This is an archive of a past election.
See for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Smart Voter
San Mateo County, CA November 7, 2006 Election
Measure D
Tax Measure
City of East Palo Alto

2/3 Approval Required

Fail: 664 / 21.2% Yes votes ...... 2,474 / 78.8% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Results as of Jan 4 9:41am, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (12/12)
Information shown below: Impartial Analysis | Arguments |

Shall an initiative measure be adopted imposing a 10-year parcel tax of $75 on single-family parcels, $40 for occupied rental units, and an equivalent rate for commercial and industrial properties, to be restricted for law enforcement purposes only?

Impartial Analysis from City Attorney of East Palo Alto
This proposed initiative measure, if adopted by voters, would impose a parcel tax for a term of 10 years for the limited purpose of enhancing police services and programs to prevent violence and crime in East Palo Alto. As a parcel tax, it is a special tax under California law, requiring approval by two-thirds (2/3) of the voters voting on the measure.

Tax funds would be restricted to the following types of activities:

  • Community and neighborhood policing;
  • Violence prevention among youth and children;
  • Evaluation of programs by independent police experts;
  • Annual audits of expenditures;
  • Creation of a three-person oversight committee to make recommendations to the City Council

The tax could not be collected in any year in which the actual expenditure for police services drops below $8.6 million, as adjusted for inflation. Conversely, the parcel tax could be increased annually to adjust for inflation. Owners of property would be responsible for paying the following tax:
  • $75 for each single-family residential parcel;
  • $40 for each occupied unit in a multi-family residential building or a reduced rate if the unit is vacant for six months or more;
  • a single-family residential `equivalent' rate for non-residential parcels (i.e., commercial, industrial, public utility) based on the frontage and square footage of the parcel, but would be approximately for times (4x) the $75 single-family residential rate.Hotels would likely pay the `equivalent' commercial rate. Vacant parcels would be exempt if vacant for six months or more.

This proposed measure sets forth administrative details for implementing the measure, including exemptions for qualified senior citizens or disabled persons.

/s/ Michael Sanderson Lawson August 28, 200


Video of Yes and No Arguments

This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Measure D Arguments Against Measure D
Yes on Measure D + 100% of the money goes to increased police patrols in East Palo Alto.

Yes on Measure D + 100% of the money goes to adding more police officers in East Palo Alto.

Yes on Measure D + 100% of the money goes to attracting and training new East Palo Alto police officers.

If we are going to increase our taxes to help reduce crime and drugs in East Palo Alto, shouldn't 100% of the money go to improving our police department?

If we are going to increase our taxes to be sure that we have enough police officers on the streets, shouldn't 100% of the money go for police services?

If we are going to increase taxes to improve police emergency response times, shouldn't 100% of the money go for police services?

Measure D guarantees that 100% of the money goes into increased and improved police services.

Measure D costs you less than Measure C ($75 versus $100 per year) and it puts more money directly into improving police services, response times and hiring new officers than the other measure.

Yes on Measure D protects senior citizens on fixed incomes and disabled individuals. They can be exempted. Homeowners pay $75 per year + landlords must pay $40 for every occupied apartment in their building. Commercial business must pay their fair share also based upon square footage.

Special oversight and audit provisions have been included in Measure D. A three person "Oversight" Committee must review money spent from Measure D and report to the community. Annual audits are also required and must be made public.

If we really want to do something about crime and drugs in East Palo Alto, we have to commit serious and 100% of new resources to the problem.

YES on Measure D.

/s/ Dallas Price August 18, 2006 Businessman

/s/ Tammy Saukitoga August 18, 2006 Renter

/s/ Ruby J. Tyler August 18, 2006 Home Owner

/s/ Geneva Whatley Renter

/s/ Elizabeth Price August 18, 2006 Retired

Rebuttal to Arguments For
  • NO on Measure D + There is no provision for violence prevention services that have an emphasis on youth and children.

  • NO on Measure D + $75 per resident parcel tax does not cover the expense necessary to monitor Multiple Residential Unit Parcels.

