Friends of Parks -- Measure W-1

We agree that the district needs more money for maintenance of the acquisitions made with measure AA funds; AA having passed in 1988. However, partly because of the turmoil at the District plus the fact that at least one employee sued for being fired illegally and was paid a substantial settlement, the amount of which is confidential, we looked at this especially carefully.

This measure is ill conceived and hastily written; and it shows. Since the language had to be on file at the Alameda County Election Department by August 7, there was not enough time for the District to confer with interested parties such as environmental groups, trail advocates, resource preservation groups, and the like.

The language is ambiguous. What does "critically needed operations" mean? This could include funds for lawsuits, hiring consultants, paying for out of town, indeed out of country, trips for top managers and Board members. It could mean almost anything -- except land acquisition. It certainly does not restrict funding for what is usually understood as maintenance.

This measure is unfair. It rests solely on the backs of homeowners and renters. Exempted are all business parcels, including those occupied by professionals such as doctors, lawyers, all farmland, and all industrial parcels such as those occupied by Chevron and Tosco. According to the assessor's offices in both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, these exempted parcels account for about 30% of the land area in both counties. Omitting the exemptions would provide a third again the amount of money the District says it needs. The District's argument is that these businesses will pass on the tax to consumers. According to that logic no business nor any type of commercial property should ever be taxed.

This measure contains no safeguards to assure that the money will be spent for what the public understands to be maintenance.

The measure has no sunset provision. It will go on forever. Even if in the future it becomes clear that this needs to be reconsidered, there will be no incentive to do so.

Additionally, environmental groups believe that opposing Measure W gives the public an opportunity to express its lack of confidence in the way the EBRPD is managed. A "no" vote is a vote of no confidence.

Given the turmoil that exists at the District, a vote of no confidence is appropriate.

"Management" is an environmental issue when we are talking about agencies that administer lands on which there are important natural resources and cultural artifacts. Think about the U.S. Forest Service. The environmental community gets upset when the Forest Service behaves as though it is a supplier for the timber industry.

We agree that the District needs more money in its operating budget for maintenance, having acquired more parkland under measure AA in 1988. This parcel tax increase is bringing out a wide range of people who are annoyed with the District for one reason or another. For example, dog owners in Alameda are upset because the temporary agreement to allow off-leash dog use on District property there is about to expire. RPA opposed this temporary use precisely because we feared that once these folks were allowed in, they would not want to leave.

Since all kinds of people who are annoyed with the District for a variety of reasons are emerging, it is better that they come forth now. This will give the District a chance to address these concerns and put its house in order. Then when a bond measure is placed on the ballot it will have a better chance of passing.