So what happens to those of us who don't use the internet to talk on the phone? Will my DSL be taxed simply because of a *potential* to be used as VOIP? I'm already paying a tax for having a landline to enable me to have DSL!

No thanks

Unlike the City Council, I have never met a tax I liked. The $62,000 to put the measure on the ballot could have saved jobs. How much did the study cost to see if the citizens would vote for more taxes? When will the citizens grow a pair, and just say no to taxes?

69% of the voters are real dumb. They have no clue because they think another 20 or 30 cents doesn't make a difference. What these 69% of nitwits don't realize is This city council and the city administrators will be giving themselves a generous increase this year and in the coming years from this extea revenue. travel more and stay in lux hotels, drink expensive wine and attend unncessary conferences at our dimes. Thank you dumb residents of this town.

Let's trim some waste instead of raising taxes. Or maybe we should pay for another study on the subject, complete with artist's renderings. Anyone follow the city salary story from Bell, Ca?

The Bell, CA scandal happened because Bell is a charter city. It could never happen here. Oh wait a minute. Mountain View is a Charter City also.

No thanks to taxes. The council can take a hike.

What is missing from the report is how much impact there is on that $1.9 mil fund. Is 50K? 100k? A million?

If we cannot get it in dollars, how about in pictures? If four HSR trench pictures cost $100,000, each picture is $25,000. So, how much impact there is on that $1.9 mil fund. Is two pictures? Four pictures? 40 pictures? If my kids could draw some pictures of the trench, could they pay off the whole VOIP tax?

Maybe we should spend money on a study to find out how much tax money we could save by outsourcing all our city services to India.

Although these tough and rapidly changing economic times are challenging our city leaders to proactively seek ways to maintain and grow our city services - we must use some common sense.

Enacting a law or a tax that is potentially unenforceable or worse yet divisive, will (1) make any future proposed laws or taxes that much harder to pass,(2) expose the city to the costs of defending tax payer lawsuits, and (3) may result in an actual decrease in revenue because it may drive unintended behavior changes.

It was only a few years ago that the school district passed a parcel tax that cost the district a ridiculous amount of time and money to defend after the fact, because of a questionable ambiguity in the measure, and possibly a rush to approval.

If the city council believes this to be a fair, non-behavior changing source of replacement revenue, and intends to push this to a vote, then I believe the following questions must be clarified:
- if this is indeed a replacement tax, will the current land-line phone tax be reduced to prevent double taxation?
- what will be the long-term housing and job impact to the large professional population of Mountain View that "works from home"? How about the growing number of businesses choosing to locate in Mountain View?
- similar to the school district "taxation without representation" challenge, how will the Council legally justify taxing internet data traffic if the call manager hub is not local? (i.e. your VOIP number is area code 408)
- is it possible to distinguish inbound from outbound originated traffic on VOIP, from a data summary perspective? Does this mean that incoming calls would be subject to the same tax? Is that being taxed twice then?

I strongly support a pro-active council and laud their efforts to seek on-going replacement revenue streams. I believe following the paradigm of land-line phone usage is simply the wrong tack to take, and doesn't at all reflect our evolved world. This is like VTA raising the fares on buses when ridership declines - very short-sighted and disconnected from reality!

An alternative? There are many. Possibly take over the Google-run city wifi and charge for it as a service like sewer and water?

re: "If my kids could draw some pictures of the trench, could they pay off the whole VOIP tax?"

I have to hand it to you, USA. That was some world-class sarcasm.

Let me start out by saying that taxes - overall - are the lowest they have been since 1950. No wonder stuff is getting cut left and right. The public - driven by self-serving politicians who sell the very attractive idea that somehow we can get something for nothing - has been voting itself tax decreases and services increases now for decades.

That said, a tax on something that the city has no hand in providing, regulating/managing, protecting against, etc. is insanity. If the city can show how it adds value to VOIP or phone calls in some way, I'd be ready to consider the tax. But it doesn't - or am I missing something? This is a blatant money-grab ... "because we can."

This should never even come to being a ballot measure.

re: "Let me start out by saying that taxes - overall - are the lowest they have been since 1950."

You may want to be more specific. You're talking about average income taxes paid. Of course, that glosses over the issue of folks of different income levels being taxed at widely different rates, and the atmosphere of class warfare that policy foments in our country.

Living cost is too high in some neighborhoods of the South Bay. I just don't understand why the 60% of the poeple is supporting to be taxed more. Oooh, I get it, those lower income families can get phone line for free, and therefore, they have no concern to let the city to increase the tax on the phone line.

Mountain View is an excellent place to live because we, via our elective representatives, have made decisions with care and foresight. I admire the Castro Street development, our City Hall and Center for the Performing Arts that brings top-notch productions, our marvelous public library, and more. The foresight to sign a ten-year contact with San Francisco to take their trash--so the this fill would become the foundation for Shoreline Park--brilliant.

Maintaining city income that enables us to have have a city that attracts world-class companies as well as quality of life for residents is well worth minor tax increases.

I disagree with those who express knee-jerk opposition to any tax changes. The city needs to make a case, but we need to pay--via taxes--for what we want. For those who impugn our elected officials and city staff, learn more about how managed our city is. Sign up for Leadership Mountain View or at least attend a few city council meetings--or watch them on TV. It's not fair to simply project your own frustrations and negativity on people you don't know and when you probably know nothing about what they do.

You can also meet with Mountain View's mayor face-to-face. Here is the info on "Meet the Mayor":

"These open, informal sessions are a chance for members of the Mountain View community to speak with the City’s Mayor, Ronit Bryant. The new opportunity will be held on Thursday mornings from 9:00-10:00 a.m., at the Bean Scene Café located at 500 Castro Street in Mountain View (next to the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts)."

+1. If the City has been taxing phone service, VOIP should be no different. Consider also that the money saved by switching from traditional phone to VOIP is much greater than the taxes that will be accessed. Even businesses, which are most likely to see the largest increase in taxes, will still make out ahead in having abandoned traditional land lines for VOIP.

It should always be expected, that City government be fiscally responsible and efficient with the resources it has. Past performance of Mountain View's governance indicates we have had good people making wise decisions, albeit unpopular choices.

Comparing Mountain View with many surrounding cities and towns of similar size and makeup reveals we are a healthy community, with a good balance of business, commercial, public, and cultural assets.