U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-01-2019, 05:02 PM
 
470 posts, read 636,170 times
Reputation: 1028

Advertisements

I'm hoping there's someone that can explain to me why Sacramento county and city leaders are proposing yet another tax to raise more funds for transportation and infrastructure projects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't California just institute the 40 cents per gallon gas tax to cover said transportation and infrastructure projects? (yes the same tax that Newsom just removed $5B from the fund to "combat climate change")

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/local/article237751799.html

"City and county leaders in Sacramento are in the midst of debating a sales tax measure for the November 2020 ballot that would fund a long list of projects transportation projects, from freeway interchanges and bridges to sidewalks near schools.

Measure A could raise more than $8 billion through a half-cent sales tax over the next 40 years."


At least we'll get to vote on this one.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-01-2019, 07:57 PM
 
1,651 posts, read 1,464,259 times
Reputation: 1468
Within the unincorporated parts of Sacramento County there is a problem with the the County slashing road maintenance spending during recessions to protect money for Emergency Services like Police and Fire as well as federal and state mandated social service spending. When the recessions end the County restores transportation funds, but it doesn't actually have the budgetary flexibility to shrink the deferred road maintenance backlog, so that grows with each recession.

The second problem is with prop 13 older residential areas use more government services then they provide in property tax revenues. So you can find homeowners in places like Arden Park living in homes worth $800k+ but because they bought their homes in the late 1960's early 1970's their homes have an assessed value for property tax purposes of $100K. Yet the county still has to provide fire, police and other government services just like everyone else. So while you can find homes in El Dorado Hills, Folsom or Granite Bay that are just as expensive, because the housing stock in these areas are on average much newer, the local governments in these areas are receiving much more property tax revenue compared to these newer areas. So there isn't the same property tax revenue basis to cover road maintenance as in newer areas of the region. Lastly as the housing stock ages, more of it is being converted from owner occupied to rental properties, with the newer residents not having the same demographics, so these areas are also losing their sales tax revenue. Country Club Plaza and Country Club Center are dead/semi dead malls. A lot of the other neighborhood retail is being filled with thrift stores or just empty. So the sales tax revenues in these areas are falling too.

So my hunch is the only way streets in this area are going to get repaved any time soon is going to be from either some bond fund promising to work down this deferred road repair maintenance backlog or to raise taxes like this initiative. So I think this initiative is going to pass in the City of Sacramento and the unincorporated parts of the County. But I have my doubts about it passing in Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Folsom or Elk Grove.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2019, 08:23 PM
 
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
3,716 posts, read 8,742,959 times
Reputation: 3863
But why vote for it when the taxes collected never go to the projects promised by the new tax? Too easy for the politicians to skim off the new taxes for their pet projects.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2019, 10:57 PM
 
470 posts, read 636,170 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinaN View Post
But why vote for it when the taxes collected never go to the projects promised by the new tax? Too easy for the politicians to skim off the new taxes for their pet projects.
You mean like the $5B Newsom has ready removed from the gas tax fund to help "combat climate change? "
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2019, 07:33 AM
 
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
3,716 posts, read 8,742,959 times
Reputation: 3863
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalMan View Post
You mean like the $5B Newsom has ready removed from the gas tax fund to help "combat climate change? "
Exactly
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2019, 07:21 PM
 
927 posts, read 920,151 times
Reputation: 438
I am gonna vote down these taxes if possible.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2019, 12:05 AM
 
470 posts, read 636,170 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixxalot View Post
I am gonna vote down these taxes if possible.
I as well. These taxes to pay for things that our current taxes were supposed to be paying for has got to stop. The politicians nickel and dime us to death while they skim off the top of other funds and we continue to have the highest taxes in the nation.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2019, 10:49 AM
 
