This is the second suit over the controversial half-cent sales
tax
San Jose – The president of the local chapter of the NAACP has sued the opponents of the county’s proposed half-cent sales tax, claiming that a ballot argument against Measure A is misleading and exaggerates the effects of the tax.
The suit, filed Thursday by Rick Callender, asserts that there are several factually incorrect statements in the argument authored by Mountain View City Councilman Greg Perry, including:
– That the tax would give Santa Clara County the highest tax rate in the state.
– That the Silicon Valley Leadership Group is the financial backer of Measure A.
– That SVLG is pushing a bill, SB 552, that would exempt its corporate members from the new tax.
– That the tax would last for more than 30 years.
Callender could not be reached for comment, but State Senator Elaine Alquist, who sponsored SB 552, agreed that the opposition ballot argument is misleading.
Alquist, who represents Gilroy, said the bill is “dead,” and in any event, would have had little impact on Measure A.
“This statement is misleading and factually incorrect for several reasons,” she said.
Measure A would raise the Santa Clara County sales tax to 8.75 percent, equaling Alameda and other counties as the highest in the state. It would add about $160 million a year to county coffers.
Perry calculated that the tax would cost the typical family several thousand dollars over 30 years. He said he stands by the ballot argument.
“I researched those numbers very thoroughly,” Perry said. “They may have different numbers in their rebuttal, but that’s not a reason the opposition should not have a chance to make its case. The most interesting thing is that they claim the SVLG isn’t a financial backer. That’s almost unbelievable.”
Some opponents of the tax have also criticized the measure as an end-run around voters to raise money to build a BART extension to San Jose.
Measure A doesn’t mention BART but does promise money for housing, healthcare, social services and transportation.
When county supervisors placed the measure on the ballot, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority decided not to go forward with its own sales tax measure for BART, which would have required approval from two-thirds of voters. The county measure, because it doesn’t promise any specific projects, will pass with a simple majority. The VTA, meanwhile, continues to plan its financial future with the assumption that it will receive new sales tax revenue.
County supervisors have denied that there is any arrangement to funnel money to the VTA if the tax passes, but a ballot argument in the measure’s favor mentions BART as a possible benefit of a new tax.
And the argument written by Perry, who is also a VTA director, describes Measure A as the result of backroom deal involving county politicians and the SVLG, which has led several campaigns to fund BART and transportation projects through sales taxes, including the 2000 Measure A, a half-cent tax to build BART and other transit improvements.
Callender’s suit is the second in three days over the controversial measure.
Earlier this week, anti-tax advocates sued the county to have Measure A removed from the June ballot. The suit argues that the measure should be contested in November. California law requires general tax measures to be on general election ballots, typically in November. There are several ways that the June primary election could be considered a general election.
Thursday, Santa Clara County attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs, led by Doug McNae of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association, did not file the suit within the 10-day window to challenge the measure.
Also Thursday, arguments were heard in the legal battle between county assessor Larry Stone, and his opponent, supervisor Pete McHugh.
Stone sued McHugh this week alleging that the supervisor’s ballot statement contains factual errors and breaks California law by criticizing Stone’s job performance.
“A ballot statement is supposed to be about your education and qualifications,” Stone said. “It’s not supposed to be a hit piece.”
A ruling in that case could come today.
