Arguements Agains Measure W
From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
| Measure out W: Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare District Parcel Tax |
|---|
 |
| The nuts |
| Election date: |
| May 2, 2017 |
| Condition: |
 d DefeatedMajority required: 66.67% |
| Topic: |
| California package tax Expires in: 45 years |
| Related manufactures |
| California bundle revenue enhancement on the election May ii, 2017 ballot measures in California Humboldt County, California ballot measures Other counties District taxation on the election |
| Meet besides |
A parcel tax measure was on the election for Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare District voters in Humboldt and Mendocino counties in California on May 2, 2017. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of levying a tax of $170 per parcel annually for the next 45 years to provide healthcare services. |
| A no vote was a vote confronting levying a tax of $170 per parcel annually for the next 45 years to provide healthcare services. |
The parcel tax prior to the election was $125 per yr on qualified backdrop, and was designed to sunset in 2018. It was estimated that the increment to $170 per parcel would raise $one.63 million annually. The measure was designed to crave the funds be placed in a separate account, and exist expended simply for operating costs; capital improvements and facility related expenditures, including a new hospital; and debt repayment to reach those purposes.[1] [2]
A two-thirds (66.67 percent) supermajority vote was required for the blessing of Measure W.
Election results
| Measure W | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Event | Votes | Percentage | ||
| d No | 1,100 | 55.92% | ||
| Yep | 867 | 44.08% | ||
| d Southern Humboldt Customs Healthcare District Measure Westward | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County: | Yes | No | ||
| Votes | % | Votes | % | |
| Humboldt County | 847 | 44.09% | ane,074 | 55.91% |
| Mendocino NAME County | 20 | 43.48% | 26 | 56.52% |
| Totals: | 867 | 44.08% | one,100 | 55.92% |
-
- Election results from Humboldt County Elections Office and Mendocino County Elections Office
Text of measure
Election question
The following question appeared on the election:[1]
| " | Shall the Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare Commune renew its expiring parcel revenue enhancement to continue providing local access to hospital emergency care, physician clinic services, other healthcare programs and services, including a new infirmary and new or improved healthcare facilities? The renewed tax volition be at a new rate of $170 per year on all qualified parcels, annually providing $1.63 million dollars per year for 45 years start July 1, 2018.[three] | " |
Impartial analysis
The post-obit impartial assay of the measure was prepared past the office of the Mendocino Canton Counsel:
| " | On December 27, 2016, the Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare District's ("District") Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 16:28, as authoroized past Section iv of Article XIIIA, Government Code section 50077, and Elections Lawmaking section 4108, ordering a special election by all-mail ballot to approve the levy of a uniform special tax of $170.00 per bundle for each qualified parcel of taxable existent property within the District each year for a period of xl-five (45) years, beginning with fiscal year 2018-2019. The District includes portions of both Humboldt and Mendocino Counties. The District estimates that the annual packet tax revenues will be $i.63 million dollars. "Qualified parcel" means every assessor'southward bundle within the District, except those with a depression value exemption as determined past the County Board of Supervisors and those vacant parcels which are determined by the Canton Assessor to be wholly or partially within a Timberland Production Zone or under an Agricultural Preserve Contract. The purpose of the packet tax is to ensure continued local access to emergency care, astute hospital intendance, other health services, and new or improved facilities of the District. The revenue raised by the special tax may only exist used to defray operating expenses, majuscule improvement and facility-related expenditures, including a new hospital, and debt repayment to attain the purposes described in the total text of the measure ("Full Text"). Revenues will be deposited in a separate acconty to be used but for the purposes described above. The District is required past police to issue an almanac report on the corporeality of funds collected and expenditure of the funds and the condition of any project to be funded as described in the Total Text. The Commune's appropriations limit will exist increased by the amount generated by the tax. This measure was placed on the ballot by the District. This mensurate must be adopted past two-thirds (2/3) of the voters. A "yep" vote would authorize the levy of the parcel taxation. A "no" vote would not qualify the levy of the parcel tax.[3] | " |
| —Mendocino County Counsel[ane] | ||
Full text
The total text of the measure out is available hither.
