Voters agree to extend county utility tax
Original post made on Jun 4, 2008
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 6:00 AM
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.
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.
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.