Town Square

Post a New Topic

2012 ballot measure will ask property owners for $22 fee

Original post made on Oct 10, 2011

Property owners in Danville and San Ramon are going to be asked to pay an extra $22 a year to help protect water in Contra Costa County. Danville City Manager Joe Calabrigo said the measure will pay for unfunded mandates from the state and federal governments.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, October 10, 2011, 3:12 AM

Comments (27)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:13 am

So let me get this right, my neighbor on one side pays $800/yr in property tax. My neighbor on the other side pays $2000/yr. I pay $12,000/yr and you want us all to pay the same fee increase. Can we stop this foolish Prop 13 crap and get equitable before asking ME for more taxes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Harry
a resident of San Ramon
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:29 am

Folks, this is the new trick that politicians are using by calling this a "fee". This is a TAX and another way for them to take your hard earned money. Vote no to more taxes. Politicians, live within your means. Send a message voters!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sprtndad
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 8:03 am

Government at it's best - taxes to pay for more regulations by environmentalists. I'm not interested in paying for another government solution to an non existent problem. There are already a raft of regulations about runoff water, chemicals, trash, etc. What is REALLY behind this? What will they ban because of this? Fertilizer for our lawns? Insecticides we can now buy at Home Depot? I'll bet when they are done, and with us paying the bills, something will be taken off the market. STOP IT and vote NO.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gary
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 8:03 am

No chance with me. It is "designed" to do something that no one knows will work for sure. A veiled tax if there ever was one...no way!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by [removed]
a resident of another community
on Oct 10, 2011 at 8:08 am

Dear Editor,

A lesson learned in Alamo, if you wish to pass a ballot measure, DEFINE it for purpose, budget usage, and accountability. Otherwise expect it to be defeated. Show voters a full and complete plan for the money and why it is needed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by larry
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 8:50 am

In a word............"no"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by joe
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 8:52 am

Prop 13 was to keep the run away property tax increases of the 1980's from forcing seniors from their homes. The neighbor paying $800 has been in his home for a long time, and if you're paying $12,000 the neighbor paying $2,000 has been there for a long time too - the fact is that you knew what your taxes would be before you moved into your house - so you did have a choice. Why complain now?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 8:53 am

Add another definite NO!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by FanDanville
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 9:06 am

Property tax bill already went up this last year--with increased "fees" and bonds. This while some folks are losing their houses and prices are decreasing. AND while other utility costs are increasing as well.

Politicians (local and school board included) know no boundaries or limitations on needing money.

Radical Environmentalists know that if they can just "pass the law" of some new standard (of clean water), then they can use that regulation to force all sorts of additional changes on down the infrastructure. The method of "paying for" these new regulations SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSIDE OF THE ORIGINAL LAW ITSELF (and reflected upon by these same politicians). Some "nice sounding" ideas just can't be afforded. Like sometimes a new pair of shoes has to be denied.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by STAN
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 9:11 am

I WILL REJECT THIS AND ANY FURTHER GRAB FOR MONEY WHILE I LIVE IN THIS SO CALLED HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE TOWN !!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Duffy
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 9:12 am

If our "leaders" in Sacramento want to pass another regulation to "protect the environment" let them privide the money source in the bill. City Manager Joe Calabrigo is dead wrong..... a "Fee" is a "Tex" in Demo-speak. VOTE NO!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chris Andrews
a resident of San Ramon
on Oct 10, 2011 at 9:18 am

NEW SCAM----got the tax bill---saw it went UP in this downturn !
Called the assessor's office (number on the notice) Said I wanted to know why my taxes went UP 15% in one year. Response was "well IF I LOOK A LITTLE further---"
Valuation was immediately DROPPED $100,000!!! They hope you are too stupid or lazy to really question them. Call! T.E.A.= taxed enough already


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmmmmm
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 10:19 am

You can count me as a NO!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve From Danville
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:17 am


Why do our politicians insist on pretending and assuming the voters are stupid. A "fee" and not a "tax"?

The politicians will never learn. Embrace this. Actually CUT COSTS and get re-elected!!

Definite NO on this prop.

Steve from Danville


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 11:18 am

Bridges are falling down. Freeways are crumbling. Infrastructure is old and failing. If you prefer to live where the world is crumbling around you, vote negative. Also, don't paint your house when it needs it, or replace that leaking roof, and when the plumbing breaks think of hiring a plumber to fix it as another intrusion of big government on your rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by spcwt
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 12:52 pm

Without the tax, where will the money come from in order for Danville to meet the Fed. & State mandates? Danville's general fund? Also, I believe if Danville doesn't comply with the mandates, then Danville can be subject to fines of up to $25,000 per day.

