By Bill
PROPERTY OWNERS AND RENTERS will face a tax increase if the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District’s parcel tax Measure R passes on election day, Feb. 5.
Despite phony baloney from the “Campaign to Protect Quality Public Schools, Yes on R” (the entity filling your mailbox with all those pointless color brochures), you’ll pay more and pay until hell freezes over.
“Yes” campaign materials are seriously short of factual information. For example, their campaign flyers don’t even disclose that “R” would replace two existing parcel tax measures “S” and “Y,” whose combined tax is currently $346 a year. Nor do they mention both "Y” and “S” monies will continue to flow if “R” fails.
Proponents say without “R,”“our schools could lose some of our best teachers.” Not true because “Y” and “S” will continue to generate about $10-million in annual revenue if “R” fails. No teachers will be fired nor will student education be compromised. Talks of cutbacks are scare tactics.
“Yes" campaign backers keep insisting that “R” isn’t a tax increase, when it is. The facts are Measure R’s annual Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) will add $10.38 to the tax next year based on a 3 percent increase. It’s an INCREASE of $6.75 over “Y” and “S.” Because of the COLA, the parcel tax will increase every year, in perpetuity. And, with “R" locked in forever, we all will lose an important political tool for influencing future district spending and decision making.
In a previous column (Jan. 7, page 4), I mentioned the largest properties are taxed the same as the smallest properties and that won’t change with “R." I also mentioned that senior property owners over 65 who live on their property can obtain waivers exempting them from Measure R liability as they currently do under "S."
About 3,100 properties receive waivers from "S”assessments. I requested and received a copy of the waiver list from the SMMUSD and I can easily say much of the most expensive residential real estate owned by some of the wealthiest and most influential citizens in Santa Monica and Malibu is exempt.
Measure S allows property owners living on their property to waive taxes on contiguous properties they also own. Owners, mostly in Malibu, have exempted four, five and six contiguous properties and avoid paying thousands of dollars in school taxes. This will continue with “R."
For renters, landlords will be able to pass “R” cost on to tenants. Tenants in a duplex will pay about $14.40 monthly while a condominium renter will pay about $29.00 monthly. Senior renters can’t get waivers, however senior property owners who live in apartments on their own property can exempt the entire property. Tenants on such properties get a free ride. Lucky them.
Most of us are already paying for two school parcel taxes, college and school bond issues and a “clean beaches” parcel tax — all voter approved over the last few years. There’s more to come including a possible increase in the sales tax for transit in November and additional fees and taxes because of the $14-billion state budget deficit.
Two weeks ago, the Rent Control Board allowed landlords to pass on the cost of Proposition V — “Clean Ocean and Beaches" parcel tax. Barely approved by voters in 2006, It’ll add another $3 to $4 to a typical monthly rent beginning in March.
In 2006, voters also narrowly approved Measure BB, a $268 million dollar school bond measure whose costs are now being born by property owners and renters. The district’s Chief Financial Officer, Steve Hodgson, told the School Board last fall that the “BB” budget is only 25 percent of what is needed to finance the (district’s) entire 20-year Facilities Master Plan.” Hodgson suggested a future bond measure to supplement current “BB” funding.
And, administrators at Santa Monica College are considering another capital improvement bond proposition within the next three to five years.
I’d like to support “R” because I think our children’s’ education is important. But, I’m angry about the school district’s long history of fiscal incompetence and ongoing controversies. To make it worse, stakeholders don’t seem to care about reform — just grabbing more money.
I resent the proponent’s misleading campaign which sends the wrong message about “truth in advertising” to our kids. That and the fact that the “Yes on R” campaign has not filed its required disclosure statements (due Jan. 7) is another example of the cavalier attitude that its backers have toward voters.
Maybe a “No” vote on “R” will force them to rewrite and fix the inequities in “R” and come back with a fair and balanced ballot proposition.
Next week: Revolt in Malibu, more “R” baloney,dirty movies and who said,“Rent control is not a law to help low income people?”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 21, 2008. Read the original PDF.