Answers to William Fraser re: Measure Q 

Yes, I oppose Measure Q. For many reasons, none of them "knee-jerk" at all. See http://www.thomasleavitt.org/cc/no-on-q.html for more details.

This is a position based on principle: Green, small "l" libertarian, and good government.

a) as an advocate of good government, it is never good policy to tie the hands of your elected representatives when making budgetary decisions - Washington and Sacramento legislators constantly complain that much of the budget is beyond their control; our local elected officials spent two full hours during the recent budget hearings trying to cut $28,000 out of their own budget, and complaining that all they could do was fiddle at the margins; passing a tax which further removes budgetary discretion from our elected representatives is not good public policy.

b) as a small "l" libertarian, government subsidy of a private sector activity, such as marketing for the tourism industry, is against my principles. This is corporate welfare, pure and simple. The private sector is fully capable of collaborating in support of this activity (as they have demonstrated with the Hospitality Alliance, the Locally Owned Business Alliance, and the Chamber of Commerce), and when and where governmental services (such as parks and recreation activities) are promoted, the government can selectively choose to participate. If this is an investment that makes sense for the public sector, it is indesputably an investment that makes sense for the private sector, which should see returns vastly greater than the public sector could ever anticipate.

c) as a progressive, the idea of insulating the CVC from the budgeting process, when basic services like fire and police, and services for battered women, homeless people, and the mentally ill, the most disenfranchised and powerless, face significant cuts, disgusts me.

There is no anti-business angle to this at all. I ran my own businesses for the last eight years, my wife runs a web design consulting business - I fully understand the pressures faced by small business. I've had to meet payroll, hire and fire employees, and bear the responsiblity of knowing that the livelihoods of two dozen households depended on my good judgement - and that the survival of hundreds, even thousands, of businesses hosting their web sites with my company, WebCom, depended the quality of our service, and my skill and judgement in maintaining it. This is a matter of simple justice, and good public policy.

Would a "knee-jerk" anti-business candidate be the only candidate out there speaking up for Neighborhood Business Improvement Districts, for economic development efforts to be spread throughout the city, instead of being focused exclusively on the downtown, for the waterfront area to be properly developed and connected to the downtown, so that the city's economy can be expanded, while actually enhancing the quality of life for locals, and reducing traffic, congestion and pollution by creating functional neighborhood economic areas and a critical mass of density along urban transit corridors that would make impulse based public transportation functional, and focus his campaign on addressing the jobs/housing imbalance?

The question is not: should we increase the TOT tax; the question is: should we increase the TOT tax, and lock in all of the money raised to a single, private sector corporation, and remove any discretion from our elected representatives as to where the CVC fits into the budgetary picture?

Implicit in the way Measure Q is structured, is a fundamental lack of confidence by the hospitality industry that their case is strong enough to persuade our elected officials, the people we choose to put into office, that this is an investment that should be prioritized ahead of everything else the City could fund. Perhaps that lack of confidence is well placed, although their track record to date (at least in Santa Cruz) would seem to indicate otherwise.

Measure Q's support is a mile wide, and an inch deep - at the City Council candidate forum held by Voices from the Village, I repeatedly urged a no vote on Measure Q, even to holding up a sign - and not one single other candidate spoke up in support of it. At last night's forum on Measure Q held by Voices from the Village, it speaks volumes to me that the Measure Q proponents were unable to find anyone other than the President of the CVC (who works for the Boardwalk) and the CEO of the CVC, to speak up in defense of Measure Q. The progressive establishment in this city knows that this is bad public policy, and they sense that their supporters agree. The tide is turning on this issue.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

P.S. Answers to specific questions, below.

-- Thomas Leavitt -- thomasleavitt@hotmail.com, Sr. Systems Admin For Hire
Resume at http://www.internetmanifesto.org/resume/

Wired since 1981. Internet-enabled since 1990. Web-enabled since 1993. Older, wiser, and poorer, post-crash. :)

Thomas Leavitt For Santa Cruz City Council
http://www.thomasleavitt.org/cc/

Stop the Stupidity of Michael Savage:

http://www.savagestupidity.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Fraser" bfraser@alumni.ucsd.edu
To: "Thomas Leavitt" thomasleavitt@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: Measure Q
> I can tell that you're against measure Q. As an "intelligent green",
> however, I have to consider whether this is just a knee-jerk
> anti-business reaction. If you have the time, please respond to the
> following questions.
>
> 1. People say that Santa Cruz pays the lion's share of the CVC budget
> despite lacking the lion's share of the population. The important
> question is whether Santa Cruz gets most of the benefits of the tourism.
> Does it?

