Peskin declares emergency, calls special electionBy Sarah Phelan
With the next regularly-scheduled election not until November 2009 -- that's nearly halfway through the fiscal year and too late to address the City’s staggering $575.6 million projected deficit, which threatens to kill or maim just about every program and service that local citizens hold dear--termed-out Board President Aaron Peskin used his last day on the Board of Supervisors to call for a June 2 municipal election “for the purpose of submitting revenue and fiscal measures to the voters.”
But, as Peskin’s resolution notes, to conduct an election on such short notice, the City must modify certain election procedures and deadlines. And such modifications are permissible if the Board finds an emergency
“The Board of Supervisors therefore finds that an emergency exists," Peskin's resolution states.
"This emergency ordinance will ensure that the City is able to submit and the voters are able to consider revenue measures designed to avoid the impending deficit threatening the public health, safety and welfare.”
Suggested measures include
**A possible increase in sales tax “and a possible dedication of the proceeds of the tax increase to emergency health and human services and to public protection.”
**A possible increase in the payroll tax
**A possible new residential utilities users tax
**A possible increase in the commercial utilities users tax
**A possible new parcel tax
**A possible new gross receipts tax on residential rental income
**A possible new gross receipts tax on commercial rental income
**A possible new gross receipts tax on all commercial transactions
**A possible new surcharge on the parking tax
**A possible amendment to the City charter to allow the City to appropriate up to 100 percent of the current balance in the Rainy Day Reserve, not to exceed 20 percent of the projected deficit in years in which budgetary deficit of $250 million or more is projected
A possible new charter amendment that would cap all set-asides at their Fiscal Year 2008-2009 level, allow the City to reduce its contributions during budgetary shortfalls, and provide that year-end surpluses be returned to the General Fund.
Peskin is proposing to modify the election code so the Board can consider such measures fewer than 30 days after receiving drafts and legislative digests, if both are delivered to the Clerk of the Board at least 72 hours prior to committee hearings and made available to the public at that time.
Wow. Sounds like the incoming Board is going to be pretty darn busy.
On a related note, Sup. Sean Elsbernd introduced a charter amendment for the November 3, 2009 election, requiring that “one-time revenues be spent only for one-time uses, unless otherwise authorized by the Board.” In other words, not on salaries. Stay tuned.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (5)
This is ridiculous lets tax those middle income residence even more and the business that are struggling. Has he never heard of Laffer curve (I don't entirely believe the theory myself, however there is some truth in it). But our Board and local politicians are just out to pander and are not entirely qualified as we can see from this rushed measure.
I believe a truly progressive tax would on renters, 2% of rent on anyone paying less than 25% of income on rent. It is targeted at those who benefit from rent control, but who can afford to pay market rate. But this would never be considered as there are no politicians with the courage to propose such a tax.
Posted by Chris P | January 6, 2009 09:36 PM
The Laffer curve and Laffer himself have been thoroughly discredited.
Posted by JoshB | January 7, 2009 12:45 PM
Laffer has not been discredited; long ago he disassociates himself from the Laffer curve,
yes most of the fundamentals of the curve have been discredited, but a lot of work has been done based on it and much of it is valid and used today, like I said “I don't entirely believe the theory myself”.
It is the responsibility of our elected officials to understand the consequences of their actions and a small understanding of the effects of tax increase is necessary; at the very least consult an Economist before proposing new taxes.
Obama is proposing a stimulus package much of which in the form of a tax rebate, there is a good reason tax rebates are being used. If all Municipalities and States increase tax this would be counter productive and undo any good the Obama plan may offer.
Posted by Chris P | January 7, 2009 01:10 PM
Chris,
Your arguments -- and those of Mayor Newsom and the business community -- are ridiculous. Supply side economics don't work the way greedy conservatives wish they would and the unproven Laffer Curve theory certainly doesn't apply to a country with some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. The richest individuals and corporations can and should pay more before we even begin to consider deep cuts to the social safety net or your suggestion for taxing renters. "This rushed measure" is still many weeks away from being approved and months away from hitting the ballot. Newsom needs to have the courage to challenge the "no new taxes" bullshit that the business community and their wealthy sponsors have been fraudulently foisting onto this state for the last 40 years, and he should be ashamed at the political pandering his ambitions have bred.
Posted by Steven T. Jones | January 7, 2009 05:58 PM
Supply side economics has worked, just look to England over the last 2 decades, or do you consider one economic crisis proof over 2 decades of growth now that would be redicoulous.
Yes we do have a low tax rate, and that is why we are on the left of the Leffer Curve, so we can afford higher taxes. I do not dispute that, I want our elected officials to have the common sence to understand their actions when increasing taxes (something that has been lacking, hence the flight of the middle income population from San Francisco and not the poor or very wealthy)and the work on the Leffer Curve offers some interesting conclusions and to dismiss that is to bury your head in the ground.
Increasing taxes at either the state or local level now would undo the work of the Obama team, to say otherwise is just plain wrong, and clever people than you and me have made this concusion.
As for the idea that all renters are poor and can not afford a new tax (I think I stated that only tax those paying 25% or less of their income on rent) is to play to your readers and not to admit the truth that renters owe the city for the services they receive.
You seem to believe that property owners and business are doing well in this economy and can afford new taxes, these groups are suffering too:
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
Posted by Chris P | January 7, 2009 10:28 PM