Ballot questions -- CARSON CITY 1. Sales tax hike on gasoline -- NO
Submitted by Carson Now Reader on Fri, 11/04/2016 - 3:56pm
Digest and arguments:
http://files.constantcontact.com/d2820800501/91c2a0b7-9df5-43a8-b674-b4c...
Fuel is expensive enough already, especially for those of us on severely fixed income. (Social Security just announced a raise of $3-4, while Medicare, supplemental insurance and co-pays are going up tens of dollars -- each.) And our city "fathers" are demanding MORE tax hikes. No, we do not need ANNUAL increases of THREE CENTS each year, between now and 2026. That will raise the price of a gallon of gasoline by $3 in 2026. WHO ARE YOU KIDDING??? We already have a fuel tax in Carson City. That money was and is already supposed to go ONLY for road and street repair.
If the argument for this tax hike is that it is required by state law (AB191, 2015), then I submit the legal requirement can be fulfilled by setting the hike to something ridiculously low, such as a mil or tenth of a mil; whatever the pumps can handle.
HOWEVER, AB191 (2015) says nothing of the sort. It says, as county MAY impose or continue the surcharge IF the people approve it by a two thirds vote. It is the VOTE of the people that is REQUIRED, not the tax hike.
So, the first thing to ask is, why has the city not spent that money as required all these years? And because they have not, what assurance do we have that they would, in the future? And if we don't have the money now to keep our existing streets in good repair, why has the Board of Supervisors been approving the construction of MORE streets in all those new hyperdensity projects (Schulz Ranch, Lompa Ranch, Little Lane, The Vintage, …), to be maintained by the city?
Money is fungible; one dollar bill doesn't know from another that is has to be spent on one thing, not another. That's why we have a budget. If only that budget were written with an eye on the city's essential services and priorities. The fact that we have all those roads and streets that need repair should be a good enough argument for replacing those on the current Board who have set the city's spending priorities on things other than the basic essentials.
