"Feel Good" Measure J Deserves Scrutiny

The PD had a feature story on Measure J today and an Opinion urging a "NO" vote.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinio...l-the-good-the

Measure J would create a new tax to not just support our parks, of which we are all justly proud, but would provide funds to develop and promote increased usage by people from outside the area. In other words, only WE who live in the rural county pay this tax, not the urbanites this is intended to attract to our area. So we in essence are taxed to further congest and degrade our own roads and arguably our quality of life while if you live in Santa Rosa or Windsor or anywhere else, you get to come enjoy but don't support it.

A frequent complaint regarding the loosening of regulation of "Granny Units" as a measure to address affordable housing is the additional traffic burden on our roads. What of the traffic congestion in downtown Sebastopol that has noticiably increased since the opening of the tourist-centic Barlow? Maesure J would only exacerbate these problems. Regional Parks states that visitation has doubled in the last 5 years to 5million visitors last year. Do we really want to see this number double in the next five years. And what of beyond that?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite:

The PD had a feature story on Measure J today and an Opinion urging a "NO" vote.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinio...l-the-good-the

Measure J would create a new tax to not just support our parks, of which we are all justly proud, but would provide funds to develop and promote increased usage by people from outside the area. In other words, only WE who live in the rural county pay this tax, not the urbanites this is intended to attract to our area. So we in essence are taxed to further congest and degrade our own roads and arguably our quality of life while if you live in Santa Rosa or Windsor or anywhere else, you get to come enjoy but don't support it. ...

---

This is a good point. I suggest you read the the PD editorial before voting. It does seem odd that this tax only applies to the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. Anybody know why this is?

I'm also not a fan of special purpose taxes, where the funds are earmarked for a specific use. I'd rather see or elected representatives fund the various needs from the general funds. But the world is moving more towards these targeted tax measures.

Still, I think investing in our parks is good long term move and I support it.

Today's PD

Measure J question
EDITOR: Why are only the unincorporated areas being burdened with Measure J, a proposed half-cent sales tax increase, when more than two-thirds of the county population lives in cities? It is likely that a majority of regional park users come from the cities. The unincorporated areas already pay more than their share by enduring increased traffic, congestion and deteriorating roads. The voter pamphlet says “much of Measure J will come from tourists and visitors to wineries.” What about residents who buy locally? What about local businesses that will be less competitive with those outside the county? Also, the list of projects seems quite ambitious, especially given that other fundamental government services are underfunded.
LARRY HELMKE
Kenwood

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

... It does seem odd that this tax only applies to the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. Anybody know why this is?

---

A recent Close to Home article in the PD explains why the Measure J Park tax only applied to unincorporated areas:

"...Measure J is a half-cent sales tax increase that is structured so that the revenue will largely come from tourists and visitors to wineries and other service providers in the unincorporated areas, not local residents, who largely make their purchases in our local cities. Additionally, food and prescription drugs are exempt from sales taxes and Measure J. Furthermore, while city parks receive funding from their residents, our regional parks — under the purview of the county — do not have a dedicated funding source. Measure J provides a mechanism to allow regional parks funding to come largely from out-of-county visitors, not local residents...."

I am on another social media outlet. Someone posted the reasons they voted against Measure J. I responded, as follows, as did others. All but the original post and one thank you were for voting for Measure J. My dog, the dogs of many others who use the Ragle Ranch dog park, as well as many of their two-footed companions urge you to vote for Measure J.

Shepherd Bliss from Bloomfield/Blucher Creek

I do not agree with this. I plan to vote Yes on J. Our regional parks provide families direct access to nature, protect water sources and natural areas, and preserve fish and wildlife habitat. Improving roads is also important. I suggest a both/and approach, rather than an either/or approach. 
I moved to Sonoma County 24 years ago, partly to have direct access to nature, which the parks provide. I use the dog park at Ragle Park many times a week, as do many dog owners. It needs adequate funds to be maintained and improved, as do the trails that give us access to open space and multiple recreational options. 
Let's consider the larger picture of our wonderful Sonoma County, rather than focus on that one problematic bike path, as we think about how to vote. Our regional parks are a jewel and need to be supported.

Barbara Zimmerman from Hessel

I support Prop J. I think our community needs more trails, including the proposed Sebastopol-Petaluma trail which would directly impact my lot. In the Hessel area, we have nowhere to walk except on …

Shepherd Bliss from Bloomfield/Blucher Creek

Among the many supporting Measure J are the Sierra Club, The Farmers Guild, LandPaths, Sonoma Land Trust, North Bay Leadership Council, Sonoma County Gazette, Petaluma Argus Courier, Sonoma Index-Tribune, as well as two U.S. Congresspersons, a State Senator, a former Sonoma County Supervisor, and a diverse group of businesspeople, farmers, and environmentalists.

Yasi Ayat from Hessel

I wholeheartedly support a YES vote on Measure J and I am a resident whose property will be directly affected by the trail mentioned. 

It is extremely short-sighted and selfishly irresponsible to …