  • NO on Measure D + The assessment calculation for an owner of a commercial parcel is not justified, reasonable, and balanced as compared to the Single Family Residential Unit Equivalents.

  • NO on Measure D + The proposed Oversight Committee will consist of only 3 persons not 15 as recommended in Measure C to insure community involvement in all decisions related to the parcel tax.

  • NO on Measure D + The vast majority of the City of East Palo Alto's elected city officials are against Measure D.

  • NO on Measure D + The vast majority of the faith-based community of the City of East Palo is against Measure D.

  • NO on Measure D + According to Chief Ron Davis "enforcement alone cannot reduce crime. Crime reducction can only occur when enforcement is balanced with alternatives and opportunities."

  • NO on Measure D + 100% of the money does not go to increased and improved police services. The Measure also describes spending the money on a Financial Director, an Oversight Committee, evaluation costs, and annual audit costs.

/s/ Paul Bains

/s/ Lawrence C. Goode

/s/ Viliami N. Teu

/s/ Clifton Benne

  • Vote No on this Initiative and YES on Measure C. East Palo Alto needs enhanced public safety through a balanced, comprehensive crime-reduction strategy, not through the incarceration of our kids.

  • This Measure is counter to the Police Department's community policing plan and is not consistent with the values of the East Palo Alto community.

  • This Measure fails to provide funding for intervention programs for at risk youth, anti-gang programs, or child abuse and domestic violence prevention programs..

  • This Measure represents an archaic view of policing that uses incarceration as the primary tool to reduce violence. In 1992, East Palo Alto was dubbed the `murder capital" of the United States. Through a collaborative effort involving the City and community, the City drastically reduced homicides from 42 in 1992 to 4 in 1993. Violence is once again on the rise. Last year, the City experienced 15 homicides which was the highest violence per-capita rate in the Bay Area and one of the highest rates in California. At the direction of the City Council, the Police Department developed a comprehensive community policing and violence-reduction plan that has resulted in drastic reductions in 2006 amid alarming violence rates in the Bay Area.. Homicides are down over 72% and assaults with a firearm are down over 58%. This violence-reduction plan focused on enforcement, education and prevention. The Police Department relied heavily on community-based organizations to provide at-risk alternatives to gangs and crime. According to Chief Ron Davis, "...enforcement alone cannot reduce crime. Crime reduction can only occur when enforcement is balanced with alternatives and opportunities."

/s/ Ruben Abrica

/s/ Patricia Foster

/s/ Donna Rutherford

Rebuttal to Arguments Against
The City Council makes the best case for a YES vote on Measure D and a NO vote on Measure C. Their quotes: "The violence rate in East Palo Alto continues to be the highest in San Mateo County... Violence is on the rise again... last year the city experienced 15 homicides".

YES on D means funds go directly to improving and enhancing law enforcement in East Palo Alto.

YES on D is less expensive to you than the City Council sponsored Measure C (D is $75 / their measure C costs you $100) AND you get an improved police department and additional officers from D than C. If you want increased police patrols + more community policing + and a safer community + join our coalition and vote YES on Measure D.

Just this past election, we voted down the City's scheme to give half of a new tax raised to their pet charity groups. Don't they listen? Vote down their latest scheme + Vote NO on C and YES on D.

"If we are going to improve our community, we need more police on the street. YES on Measure D means more police and less cost to taxpayers than Measure C." Officer Name, East Palo Alto Police Officers' Association.

"Nothing about Measure D prevents the City from funding at-risk youth and anti gang programs. Measure D simply puts the new taxes raised directly into increased law enforcement and more police officers. I urge YES on Measure D" Resident name, X year East Palo Alto resident.

YES ON D for a safer East Palo Alto.

/s/ John L. Wilson August 25, 2006 Renter

/s/ Ana Peralta August 25, 2006 Renter

/s/ Martha Hanks August 26, 2006 Teacher

/s/ Orian J. Julian August 26, 2006 Home Owner

/s/ Verna Winston August 26, 2006

San Mateo Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: January 4, 2007 09:42 PST
Smart Voter <>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.