Bennett: Missing the point on Measure Q

Measure Q on this year’s ballot, the proposal for a 1-cent sales tax increase in Petaluma, has generated considerable debate, plenty of heat and some curious alliances on the anti-tax side of the issue.

Much of the debate misses the key point I think everyone should be addressing – is the money this sales tax will generate really needed by the city, and if so, is there a better way to raise this money? I’m voting for Measure Q because I believe that if we are going to have a community that can solve a vast array of infrastructure and public safety problems, we are going to need the dollars to get the job done. And, nobody has come up with a plan that even remotely comes close to meeting our needs.

Is it a perfect plan? Of course not. I don’t like the fact that there is no expiration date on the tax, Measure Q doesn’t guarantee how the money will be spent, and that a smaller tax would be more palatable.

None of these arguments, however, outweigh the fact that if the city is to address our pressing needs – traffic congestion, potholes, poor maintenance of about everything, lack of playing fields for our kids, flood control and more – they need the money to do the job. Nor do those arguments present a better way to fix our problems. These arguments against are essentially arguing for the city to do nothing to solve our problems now, and to accept the status quo.

Why does the city need the money? For decades a huge part of our infrastructure was covered by redevelopment funds, a capture of some of the property tax funds in our commercial areas. A couple of years back, when the state budget was crunched, redevelopment agencies around the state were abolished and that funding source for cities, already slammed against the fiscal wall, disappeared.

Those who hate taxes just because they are taxes, or argue that public officials, any public officials, are not to be trusted, miss the point of citizens functioning in a democratic society. We are joined together as a political unit to take care of ourselves – no big brotherocracy here to dictate, we are given instead the responsibility of taking care of our community, just as we have responsibilities of caring for our own bodies.

When we are seriously ill, we endure medicines and treatments that are sometimes almost as bad as the disease, but we endure them because they, hopefully, will make us well. But when it comes to curing a community’s ills, it’s far too easy to fall into rationalizations such as “I don’t trust our leaders to spend the money wisely.”

Since elected officials come and go, and council membership changes frequently, that’s the same as saying no one can be trusted, and if that is the case, it is an argument for leaving the city in its current sorry state.

Mistakes have been made in the past, with public employees’ salaries and pensions leading the list. But, our council has been working hard to correct this problem with some notable gains.

To address one of the problems with the ballot measure, as written, is that it doesn’t specify how the money is to be spent, the city council has developed a spending plan showing how they would take care of infrastructure, playing fields, street maintenance, adequate police and fire, flood control, and more. Any council member worthy to represent us will support and honor this effort, and if they don’t, if and when Measure Q passes, they should be recalled. I would join the effort.

That is another neat thing about democracy. Voters aren’t helpless unless they want to be.

It is worth noting that the five council members supporting Measure Q are the politically moderate members, while the two opposed are the so-called “progressives.” The moderates have presented a plan that shows how we can get Petaluma back on track by taking some fiscal medicine. The “progressives” offer no workable alternative.

(Don Bennett, business writer and consultant, has been involved with city planning issues since the 1970s. His email address is dcbenn@aol.com.)