UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
San Diego Union Tribune
February 24, 2008
The San Diego Association of Governments is the region's planning agency – and, boy, does it have big plans: a tax increase to pay for up to $22 billion worth of environmental projects.
This staggering sum may jolt the humble taxpayer, but it apparently does not intimidate the SANDAG board, which is made up of elected officials from San Diego's 18 cities and the county. As bureaucracies go, SANDAG is nothing if not ambitious.
The agency has an expansive wish list of $10 billion to $22 billion in environmental improvements that could be made if only voters would raise their taxes again. In 2004, the county electorate narrowly approved a half-cent sales levy (generating $14 billion over 40 years) for transportation relief. Highway congestion is without a doubt the biggest local concern of voters. But would voters really embrace another half-cent sales tax hike for wildlife habitat conservation? Come, now.
The sales tax rate in the county varies among cities, with San Diego the lowest at 7.75 percent and National City the highest at 8.75 percent. Would hard-working families vote for an even higher sales levy in order to monitor storm water runoff? Not likely.
What about higher property taxes, another alternative being considered by SANDAG? Under the California Constitution, most tax increases dedicated to specific purposes, such as environmental projects, are subject to two-thirds approval of voters. Does the SANDAG board honestly believe that two-thirds of San Diegans would vote to boost their property taxes to pay for beach sand replenishment?
The costliest items on the SANDAG wish list are water projects, with a price tag of $2.7 billion to $6.6 billion. The money would be spent mostly to limit “urban runoff,” a catchall term to describe everything from automotive oil to dog waste that winds up in storm drains and, ultimately, the ocean. San Diego indeed should do much more to control urban runoff, but a general tax increase requiring two-thirds voter approval is not a very practical way of going about it.
A better alternative is our household sewage bill. Ratepayers already pay, through their monthly statements, to curb ocean pollution by treating our sewage. The cost of reducing urban runoff should be borne by our sewage rates, not by a sales tax hike or property tax hike.
Also on SANDAG's wish list is $1.6 billion to $3.8 billion to expand and manage the regional wildlife preserve, which goes by the official title of Multiple Species Conservation Program. Adopted a decade ago, the MSCP is designed to preserve species by setting aside land for habitat. It's a splendid program that has flourished without a tax increase. A sensible taxpayer would ask why a tax increase is needed now.
Indeed, that very question applies to every item on SANDAG's list. And it's a question lacking a convincing answer.
