The Measure M Ballot Arguments Supporting Documentation.The arguments against Measure M makes certain statements. Here, you'll find the justification and explanation for those arguments. 1. How is this a 50% tax increase? That's not a typo. Even thought the overall sales tax is is 7.75 percent, the city's portion of that is one percent. Measure M would raise this to 1.5 percent. It's not a technicality. If you buy something that requires paying $1 in tax to the city today, after Measure M, you will pay $1.50, or if you make a large purchase, or a number of smaller purchases, you might pay $100 to the city today, and after Measure M, you will pay $150. That is a 50 percent increase. If you look closely, you'll see at the top of "Exhibit 1" to the Measure M ordinance, it actually uses that figure of 50% to figure the increase in tax revenue. The increase in the overall sales tax is self evident. The sales tax you actually pay will jump from 7.75 percent to 8.25 percent. This would be the highest sales tax in the area, and among the highest in California and the nation. Comparative rates are available from many sources. The California Board of Equalization provides data on sales tax rates. Even Los Angeles is "only" 8.25 percent. How can Manteca need a tax rate as high as Los Angeles? Only a relatively few jurisdictions have sales taxes higher than 8.25 percent, notably San Francisco at 8.5 percent and a few cities in Alameda County with 8.75 percent. The much touted "Measure W" that Stockton passed two years ago only raised the sales tax to 8 percent. With Measure M, we would leapfrog over Stockton and have the highest tax rate in San Joaquin County. 2. Where does the figure $239 come from? From publicly available spending plan attached to the Measure M ordinance. The Measure M tax is estimated to cost the people of Manteca, in total, about $4 million every year. If you simply consider there are about 64,000 people in Manteca, that comes to a tax burden of about $62.50 per person per year (also called "per capita"). That comes to a tax burden for a family of four of about $250 per year. The more conservative estimate of $239 is from another source that listed the population as 67,000. It's true these are "averages" and your actual tax burden will vary. The first draft of the argument contained the words "on average" but that was removed to get under the 300 word limit for publication. However, the figure is very real. After all, that $4 million has to come from somewhere -- and it comes from you. The argument that some of the money will be paid by "others" is a bit specious. There's an old saying about taxes that goes something like this: "Don't tax me; don't tax thee; tax that fellow behind the tree." In other words, this is often said about some new tax, that "it won't affect you, don't worry about it; we are taxing someone else!" If only that were possible! One other problem with that argument is that we don't have any real data to back it up, who knows how much shopping is done by "outsiders?" Some, I'm sure. But there's one final problem. All the tax is paid by persons who operate businesses in Manteca. The sales tax very clearly states it is a tax for "the privilege of doing business in Manteca." It's paid by the seller, not the buyer. No matter how you slice it, it comes from us, people in Manteca. 3. Can the tax money really be spent on "anything?" What is a "9217 provision?" Doesn't the ordinance say this money can only be spent on public safety or police and fire? Lets look at the last question first. That is a true statement, the ordinance, in section 150, does indeed say the money has to be spent on public safety only. It goes on further in the document that it creates a "Citizen's Oversight" committee and requires annual audits and that the money be put into separate accounts, etc. All of that is "true" -- it does say that. So, then why do I still say the money can actually be spent on anything? The simple answer is that because the Measure M also contains a special "9217 provision," (this is the part they don't want you to notice). All of those promises can be changed or amended by a simple vote of the City Council of Manteca, with no new election needed! Sounds incredible, to make a promise in one section, then have another section that says the city council can change the previous section without any new vote. This has caused much controversy and confusion. To me, it seems carefully crafted. After all, supporters of the tax can read verbatim all the "promises" in writing. Very clever! 
Measure M text, section 120(B), the part they don't want you to see. This the entire paragraph.
Look at section 120 B for your self. For your convenience, here is a PDF of page 9. At the top of the page it says, "B. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9217 ... the City Council of the City of Manteca may amend or repeal this ordinance and any of its exhibits, ... without a vote of the people." Read the complete Measure M here. Many citizens are probably familiar with the rule about initiatives and referendums in California. Usually, they can't be changed or removed by the legislature. They can usually only be changed or removed by another vote of the people. However, be aware that this isn't an ironclad rule. That's just how most initiatives work. Which brings us to that Elections Code 9217 (California State law): 9217. If a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance
vote in its favor, the ordinance shall become a valid and binding
ordinance of the city. The ordinance shall be considered as adopted
upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body, and
shall go into effect 10 days after that date. No ordinance that is
either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the
legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or
adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote
of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original
ordinance.
