Election: Measure AA would raise $500M to restore marshes

Could Mr. Pine and/or the Almanac clarify the quote from the article copied below? On the surface, it appears that funds from Measure AA would be used to restore 15,000 acres of tidal marshes that we (the public) already own.

My specific question is shouldn't the private, for-profit company that created the salt ponds bear some of the financial burden of restoring the marsh? If the land was donated back to the State, sold at a discount, or the previous owners are helping fund the effort, it isn't clear from the article (but worth knowing nonetheless).

"Measure AA would raise $500 million in tax revenues to restore marshes to about 15,000 (out of 35,000) acres of shoreline now in public ownership, Mr. Pine said."

"Measure AA, a $12 annual parcel tax on the ballot in the June 7 primary election."
I agree with the objective of the measure however . . . do we have to use such a regressive tax? A 1 million dollar parcel and a 20 million dollar pay the same $12.

Why not create a new parcel tax . . . a proportional parcel tax?
Maybe create a parcel tax that adds a percent increase to the property tax or the assessed value of the property. We could get the same revenue and I would happier with the tax. Too late now . . . maybe next time.

A decade or so back, the company that owned the salt ponds, Cargill, sold 15,000 acres of them to the public, which paid for them with a mix of donated, state and federal funds organized by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Mr. Pine said.

Cargill kept some of its ponds, those in Redwood City for example, he said.

Mr. Pine said he did not see how Cargill could be required to contribute to their restoration, but commended the company for selling them to the public. A larger question, Mr. Pine noted, might be why the federal government did not set aside money for their restoration.

My impression was that the funding for the initial restoration Menlo Park ponds was already set (as it may begin as soon as this summer) - however, there's a lot more work to do as park of the bigger south bay restoration. See: Web Link

Today we received a leaflet in our mailbox from the Republican Party. It advertised "Vote NO on Measure AA tax hike"! Tax hike? If Measure AA passes, the "tax hike" would amount to $12/year or $1.00/month or $.03/day per household. That can hardly be called a "tax hike"!
Measure AA is supported by both environmental groups, individuals, and industry including NRDC, Audubon Society, Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space, Save the Bay, Diane Feinstein, Facebook, Google, Chevron, PG&E, Jackie Speier, Jerry Hill, Community for Green Foothills, People for a Clean & Healthy Bay, Sierra Club, Silicon Leadership Group, and others.
YES ON AA NEEDS YOUR VOTE!

Well, that very same fringe group, which you identified as something called "the Republican Party" also believes that there is not any warming of our planet, despite all evidence to the contrary.

So, no need to listen to them. They are bankrupt, in more ways than one.

Parcel taxes are regressive and the worst way to fund any project. No wonder businesses love it. They only have to pay $12 per parcel, the same as any other homeowner. That means that homeowners are shouldering the majority of the tax burden. Google, Facebook, Apple, they all pay $12 make billions, but pay $12 per parcel. I'm all for the project, but funding it by parcel taxes is unfair and unjust.

Remember, these projects used to be funded by taxes we already paid. Then the budget crisis hit and they took the money away. Now the economy is doing well, the politicians have siphoned off the money for their pet projects and come up with another tax to stick it to us.

Yes on AA:

You know the story of how to boil a frog? $12 now, how much later? Please don't tell me they'll have to come back and ask for more. It will "only be $12 then too, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, and the next time, ad infinitum. It will just keep going up and up. As Homeowner noted, these things were previously paid for. Why aren't they reapplying the taxes they stole from these projects?

Sorry, but I'm a NO.

12 bucks, ruuuuuuuuuly sticking it to you in a most regressive way!

Love the folk who argue a parcel tax is sooooo 'regressive'... when it comes to income tax, they'd vote for a flat tax!!

Not our poster above, of course...

From me? A big, parade drunk Draymond "YUP" on AA!

The $500 million will be spent by a board appointed by ABAG, the same non-elected folks who force cities to add more dense housing. Just remember these famous words: "No taxation without representation."Vote no on AA.

It's regressive - but people have to own property first. People located near the Bay would benefit more from this (like myself, but our house is 7 feet above sea level) - but everyone uses the roads near the bay sooner or later. A property tax that's a function of parcel size and proximity to the bay would make sense.

How many parcels does Facebook, Google, and Yahoo! own near sea level? I think they can pitch in more than $12 each.

Because this is about flood control and bay restoration - it really needs to be funded one way or another.

"Because this is about flood control and bay restoration - it really needs to be funded one way or another."

How about the state returning the funds that were already dedicated for this task instead of asking for more?

I'm curious ... was restoration actually fully funded? I have the impression that the early stages were funded - and, of course, the land acquisition costs were funded - but I looked for evidence that the ongoing costs were secured, and I haven't found it (much less evidence that someone had diverted the funds for other purposes). I know this has been considered a 50 year project.

The FAQ on the restoration website:
Web Link

The main comment on funding appears to be rather vague:

"Q. What are the plans for funding implementation, how much will implementation cost, and are there mitigation opportunities?

"A. Currently, the Project Management Team plans for restoration to be funded by public agencies and foundations. Based on other restoration projects in the Bay Area and depending on the level of construction work needed, the cost could range from the low hundreds of millions to the high hundreds of millions over many decades. Resource and regulatory agencies will decide whether or not some of the implementation funds will come from project sponsors seeking to mitigate impacts to habitats in other parts of the San Francisco Bay."

If someone has clear evidence that the funds for this were diverted, or the costs of this project were misrepresented - please provide documentation. If not, then acknowledge it. Thanks.

By the way - this is similar to restoration project on Bair Island. That project was finished several years late ... but, due to using clean fill from local construction sites, cost $6.9 million instead of the original estimated $12 million. (source: Web Link They're using that project as a model for this one. I think the restoration work is an example of the government being good stewards of money.

@Alan

Here's the documentation that the funds were cut/diverted by the state legislature:
Web Link

"Following years of budget cuts, innovative and robust strategies are needed to fund this critical work. The Restoration Authority was created by the California Legislature in 2008 to find solutions to the need for new, **local** funding.


Basically, the legislature wanted out the business of funding bay restoration, yet they didn't set aside any tax revenue for the authority. They gave it all the responsibility, but none of the money.

This happens all the time. The legislature diverts money from one account to fund their pet projects and special interests. When the account doesn't have any money left to pay for what citizens really want, the legislature asks for another tax or offloads the responsibility. Unfortunately, most citizens aren't aware of the bait and switch, which is why they always get away with it.

This is not the SF Bay Restoration Authority's fault. I'm just saying this is part of the reason why people are really unhappy with how taxes are pitched and sold to the public by California.

Marsh Road was not always so congested. Restoring the road to its prior state is surely worth the price. Glad I was able to explain just how the tax revenue will be used.

"Glad I was able to explain just how the tax revenue will be used."

And exactly when and how did you do that? Your handle appears nowhere above.

Yes, this tax isn't a large dollar amount, but as noted earlier, the money collected will be spent by an agency made up of appointed people who will be free to pursue whatever projects THEY feel warrant the use of the money they collect. You may think that some people are naive to not believe in global warming, but it is even more naive to believe that an un-elected group of bureaucrats will spend OUR money efficiently and on environmental Bay projects that benefit all of us. The issue isn't about regressiveness or the importance of funding environmental projects. It's about not empowering yet another un-elected group of appointees to spend OPM (Other People's Money). Let's find a way to fund these projects through our elected leaders and existing taxes and fees. Shame on all those elected leaders who are abdicating their responsibility to "own" these kinds of projects and instead hide behind these uncontrollable "regional boards."