Multi county parcel tax sought by San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority -

Read my lips,

NO NEW TAXES,

How many new bureaucracies will be created and funded for "motherhood and apple pie" causes that are concocted? How about a special district that specializes in filling sand bags with, let's say, sand? The CEO should get at least a million dollars a year and private-sector baggers will be needed. No sense in considering competitive bids. The CEO could just hire his friends and family members.

Yep, count a NO vote from me.

I was wondering what all the billboards on 101 and the direct mail that I have been ignoring was about. Somehow I just knew it was going to be about voting for additional taxes.

Sorry, but I actually do my own taxes and read my property assessments and sadly, I do not think I am getting what I am already paying for. Once the schools are funded, roads are paved, I will consider thinking about the need for "more" agencies.

Sorry, but this has got to STOP until then.

VOTE NO!


btw: is there anywhere one could look up how much money this org has already spent on marketing for the tax campaign, where do they get the money for the ads. or is this simply spending tax money that was supposed to "restore the SF bay"???

See: Web Link and, Web Link more info.

They have yet to collect any tax money.

This is getting sickening, These clowns must sit around all day and try to figure what new taxes they can come up with to occupy their time and justify their job.

We live in one of the richest areas in the country and have terrible infrastructure with our taxes amongst the highest.

Doesn't make sense.

No New taxes.

It's fairer if coastal cities and coastal parcels formed their own special districts to tax themselves to pay for this flood mitigation instead of this nine county-wide tax.

The coastal properties and cities get the direct benefits, which is more valuable property values. And with greater property values, they can afford to pay this tax.

Those more inland see no change to their property values, but they have to pay the tax. Why should those inland subsidize property protection for those who live near the water?

For example, the federal government requires flood insurance to be purchased only for home buyers in flood prone areas. Anyone living outside that area does not have to purchase the insurance. That prevents inland property owners from subsidizing coastal property owners.

I will be voting NO on Measure AA

Ballot Arguments can be found here:
Web Link

Great. Let's create more bureaucracy, more administration, fund more pensions and make more bureaucrats rich. Where can I get a position like that?

What accountability is there to measure progress on how the "wetlands" have been restored? NONE.

If the coastal cities want to build dams, they should tax themselves to pay for it.

I will vote NO.

Twelve bucks?

hmmmm, have to make a whole pot of coffee tomorrow rather than go to Peets to afford that MASSIVE tax hike!

Count me as a yes.

Though I'd prefer it if the Sun Quentin/Facebook parcel paid more...

The amount is irrelevant. They could and should seek funding from within the existing 1% ad valorem General Property tax. That would comply with a no new taxes policy.

As I said before, my Sequoia Healthcare District would have to give up $40,000/year but that's no problem. They no longer own a hospital, but are still collecting $10,000,000/year in property taxes. We could take it out of CEO Lee Michelson's $200,000 salary.

Works for me - I'm a YES