(emphasis mine)
There you have the "smoking gun." That last clause says it's written in stone unless the ordinance itself says it can be changed. And the Measure M ordinance contains just such a provision. When questioned by a daring reporter, the lawyer involved in the drafting of the ordinance verified that the ordinance can be changed. Notice he says that the "annual audits" and the "Citizen's Oversight" committee can be abolished at any time. He is less clear, and a little more lawyer-like when discussing the possibility of other changes. I must respectfully disagree with the assertion other parts couldn't be changed. You, the voter, will have to decide for yourself. Bear in mind, no one has come up with an actual legal argument why the plain language that says "may amend or repeal" doesn't mean exactly what it sounds like it means. I do agree that it would be possible for a future council to abolish the tax (a fact they like to repeat) or to decrease the tax, but not raise the tax. In fact, the restriction against raising the tax is the only restriction I can find. After all, that's what it says. If anyone has an actual reason why the plain language doesn't mean what it says, I invite anyone to write or leave public comments on the "blog." I must acknowledge that there is at least the remote possibility that a dispute could arise if a future council diverted the money. Someone may be able to challenge it by going to court, arguing something about "the will of the voters." I don't take that claim seriously. The cost of mounting a court challenge is astronomical, and the argument historically hasn't worked out too well in the past. Here, someone would have to tell a court that they voted for Measure M because of all the promises they read in the newspaper or that they saw signs all over town that said "the money was for the police and fire." The other side would then likely argue that the plain language in the measure, which the people voted for, clearly says it can be changed by a simple action by the City Council. It would be a losing case, in my view, and not even practical. In any case, this is not an ironclad promise, with "no wiggle room." That's the point. Why should the voters, who have been promised that the money goes to public safety have to "hope for the best." Or "hope" that it never goes to court. Or "hope" that it's never changed by a future council.? By the way, most Manteca residents can remember the last new tax, the "Transient Occupancy Tax" (hotel room tax) and the signs all over town that said "Save the Police and Fire!" This was just a few years ago, (March 2002) Today, where does the "T.O.T." tax go? Fully 20 percent of it goes to the curiously named "Convention and Visitors' Bureau." There were disputes about that too. No one could challenge it because the actual language of the measure didn't really say it was for public safety. Remember, what is printed on a sign down on Main Street doesn't count. What counts is what the measure actually says. Since then, a future city council (the current council) decided the money would be better spent on the "Convention" Bureau. They simply deemed it in the best interest of the citizens. And that is that. Exactly the same thing can happen to Measure M money. 4. The "scientific campaign" of propaganda? This is best explained more fully in a letter to the Sun Post, published August 18, 2006. Here for your convenience. Evidently this group of itinerant consultants travels from town to town in California, promising each city that they can raise a tax for them, even though it requires a vote of the people. They do scientific studies of the people in that town, by telephone mostly, and determine what reason might influence them to vote for a new tax. If the study shows that they people would vote for a new tax for the library, they would tell the city council to put a new tax on the ballot and promise the funds will go to the new library. They would then put the PR mechanism in full gear, and send out press releases and give talks on how bad the library is, etc. All this insures that these consultants "almost never lose," They claim a 90% overall rate of "success" and a 100% never lose rate when the tax is promised for police and fire. So far that's been their winning strategy. In Manteca, the telephone survey and other studies showed that people might vote for a tax increase if they were told the police and fire departments were "in bad shape" and "were in dire need." So that's what they did. They have found that "fear" is a powerful motivator, along with "promises of safety." Which leads the next question, is this all "propaganda" or is there really a problem with the police or fire departments? That's a fair question, and an important one! 5. Is there some public safety "crisis?" What is the state of the police and fire departments, and how do you know? That comes directly from city officials. They are in the best position to know. This issue is addressed by city leaders, the police chief, the fire chief, the city manager, and presented to the city council. Here are the records of those discussions and the questions and answers sessions. At the public hearing when the council adopted the budget, staff said that the document is available for public review, and "we have copies here." When the meeting ended, I asked for a copy. When that was denied, I asked to at least "look at" a copy. I was sent away with a flea in my ear. For some reason, "the copy" they had wasn't there, it must have been taken back to the clerk's office. And a copy would cost $15. Through persistence, I managed to get one. Fortunately, a copy is sitting on the shelf at the Manteca Public Library. But I digress. In the first section, the city manager gives an overview of the budget and the priorities. The condition of the police and fire departments is addressed on page M-4. You can read it for yourself here. City Manager Adams says, "Staffing levels within the Police and Fire departments are sufficient to meet the response times required ...." It goes on to explain how the budget addresses concerns about "increased gang activity" and the funding of new positions already in the budget. Then it goes onto sports complexes and, over the next 397 excruciating pages, explains how your tax money is being spent on various frivolous projects. Note that the adequate police and fire budget is the first priority addressed. We are assured that all is well. No where do you read any concern over any "crisis" in the budget or any pressing need. There is no cautionary language or words to the effect that something has to be done to address this pressing concern, etc. And this would be the place to say that. In addition to this budget summary, there were also meetings between city staff, including the police chief and the fire chief, and the city council. In several places, questions about this very issue were asked and answered. These are also recorded in documents. Lets look at some of the questions by council and answers by staff from the 20 June 2006 meeting: (click on the question to see a photocopy of the actual document.) Question by Councilman Debrum: "...are we staying status quo with personnel needs for police and fire....?" Answer: Yes, we are staying status quo. Question by Councilman Debrum: "Are our public safety response times sufficient....?" Answer: (long explanation)..."We respond to 92.6% of these calls in 5 minutes or less...." Question by SD: "Is it the feeling of Chief Halford that one gang officer will be sufficient....?" Answer: This proposed new budget will authorize one new gang officer and one officer will be re-assigned, giving us a two-person gang unit. The ... team will be able to conduct enforcement and intervention activity...." Question by Mayor Weatherford: I'm in favor of adding the following positions, conditioned on the availability of revenue.... to establish an organizational structure for the future...." Answer: "The City Manager is recommending these positions ... should additional revenue sources be identified."
That last exchange is curious. One could argue that it sounds like there is some need for some new money, ( a new tax.) But read the whole exchange for yourself. It's carefully worded. For some reason, it's not talking about "needs" it's talking about raising new "sources of revenue" and if we get more money, then we'll have more "needs." And it's couched in terms of "for the future." Meaning, the need really doesn't exist "now." Then, the next questions go onto funding water features at the park, etc. If there was a critical public safety need, why would they then go onto talk about funding other frivolous projects? Notice that no where in the budget itself, or in the extensive questions and answers, are there any dire warnings. No words like "there is a critical need" or "Staff advises the Council of a critical need etc." Its all routine discussion of how everything is funded and we have money left over for other projects. Which brings us to  this chart (click to enlarge). Where does the money in the "general fund" go? Notice in the chart, for example, Parks & Recreation and "Community Development" gets more money than the entire fire department. And we are to believe, as has been repeated in the press, that we can afford the new fire engine, but there's no money to staff it! That's not supported by the facts. The facts tell us that the city council has chosen to fund things other than the new fire engine. Consequently, as you can see, the police and fire departments are well staffed and well funded. There is no "crisis" and no pressing need for a new tax. And this leads us directly to the next question: 6. What is the real reason for this tax? Greed! No, I've got to give more than one word. The idea of the new tax is to be able to fund more frivolous projects, and, at the same time, give everyone generous raises in pay. One or the other isn't good enough, they want both! 7. Where does the figure of 43 percent raises in the plan come from. That sounds like a wild claim! I was wondering when someone would ask. This comes indirectly from Exhibit 1, the spending plan for Measure M. In it, it allocates certain funds for certain positions for year 1 and year 2 and so on. Now examine the figures, calculator in hand. The cost for one new police officer, year 1: $130,090; one police officer, year 2: $139.775; one police officer, year 3: $150,235! Those figures include costs in addition to salary and benefits, but you can see a trend there. If you plug those numbers into your calculator, you see there is a about a 7.45 percent increase each year. From that it's simple to figure out the total increase over five years. ("Exhibit 1" only says "and so on" for years 4 and 5.) It comes out to be over 43 percent over the five years. Remember that a 7.45 percent for five years is not simply 7.45 times 5, you have to consider the compounding effect. Note that no one has disputed this figure. Now, I'm not sure if anyone would stand for such outlandish raises in the real world, they may not actually occur. But the point is that's what the plan says. If those kinds of raises are impractical, which they probably are, then it also shows that whoever made that plan was trying very hard to "use up" all the money. It's simply too much money to spend! One wonders why they didn't just ask for a 1/4 percent tax rather than the full 1/2 percent tax increase. 