6 responses to “County Tax Proposals”

1. Ron Fulderon

   February 18, 2012

   We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

2. Joe

   February 20, 2012

   I agree and would go a couple steps further–which I bet you would agree with. Here’s an excerpt from a Michigan web posting by someone named Jarrett Skorup that was reprinted in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal:
   Imagine a city where all the major economic planks of the statist or “progressive” platform have been enacted:
   A “living wage” ordinance, far above the federal minimum wage, for all public employees and private contractors. A school system that spends significantly more per pupil than the national average. A powerful school employee union that militantly defends the exceptional pay, benefits and job security it has won for its members. Other government employee unions that do the same for their members. A tax system that aggressively redistributes income from businesses and the wealthy to the poor and to government bureaucracies.
   Would this be a shining city on a hill, exciting the admiration of all? We don’t have to guess, because there is such a city right here in our state: Detroit.
   –nuff said—

3. Joe

   May 6, 2012

   Interesting piece from the Mercury Times:
   A nationwide survey of convention, trade show and meeting industry professionals concludes they would have second thoughts about holding an event in the Bay Area if San Mateo County voters approve June 5 ballot measures that would raise the hotel tax and start taxing commercial parking lot and car rental businesses in unincorporated areas, as well as at San Francisco International Airport.
   The poll, conducted by the U.S. Travel Association, says that more than 40 percent of 366 respondents would “definitely” search for a new meeting destination or “reconsider” holding their next meeting or event in the Bay Area, according to a press release the organization released Thursday. In addition, 25 percent said they would have to cut back on their meeting expenses if they held an event in the region.
   U.S. Travel Association COO Geoff Freeman said there’s a tipping point, even for popular destinations, when tourism professionals can’t justify spending more there than in other locations fighting for their dollars. That’s how New York lost some of its travel business he said.
   San Mateo County is showing a “pure disregard for visitors,” Freeman said. Asked why the association got involved in the county’s affairs, Freeman said it has been keeping an eye and ear out in recent years for such taxes, which have become more common in the current economy.
   The Board of Supervisors voted in February to place the tax measures on the June ballot.
   Board President Adrienne Tissier on Friday defended the county’s decision to try to recover some tourism-related costs, such as impacts to roads and emergency resources. The taxes won’t discourage overall tourism to the area, she added.
   “We’ve got 40 million people who come through that airport annually,” Tissier said. “I find it hard to believe, being the destination that we are, that it will have any impact at all.”
   Measure T would require car rental businesses to pay the county 2½ percent of their gross receipts. It is expected to generate approximately $7.5 million a year for the county. Measure X, which would require commercial parking lot operators to pay a tax equaling 8 percent of their gross receipts, is expected to raise an additional $5 million.
   The parking tax actually hurts local residents more than tourists, Freeman noted. “Who parks at the airport, that’s not guests, that’s residents.”
   Measure U would increase the current 10 percent hotel tax on room rates by one-fifth to 12 percent, giving the county an additional $200,000 per year.
   According to the survey, 58 percent believe the Bay Area’s tax rates are already among the highest in the country, second only to New York’s.
   Four years ago, two similar county measures were defeated. Measure Q, an 8 percent parking tax measure, was rejected by 52.6 percent of the voters and Measure R, a 2½ percent rental car tax, failed with 52.9 percent opposed.

4. Joe

   May 24, 2012

   Here’s a reiteration of the argument for the three taxes on the upcoming ballot from the DJ:
   San Mateo County officials, trying to plug a hefty structural deficit, will ask voters next month to pass a trio of tax measures meant to raise approximately $13 million annually from non-local pockets but which opponents argue will only drive away tourism, jeopardize jobs and stymie efforts to positively stimulate the economy.
   The three measures on the June 5 primary — T, U and X — will add business license taxes to rental car and parking businesses and increase the transient occupancy tax at hotels. Specifically, rental cars would gain a 2.5 percent tax, parking an 8 percent tax and TOT, or hotel tax, would jump from the existing 10 percent to 12 percent.
   The taxes only apply to those businesses in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, making the primary target those linked to San Francisco International Airport. Federal law prohibits the county from exclusively taxing airport-related business so the taxes, if approved, will apply to all commercial operators in the unincorporated area, including restaurants with valet parking and hotels that charge separately for parking.
   With that in mind, proponents argue the taxes are a way of generating revenue on the backs of visitors rather than locals. Each tax is “modest” and will have very little impact to residents, travel plans or businesses’ bottom line, said David Burruto, a supervisorial legislative aide and member of proponent group San Mateo County Forward.
   Burruto believes most local residents get dropped off and picked up at the airport rather than needing long-term parking and advocates point out that cities are exempt from the taxes.

5. Joe

   June 2, 2012

   The Mercury News has an update on the three tax measures (T, X, and U) on Tuesday’s ballot here http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county-times/ci_20763143/fight-intensifies-over-san-mateo-county-tax-measures
   The interesting part is that the Teamsters Local 853 has also come out against the opposition “citing worries about the economy.” Wow! I cannot recall the last time that happened!

6. Joe

   November 5, 2013

   From the Daily Journal, here are a few million back in the county coffers:
   The former officers and directors of Lehman Brothers will pay San Mateo County $5.2 million to settle a lawsuit filed after the Wall Street firm’s bankruptcy leeched more than $155 million from the local investment pool five years ago.
   The settlement with San Mateo County and seven other plaintiffs is a total of $9.75 million of which the county will receive 69.5 percent minus its legal fee to attorney Joe Cotchett, said County Manager John Maltbie.
   “I was pleased. So many people and so many lives were hurt in this thing. This is just a small although inadequate way to recoup some of it,” Maltbie said.
   After Lehman collapsed, the county was told it would be lucky to get a dime on the dollar in bankruptcy. Instead, Maltbie said by waiting the county “did better than we thought.”
   A specific amount of bankruptcy funds was not available but Maltbie said it, coupled with the recent legal settlement and a possible settlement in a still-pending suit against Lehman’s auditors, could well put the county in the 40 percent to 60 percent recovery range.
   http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2013-11-05/san-mateo-county-settles-one-lehman-brothers-suit-for-52-million/1776425112804