By Robert Haugh
Santa Clara County wants to increase the sales tax, Supervisor Susan Ellenberg told constituents earlier this month.
“This is why the County Executive is presenting… a proposal to add a five-year, 5/8 cent sales tax measure to the special November election necessitated by the County Assessor’s mid-term resignation,” Ellenberg wrote in an email.
She warned of “enormous threats posed by HR1,” adding: “While no one is excited about new taxes… we cannot sit back and tell ourselves it won’t be that bad… believe me, it will be.”
Ellenberg’s August 6 email did not mention any cost-cutting measures the County is considering to tighten its belt before asking voters to approve new taxes. Or any efforts for the County to find non-tax revenue.
Ellenberg is vice chair of the Board’s Finance and Government Operations Subcommittee that is suppose to identify cost-saving recommendations.
If passed, the tax would raise the base Countywide rate from 9.125% to 9.75%, making it one of the highest in the state.
Some cities would be pushed even higher. San Jose and Milpitas would reach 10%, while Campbell would hit 10.5%, the highest in the County.
The City of Santa Clara would rise to 9.875%.
But whether voters even get the chance is now in doubt.
Four County residents have recently filed a lawsuit in Superior Court seeking to block the measure, arguing the Board of Supervisors had no authority to rush it onto the ballot by declaring a “fiscal emergency.”
They say state law only allows tax hikes during a general election – unless there’s a true emergency.
Plaintiff Brian Holtz, a Libertarian activist and Purissima Hills Water District vice president, accused the board of manipulating the process. “They put tax measures on off-cycle elections to avoid the higher turnout of general elections,” he told the Mercury News. “Leaders are basically choosing their voters – and that’s just a little smelly.”
The lawsuit also points to the early formation of Save Our Local Hospitals on July 30, more than a week before the board’s “emergency” vote, calling the timing “perhaps unprecedented in California history.”
County Counsel Tony LoPresti defended the move, calling the board’s action legal and necessary to protect hospitals and safety-net services.
The court will decide whether Measure A appears on the November ballot, or gets thrown out before voters ever see it.
[…] Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, who represents Santa Clara, has been a big proponent of the measure. […]
[…] sales tax measure was rushed onto the November ballot after the Board of Supervisors declared a “fiscal emergency” tied to hospital […]
Susan Ellenberg is not transparent or honest about where the tax money will be going. . .
The County Awarded $25.7 Million Funding For Emergency Housing, a grant from the State that is supposedly broke. The residents of Santa Clara came out in numbers to oppose the location of the LifeMoves, their future operator of the Santa Clara site. The residents have voiced their opposition, and Susan Ellenberg doesn’t care. The site chosen is not safe, too small, and the location at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway is NOT intended to be used to house 120 people, and it will not house families, it will be used for singles and couples as they had told the residents during the town hall meetings. WHO WILL BE PAYING FOR THE OPERATING COSTS GOING FORWARD?? That was never discussed, and the City has not agreed to the future expenditures.
No more tax inreases. We already pay enough.
Spend the money we already give you more wisely. Oh, and how about you stop stealing it through NGO’s.