The wink and nod arena vote strategy just got a little murkier and it will be interesting to follow this as it continues its winding, confusing path to the voters, and the courts.
An excerpt.
Editorial: Suburban conundrum
'Arena' tax: What's in it for them?
Published 12:01 am PDT Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Sacramento County's proposal to increase the county's sales tax by a quarter penny has changed in a way that is subtle, but significant.
The proposed tax would create a new pot of money that will pay for a new downtown arena and for new community initiatives throughout the county. The county's original written plan, which supervisors endorsed on Aug. 2, was to enter into binding agreements before the November election that would distribute at least half of this tax for other purposes in cities throughout the county. That way, city council members in Folsom or Elk Grove, should they choose to support this proposal, could tell constituents back home that there definitely was something for them in this package.
But that was then, this is now. Now the plan is that these binding agreements to distribute some of the sales tax pot countywide will not be negotiated -- or signed -- until after the election. That is what county Chief Financial Officer Geoff Davey told The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga in a story published Sunday.
So suburban voters have no guarantees before the election. This may hurt chances of its passage. But were voters to still say yes, the change in plans may help the tax proposal survive the inevitable lawsuit.
Officially, this sales tax increase (Measure R on county ballots) isn't to build a new downtown arena or anything else. Measure R on the November ballot is a "general sales" tax that county supervisors could spend however they please. Why? A majority of voters can approve a general sales tax increase. It takes two-thirds approval to pass the very same sales tax increase were the county to commit to spending the money in specific ways.