If Santa Cruz gets most of the benefits from tourism, then why did John Robinson claim that passing TWO and Q will make everyone "pay their fair share"? Why should other areas subsidize Santa Cruz? If not, then why have we been subsidizing other areas for fourteen years?

It would seem to me that Capitola is even more dependent on tourism than Santa Cruz - what is Capitola Village, if it is not a tourist destination? If the CVC is so necessary, then why has Capitola not seen fit to fund it in a signficant fashion to date? If the CVC does so much for South County, then why has Watsonville not seen fit to signfiicantly fund it to date?

Tourism is a $600 million dollar industry, yet John Robinson claims that Downtown will be filled with boarded up stores if Measure Q does not pass, and the CVC's budget is not preserved at the current level... is that a credible claim? Especially in the face of the fact that he himself admits that the Boardwalk spends far more than the CVC on marketing and promotion - all of which draws people to Santa Cruz.

>
> 2. If measure Q fails, will the CVC get its money anyway (at the
> expense of our general budget)?

This question is based on the concept that our only choice in this matter is Measure Q. A much better alternative would be a measure which raised the TOT by 1 or 2%, and allocated the revenue to the city's general fund - this would also accomplish the goal of "freeing up" programs other than the CVC. Such a measure would only require approval of 50% of the voters - of course, the reason we don't have a measure like that on the ballot, is that the Hospitality Alliance wouldn't be pouring huge sums into supporting it. In fact, they'd probably be fighting it tooth and nail. John Robinson is all for having our elected leaders decide on funding priorities - just as long as his precious tax subsidy isn't affected.

Should Measure Q fail, the CVC will be funded, or not, based on the descretion of our elected leaders, and how they choose to prioritize allocation of our city's limited resources. Which is the way it should be.

>
> 3. Measure Q is funded by tourist dollars, which presumably means it is
> progressive. Isn't this a better way to encourage taxation?

The Hotel Tax is "progressive", but only in the most blunt fashion, much like the Utility Tax. This tax falls on rich and poor, local and non-local, alike, homeless and housed, when they rent a room. A homeless person pays the TOT when he or she rents a hotel room, just the same as a wealthy tourist - and has far less choice about it. We need tax reform, in fact, we need a wholesale overhaul of the way local government is funded in this state, but the TOT is not the answer. If we're going to be doing something local, a property transfer tax, indexed to the median home price, and exempting the first 50% of the median home price from taxation, would be vastly more progressive, as it would only affect the 9-10% of residents able to afford to purchase a home in this county, and in fact, most of the money raised would come from that 50% of sales above the median home price. As a homeowner, I would be subject to such a tax, so I'm advocating against my own best interests here, if I were to look at this solely in terms of my own financial welfare, and not that of society as a whole.

>
> 4. Considered as a investment by the city, have the efforts of the CVC
> brought in more money than it costs?

Considered as an investment by the city, does funding the CAB's emergency housing voucher program, and their other programs that assist people, have far more social benefit than they cost? And which "investment" do you think is more likely to be handled, and is more appropriately handled, by the private sector? Why should CAB's funding for emergency rent and housing assistance vouchers run short, and not the CVC's - is it not more cost effective, when looked at wholistically, to prevent people from becoming homeless, and incurring all the personal and social costs and trauma associated with that, than funding the CVC?

As it is, the City Manager (and the City Council, by lack of dispute) has clearly indicated that, at the very least, that the CVC and Social Services are equal in priority - his suggested budget, post Measure P (which hopefully will never be acted on) cuts both the CVC and Social Services by about 50%. Measure Q would completely insulate the CVC's funding from that process, under which Social Services are unlikely to recover much, if any, of the $400,000, given the police face a $600,000 cut, and various City functions face cuts that clearly impair their basic ability to function.

>
> 5. Considering these points, what is the single most compelling
> argument you can make against measure Q.

Measure Q is bad public policy. Period. It is not just, it is not fair, it is not good government, it is not progressive, it is not Green, to remove funding for the CVC from the budgetary process. The CVC's CEO complains that she has to go back to the City every year and face a debate over what priority, if any, the CVC's funding should receive. I ask you, is there a single social service agency that would NOT like to be relieved of this responsibility? Is there a single department of City government that would NOT like to have its funding guaranteed, regardless of whatever budget crunch the City faces? Should battered women, working mothers needing childcare, mentally ill people needing day care, programs like SCAP... should the CVC be shoved ahead of them in the line for public funding?

I hope I have addressed your concerns, and substantiated that there are core principles of both good government, and the progressive agenda, at stake here.

>
> Feel free to distribute the contents of this email.
>
> Thanks,
>
> bill
>