Support
Supporters
The post-obit individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]
- Garth Epling, business owner
- Nancy Wilson, retired health ambassador
- Craig Parkinson, business possessor
- Rio Anderson, business organization owner
The group Nosotros Can Build It ran the support campaign for Measure W.[4]
Arguments in favor
At a boondocks hall meeting on Mensurate W, hospital officials fabricated several arguments in favor of the measure out. Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare District (SHCHD) CEO Matt Rees said that the acquirement from the revenue enhancement would allow the district to secure a USDA rural development program loan to fund the building of a new hospital. According to SHCHD Board of Directors Vice President Dave Ordonez, a new hospital was necessary because the existing construction could non exist updated any further and it would have been more expensive and time consuming to demolish the current building and rebuild on the same site. Barbara Truitt, a former SHCHD board member and current Southern Humboldt Community Foundation PR director, too argued that if the infirmary were to be close down, belongings values could drop significantly, as could the overall health of the community.[ii]
Official statement
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure out:[ane]
| " | Our local hospital has provided emergency care and other vital medical services in Southern Humboldt for about 70 years, just in spite of our customs'south best efforts, our facility is now irredeemably obsolete, and its doors will exist closed by the State of California by 2030. If nosotros are to keep to provide around-the-clock medical care for our citizens, we must build a new facility with an acute care hospital, emergency department, and the ancillary services such as radiology and laboratory that they require. A stand-alone Emergency Room is non legal, and a 24/vii Urgent Care Clinic is neither able to provide the level of care required for emergency services nor financially viable in a community of our size. To ensure that our new facility is ready when we demand information technology, we must beginning at present. Interest rates and building costs are rising. Designing, financing, building, and certifying a new hospital can accept 10 years or more than. If we lost our hospital, it would cause out-migration of young families and seniors, reducing property values, dissentious our schools, and starving out local businesses. A new facility would be of modest proportions, but it would provide state of the art medical services in a sustainable setting that could serve as a hub for a wider range of healthcare modalities for many decades to come. Passing Measure W volition enable us to build a infirmary that will protect the health of our seniors while supporting and promoting a vibrant community for our children, our grandchildren, and you. Join the states in voting Aye ON MEASURE Due west. TOGETHER Nosotros Can BUILD IT! [3] | " |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument confronting the measure:[1]
- Due west.H. Scotty McClure
McClure faced a legal challenge by the canton registrar of voters, Kelly Sanders, due to his use of language in his rebuttal arguments in the voter information pamphlet. Sanders felt that McClure's rebuttal argument of "Insert fart smell here," was vulgar and didn't add any value to the arguments section of the pamphlet. McClure dedicated his choice of words as a valid stance and cited his First Amendment rights to have information technology included. Judge Timothy Cissna denied Sanders' request, and allowed the rebuttal to stand up, saying it was neither false or misleading, or shown to take no relevance to the issue.[5]
Arguments against
Official statement
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| " | Whereas, the infirmary district finds it necessary to "Continue" and "Increase" the existing taxation for "Another" 45, yeah thats 45 more years. That will elapse on June 30, 2065. They have been collecting "the Revenue enhancement" since 1988. In the year 2000 "the Revenue enhancement" was $25.00 per bundle. Since then they, "The board" has raised it twice to its present $125.00. Now in 17 years they desire to raise it to $170.00 per qualified parcel. in xl years how many times volition they ask to heighten "the Revenue enhancement", and by how much? They will exist back. I know previous board members had and nevertheless have "Timber & Ag" exemptions. Must be overnice to be able to exempt yourself. If they have gotten out of the cerise then why do they demand to enhance your taxes. Oh, because they tin can. The fiasco with ownership the CR school is as far as I'm concerned, is illegal & I intend to file charges in Sacramento to the ideals & real estate board & the chaser general. This deal between CR, School board, & hospital boards just isn't correct. It would be cheaper to rebuild the old hospital in its present lcoation & save millions. Earthquake retro: Why? Why non get an exemption from congress (Waiver) to go alee & rebuild but to have to have the same standards as a half dozen-8 story stucco bldg is insane. Folks look at your tax beak. CR taxation SHUSD tax Fire district tax Fire fee Shelter Cove district fee Infirmary tax All volition get up as the greed will go on. They will never expire![three] | " |
Path to the election
-
- Encounter also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare District Board of Directors on December 27, 2016.[1]
Recent news
The link below is to the almost recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Southern Humboldt Customs Healthcare Commune California parcel tax Measure Westward. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does non curate or endorse these manufactures.
