This is a complete waste of money to benefit large corporations that will pay far less than the average homeowner who owns very little land

This regional agency is yet another bureaucracy with a board not (directly) elected by voters. The special interest groups that stand to profit love unaccountable regional boards occupied by ambitious local politicians. And Google will be sure to pay its fair share: a couple of bucks.

After the passage of Measure B (Special Parcel Tax for Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection) in 2000, I find it hard to trust any proposed tax increase that purports to protect or enhance the environment. Remember Santa Clara Valley Water District (the good old boys club) and their ridiculous flood protection plans?
I would like to believe that this money will fund the clean-up of the bay and protect wildlife but I suspect not. I don't trust the opinion of anyone from SCVWD and that includes board members and their employees.

I will certainly vote NO. Property taxes are already insane for people who bought properties at sky high prices.

How about seniors on fixed income and no social security increases? The city thinks they can pay more taxes and California Prop 30 (more taxes). I am really concerned that we will tax our fixed income senior citizens out of the state ... Mountain View only wants rich young Google and tech workers and Hillary voters...

Think of the children

Enough already! With taxes going up with the sales of houses at vastly increased prices, why do the politicians need more taxes from home owners?
Our quality of life is continually degraded with traffic, noise, and congestion. And we pay more each year in mandatory fees and taxes.
If the future holds additional erection of more high density glass cages, let developers pay for the maintenance of open space. We do not have sufficient natural resources to expand housing,ie. water, trash disposal, etc.
Vote No on A and AA.

Mtn View City Council never met a tax they didn't love.

no to all new taxes, govt, just like everyone else needs to learn to live within their means. Govt, is like a crack head, but instead of meth, it needs more and more of your hard earned money.

Govt needs to govern, not tell people what to do with their properties or business. Capitalism is the only real market force that is dynamic with the times we live in.

Remember the old song...."So long its been good to know ya?" Anyone that continues to live in this area after retirement is just plain NUTS.

I agree 100% with the above comments. WHEN will our govt. come to grips with life and STOP any more taxation.

EGADS folks...wake up.... NO NO NO on ANY AND ALL additional taxes..They sugar coat them by calling them bonds, or long term with termination (after we are all dead)...

George

Yes, No New Taxes!!! Look at how well my policy worked??

Don't forget to vote for Donald, build that wall, chop all the trees down and rejoice in sky high rents!

I'll happily pay $12 per year for my family to have better public access to a cleaner shoreline. I wish the bay area made better use of the bay as a natural destination. It's too bad this funding has to come through property taxes which are already high, but I'll vote yes.

Sheesh.. half a billion dollars to do what?

I go out to the bay lands. What do they need $500,000,000 more to do?

Windy, smells bad a lot of the time, hot during the summer and cold in the winter.

A lot of money spent for the few people who really get out there. I say you charge for entrance. Make he people who use it pay for it.

I know, take $500 million from the high speed rail budget! Another great idea we'll be paying for, and then our kids, and then our grandkids.

Phil. If this Parcel Tax is a GOV CODE Special Tax like school parcel taxes - then the Borikus court decision (Borikas, 214 Cal. App. 4th has made it clear 'case law' that Seniors and SSI recipients are the only class of property owners that are allowed to have exemptions from this type of tax GOV CODE 5079(b)(1). If the agency that proposed this - did not provide those exemptions - they are probably remiss. It will mean less votes for their measure.

Wait and read the details of the ballot measure.

Say "NO" to this legal scam!

"Taxpayer's lifes matter!"
"Taxpayer's lifes matter!"
"Taxpayer's lifes matter!"

I fail to understand why the Council felt the need to endorse this particular measure. Measures such as this are inherently controversial in nature due to the fact that they appear to have no accountability for how the money is spent. High Speed Rail was a very expensive lesson for taxpayers regarding accountability. Especially after a judge essentially ruled that such measures do not have to keep their promises ( Web Link )

The judge said:
"Having exercised its independent judgment in this matter as authorized by law, the Court concludes that the Authority abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of law. Specifically, the identification of the sources of all funds to be invested in the IOS and the certification regarding completion of necessary project level environmental clearances did not comply with the requirements set forth in the plain language of Section 2704.08(c)(2), subsections (D) and (K)."

However, the judge ruled that they could go ahead anyway:

"Kenny said the agency did not comply with either of those mandates, but Proposition 1A appears to leave it up to lawmakers to decide whether the funding plan is sufficient to warrant funding…."


Thus putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse.


Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Don't be fooled. Vote "NO"!



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View