Sunday, August 13, 2006

Eureka Utility Tax Battle Warms Up

The Humboldt Taxpayer's League came out in opposition to the extension of Eureka's Utility Tax last week. As an aside, I was under the impression they were also going to be taking positions on the statewide ballot intitiatives as well. I guess not.

I was, of course, glad to see them come out in opposition and thought League member, Leo Sears, did a good job on his My Word column in the Times- Standard a couple days after the League announced their decision.

Not to be outdone, Eureka City Manager, David Tyson put his two cents worth in on the issue in a My Word column in this morning's paper.

David claims it would be illegal for the Eureka Redevelopment Agency to use redevelopment money for recurring expenses like public safety. I guess that's why it's ok to use it for private security patrols in Old Town; Those patrols are "temporary".

One thing seems clear: The Eureka Redevelopment Agency isn't about to pay back any of the six million dollars it took from the city's general fund no matter what ends up happening with the Utility Tax.


At 2:16 PM, Blogger ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Many government entities in the state seem to be interested in implementing the scandinavian plan i.e. tax the people to the extent that they cannot meet ordinary living expenses. The solution: apply to the government for rent, heating and other subsidies to make up the shortfall. This is now the situation in Sweden where the official unemployment rate is around 4%. When those who are on government "retraining" programs and disability leave are counted the rate is 25%+ and growing.

At 7:06 PM, Blogger Pogo said...

According to Tyson (who lives in Trinidad?) the state stopped sending (took away) its annual subsidy of $1.2 mil to Eureka in 1994. The utility tax implemented to replace that subsidy generates $1.4 mil/yr. The average household pays approximately $6.25 per month to maintain "ESSENTIAL" public services such as: "environmental programs:Funding to the Sequoia Park Zoo;City Hall office hours/public services (what ever that means); youth and adult recreation classes and programs; park and facility maintenance; job creation and retention efforts." It sounds to Pogo as if something is dreadfully wrong with these city spendthrifts. In other words, the city is spending $200,000.00/year MORE than before the state "took away" the $1.2 mil.

At 7:13 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Back when the UT extension came up for a vote last time around (or was it the time before that?), I started up a NO On Measure X web site. Somewhere I came up with some figures that showed Eureka's budget (and revenue) had increased each year for at least ten years, even without the Utility Tax.

I'll have to see if I can dig up that old web page. I might still have it on a floppy disk in the garage.

At 7:14 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Oops. I meant to say "revenue would have increased even without the Utility Tax.".


Post a Comment

<< Home