1,651 posts, read 1,464,259 times
Reputation: 1468
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinaN View Post
But why vote for it when the taxes collected never go to the projects promised by the new tax? Too easy for the politicians to skim off the new taxes for their pet projects.
I think local control of control of taxing makes that less of an issue. At the federal and state level politicians have more sources of funds and more ability to raid funding for one project to pay for another, but at the local level, politicians are more accountable to voters. So as between raising state or local taxes to pay for new roads, I would rather have the decision be made at the local level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixxalot View Post
I am gonna vote down these taxes if possible.
I think the measure is going to pass inside the City of Sacramento (its left wing enough to support more taxes) and inside the unincorporated parts of the County (the roads are really sh*tty here), but I have no idea why someone who lives in Folsom, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights or Rancho Cordova is going to want to vote for this. So if I had to guess I think this measure will be defeated.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2019, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
35,234 posts, read 16,293,102 times
Reputation: 25850
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelato View Post
Within the unincorporated parts of Sacramento County there is a problem with the the County slashing road maintenance spending during recessions to protect money for Emergency Services like Police and Fire as well as federal and state mandated social service spending. When the recessions end the County restores transportation funds, but it doesn't actually have the budgetary flexibility to shrink the deferred road maintenance backlog, so that grows with each recession.

The second problem is with prop 13 older residential areas use more government services then they provide in property tax revenues. So you can find homeowners in places like Arden Park living in homes worth $800k+ but because they bought their homes in the late 1960's early 1970's their homes have an assessed value for property tax purposes of $100K. Yet the county still has to provide fire, police and other government services just like everyone else. So while you can find homes in El Dorado Hills, Folsom or Granite Bay that are just as expensive, because the housing stock in these areas are on average much newer, the local governments in these areas are receiving much more property tax revenue compared to these newer areas. So there isn't the same property tax revenue basis to cover road maintenance as in newer areas of the region. Lastly as the housing stock ages, more of it is being converted from owner occupied to rental properties, with the newer residents not having the same demographics, so these areas are also losing their sales tax revenue. Country Club Plaza and Country Club Center are dead/semi dead malls. A lot of the other neighborhood retail is being filled with thrift stores or just empty. So the sales tax revenues in these areas are falling too.

So my hunch is the only way streets in this area are going to get repaved any time soon is going to be from either some bond fund promising to work down this deferred road repair maintenance backlog or to raise taxes like this initiative. So I think this initiative is going to pass in the City of Sacramento and the unincorporated parts of the County. But I have my doubts about it passing in Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Folsom or Elk Grove.
Actually Sac County is cutting all services and cutting 200 positions from the payroll in order to pay for the lawsuits incurred by the idiot Sheriff Scott Jones

Quote:
Sacramento County residents are on the hook for $100 million to settle a lawsuit detailing inhumane conditions in county jails that Jones runs. Jones was a ranking officer close to key figures involved in a $3.6 million lawsuit brought by four female deputies who took on the “Bro” culture in Sheriff’s department. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/ne...235508482.html
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2019, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
35,234 posts, read 16,293,102 times
Reputation: 25850
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalMan View Post
I'm hoping there's someone that can explain to me why Sacramento county and city leaders are proposing yet another tax to raise more funds for transportation and infrastructure projects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't California just institute the 40 cents per gallon gas tax to cover said transportation and infrastructure projects? (yes the same tax that Newsom just removed $5B from the fund to "combat climate change")

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/local/article237751799.html

"City and county leaders in Sacramento are in the midst of debating a sales tax measure for the November 2020 ballot that would fund a long list of projects transportation projects, from freeway interchanges and bridges to sidewalks near schools.

Measure A could raise more than $8 billion through a half-cent sales tax over the next 40 years."


At least we'll get to vote on this one.
no, no and hell no! The City would suck up every penny and unincorporated areas will be left with a crumbling infrastructure, no streetlights and few sidewalks even on busy thoroughfares. The City carves out profit centers and incorporates them, i.e. Fulton avenue car dealers & Arden mall but they leave all the surrounding unincorporated residential areas at the mercy of a poorly run board of supervisors and a budget that can't pay for current needs let alone infrastructure.

I won't just vote no, I will go door to door trying to make sure people don't vote for this!
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top