Linney is affiliated with Lenny Goldberg, a pro-tax ballot-argument signatory.  Goldberg, in turn, is a lobbyist who operates what he calls the "California Tax Reform Association" -- apparently a one-man Sacramento office  that pushes routinely for higher taxes, allegedly for the sake of "equity and social fairness."

In what has to be considered as a model of hypocrisy, Goldberg is quoted in the March 2, 2002 Contra Costa Times (again, representing the "California Tax Reform Association") as saying that "we'll never solve [California's problems] if everyone reaches out and grabs 
everyone else's money."  He was speaking in opposition to Proposition 42, which will dedicate gasoline sales taxes to improving roads and transportation in general -- instead of allowing raids on such funds by special-interest groups.  An example of the latter is the California Teachers' Association, a labor union that benefited from Prop. 98's set-aside of 
over 40% of the state budget for education.  

Goldberg was quoted further in the article as saying "the only reason [Prop. 42 is on the ballot] is because no one wants to look at raising the gas tax."  Yet Goldberg is presented  implicitly by EBRPD and others as someone on the side of taxpayers.  

 

Response by ACCT Chairman Ken Hambrick to Measure K pro-tax coordinator Doug Linney's refusal to participate in community forum:

ALLIANCE OF CONTRA COSTA TAXPAYERS
P.O. Box 5568,  Walnut Creek, CA 94596-1568
925.930.2825 Fax 925.935.6480

www.ACCTaxpayers.com

January 15, 2002
Doug Linney
Campaign Manager,
Yes for Parks
------------------
------------------

Dear Mr. Linney,

Thank you for your letter informing us of your decision declining our invitation to cover the pro side of the proposed Regional Park District tax. I am sorry you have chosen not to send a representative. I believe the community should have a chance to hear both sides of the issues on this tax measure.

A couple of comments on your letter, if I may. The Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers (ACCT) has been around for almost five years. This is the first time we have hosted candidates/issues nights. As with the League of Women voters, we are doing this as a community service and as a completely neutral forum.

Your reference to the League of Women voters as a neutral sponsor is not entirely correct. The President of the Bay Area League signed the ballot argument in favor of Measure K. The League’s stance on this measure is known to the community.

However, the League, in spite of this stance, was able to sponsor the recent discussions taped by CCTV. The same is true of ACCT. Our forums will be neutral as were the League’s.

I am sorry you feel this is "a disingenuous campaign event". Nothing could be further from the truth. You could make the same charge against the League of Women Voters. In its case, it would not be true either.

You might be interested to know that CCTV is taping both of our candidates/issues nights. These too will be broadcast several times in the course of the campaign.

Again, I am sorry you are declining our invitation. The community deserves to hear both sides of the issue. If you should choose to reconsider, we would still welcome someone to speak at our Thursday forum.

Sincerely,

Ken Hambrick

Chair

cc:  AT&T Community Access
      Contra Costa Newspapers

 

 

 

PRIMARY BALLOT ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE K

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002

Parks... not PERKS! Nature Walks... not tax hikes!

Let’s require responsible, economical use of existing EBRPD funds — instead of inflated employee costs, more bureaucracy, and new TAX INCREASES.

  • With even "administrative associates" paid $84,628, and a general manager’s annual
    salary of $172,962.24, it’s all-aboard on the gravy train for EBRPD employees.

  • EBRPD benefits add another 53.9%, bringing average per-employee compensation costs to $86,473 annually.   Excluding seasonal employees, EBRPD’s average compensation costs apparently exceed $100,000 annually! New EBRPD tax increases are NOT "critical," or even necessary. A wage/benefit freeze is!

  • Taxes now consume half of the next dollar earned by many East Bay families. Many work so hard to pay taxes that there’s little time left to enjoy regional parks!

  • Measure K’s $8.2 Million annual bonanza would free millions in general-fund dollars for more irresponsible salary and benefit hikes.

  • EBRPD considers Measure K "an excise tax on the privilege of using... property for residential purposes...." Bet you thought that was a right, not a privilege!

"Environmental maintenance" and "public safety" for "serene parklands" — their consultant’s recommended dodges for peddling new taxes — conceal the fact that EBRPD already collects taxes of $32.21 annually per person (plus various user fees). EBRPD now wants another $8.28 (apartments) or $12.00 (homes) per household.

  • EBRPD already benefits from Measure AA (a $225 Million 1988 bond with Millions still unappropriated). Yet EBRPD bureaucrats hope to pass an extension of Measure AA soon.

  • During 1998 – 2001, EBRPD expanded its domain by 4,000 more acres, now to 93,000 acres (145 square miles) altogether — meanwhile claiming insufficient management funds for existing property!

  • Tax-consuming public agencies are ganging up on taxpayers, during tough economic times. State Propositions 12 (2000, $2.1 Billion) and 40 ($2.5 Billion, this ballot) also benefit local parks.

MEASURE K? JUST SAY NO!

Kenneth D. Steadman — Retired Labor Relations Director; Former City Councilman; Member, Waste Watchers, Inc., Fremont

Roger S. Mammon — Former Credit Manager, Auto Manufacturer; Secretary-Treasurer,
Committee to Save Our Shoreline, Oakley

Kenneth E. Hambrick — Management Consultant; Chairman, Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers; Former Grand Jury Member, Walnut Creek

Luana L. Layton — Business Owner; Adult-Education Instructor; Member, Taxed Enough  Already, Livermore

Carl R. Piercy — Former Engineering Director; Member, Lafayette Taxpayers’ Association

 

REBUTTAL TO BALLOT ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE K

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002

Informed environmentalists and taxpayer advocates agree: Measure K is a BAD DEAL
for East Bay homeowners and renters. It would also waste precious EBRPD resources
on harmful land-use practices.

It’s NOT lack of money that keeps EBRPD’s environmental maintenance problems
unresolved. Instead, serious ongoing problems with over-grazing, park access, park-trails
user conflicts, and fire protection result from SKEWED PRIORITIES AND BUREAUCRATIC ARROGANCE.

  • EBRPD’s ill-conceived firebreak approach destroys native vegetation, encouraging
    non-native plants that increase fire risk and require heavy pesticide use    .

  • EBRPD’s top-heavy bureaucracy drains much of the District’s budget while paying
    enormous fees for questionable advice from unnecessary consultants.

  • Measure K unfairly collects only from homeowners and renters — while all
    commercial properties are exempt!

  • EBRPD’s property-tax base already increases annually, through new-construction
    taxes and reassessments of existing property. The result? District income expands
    much faster than inflation and local population growth combined    .

  • Available financial statements show EBRPD’s 1998 general revenues (when EBRPD last promoted new taxes) grew from $75.4 Million to $97.6 Million by 2000 — a 29.4%
    revenue explosion, in just two years    !

A vote against Measure K is NOT a vote against parks. We signers of this argument are environmentalists who work hard to protect our parklands. We want a financially and environmentally healthy Park District. But, regrettably, we have no confidence that current
EBRPD management understands how to care for its natural, fiscal, or human resources.

For more information:

www.FriendsofParks.com (510-234-0098)
www.ACCTaxpayers.com (925-930-2825)

Helen Klebanoff — Former Clinical Social Worker; Member, Friends of Parks, Richmond

Alan La Pointe — Design Consultant; Chairman, Friends of Wildcat Canyon; Co-Chair, Friends of Parks, Richmond

Paul Merrick — Small Business Owner; Chairman, Dunsmuir Ridge Alliance; Co-Chair, Friends of Parks, Oakland

Karen Weber — Former Personnel Director, EBRPD (1977-1996); Member, Friends of Parks,
Oakland