So, you sold the land to a private company to demolish into for-profit salt ponds, now you want us to pay you to reclaim and restore it? Huh.

@Let me get this straight - Here you go with a little history:

Leslie Salt Company incorporated in 1901. From Wikipedia:

"The Leslie Salt Company was a salt producing company located in the San Francisco Bay Area, at the current locations of Newark, Hayward and other parts of the bay. They produced salt using salt evaporation ponds on the shores of the San Francisco Bay. By the 1940s, Leslie Salt had become the largest private land owner in the Bay Area."

More historical detail is here (Stanford publication, "Salt ponds to Refuge on San Francisco Bay"): Web Link From the paper:

"In the early twentieth century Leslie Salt Company incorporated to swallow all of the small, often family-owned salt producers. Eventually Leslie Company levees captured much of the south bay. Leslie combined the ponds on both sides of the bay into a single integrated unit...By the 1940s, Leslie Salt Company became the largest private land owner in San Francisco Bay... "

Leslie was sold to Cargill in 1978. In 2003 Cargill sold 15,100 acres of the salt ponds to government and foundation entities for restoration. The price was $100 million, plus a tax writeoff of $143 million for Cargill.

You can get mad at our present-day politicians for lots of stuff, but not for this (unless you think the price was a ripoff: Web Link

This is one parcel tax I'll vote for.

Pay it out of existing budgets.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Ugh, here we go again. Make everyone pay for something a minority of the public actually uses.

Not to mention the bay isn't exactly "pretty". It's actually ugly.. and smells bad.

I think it's fine just the way it is. Just leave the gates open on the salt ponds and let nature do the rest.

No to all new Taxes. Our rents are high enough as is.

Two points:

I'm getting really sick and tired of special interest groups proposing parcel taxes and sales taxes to fund their do-gooder projects. This is getting out of control.

Second, they're using the June election to try to sneak the tax through in a low turnout election. Our state constitution should limit all public votes on tax increases (including school taxes) to our elections with the greatest participation rates --- the bi-yearly Nov federal, state, and local elections --- that generate the largest voter turnout. This will keep highly motivated special interest groups from hijacking & manipulating the election process to sneak in taxes not supported by a majority of our voters.

This is a small tax for all nine counties around the bay. With inevitable sea level rise it will help protect the near shore homes, businesses , highways, and sewer treatment plants from inundation. Having marshland with dampen the waves of the bay water. And if you don't believe that, check out what happened in New Orleans which did not have the historical wetlands barrier it once had.

Please vote for this tax, it is in our interest to get ready for the higher level of the bay.

Thw money would go to grow another bureaucracy and pay off private special interests.- some of which will have bankrolled the campaign.

You guys are fighting a $12 tax? Really? For something that benefits everyone? What are you going to do with the $12 you save by fighting this? Buy part of a movie ticket? Absurd. Just vote for the tax. Actually, I'll bet you don't even bother to vote, which is fine.

This one makes sense. The benefits are on may levels for generations to come.
This is an easy Yes. I'm not going to vote for the VTA tax increase though.

I'd vote NO.

Santa Clara County government 2015 general fund budget is $2.5B. What is the total budget expenditures of all the counties? Probably in tens of billions. That is just one year. Over 20-year period the expenditures should be over hundreds of billions of dollars!

Why the government cannot improve their efficiency and come up with $25M in the 20-year time frame? It would be amount to just 0.0002% in savings! In private sector efficiency improvement is a constant operation. What happened to our expectations of our government?

Secondly this may be just a start. They can come back ask for more. Tax by a thousand slices. Common strategy by government agencies. Just look at VTA, BART and various transportation taxes. Keep adding up. If you think $12 is all it is you are just too naive.

Love the town square? Where else does the Republican Party have a voice? Their combination of greed and ignorance is astounding.

Got to pay our bills. 12 bucks? No problem for the left leaning folks in MV.

I say vote no. This project will eventually get funded, but the Bay Area homeowners don't have to pay for this directly. Other parties will step up and pay for these projects, but only if we vote no.

1) Rich environmentalists, of which there are many in the Bay Area will definitely put up a lot of the money.

2) The inner bay land is owned by the state and federal government now. They have lots of money and have environmental lobbyists in Sacramento and Washington to push this project. They'll put up a big chunk of the funding as well.

3) Municipalities next to the bay. The edge of the bay is within their city limits. It makes the most sense they pay something because their citizenry benefit most directly if the coast is improved. It doesn't make sense for an inland city's taxpayers to contribute when the coastal city gets all the benefits.

Also, I have a big problem with the way the tax is assessed. Why do big businesses that own very large parcels pay the same $12 per parcel rate as the regular homeowner? For example, Stanford University probably owns 8,000 acres of land. Since they bought it so long ago, I bet that land is divided into very few parcels. What are they going to pay $200? They can easily afford to pay more.

Anyone who owns lots of land in the Bay Area can afford a few thousand more dollars in taxes. For example, tax only parcels that consist of one acre or more of land. Charge them $100/year per acre or whatever amount that generates the $25M/year needed. No one else pays.

And since corporations don't vote, but homeowners do, this tax is much more likely to pass.

Not just no. Hell no!