Pasadena Doesn't Need Phone/Internet Tax

The Pasadena Pundit ^ | December 3, 2007 | Wayne Lusvardi

[WayneLusvardi]

Pasadena Doesn't Need Phone/Internet Tax

Citizens for Responsible Government - Pasadena, CA

Wayne Lusvardi - Chairman

The City of Pasadena has the highest General Fund revenues per household of all large cities over 100,000 in population in Southern California according to an informal study conducted by Citizens for Responsible Government who are opposing the City’s Measure D which will impose a Utility Users Tax on phone bills and, for the first time, on the internet.

See table at http://www.pasadenapundit.com

The General Fund is the common pot of money from which municipal operations are funded, such as police, fire, libraries, parks and recreation, and administration and typically does not include long-term capital improvements such as city halls or special projects such as redevelopment. Pasadena’s proposed Measure D will not affect the City’s existing Utility User’s Tax on electricity, water, natural gas, and cable service.

Of the 22 cities in Southern California with populations larger than 100,000, Pasadena ranks highest in General Fund revenues with $3,761 per household. By comparison the nearby City of Glendale runs its police, fire, library and parks operations for $2,307 per household, or 38% less than Pasadena. The City of Burbank runs its municipal operations for $3,260 per household, or 13% less than Pasadena. Even the wealthy beach tourist City of Santa Barbara (pop. 86,673), which coincidentally has a similar crime rate per Council District (20,000 pop.) to Pasadena, runs its municipal operations for $2,920 per household or 22% less than Pasadena.

But Pasadena says it can not afford a 5% cut to its General Fund revenues from loss of its Utility Users Tax on phone bills (and the internet). Pasadena even refused a demand by Citizens for Responsible Government for a 1% cut to the Utility Users Tax rate (8.28% to 7.28%).

Pasadena also has the highest General Fund reserves per household ($72 million or $1,327 per household) of all large cities, albeit the study data was incomplete. Although the City of Los Angeles is 27 times larger, Pasadena’s General Fund Reserves are 9 times higher per household.

Forget all the recent arguments by the City of Pasadena meant to confuse that its “motivation” was not for Measure D to tax the internet and that it will enact a companion ordinance to Measure D exempting the internet.

Pasadena doesn’t need the phone tax in the first place to continue its essential services. Vote NO on Measure D.

See expanded table of study data at http://www.pasadenapundit.com

Also posted at: http://www.pasadenalivingmagazine.com/_ArticleManager/publish/article_3459.shtml

[BipolarBob]

Pasadena even refused a demand by Citizens for Responsible Government for a 1% cut to the Utility Users Tax rate (8.28% to 7.28%).

This "for the people, by the people" constitutional philosophy thing has sailed over their heads.

[Graybeard58]

My little town, population 1600 found that they needed a cell phone tax. $1 per phone and it’s added to the bill.

[angkor]

On the other hand you guys have a really attractive little town and one of the nicest racetracks in the world.