Jim Farley : Open Space Measure Revisited

Autumn has arrived. The leaves are changing, the mornings are getting brisk, and we are now receiving our annual property tax bills. My bill has been getting harder and harder to lift from my mailbox each year. This year it was a bit heavier yet again. On top of all the other assessments and voted indebtedness we now have the Open Space Preservation District assessment. For single family residences the amount is $25, escalating by $1 per year to $55. This measure was just passed in July and is already showing up on our tax bills. It is amazing how efficient government can be when it comes to applying a tax.

There are questions about the birth of this assessment that still remain unanswered. Was the process of the election a true example of democracy as touted by the proponents? The facts indicate it was not. The way the ballots were counted gave seven developers the control of whether the measure passed or failed, effectively negating all of the other votes. They voted “yes” and the measure passed. Had they voted “no” it would have failed. This happened because of the weighting system that was used in ballot counting. Each property owner cast a weighted ballot based on the amount of their initial assessment. For example a single family resident voted $25 and will have an assessment of $25. An exception was made for seven developers. Collectively they were given a voting assessment $148,737 based on houses that do not currently exist but may be built on their property in the future. While being given this huge voting power, they will only pay an actual assessment of $9,413 based on the land currently being vacant. The total weighted vote returned was $592,671. The seven developers vote was 25% of the overall vote, enough to control the election. If this election was a 100-yard dash, the yes votes were given a 50-yard head start. The city would not have made this exception without first colluding with the developers to make sure the yes votes were assured. The city says this is legal. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not, but it clearly isn’t right, and it stinks. One important unanswered question is “What are the developers getting in return for their yes votes?” Even though this measure would have passed without the above exception it was still wrong for the city to “stack the deck” in this manner. This is ominous for any assessment elections in the future. There is a legal challenge in northern California on a very similar measure that may have impact on this one. It is Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority. The argument in this case is that all property owners do not benefit equally from the purchase of open space outside the city. Those who live on the outskirts of the city benefit more than those at the core of the city do. This violates the proportionality requirement in Proposition 218. The case overturned the election in Santa Clara County but has been appealed to the California Supreme Court. A decision is pending. Some may say “So what does all of the above matter? It’s only 25 bucks and now we will have a “greenbelt” around our city and less traffic and crime”. That is what the slick advertising promoted, and what most of the property owners were voting for. Will it happen? Was it oversold? Only the future knows. At the very least the citizens need to be assured the district is being implemented in accordance with the engineer’s report that establishes the guidelines for the district. The council is currently in the process of selecting five individuals to serve on the Financial Accountability and Audit Panel to oversee the implementation. I have encouraged them to give due consideration to all applicants. Myself, and others, who were opposed are applying for the position. If the council chooses one or more of us “outsiders” it would go a long way in assuring the citizens that their money is being spent properly. It will also rebuild trust with the community on this issue. Jim Farley jimfarley@noscassessmenttax.com

Comments (3)

RickLOctober 8 at 12:41 PM PT
Lucky for the City Council that there isn't a Code of Ethics to answer to for these shenanigans.
BirgittaOctober 8 at 1:02 PM PT
I would be interested in seeing how the homeowners voted ... what's the TRUE count?
SCVoiceOctober 9 at 9:57 PM PT
It makes me wonder just how far our representatives will go to push their agenda. Long the advocate for open space, it seems Laurene Weste has sold her soul to the Devil on deals like this. We can begin to see why we received so many glossy fliers on this issue and how they were paid for. Laurene has also rolled over on the hospital issue and she stands to gain a bunch of money on the Casden project in Placerita Canyon. Is it hard to figure out why she votes for projects represented by resident legal hack, Hunt Braly? After all, he is representing both issues, and Scott Wilk handled both Open Space and the hospital! What a shame it is when leaders give way to self-interest and a town outgrows its incestual past. I am purely disgusted. The politics are becoming a little too obvious for the dummy followers here in SCV.