By Marty Richman
I have no love for the pesky mosquito, sometimes called the
state bird of New Jersey, but the San Benito County Board of
Supervisors has put me in a bind.
I have no love for the pesky mosquito, sometimes called the state bird of New Jersey, but the San Benito County Board of Supervisors has put me in a bind.
To vote for a mosquito control program I want to support, I must cast a ballot in the kind of election that weakens my basic rights, the kind of election I strongly oppose. In this case, there is a clear hierarchy of choices. Therefore, I’m forced to vote no on the proposed mosquito control assessment in protest – and I strongly encourage all county voters to do the same. Ultimately, only bad things come from the political manipulation this election represents.
It’s been just less than 30 years since the citizens of California adopted the tax-limiting measure Proposition 13. It was approved with 65 percent of the vote and with 70 percent of the registered voters participating! You don’t see that level of participation generated by just any measure. Part of the proposition limited the government’s ability to raise certain taxes unless the increase was approved by two-thirds (66 percent) of the voters, called a supermajority.
What you may not know is that Prop 13 eventually became article 13A of California’s state constitution and it was challenged all the way to the United States Supreme Court where, in 1992, is was upheld in an overwhelming 8-to-1 decision. Love it or hate it – and those that spend other people’s money hate it with a passion – Prop 13 is not small potatoes; it’s a fundamental protection. So why should the voters allow that protection to be eroded away over a mere mosquito?
Ever since Prop 13 was enacted, state and local governments have been using “imaginative strategies” to compensate for their loss of property tax revenue. One way is special assessments that levy new taxes earmarked for services. To avoid the requirement for 66 percent approval, some taxes have been applied to special assessment districts – these only need the approval of 50 percent plus 1 voter. After all, the logic goes, if a restricted benefit is designated for a small part of the county, why should everyone have to vote on and pay for it?
This makes some sense when properly applied. However, one must be very careful to assure that this option is not abused just to reduce the voter approval requirement, and that is what I believe is happening here. Logically, the proposed mosquito control program and the associated taxes should apply to the entire county and be subject to a two-thirds approval requirement.
Sure, most of the people and most of the problem will be in the proposed assessment district, but most of the land and many of the people lie outside the district. Additionally, although the vast majority of West Nile infections have been identified in birds, the virus has been shown to infect horses, cats, bats, chipmunks, skunks, squirrels and domestic rabbits that can “infect” mosquitoes. All those hosts in the chain, and some mosquitoes themselves, can travel a long way. None of those animals or insets can find the line on the map that designates the abatement area, and they wouldn’t honor that artificial construct even if they could; the line is strictly political.
There are other aspects of this election that make me uncomfortable. The first is that the county is voting its own parcels to influence the outcome, although it’s the voters who will have to pay that bill. That way the county government gets more than 300 votes and most taxpayers get only one. Finally, and importantly, the public input portion of the public hearing is scheduled for the same day as the election! That is long after the majority of the all-mail ballots will have been cast. This schedule appears to be specifically designed to limit any opposition and public debate. It’s as close to “vote first and then we will allow the debate” as humanly possible.
With all of those twists and turns, one must wonder what the county government is afraid of, or is this just the “divide and conquer” formula designed by some firm of consultants? Either way, I don’t like it; let’s have an honest and fair election; then I’ll support the program. The current process is too much like shooting yourself in the foot to kill a mosquito that landed on your big toe – you may get the little bugger, but in the log run you’re going to pay a terrible price for the satisfaction.
