Last night’s ARRA meeting was yet another positive step forward to a project at the Point. A solid diversity of opinions were represented by a wide swath of community activists. As the evening rolled on, I found myself wondering if the people signing on to Action Alameda’s SOCA campaign realize that the organizers are suggesting that a sales tax increase would be needed to fund the project (if was even legally able to be done, which is very doubtful).
Action Alameda recently posted his thoughts on the subject saying in December:
“If there is a will, there is a way. As for a 1/4 cent sales tax hike – at least that question would be put to Alameda County voters to decide if they want a higher sales tax to help fund the trust.”
And then, earlier this week:
“The nice thing about a public trust is that if it was funded partially from East Bay regional taxpayers – they way the Jenner Headlands Trust was partially funded with a Sonoma County 1/4 cent sales tax hike – then those regional users would be contributing…”
It seems funny to be suggesting that on one hand the proposed Alameda Point development is going to cost existing Alameda taxpayers money (it won’t, that’s false) and then put forth a plan who’s only funding that can be identified is raising the taxes of not only Alamedans, but ALL of the east Bay.
Total humor!
Updated: following are the screenshots of the comments from Action Alameda/SOCA spokesperson David Howard:
Interesting, now that you mention it.
Since this is the same outfit that claims that sales tax revenue can’t save Alameda’s General Fund, but a quarter percentage of a cent can save Alameda Point!
Plus Jenner Headlands is a beautiful place. I think Michele Ellson pointed out the scenic qualities of the Presidio vis a via Ala-Point in one of her articles.
We’re talking about an man-made, landfill – not purple mountain majesty here.
For my 1/4-percent (and for what is envisioned as the Public Land Trust – kinda more of the same, but cleaned up?) that would be a hard sell off island.
Edmundo, a trust is not open space, it’s way of holding property, usually with conditions for its usage. It’s a futile exercise to keep comparing the Point to parks or nature areas. All people are asking for is for trust ownership of the land to be explored, not for a park to be created.
Then I would suggest that the Public Land Trust need to do a better job articulating that fact.
The perception is that there would be some sort of “park” that would basically mean little or no change on Alameda Point, except that someone might come in and clean up the toxics…and that the entire County should foot the bill through a sales tax. That’s about all anyone understands.
Educate…
I posted a link on laurendo.
John and Lauren,
Looking to Action Alameda for consistent logic and accuracy? Good luck with that.
Getting the people of Alameda County to increase their sales tax for a Land Trust on Alameda (when 1/2 of them probably couldn’t even tell you where Alameda is!) is, at best, a pipe dream.
When did SOCA suggest a sales tax?
The 1st and only time I heard mention of a sales tax increase to fund the Point was when JKW had his 3 minutes at the podium on the 1-7-09 ARRA mtg.
Debbie Potter had been brought back to the podium to say the city would not issue anywhere near the amount of Tax Increment bRevevelopment Bonds Sun Cal says it needs to pay for the required infrastructure and will seek from the City.
Howard pointed out the big gap, and has asked how it will be paid for – You JKW were the only one who I heard mutter the words “sales tax to pay for it” -what were you talking about as you began to mutter? Is this just another red herring issue you are trying to drum up as a smoke screen to mask reality?
David, if you read the above post, you’ll see two cut and pasted quotes from SOCA spokesperson David Howard during discussions of the SOCA public trust issue. I’d suggest you reread the post and talk to the organizers of SOCA if you’re confused.
[...] require tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to start up as well as to maintain. And while SOC!A spokesperson, David Howard, has floated the possibility of the half-cent sales tax for the cit…and the county of Alameda is a way to pay for this project, this fact has remained glaringly absent [...]
[...] require tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to start up as well as to maintain. And while SOC!A spokesperson, David Howard, has floated the possibility of the half-cent sales tax for the cit…and the county of Alameda is a way to pay for this project, this fact has remained glaringly absent [...]
[...] require tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to start up as well as to maintain. And while SOC!A spokesperson, David Howard, has floated the possibility of the half-cent sales tax for the cit…and the county of Alameda is a way to pay for this project, this fact has remained glaringly absent [...]