City Council members voiced support of a possible sales tax increase that could bring as much as $13.5 million to city coffers, but won’t act on it until after this year’s city budget is finalized. They mayor said he opposes the proposal, and his campaign manager called it "regressive." The tax increase was recommended by Parks and Recreation Commission Chairman and mayoral candidate Jonathan Rewers in response to the results of a poll commissioned by the city that showed 71 percent of city v... mcorker IZonTruth comment-68528 2012-05-27T08:50:40Z 2012-05-27T08:50:40Z Cut bloated management. I cannot afford any more taxes! IZonTruth 2012-05-27T08:50:40Z evak comment-68435 2012-05-25T04:42:07Z 2012-05-25T04:42:07Z I agree with you, Indeed, one of the reasons we bought where we did was because of its proximity to a really great park. However, our neighborhood does not (as far as I know) have low income housing. And it is one of the more desirable places to live in Sacramento. So we, as homeowners in a very desirable part of town, would derive considerable benefit from better maintenance of our parks. But that benefit may not be felt as much by someone who rents in (say) the Oak Park neighborhood. I do however feel that we have come to the point in terms of park maintenance where further deterioration will do considerable harm to both my husband and I and that renter in Oak Park which is why I would support a targeted tax increase. I just wish there was some other way to generate that revenue. evak 2012-05-25T04:42:07Z William Burg comment-68399 2012-05-24T14:45:43Z 2012-05-24T14:45:43Z evak: Low-income folks benefit from public parks in other ways--like recreational use of those parks, as they are less likely to have big yards. Property value in a dollar sense may not be so important, but neighborhoods that are desirable and comfortable to live in depend heavily on parks--and Sacramento's parks, despite recent cutbacks, are very highly rated! William Burg 2012-05-24T14:45:43Z evak comment-68376 2012-05-23T23:31:40Z 2012-05-23T23:31:40Z When you impose a regressive tax (and a sales tax is regressive) you are saying that someone who makes the minimum wage and someone who makes 250,000 per year pay the same tax for feminine products for example. Your biology doesn't give you a choice about buying those and they are not exempt from tax. Not only that, but you don't derive the same benefits from the tax. So, well-maintained parks drive up (or at least stabilize) house values. And that's great for us homeowners. But someone on minimum wage is most likely renting or living with kin. To them property vaues are not as important. That's just one example, and i could go on. That's why (in general) I agree with Steve. The problem now (IMO) is that we have cut these essential services to the point that cutting them any further will seriously harm our community. That is why I would (reluctantly) support an increased Targeted sales tax. evak 2012-05-23T23:31:40Z Patrick J. comment-68375 2012-05-23T23:19:00Z 2012-05-23T23:19:00Z Regressive is doublespeak for fair tax. You buy less stuff you pay less tax. You buy more stuff you pay more tax. Food and medicine are except from sales tax. Patrick J. 2012-05-23T23:19:00Z evak comment-68371 2012-05-23T22:26:50Z 2012-05-23T22:26:50Z I don't like sales taxes for those very reasons. However, I would support a targeted tax increase in this specific instance because I think that our community would be hurt more by a further decrease in police, fire, and park services. To me it's a question of choosing between bad and worse. If an alternative funding source for those services can be found however, I would much rather have that. evak 2012-05-23T22:26:50Z Steven Maviglio comment-68366 2012-05-23T20:28:39Z 2012-05-23T20:28:39Z I think we need to look beyond what's "good politics" and look what's good for the community. An increase in the sales tax will put Sacramento retailers at an economic disadvantage to surrounding communities with lower sales taxes. A sales tax also is the most regressive tax there is and disproportionately hurts lower- and middle-income families the hardest. The poor will be paying the same rate as the rich, so you're basically hurting folks that need the services the most. It doesn't take much political courage to do that. Steven Maviglio 2012-05-23T20:28:39Z evak comment-68343 2012-05-23T17:30:51Z 2012-05-23T17:30:51Z I agree. I think a general tax increase is good politics (you only need 50% + 1 whereas with a targeted tax increase you need 2/3) but bad policy because it won't solve the problem everything else aside. evak 2012-05-23T17:30:51Z