Measure G, Back from the Dead?
 |
Submitted by ReporterLeslieA... on Tue, 2007-11-27 09:32. |
Brace yourselves, voters. For the fourth time in six years, a transportation tax measure could soon be visiting a ballot near you. A local official I was talking to recently tipped me off to this. It seems the powers behind the failed Measure M (Nov. 2002), Measure A (June 2006) and Measure G (Nov. 2006) are looking at making another run at this ballot measure, which would help fund transportation projects -- from widening highways to filling potholes -- all over Merced County. Everyone knows that Merced's roads are in terrible shape, but voters apparently either don't think the problem warrants taxing themselves, or don't trust officials to spend their money wisely. When Measure G failed in Nov. 2006, some said voters were wary of handing their money over to county officials in the wake of a series of scandals involving former Merced County District Attorney Gordon Spencer. Others blamed a campaign that failed to hit home to voters that a two-thirds vote was needed to pass the tax measure. A majority of voters supported the measure, but not quite enough to hit the magic 67 percent mark. It will be interesting to see what the political climate brings when/if this measure comes back again.
Doomed for failure again!
|
Submitted by charade on Wed, 2007-11-28 09:12.
|
The Board of Supervisors have put so many spins on this Measure it is doomed for failure again!
Let's remember approximately 6-9 months ago in an unrelated Sunstar article Supervisor O'Banion's Freudian Slip when he made a comment regarding the County Mental Health lay-offs, blaming it on Measure G's failure to pass, What? I thought the measure was for road improvements! This statement alone should serve as evidence that once the County has our tax dollars there is no guarantee of using it for it's intended purpose!
SPIN SPIN SPIN...don't fall for it voters!
Response From MCAG
|
Submitted by ReporterLeslieA... on Tue, 2007-11-27 16:04.
|
The following is a reponse from Candice Steelman, public information officer with the Merced County Association of Governments:
"Instead of saying the measure "failed", I think a more accurate description is that the majority of voters wanted Measure G to pass -- 62% is certainly a majority! Unfortunately, it requires 66.7% to pass a tax measure. We have to remember that L.A. and the Bay Area passed their measures when the requirement was only 55%.
Also, MCAG is a council of local governments, where the cities and the county are equal partners. This council solves problems of regional interest such as transportation, solid waste, and air quality -- areas that would be very difficult for one jurisdiction to tackle by themselves. MCAG is not a branch of Merced County government. We are a separate agency that provides staffing and numerous services for the six cities and the county.
Therefore, a group of citizens would have oversight of the funds, not any one particular city or the county.
Please help us get the word out on these important points!"
Measure G did fail
|
Submitted by jkieta on Tue, 2007-11-27 22:07.
|
MCAG can try to spin our heads on this one, but it doesn't change the fact that Measure G FAILED. It did not garner enough support to win. That's a failure, plain and simple.
Re: MCAG being a "council" of local governments, that certainly is true. But county government has overwhelming influence over MCAG; all five Merced County supervisors are on the MCAG board, while each of the county's six cities gets only one board member.
MCAG leaders would be well advised to realize that the county's troubles are going to cast a shadow over anything MCAG does, whether they like it or not.
Good point Joe!
|
Submitted by charade on Wed, 2007-11-28 08:54.
|
It just shows how power, when consolidated at the top, open's Pandora's Box for corruption. One should look at MCAG as being nothing more than an extention of the Merced County Board of Supervisors policies, etc.
Syndicate
MCAG's Measure M, Measure A, Measure G...DOA
There will be no sales tax attempts by MCAG for at least 2-4 years. So saith the mighty governing board of MCAG . Good, it needs to stay on the shelf.