ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE O
1. Don't let Humboldt County fool you that essential services for public safety would need to be cut if Measure “O” is not passed. The projected income from Measure “S”, passed after Measure “Z”, is $7.8 million, which lists “public safety” as its purpose. The current Measure “Z” expenditures for sheriff, district attorney, probation and fire total $6,532,360, leaving $1,267,640 available beyond their current funding for other safety concerns.
2. In twenty years, if revenue stays the same, the taxpayers will pay approximately $240,000,000 that the supervisors can use for “general purposes” (anything).
3. Of the approximate $4.4 million the City of Eureka contributes, they get back $419,140, yet Eureka bears much of the negativity associated with County government.
4. The only change proposed in Measure “O” is to give Measure “Z” no sunset, rather than its current five year sunset. This eliminates citizens' rights to vote every five years on whether we approve how our tax dollars are spent. Is this good?
5. Measure “Z” was sold to us as “generating 6 million dollars”. Why is this nearly 12 million after a few years?
6. The Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury 2017-2018 final report summary states “Measure Z Citizens' Advisory Committee has not been included in the Board of Supervisors process of allocating secondary funds, which is detrimental to transparency and accountability.” Additionally, “The public was told Measure Z would be subject to annual independent audits, but no such audits have taken place to date which compromises transparency and public trust.” This speaks for itself.
7. This is a regressive tax.
8. Humboldt County taxpayers pay a high tax with only 12 of 58 California counties paying more.
9. Honesty with trust is the basis of this tax. Has it been earned?
VOTE NO ON MEASURE “O”
/s/ Kent Sawatzky, Vice-President, Taxpayers League and Concerned Citizen