If you would like to send one e-mail that will go to all the
City City Council members and City Administrator Jay Baksa, visit
http://www.ci.gilroy.ca.us/cityhall/city_council.html and fill out
the form provided.
We’re both surprised and saddened that Measure A, the vague, voluminous and misleading communication user’s tax, was approved by Gilroy voters last week.
The tax dangled an extremely modest rate reduction of .5 percent before voters and buried details that the measure greatly broadened the city’s ability to label and tax anything vaguely related to “communications,” regardless of whether the city has any role in that service’s delivery.
It makes sense that the city tax land lines and underground-wired cable television, or even that it receive a portion of sales taxes collected in town. The city provides the infrastructure that makes these things possible.
But when you make a phone call over the Internet, decide that satellite TV beats cable at home or in your business, use your cell phone to get directions or simply use an Internet search engine to research a report, the city has no role in those services reaching you.
The city of Gilroy should not have its fingers in those pies.
That’s why we’re hoping some members of the new City Council, elected on voters’ hopes of sweeping change and restored priorities, will find a way to undo the damage that voters, we believe, have unwittingly done by approving this disingenuous measure.
If it’s possible – it might not be – our first choice would be for the council to simply repeal the measure outright. If that’s not possible, perhaps newly elected council members can spearhead an effort to place a ballot measure on the primary or general election ballot next year to ask voters to repeal it or replace it with a measure that makes sense.
Further, we’d like to know if voters understood what they were approving. We’d like to see council appoint an independent panel to study the language of this measure from both a legal and a common-man perspective. Is it clear to both lawyers and the average resident exactly what powers were granted with Measure A’s approval?
Finally, let’s find a way to ensure that vague, misleading language isn’t presented to voters in the future. That might involve requiring outside review of ballot language to make sure that the suggested measure is not vague in a legal or a common-man sense.
In the end, of course, it’s up to residents to be the watchdogs of their own government. With no organized opposition – no one even submitted a ballot argument opposing Measure A – voters had little reason to read beyond the .5 percent rate reduction. And it’s very clear that’s just how Measure A’s backers wanted it.
As residents, it’s ultimately up to us to hold our elected officials and city employees – all of whom work for us – accountable. If we don’t, we end up paying dumb taxes like the one we approved with Measure A.
It’s too bad. Gilroyans were hoodwinked, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. But when satellite TV bills take a jump, for example, the city should beware: Residents will be keen on placing blame and upset with the answer.
