Palm Springs Fraudulent Ballot Measure "G"

    Desert Observer's Page

Palm Springs, CA.  Palm Springs ballot Measure "G" has been crafted to fraudulently conceal its true purpose. It's being marked as a half percent decrease (from 5% to 4.5%) in the existing telephone utility tax. What's not being revealed is the measure's real intent is to ratify past illegal tax collections, make legal all past, present and future collection of taxes on Cell Phones and other new phone technologies, and allow future increases in the emergency response fee tax without first getting voter approval. It's a classic "bait and switch" marketing tactic!

The California constitution requires voter approval of new taxes or the extension of any existing tax to new circumstances. The old voter approved City telephone utility tax ordinance does not include language authorizing taxes on Cell Phones and similar new phone technologies. However, Palm Springs and other California cities have illegally imposed and collected tax on Cell Phones, and locally the rate has been 5%. It's become clear to municipal governments that the courts may soon invalidate these taxes for not having received voter approval. The Palm Springs municipal government concern is twofold. First, they may soon be required to stop collecting the illegal taxes, and second, there is the potential liability of having to refund illegally collected taxes. The effort in Palm Springs is to resolve the issue before the courts act and before the full story becomes public knowledge. The solution is to cover all the bases by placing an obscurely worded measure on the ballot for voter approval. Use a carrot - the "bait and switch" approach - to sell the measure. Let voters think they're just voting to reduce the telephone utility tax as the "bait", while the real intent (ratify past illegal tax collections, approve current Cell Phone tax, make tax automatic on future technologies, provide for automatic emergency response fee tax increases) of the ballot measure represents the "switch" in this ethically challenged offering.

The ballot measure is accompanied by an impartial analysis by City Attorney Douglas Holland. The city council is his client! He's the one responsible for crafting Measure "G"! Surely no reasonable person would agree Mr. Holland is correct to label his analysis as impartial! The members of the city council all signed an argument favoring Measure "G". No arguments were provided against the measure or in rebuttal to the City's argument. The reason no argument against the measure was provided is because none was desired! There were no significant hearings on the issue and no publicity efforts made inviting citizen participation. The City has a full time publicity office that routinely sends out notices about all local government activities. The facilities of that office were not used to invite citizen participation when it came to crafting the presentation of ballot Measure "G". Placing a new page on the City website providing information similar to the county's Sample Ballot and Information Pamphlet, was not sufficient, for it too failed to invite a rebuttal argument or address the information needs of those unfamiliar with the website or without computers.

City council members argue that Measure "G" does not provide for new taxes. Asking voters to approve illegal tax collections may not appear to be a new tax, but it's an argument that remains unsettled. Asking voters to make future emergency response fee increases automatic without voter approval, may not appear to be a new tax, but it's an argument that remains unsettled. Asking voters to approve automatic extensions of the phone tax to new technologies, may not appear to be a new tax, but it too is an argument that remains unsettled. What is not clear is the reasoning behind asking voter approval of the revised ordinance. If the ordinance does not involve new taxes or new circumstances, why is ballot Measure "G" needed?

Here are two questions for the City Council in response to their arguments in favor of Measure "G".
  • If Measure "G" does not involve new taxes or new circumstances, why is voter approval needed?
  • Which paragraph(s) or section(s) in the revised Telephone Utility Tax ordinance require voter approval?
It's my firm belief the ballot Measure "G" presentation is being fraudulently misrepresented by the Palm Springs city council and their attorney. City officials are engaging in a classic "bait and switch" tactic designed to obtain voter approval for more government actions than is being made clear. This effort is unworthy, unethical, dishonest, deceptive, and simply fails to pass the smell test. In fact, it stinks! City officials should all be ashamed of the role each one is playing in this unseemly charade. Measure "G" needs to be defeated and a message sent that openness, honesty, trust and credibility have all been brought into question by City officials' actions in the marketing and presentation of ballot Measure "G".

Bond Shands
Palm Springs Voter
September 28, 2009

Posted by Administrator at 9/28/2009 9:43 AM
Categories: Opinion
Tags: Palm Springs City Council Ballot Measure "G"
Previous Post
Next Post

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.