8. You mention "Big League Dreams" and other projects. Aren't those funded by "the redevelopment agency" and can't be used for public safety, etc? This is an area that would take a book to explain fully. How the redevelopment agency works, where the money for redevelopment projects "comes from" etc. This is a source of un-ending confusion. I'll try to simplify it. Maybe over-simplify a bit. The redevelopment agency is not free money that falls from the sky. It is tax money. From the people of Manteca. Your property taxes go to the redevelopment agency instead of to the general fund of the City of Manteca, if you live in an area "designated" as "blighted." In a sense, it's true, it's "separate money" and "redevelopment money" can't be spent in certain ways. But, that's only half the truth. It's true you can't take money out of the redevelopment agency for certain purposes, but the city government decided to put the money there in the first place, instead of sending it to the general fund. In a sense, the redevelopment agency "intercepts" the money from property taxes before it gets to the general fund. So, it's technically "true" that the money for Big League Dreams didn't "come out of" the general fund. That is only true in a very literal sense. The money for Big League Dreams was "heading for" the general fund, but the Redevelopment Agency grabbed it before it got to the general fund. So, when the city leaders loudly proclaim that "it didn't come out of the general fund!" They mean it literally, the money didn't "come out of" the general fund, but rather, the money was spent "before it got to the general fund." Technically truthful, but completely misleading. It's money from property taxes paid by the people who live in Manteca, simply diverted to the "redevelopment fund" before getting to the general fund. The practical upshot of this is that if there was no Redevelopment Agency the general fund would have much more money! And remember, the is no requirement to have a Redevelopment Agency. Many cities don't have one. In fact, according to one study, cities without a Redevelopment Agency actually performed better than those with a Redevelopment Agency. For a great summary of how a Redevelopment Agency works, here's a most fascinating web page. Its even got cartoons! Scroll to the Table of Contents. Read every section! Does all this mean we are doomed? Since we have the Redevelopment Agency misspending our tax dollars, doesn't that mean we have to raise the taxes? No, because the other option is to be more careful with money we have, and not expand the redevelopment agency any more than it already is. (the redevelopment "project zones" seem to grow like an amoeba, but that's also controlled by the City Council.) In fact, that brings us to the last real reason for the new tax. If we pass Measure M, there will be a new flow of money into the general fund, and that would permit the "Redevelopment Agency" to annex more territory and "grab" more of the property tax money that is destined for the general fund. Measure M is also a clever way to expand the "Redevelopment Agency."  One last chart for you. Here are the taxes that the city has collected over the past few years. Notice the increase in sales taxes, and notice the great increase in the property taxes (despite the Redevelopment Agency) because of the skyrocketing property values. This clearly shows that money is flowing into the city coffers in a big way. Any talk about how "we can't keep up with growth" is nonsense. The money is there, a lot of it.
Add to this, one other curiosity from the city budget. Read this, about halfway through this paragraph. (page M-6 in the budget). It says "The Citywide budget" last year was $154,413,776 and this year it's $99,908,629. Hmm. That's $54.5 million less, a 35 percent decrease in expenses. "As a result of the near completion of several major projects." The city is awash in money! There is no need for a new tax. 9. Who is the "No on M committee?" Who are you? Do you have any conflicts of interest? The No on M committee is a true grass roots effort. There are about 6 to 10 active members but membership is very loosely defined. Some have donated time and effort or pledged to distribute flyers or pay for materials to distribute. Others have pledged to simply tell 5 neighbors about Measure M and why it's not what it seems to be. If you can help, please do! About me: Maybe knowing something about me is a valid concern. After all, some of the supporters of the Measure M tax are actually paid by tax money, and will get raises if the tax passes! Other supporters are involved in convoluted tangles of interests such as land deals or more tax money for their private charity if Measure M passes. I'm the author of the argument against Measure M in the official election materials. I'm in private business (consulting). I have no government ties or conflicts of interest. I don't benefit from the Measure M tax nor from the failure of Measure M. In one article I'm identified as a consultant and as a registered nurse, I have a BSN but I'm not involved in health care. I was born and grew up in the east, and graduated from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. And I like cats, macaroni and cheese, and fruitcake. What else do you need to know? | 
