|
|
|
Uploaded: Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 6:00 AM
Voters agree to extend county utility tax
Measure F raises levy to 6.5 percent
|
| Alameda County voters decided by a 64.8 percent to 35.1 percent margin Tuesday that residents in unincorporated areas will continue to pay a utility tax that raises millions of dollars a year for the county.
Although residents throughout the county voted on Measure F, only users in the county's unincorporated areas--including property owners in unincoporated Castlewood, Happy Valley and the Remen tract at Vineyard and Bernal avenues--pay the utility tax of 5.5 percent on electricity, natural gas and wire and cell telephones. The tax currently raises about $9.4 million a year.
Measure F will extend the tax and increase the levy to 6.5 percent, which is expected to bring in an additional $1.5 million to $2.5 million annually.
Proponents said that if Measure F had failed, it could have reduced law enforcement, library and community services in these unincorporated areas, including Castro Valley and Sunol.
The measure only needed a simple majority for approval.
County board races
Three seats on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors were on the ballot, but only one was contested.
In District 4, incumbent Nate Miley, who has been on the board for eight years and previously served on the Oakland City Council, defeated
small-business owner Steve White, who has never held political office, by a margin of 74.3 percent to 25.1 percent.
District 1 Supervisor Scott Haggerty, who represents Pleasanton and has been on the board since 1997, and District 5 Supervisor Keith Carson, who has been on the board since 1992, were re-elected without opposition. -Bay Cities News, Jeb Bing — Bay City News Service Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Jun 4, 2008 at 9:27 pm OK, I'll say something about this story, although I am sure other readers may be feeling uncomfortable about the basics of this vote as do I.
Here's the point. Most of the population lives in incorporated areas in the county. A small number live in the unincorporated area to which the tax applies. Yet, all of these people who don't have to pay it get the right to vote for the imposition of this tax on those who have to pay.
Why, in the name of fairness, don't only those affected get to vote and the rest of us not? There may be another principal operating here that I am not considering, so I am open to input.
Scary..... I thought this was America.
|
|
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2008 at 8:50 am Since it was on the ballot in order to extend the tax, there must be some more history behind it that isn't clear. I voted no on it.
|
|
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2008 at 9:27 pm I agree with Frank. It's none of my business what level of services the people in these areas desire. If they wish to have a possible cuts in the listed services, so be it....
Long, long ago I live in an unincorporated part of Alameda County and we rejected these increases time and again only to have the remainder of the county force the increases on us. Long ago a person familiar with county government told me the only way the county could get the increases passed was to have the entire county vote on the issue. At one time there was a "suggestion" by a "County Offical"(been so long ago can't remember who)that if the increases were rejected by the unincorporated areas, the entire county would need to pick up the slack through increased property taxes.
An old saying goes something like this - "If it doesn't directly effect me, I'm all for it". I also voted "No".
Kinda reminds me of the current debate on a certain PUSD trustee and a parcel tax.
|
|
Posted by Nancy, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2008 at 2:41 pm This is to get the unincorporated areas to pay their fair share. Even if they wanted a decline in their services, government doesn't work like that. Everyone's service from the County would go down to cover the missing revenue. In addition, it takes more money to create a special services district to allow just the unincorporated areas to vote on this than it does to let the entire County decide.
|
|
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2008 at 7:48 pm Pay their fair share of what, exactly? They pay property tax just like the rest of us. This is an EXTRA tax. It is those of us living in incorporated areas who are not paying their fair share.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
