Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

July 18, 2004

Alliance won't take tax quietly

Subheading

The Greenbelt Alliance vows to oppose Contra Costa and Solano counties' half-cent tax measures unless officials inject solid growth controls.

It makes no sense, they say, to spend billions of dollars on roads that fuel sprawl and gridlock.

This is bad news for proponents who never in their wildest dreams expected alliance sanction, but they did hope and pray for neutrality. (In other words, a quiet greenie is a good greenie.)

With a two-thirds voter approval threshold for these taxes, it doesn't take much of a "no" campaign to siphon critical votes. It's even more of a factor in Solano, whose leaders want to pass a new tax rather than extend an old one.

(Ask BART how that works. It lost its 2002 measure to fund earthquake repairs after taxpayers' groups spoke out against it.)

The alliance has never been afraid to use leverage. It helped sink Alameda County's stab at reauthorization in 1998 and Contra Costa's first try in 1986, and it appears willing to do it again.

In Contra Costa, the alliance demands that local leaders select something close to a final urban growth line before an Aug. 6 deadline to submit ballots arguments.

The measure, in contrast, says officials must pick a line by Dec. 31. That's two months after the election.

This is the line the measure says cities and the county must honor through 2034 or forfeit their local road-repair cash. The county has a line, but it expires in 2010 and cities don't have to follow it.

"We can't vote for a question mark, and we will tell the voters they shouldn't vote for a question mark, either," says alliance East Bay spokesman David Reid.

Mind you, some folks think even December is a stretch. Local leaders have fought over this line for years with no resolution.

In Solano, where officials rewrote their plan after a 2002 loss, the alliance wants to see incentives to curb sprawl, and it denounces a shift into highway upgrades. The rewrite dropped transit investment from 34.5 percent of the program to 24 percent.

"This measure goes backwards," says Solano-Napa alliance spokesman Brent Schoradt. "You would think this county would be more than ready for land-use measures. We're totally dependent on Interstate 80, and people are hostages in their automobiles."

Neither county appears likely to capitulate. As Will Parker sang in the musical, Oklahoma, "They've gone about as fur as they c'n go!"

Solano officials say the alliance members should have helped pass its more transit-friendly 2002 tax instead of sitting on their neutral behinds.

This go-round, Solano says it tailored its spending list to match polls instead of mollifying environmentalists.

And what do the polls say? No surprise here. The people want the highways fixed, and they want them fixed now. (The alliance discounts the poll because a business group commissioned it.)

"We just want a measure that can pass," said Solano Transportation Authority chief Daryl Halls.

In Contra Costa, there's zero chance leaders will hash out a line by August.

"It's physically impossible," said ex-Walnut Creek city manager Don Blubaugh, who has been hired by the county's transportation authority ($150 an hour up to $22,500 plus expenses) to lead the negotiations.

"It's already the middle of July. Folks are on vacation in August. We won't meet until after Labor Day," he says.

It's tempting to pass off this exchange as ordinary political posturing.

After all, the Greenbelt Alliance was probably never going to endorse these plans anyway, and elected officials know it. (Dues-paying members rarely compromise; they want victory.)

But who can blame either side for sticking to its story?

Both rightfully claim public support.

A 2002 Public Policy Institute of California survey spells out the intractable conflict: Half of the state's residents believe growth should occur in urban areas, but two-thirds prefer to live in low-density neighborhoods.

###