Saratoga News

Measure L is flawed

By L.M. Thorpe

Mayor Paul Jacobs, in a statement read at the Oct. 2 City Council meeting, attempted to clarify the Council's position on the intent of the ballot statement wording. In his statement, Jacobs first admits that the opponents' interpretation "may be a technically correct interpretation, but it is one that was never contemplated by the council, the city manager or the city attorney, and should not be alleged to be the council's intent or interpretation." He then stated further that, "When the language was agreed upon, none of us even dreamed of the possibility of such a pointless interpretation."

Parenthetically, may I point out that this is the same Mayor Jacobs who, on numerous occasions, has stated during City Council meetings that, with regard to the implementation of Measure G, the council will implement Measure G to the letter of the law regardless of what the originators of the measure had in mind? I wonder if he is also planning to implement Measure L to the letter of the law, if it fails. If so, the measure will remain in effect and voters will not have a say in this issue until after Jan. 1, 2001!

In my opinion, our interpretation is not a pointless one, and this contention is borne out by the fact that neither the ballot statement, the city attorney's Impartial Analysis, the Argument in Favor nor the Rebuttal to the Argument Against make it clear that the utility tax will terminate immediately if Measure L fails on Nov. 5. Instead, from an in-depth analysis, the measure asks the voters if they want to extend the tax beyond its current termination date to Jan. 1, 2001. (The tax is currently in effect until July 1, 2000.) As further confirmation of our opinion, the Pacific Legal Foundation has informed the City Council in a letter (Oct. 10, 1996) that: "Measure L, which only extends the sunset provision of the tax measure, is insufficient to determine whether or not the voters would approve the tax. The impartial analysis by the city attorney says the effect of the measure is that, if approved, the tax will be extended for six months. According to the language of Measure L and the analysis, if the measure fails, the tax still continues in effect until July 1, 2000."

I am sure that Mayor Jacobs thinks that, by his proclamation, he has clarified this controversy sufficiently to effect a complete understanding on the part of the voters, but sadly, this is not the case. Yes, he has stated publicly that if the measure fails, the city will terminate the tax "immediately." However, what is to prevent the council from overriding his proclamation and reinstating the tax in January of next year? This is essentially what they did on April 3, 1985, after a parcel tax measure failed at the polls in 1984. So, who's kidding who? Furthermore, this does not excuse or justify the council's demonstrated refusal to draft an understandable and unambiguous ballot statement. By this arrogant move, the council, the city manager and the city attorney have shown that they will go to any extreme to avoid, and to further delay, giving the citizens an opportunity to vote on this issue.

I still maintain that the ballot-statement wording was the outgrowth of an attempt, on the part of the city, to avoid being held liable for the illegal collection of this tax from April 3, 1985 to the present. As evidence to this fact, the City's Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure L claims that "the Utility Users Tax is NOT an illegal tax." If this is an incontestable fact, then it is unclear why the City Attorney has stated in writing, regarding the ballot wording, that: "there was general concern, caused by the Guardino decision and other threatened and pending litigation throughout the state, that any ballot measure involving the existing utility user tax be prospective only, and that the measure have no impact or bearing on the past validity of the existing tax." This statement would seem to infer that the City is not fully convinced that the tax is (or was) legal!

The city may have initially planned an "end run" around putting the tax on the November ballot by forcing a vote on a six-month extension of the tax to Jan. 1, 2001, and is now gracefully attempting to explain it away. Whether this is the case or not, only they know. But regardless of their real motives, the fact remains that the ballot statement is far from clear and unambiguous. For those voters who do not subscribe to the Saratoga News and who do not follow the City Council meetings regularly, it will not be clear to them precisely what they are voting on when they read their ballot or when they enter the voting booth. This is the unfortunate result of the whole fiasco. A cloud will forever hang over this measure due to the council's refusal to provide a clear-cut ballot statement.

L.M. Thorpe is a 30-year Saratoga resident.