Patrick J. comment-68341 2012-05-23T17:24:14Z 2012-05-23T17:24:14Z I think any proposed tax needs to be targeted. A general fund tax is a mistake and won’t be supported. Patrick J. 2012-05-23T17:24:14Z evak comment-68336 2012-05-23T17:15:30Z 2012-05-23T17:15:30Z I just wanted to say that while I disagree with the kind of tax proposal that is being discussed (i.e., general not targeted), I deeply appreciate the process by which this recommendation was achieved. I have been privileged to have been a part of an ongoing stakeholder process on how to properly distribute funds at the State level and, while I personally, have not always agreed with every proposal put forward by the stakeholders, I have learned over time that it is only when people take ownership of something that it succeeds. And the only way to allow people to take ownership of something is to ensure that not only is their opinion "noted" but that they are genuinely heard and do genuinely influence the process. So Jonathan whiile I disagree with the untargeted tax increase, I am very glad you have taken this very important step to enable our community to come together to take ownership of our community. And Steve--I appreciate what you do and was telling my husband last night actually that it's a real shame we're on opposite sides on the mayoral race as I think that in general you do get it. But look, if you want Kevin Johnson to be a good mayor, maybe you can help him understand something a very smart and very ethical person told me on my first day on the job: "In order to have power, you must first give it away." evak 2012-05-23T17:15:30Z Steven Maviglio comment-68333 2012-05-23T15:12:57Z 2012-05-23T15:12:57Z Of course the views of the voters on the budget and our city priorities are important. Again, that's why voters participate in the process through hearings, comments, and electing public officials. What you are proposing are allowing voters to actually write the budget through some kind of vote (without providing us any details on how you might do that), and again, I don't believe that's possible from a logistics standpoint or from a practical standpoint. We already see that to some degree on the state level with a slew of ballot measures that often contradict each other and make it impossible for the Legislature to fairly look at our revenues and our needs and develop an honest budget. Furthermore, if voters had the direct ability to write the budget, special interest groups would surely spend lots of campaign money to influence that vote. The City Manager is exactly right, just as our elected representatives are: listen to what voters think and incorporate that in the budget process that they implement. Steven Maviglio 2012-05-23T15:12:57Z Jared Goyette comment-68327 2012-05-23T06:47:08Z 2012-05-23T06:47:08Z Thanks. Will fix immediately. Update: Fixed. 'Regressive' appears to be accurate. Let me know if otherwise. Jared Goyette 2012-05-23T06:47:08Z jrewers2 comment-68326 2012-05-23T06:31:58Z 2012-05-23T06:31:58Z So Steve is up as well. I never said that the public should "craft," the budget - I don't think they are interested in reviewing the Form 2 or filling out prep tables, like I used to. The interesting thing, is the idea that Steve seems to think is absurd is exactly what City Manager John Shirey is proposing. In a link right next to Mayor Johnson's picture on the City's website is a link asking people "What should the role of City Government be?" Let me quote the site: ”To the extent that we are able to correlate resource allocation with priorities, there may be an opportunity to consider the reallocation or reduction of allocated resources in future budgets." I am pretty sure this concept and tool was presented to the City Council, don't know if the Mayor asked that this approach should not be used? I am not saying any different - shouldn't the voters get a say in our budget priorities? I hear the priorities are police, fire and parks.....I'm just saying shouldn't we respect what the voters say? and their ideas of what is important? The City Council seemed interested. That's how things get done in Sacramento, with good ideas, presented to the public and implemented with their support. Guess its just a difference in approach yet again. jrewers2 2012-05-23T06:31:58Z Steven Maviglio comment-68324 2012-05-23T06:18:39Z 2012-05-23T06:18:39Z Melissa, I didn't refer to the sale tax as "absurd." I suggested that one of the Mayor's opponents notion of having voters craft the budget through voting was. Those are two distinct issues. Please correct your headline to reflect that. Thank you. Steven Maviglio 2012-05-23T06:18:39Z