Editorial: El Cerrito voters should reject tax plan, city propaganda

Measure H isn't a mere tax extension, contrary to officials' misleading claims in publicly funded mailers.

El Cerrito officials are once again spending public money to manipulate the election system and mislead voters about a proposed tax measure.

This time, city leaders have spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on public relations advice and campaign-style mailers deceptively promoting Measure H on the Nov. 5 special election ballot as a mere extension of an existing parcel tax.

City officials also set unusually short deadlines for submitting election pamphlet arguments, which explains why the official booklet mailed to voters contains no opposition perspective.

Measure H is not the replacement tax city officials purport it to be. Voters should reject the measure because its poorly crafted — and to send a loud signal that they won’t tolerate the repeated use of their tax dollars to sway their ballot decisions.

Much different from Measure A

The history of this measure goes back to 2000, when city voters approved Measure A, an annual parcel tax to fund renovation of the city swim center, rehabilitation of the Canyon Trail Clubhouse and restoration of restrooms at three city parks.

Measure A expires next year, prompting city officials to propose Measure H. The yearly tax would be the same: $58.46 for single-family houses, $45 per unit for multifamily properties, and $410 per acre for nonresidential properties. But the requirements of the new measure are very different from the one it would replace:

• Measure A from 2000 was restricted to specific capital expenditures; new Measure H funds would be for capital or maintenance, meaning they could be spent on the city’s parks department labor costs.

• Measure A was limited to 20 years, providing an opportunity for voter review, an incentive for city officials to wisely spend the money. Measure H has no such sunset provision. If approved, it would be permanent.

• Measure A prudently called for establishment of a dedicated fund for maintenance and replacement of city capital facilities. The money came from the general fund, and the amount was tied to the sum collected from a city tax on the sale of property.

But the city rescinded the tax on property sales soon after Measure A passed, so no more contributions were made to the fund. Last year, however, city voters established a new transfer tax, but city officials never re-established the maintenance and capital fund. Now Measure H would eliminate the requirement for such a fund.

Thus, contrary to the city’s claims, Measure H is very different from the 2000 parcel tax. Each of those differences undermines the city’s argument that Measure H is merely an extension or replacement of Measure A.

New city taxes since 2000

Moreover, the city’s tax structure has changed a lot in two decades. Since Measure A passed, residents have voted to tax themselves in multiple other ways to add money to the city coffers. Maybe it’s time to let one of the other city taxes expire.

Unlike two decades ago, El Cerrito is now tied with 10 other cities for the Bay Area’s highest sales tax rate, 9.75%. And its new tax on property sales dwarfs almost all other cities in the state. So-called transfer taxes are legal theft of homeowner equity — money taken from the pockets of the same property owners now being asked to permanently extend parcel tax payments.

But those differences are not the message city officials want to promote with Measure H. They have spent at least $73,000 on polling, a consultant and printing costs to craft the measure and distribute misleading promotional material. Mailers sent to city residents at taxpayer expense promote Measure H as a continuation of Measure A, while glossing over the differences.

The mailers walk up to the legal line barring political expenditures of public funds but don’t cross it by explicitly urging a “yes” vote. It’s not the first time El Cerrito officials have done this. They went to the same playbook for proposed tax hikes in 2014 and 2016, hiring pollsters and consultants and mailing out campaign-style literature to residents at public expense.

Latest manipulation tactic

This time, they’ve added a new twist. Because this is not an election year, the city called a special election. Under state law, that allows them to set short deadlines for ballot arguments or, if there are other elections in the same county, to let the county elections office handle it, giving opponents three more weeks, from the usual mid-August date, to submit statements.

El Cerrito officials knew there likely would be another election in the county at the same time but chose to use the shorter deadlines. City Clerk Holly Charléty said in an email to elections officials that the shortened time frame “worked best” for the city. That explains why there are no opposing arguments in the ballot booklet mailed to voters.

It all smacks of election manipulation — all the more reason to vote no on Measure H.