If you're against the tax, please suggest which community projects or programs in Danville should be cut in order to pay for the permitting process and other requirements of the govt. mandates.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joseph
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 3:28 pm

A tax by any other name still smells as bad.Ux65g


 +   Like this comment
Posted by janet
a resident of Danville
on Oct 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm

For those who write, but don't read, here is "joe's" comment, copied for its clear and concise reminder.

Prop 13 was to keep the run away property tax increases of the 1980's from forcing seniors from their homes. The neighbor paying $800 has been in his home for a long time, and if you're paying $12,000 the neighbor paying $2,000 has been there for a long time too - the fact is that you knew what your taxes would be before you moved into your house - so you did have a choice. Why complain now?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Something Similar
a resident of San Ramon
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:26 am


This is something similar to many school funded programs which are mandated by the Feds.

They mandate a program and provide so-called "seed" money and then say, its mandated

and you must pay the the total bill for the rest of the time the mandated program is in existence.

This translates to a school district having to figure out how to keep mandated program funded from general fund which overall means that some other program will be shortchanged or go to the public for added funding naturally through added tax money.

GEE, just how did that "hidden" tax get to your kitchen table and you didnt even realize it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Wes sands
a resident of Danville
on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:04 am

Vote down ALL tax/fee increases until congressmen like mcnerney pelosi etc SIGN house resolution 615 thT puts THEIR worthless butts on OBAMACARE next to yours!! They refuse to sign on people!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Realist
a resident of Blackhawk
on Oct 11, 2011 at 12:01 pm

Everyone is suffering and we all have to chip in during these tough times ... I am ok with the proposed fee.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C. R. Mudgeon
a resident of Danville
on Oct 11, 2011 at 12:28 pm

This proposed "fee" needs a lot more explanation. It seems like it is related to new federal and state regulations related to stormwater run-off. But what will the money be used for? It also seems like this is a CC Sanitary District issue, as the article meantions that the county needs to "bring in $12M to $15M more". And it also says that this is a county-wide measure, even though in another sentence it talks about Danville and San Ramon property owners being asked to pay $22. So why is the Danville City Manager involved? If there are specific storm water treatment measures that the city of Danville is implementing, or being "asked" to implement, then it should be simple enough to explain what those are. If this is a county measure, then why isn't someone from the county explaining it?

I like how the article starts out by saying that the intent is to protect water in Contra Costa County. Of course, people are very interested in insuring a good water supply. But this issue has nothing to do with our water supply or water sources, at least not as described.

In the end, the measure may still make sense, and be worthwhile. But it needs a LOT more explanation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chris
a resident of Danville
on Oct 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm

Why is this being put through property taxes? Shouldn't this be going through East Bay MUD and affect all water users based on their usage, not on if you own property if this is a legit issue?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Neil
a resident of Danville
on Oct 11, 2011 at 6:08 pm

Good point, Chris.

Property owners are targets for add on taxes; meanwhile, non property owners have the "right" to vote to saddle us with fees and taxes.

Elected officials have the "right" to saddle us with fees, health care not deemed good enough for themselves, AND funding THEIR retirement benefits for life!

Fund everything with a reduction in elected official perks! Elected officials should receive the equivalent of minimum Social Security benefits(since Social Security isn't good enough for them).

Let's start a dialog about how much our "representatives" cost us. Why whine about cops, firefighters and teachers- they are lightweights when it comes to gluttony at the public trough.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Danville
on Oct 11, 2011 at 9:08 pm

It's $22.00. Most of the people commenting spend more than that on non-essentials every week of every year. Folks, it is work that needs to be done.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by [removed]
a resident of Alamo
on Oct 12, 2011 at 4:24 pm

Dear Editor,

The reality of this fee proposal is it is not defined, having an actual budget for usage, or explained for its benefits to property owners. Here in Alamo increases in property taxes or their appropriations have been proposed for vote by property owners with a Z-36 landscaping and lighting tax increase collectively opposed and defeated. The remaining Z-36 parcel taxes are used to offset CCC-PW budget shortfalls.

Now R-7A has been augmented to cover charges that would have been covered by the Z-36 increase and parks and recreation funds are being used by CCC-PW for budgetary offsets disguised as studies and services to Alamo. Our neighborhoods are now asking questions as a basis for either reducing or ending R-7A parcel taxes due to their misuse by the county.

In the case of this new proposed fee (parcel tax), our corridor neighborhoods should come together and demand definition of the usage of the fee, a budget for projects to be covered by the fee, and a defined benefit from such fee usage. Without that proposal, the fee is just another "pig in a poke" without a known purpose and not warranting approval by voters.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tirtayasa Filterindo
a resident of another community
on Aug 22, 2014 at 10:51 am

Tirtayasa Filterindo is official business entities engaged in the procurement of equipment clean water management and waste water management and other industrial equipment. - See more at: Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 2,095 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 798 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 6 comments | 605 views