Letter: Setting the record straight on the IHJD position on Measure Q
October 01, 2024
Let's set the record straight regarding the position the No on Q speakers shared at the recent League of Women Voters Forum.
No on Q stated that Interfaith Housing Justice Davis (IHJD) is urging residents to vote for Measure Q because the city is planning to direct more money to homelessness. They implied that the city has already committed to funding new programs addressing housing. While IHJD supports Measure Q, the city has not promised anything other than that housing is on the list of possible recipients of funding along with other legitimate city needs including replenishing the General Fund reserve, and infrastructure. The city has not promised to prioritize housing issues or indeed any particular recipient because Measure Q is a General fund tax and therefore by law, they can't.
No on Q stated that a plan for the City to spend money on homelessness is in the staff report. A review of the 6/4/24 staff report clearly demonstrates a wish list of projects "including urban forestry, climate action, affordable housing and social services, and infrastructure ". No commitments were made (nor can they be made!!) about where funds may be used.
Yes, IHJD supports Measure Q because we hope revenue will be generated sufficient to fund housing related issues. But we understand that passing Measure Q is only the first step. When the council begins the budgetary process after the election, IHJD will advocate for a commitment to address affordable housing and homelessness.
Ellen Kolarik, co-chair IHJD
"Yes, IHJD supports Measure Q because we hope revenue will be generated sufficient to fund housing related issues."
Well, see, that's the problem. Everyone WISHES that the funds will go to whatever it is they HOPE the funds will be used for. In fact, the funds are just going to backfill the already broken budget due to years of budgetary smoke, mirrors and mismanagement. Also, you can subsidize housing/homeless issues as a town until the cows come home, and the hole will only grow. And by the way, hate to tell you Rancher Bill, but the cows are never coming home.
The only way to reign in the children is to cut off their allowance. That Measure Q will fund what you hope it will fund, no matter if you are a homeless shelter, a bike advocate, a Davis-will-reverse-climate-change type, or someone who wants the trees trimmed more often, I believe Aerosmith (live concerts and Steven's voice R.I.P.): "Dream On, Dream On, Dream On, Dream Until Your Dreams Come True".
And the added new lyric: "And Vote NO on Measure Q!"
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | October 01, 2024 at 09:23 AM
Ellen puts her finger on the problem with the campaign for measure Q. Because it cant legally be dedicated to any one thing. just look at the City of Davis website. it states, "To support essential City services, such as public safety and emergency response; crime prevention; pothole repair; parks, road, sidewalk, and bike path maintenance; and addressing homelessness, affordable housing, and climate change"
Worse council members Nevile and Chapman ALSO promised it would be used to close the $11 Million a year budget gap.
The Council has already spent this money 6 different ways, but is going around town asking us to trust them.
Personally, I have no trust for a council that has fallen way behind in legally required financial audits, removed the oversight role of the budget and finance commission, and blew through $19 million in federal rescue money by giving it out to friends and pet projects.
The Council is acting like a bunch of addicts and It's time we say no more. Your cut off. We are not paying for your bad habits. No on measure Q
Posted by: Colin Walsh | October 01, 2024 at 10:53 AM
There's been no analysis whatsoever regarding what happens to city finances if more Affordable housing is built.
It could be that building more of it will put the city in a bigger financial hole.
I have no idea why some people think it's a good idea to build Affordable housing in a city that's comparatively expensive. Shouldn't it be the other way-around - build it where a dollar goes farther?
Or better yet, live where it's already less-expensive, if you don't already have a "home". (Probably half of the people in Davis were essentially "pushed out of" their original home towns, for this very reason.)
I truly don't understand the belief/value system that some people apparently possess.
There is no inherent "right" to live wherever you want. If there was, I wouldn't be around to write this comment today.
And truth be told, "South, South Woodland" (Davis) isn't the most-desirable place to begin with.
Posted by: Ron O | October 01, 2024 at 01:51 PM
Not only is the ballot measure deceptive about how the money will be spent, it is also deceptive about how much it actually costs the consumer. First, there is that deceptive phrase in the initial summary in the Voter’s Guide about a “1 cent sales tax” increase. Oops, they forgot to say that they meant 1 cent on every dollar spent including shipping.
So it is 1 percent increase. Except it’s not! Read the whole proposal and you will note that not only does the consumer have to pay 1% more, so does the SELLER! And any rational seller (Retailer) will raise the selling price of goods by 1% to make up for this additional cost to his/her business. (A retailer is likely shooting for a 10% profit margin and so a 1% increase in cost eats away one of those 10 percentage points of profit, leaving them with 9% profit. Thinking hard, that means they are losing 10 percent of their income for the year. That is a big hit! Unless they pass it on to the consumer.)
Combining these two increases means the consumer is most likely see their cost go up by 2 %, not 1%, and certainly not 1 cent per purchase as suggested in the summary in the voters guide.
To sum up, this is an effective 2% increase on what is already an effective 9.25% sales tax, raising the effective sales tax rate to 11.25%.
I think the City needs to be more clear on where this money is going. “To the General Fund” is not sufficient for me.
Posted by: Alan Hill | October 03, 2024 at 03:25 PM