Argument by Parcel Tax Opponents Misrepresented –

Title: PIEDMONT POST QUESTIONABLE REPORTING
Letter submitted to the Piedmont Post and Piedmont Civic Association:

Dear Editor:

Journalism 101 teaches that reporter’s opinions belong in the Op Ed section of a newspaper and that news articles should be factual.

Case in point:  the August 29th issue lead article (“Parcel Tax Arguments and rebuttals argue its necessity”) by Paisley Strellis contains this statement:  “In reading them one significant difference of opinions becomes clear:  those in favor of the tax believe it is essential to Piedmont maintaining its current level of services.  Those opposed to the tax believe it is not essential.”  Ms. Strellis interjected her personal opinion into what was supposed to be a news article.

Her claim is an opinion and not objective reporting.  I read the Parcel Tax ballot argument (buried on page 34 of a 36-page newspaper) and found nothing in the opposition’s arguments that support the statement that they “believe it (maintaining current level of services) is not essential.”  The No on Y proponents’ key position is this:  “The Council has so far ignored the most serious recommendations presented.  Ill-advised spending continues on its upward trend …. We are not opposed in principle to parcel taxes.  If the Council takes needed actions to control costs, we will support one for essential purposes in the future.”  Please show me and rest of your readers how those statements can be judged to be saying that the No on Y proponents do not believe it essential to maintain a current level of services.

The last paragraph of Ms. Strellis’ article states”  “While those opposed to the tax claim that the city has done little to curtail expenses, several members of the City Council asserted at their July 2 meeting that the city has made significant progress in reigning in finances.”  The factual silence after that was deafening!

There have been two letters to The Post (mine was one) requesting that the City Council inform the public of their “Plan B” in the event that Measure Y does not pass. An informed citizenry needs facts in order to make an intelligent voting decision.  The silence on any Plan B (certainly the City Council has discussed something along that line — hasn’t it?) is also deafening.

The voters and citizens of Piedmont deserve more transparency in city government.  When may we expect it?

Thank you,

Jim McCrea

Deadline for filing Piedmont parcel tax ballot arguments is August 20.   Rebuttal arguments due August 27. 

Individuals and groups submitting arguments for or against Piedmont’s municipal parcel tax renewal on the November ballot must meet strict requirements, including length, language, and prioritization of the arguments.  After acceptance by the City Clerk, qualifying arguments will be published in the Voter’s Information Pamphlet that is mailed to all Piedmont voters. > Click to read more…

Council discussion on Monday, July 16, centered on the appropriateness of putting the City parcel tax renewal on this November’s ballot.

Resident Rick Schiller asked the Council not to place the tax on the ballot at this time due to incomplete compliance with advisory committees’ recommendations and the failure of the City to observe appropriate financial oversight.  As a member of the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC), Council Member Bob McBain defended the City’s compliance with recommendations.  Council Member Jeff Weiler warned of unintended consequences if the parcel tax failed.  City Administrator Geoff Grote named many ways the Council has been financially prudent including revoking approval of the Blair Park sports field based on proponents insufficient sharing of costs.  Grote noted that for 32 years the parcel tax has been an important part of Piedmont’s budget.

The need for a parcel tax in the context of escalating employee pension and medical benefits arose.  The Council is considering getting out of CalPERS, as Vice Mayor Margaret Fujioka pointed out, while noting these matters take time.  Mayor John Chiang stated in regard to employee compensation that a sledge hammer approach was not his preference, as he preferred a serial approach.  Council Member Garrett Keating supported placing the parcel tax on the ballot and allowing voters to decide.  He recalled the reports by the advisory committees, the MTRC and the Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee, emphasizing that the current financial path of the City is unsustainable.  He urged residents to read the executive summaries.

The  Council unanimously approved placing the parcel tax on the November ballot.