Town Square

Post a New Topic

Measure AA, Coastsider votes and Property taxes

Original post made by Jack Hickey, Woodside: Emerald Hills, on May 13, 2014

The MROSD Coastside annexation did not provide for ANY property tax distribution to the District from the annexed areas. Nada. We on the other side of the hill have $17 per $100,000 of our property taxes going to MROSD. Now, these freeloaders get to vote on a $300,000,000 bond measure which will raise all our taxes. The Coastside should allocate $17 per $100,000 of their 1% ad valorem property tax to MROSD. It wouldn't raise their taxes, but merely prioritize them. If that were done, there would be less justification for a $300,000,000 bond measure.

Comments (4)

Like this comment
Posted by fwiw
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 13, 2014 at 6:34 pm

> It wouldn't raise their taxes, but merely prioritize them.

Your statement is entirely misleading and inaccurate. It belies a complete misunderstanding of how apportionment works post Prop-13.

Wwere they to do exactly what you are suggesting, that is assign everybody a $17 ad veloreum tax on both sides of the hill, MROSD would end up with more funding than they are receiving now. That is to say, an entirely NEW tax would have been instituted upon a population which did not get to vote upon it for funding a specific agency. Your suggestion that every other agency somehow be "assigned" a reduction in their funding is completely antithetical to state law. What was apportioned as a result of SB154 and AB8 is what they are apportioned and you don't get to willy nilly rework those numbers to make yourself happy.

But more importantly what you entirely ignore is that since the majority of the property on the "other side" of the hill is either in unincorporated land or was part of a city locale with a below average rate of pre-Prop 13 taxataion. As such, their tax dollars are used to subsidize the above average taxation cities on this side of the hill (the biggest pig is Redwood City). An order of magnitude more local government dollars go this way to subsidize government on this side of the hill than "flows" to subsidize MROSD's share on that side of the hill.

Your reliance upon the SM County Assessor's actual Tax Rate Area spreadsheet conflates the fact that revenue has historically (since prop 13) NOT been apportioned according to where it was generated but rather apportioned according to had the highest existing rates of taxation in 1979.

Jack, you are clearly smart enough to understand this all, and I'm pretty sure that you do. So I find it sad that pressing a rhetorical point that misleads folks is reasonable.

To be sure, I will agree that what SHOULD have happened is that that side of the hill should have been assigned an even share of the total existing MROSD revenue taxation, with this side of the hill's bill reduced by a few percent. BUT then on this side of the hill, the reduction in dollars paid SHOULD have been used to reduce the local government subsidy provided by THAT side of the hill.

Anyway, all you cranks with 1960's assessment rates crack me up. You delight in spending scores of hours in ideological jihad over amounts that to you total to well less than $10/yr. And you do so while the Prop 13 2% cap has allowed you to switch the burden of paying for even your most basic local services to new comers. But we never hear a peep railing against that inequity.

Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 15, 2014 at 4:44 pm

From Martha Poyatos,Executive Officer San Mateo LAFCo
"I can't speak to the accuracy of your estimate of the share of property tax the District receives in the 1976 annexation area because post prop. 13 the District receives a share of the 1% property tax. In any event, in order for the District to receive property tax it would require that the County and cities agree to transfer property tax to the District."

Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 16, 2014 at 2:03 pm

My 1% property tax rate is now accompanied by another 0.77% thanks to sewer charges, school bonds, Landscape and Lighting Act Maintenance District(SUHSD), etc. Prop. 13 is doing what was intended.

Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on May 19, 2014 at 11:09 am

From the Half Moon Bay Review:

Many remember that in 2004, when it annexed local property into its borders, administrators pledged not to tax Coastsiders — unless they came back to voters asking for just that right. This is that vote. And this is the time to give the MROSD the resources to make the most of its acquisitions.

Brian Holt posted
Measure AA is a regional bond measure that will include significant investments on the Coastside. Completion of the Purisima to the Sea trail will greatly contribute to the Coastside's attraction as an outdoor recreation destination. A great many studies have been done on the economic benefits of outdoor recreation.

Measure AA is a regional measure that will result in communities throughout the peninsula and Silicon Valley investing in the Coastside. The bond will be primarily paid by communities "over the hill" yet benefit us here on the coast.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Nobu Palo Alto eyes next-door expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,282 views

Are We Really Up To This?
By Aldis Petriceks | 3 comments | 1,771 views

Couples: Cultivate Love, Gottman Style
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 535 views

It's contagious
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 211 views