Time for Petaluma to focus on street repair

Now that Sonoma County voters have rejected Measure A, a quarter-cent, five-year sales tax measure that would have financed road repairs in both the unincorporated area as well as cities, it’s an excellent time for Petaluma’s elected officials to act. This should involve working collaboratively and effectively to identify a new plan to fix Petaluma city streets and alleviate traffic congestion, with a ballot measure in 2016.

Fixing dilapidated city streets and reducing traffic congestion with projects like the long-awaited Rainier interchange were found to be the most important priorities among local residents when the city conducted polling 18 months ago that became the basis for the ill-fated Measure Q sales tax measure on the November ballot. That proposal, like Measure A, was a general tax, meaning the money could be used in whatever way city officials deemed appropriate. Elected officials like general tax measures because they only require a majority vote, unlike the two-thirds majority required for a specific tax measure.

But many of those who rejected Measure A on Tuesday said they feared the money would be diverted to bloated public employee pensions and retiree health care costs, instead of road repairs. The only effective way to counter that objection is with a specific tax measure whereby funds must legally be spent on a clearly designated purpose, like fixing roads. That’s what city officials should pursue for 2016.

Yes, the higher threshold can make it more difficult to win voter approval, but a specific tax would assure voters that the money will be spent as promised. With a unified city council endorsement and a guarantee that the money will be spent to fix roads and build Rainier, approval of such a tax measure is achievable.

It’s the unified city council that will be the most important, and potentially elusive, element in the next sales tax campaign. Unanimity, after all, is something we’re not used to seeing on the Petaluma City Council.

In the Measure Q campaign, two of the seven city council members did not support the tax measure, including Mayor David Glass who worked overtime to convince voters it was the wrong approach to solving the problem by capitalizing on underlying voter discontent and distrust. He demonstrated similarly dubious leadership by failing to join his colleagues last month in formally endorsing Measure A by promising to spend its proceeds, should it have passed, on local street repairs.

As mayor, Glass has a responsibility to build consensus among his colleagues on important issues like street repair. It was Glass, after all, who last year was a vocal proponent of a specific tax measure to fix roads, but lost out to a majority of council members who got behind a general tax measure instead. Now, he’s uniquely positioned to bring that original idea back for further consideration.

In addition to building consensus on the city council, a broad base of grassroots supporters throughout the community should also be assembled, and the sooner the better. Like Measure A on the county level, Measure Q was developed and promoted by a handful of public officials and had very little community-wide support. Getting that support is essential to executing the door-to-door canvassing necessary to educate the electorate and get out the vote.

Without additional tax revenues, Petaluma’s streets will remain in a perpetual state of disrepair and the Rainier interchange will not be built. For the Petaluma City Council, finding consensus on how to fix these problems should be its top priority.