See also
External links
- Humboldt County Elections Office website
Support
- Nosotros Can Built It website
- We Can Build Information technology Facebook page
Opposition
No official opposition entrada website was found.
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.ane 1.2 1.3 ane.4 one.5 1.6 1.7 Canton of Mendocino, "Voter Data Pamphlet," accessed Apr four, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Redwood Times, "Healthcare district talks Measure out W during town hall meeting," March xx, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 iii.1 3.2 3.iii Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Whatsoever inconsistencies are owing to the original source.
- ↑ Nosotros Tin Build It, "A new infirmary for Southern Humboldt County," accessed April twenty, 2017
- ↑ Lost Coast Outpost, "Judge Rules SoHum Residents Volition Accept to Endure Farty Election Pamphlet," March 7, 2017
| Local election measures in California | ||
|---|---|---|
| Counties | Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba | |
| Analysis | Laws governing local election measures in California • Ballot mensurate information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California election measures | |
| 2022 | Apr 12 • | |
| 2021 | March ii • May 4 • June eight • June 29 • August 31 | |
| 2020 | March 3 • April xiv • May 5 • June 2 • June 23 • August 25 • November 3 | |
| 2019 | Feb 26 • March 5 • March 19 • March 26 • April 9 • May 7 • June 4 • Baronial 27 • Nov five | |
| 2018 | January 23 • January thirty • February 27 • March six • June 5 • Nov 6 | |
| 2017 | Jan 10 • Feb 28 • March 7 • March 28 • April 4 • April eleven • May 2 • May ix • May 16 • June 6 • July xi • Baronial 22 • Baronial 29 • October 17 • November 7 | |
| 2016 | January 26 • February 23 • March 8 • Apr 12 • April nineteen • May 3 • June vii • November 8 | |
| 2015 | January half dozen • February 24 • March 3 • March 10 • March 24 • April 14 • May 5 • May 19 • June 2 • June 23 • Baronial 25 • September 1 • October 6 • November 3 • Nov 17 | |
| 2014 | Feb iv • February xi • March 4 • April eight • May 6 • June three • July 8 • September ii • Nov 4 | |
| 2013 | March 5 • March 12 • April 2 • April ix • May 7 • May 21 • June 4 • June 11 • June 18 • July 2 • July 16 • July 23 • August 27 • Nov 5 | |
| 2012 | February seven • March half-dozen • March 13 • Apr half-dozen • April 10 • May 1 • May viii • June v • July x • August 28 • September eighteen • November six | |
| 2011 | January 25 • March 1 • March viii • April 5 • April 12 • May iii • June seven • June 21 • July 12 • August 30 • November 8 • November 15 • November 22 | |
| 2010 | January 12 • February ii • February 23 • March two • March 9 • April thirteen • May iv • May 25 • June 8 • June 15 • June 22 • July xiii • August 24 • August 31 • September 21 • November 2 | |
| 2009 | Jan 13 • February 24 • March 3 • March x • Apr 21 • May 5 • May 19 • June ii • June nine • June 16 • June 23 • June 30 • July 21 • August 4 • Baronial 25 • August 28 • November three • November 17 • December eight • Dec 15 | |
| 2008 | February five • March 4 • April eight • June 3 • June 24 • July 22 • August 26 • November 4 | |
| 2007 | March 6 • May vii • November 6 | |
| 2006 | March vii • Apr xi • May ii • June 6 • November 7 | |
| Political topics | Informational votes • Binding mediation • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Clearing • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Ruby light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use | |
| Local taxes on the ballot in California | |
|---|---|
| Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real manor transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes | |
Categories:
- Pages using DynamicPageList dplreplace parser function
- Local ballots, 2017
- California 2017 local ballot measures
- California bundle tax elections, 2017
- Commune tax, California, 2017
- Local measure out in Southern Humboldt Customs Healthcare District, California
- Local measure in multiple counties, California
- Local mensurate in canton of Humboldt, California
- Local measure in county of Mendocino, California
- Local measure, May 2, 2017
- Certified by date local ballot measures
- Defeated local measure, 2017
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Southern_Humboldt_Community_Healthcare_District,_California,_Parcel_Tax,_Measure_W_%28May_2017%29
0 Response to "Arguements Agains Measure W"
Post a Comment