Alamedans for “Fair” Taxation? Not.
Did you catch the anonymous guest commentary in the Alameda Sun last week? It was ironically titled “An Open Letter from Local Businesses” because nothing says “Open” than hiding who you are. However, the cat is out of the bag. Michele Ellson scratched below the surface to discover that the Kelly family, as in Pauline’s Antiques were involved.
We typed in [Alamedans for Fair Taxation] to the county’s fictitious names database, and found that the name was registered for a brief time in July to one Michael J. Kelley Sr., whose mom Pauline owns Pauline’s Antiques. So there you have it. Mystery solved!
We checked in with Mr. Kelley and heard back from his wife Michelle. Her response to our find? Duh!
Which is odd because two months ago, Paulin Kelly told The Island Blog that she was not:
“Over the weekend, we spoke with Pauline Kelly, owner of Pauline’s Antiques…[who has] been rumored to be linked to the suit; they were quick to declaim involvement (though Kelly did confirm the suit was going to happen).”
Again, nothing says “Open” like not being open.
Which brings us to the journalistically questionable, anonymously-signed “open” letter in the Alameda Sun which makes the case that Measure H is “unfair” because some commercial property owners will pay more than others, and that commercial property owners will pay more than residential property owners.
I’m going to agree, it’s unfair. Totally.
It’s unfair just like our current property tax system is unfair. In fact, a quick check of the property taxes paid by the Kelly’s on their store shows that my family pays over $3,500 a year more than the Kelly’s do thanks to Prop 13 (which was passed by a lower percentage of voters than Measure H did.) That’s not fair.
It’s also not fair that Kelly’s store received a grant from the city last year to fix up her awning. It looks nice, but I’m wondering where my grant for painting my house is, it’s only “fair.”
Let’s not even start on who was supporting the city-built parking garage, and what “fair” means when you push for public funding to support your business and then complain about a four-year tax to support the schools.
Many folks in Bayport are paying over $8,500 more, plus taxes to pay for their streets and parks that are on top of the taxes they pay for the rest of Alameda’s streets and taxes. That’s not fair!
Look at the list provided by the “Alamedan for Fair Taxation” that highlights the unfairness of Measure H:
- A small, independent grocer will pay roughly $6,000 annually, while Safeway’s prorated share at Alameda Towne Centre is estimated at less than $400.
- A group of independently owned senior residence communities will pay roughly $20,000 annually. Many of the senior residents who will ultimately share in this incremental tax are on fixed incomes.
- A local retail store estimates its Measure H taxes at an extra $10,000 a year.
- A family-owned nursery will pay $3,500 a year.
- A storage facility, $9,500.
With the exception of the senior housing, which posits a hypothetical that is unproven, the unfairness presented in this list is less than the difference between what the Kelly’s pay on their tax bill and Bayporters and other recent Alamedans pay.
I won’t get too far into it, but looking up the property tax info for the “family-owned nursery” shows a similar disparity, (the property is taxed on worth of just over $100K). Hardly fair.
The filer of one of the Measure H lawsuits appears to have availed himself of the senior exemption (that’s not fair!). The irony continues.
At the end of the day, AUSD has been trying to meet with these concerned citizens who just want fairness, and time and time again, they refuse. (I guess it wouldn’t be fair to talk things out). I’ve said it before, and I’m sure I’ll say it again. Measure H is a 4-year tax, not 20-years, not forever (like Prop 13), 4-years. It’s unfortunate that Alameda’s business community jumped immediately to a lawsuit that threatens education programs for 10,000 Alameda kids.
California tax law is not fair, I highly doubt that there is such a thing as a “fair” tax. No matter how you structure it. “Alamedans for Fair Taxation” is misnomer.
I agree that Measure H will likely not meet the “uniformity” criteria of state law. It seems unlikely. I also agree that the measure could have been written better. But it’s a miracle that it was written at all given the timeline. Depending on what “uniformity” is found to mean (and there are many possible definitions), any tax will not be “Fair” to someone. So yes, they have a right to file a lawsuit. And yes, on certain levels, they even have a good case. But in the end, the community that supports their businesses, loses.
And that’s not fair either.
Popularity: 10% [?]
An Alamedan also for Fair Taxation
October 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Thank you for so effectively pointing out the hypocrisy of Alamedans for Fair Taxation’s invocations of “fairness” and “openness.”
But I’m not clear about the basis of your attempted legal analysis that “Measure H will likely not meet the ‘uniformity’ criteria of state law.”
I’d expect the judge to interpret “uniformity” or “uniformly” in light of widely accepted practices around the state and to recognize that, as in most areas of the law, the most narrow, rigid reading of a word is rarely the correct one.
John Knox White
October 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Less an attempted legal analysis, and more a nod to the idea that I don’t the measure will hold up, as written, with the caps in place. That said, I’ll be surprised (as you mention) if the whole thing is thrown out. I assume that you are correct, the courts will not support an extremely narrow reading, but may require some changes.