Alameda Stirred Up On Tax Plan
Measure E, an initiative to raise a tax for schools in Alameda, has provoked passions on both sides
For years, it was the eclectic Eastern European goods that enticed shoppers into Jenny Turcinovic’s store in Alameda: gummy candy from Serbia, fine Croatian chocolates and bottles of mineral water from Romania and Turkey.
But when Turcinovic put up a red sign last month that said “No on E” — a parcel tax measure to support local schools — it brought her nothing but trouble.
More than a dozen parents and teachers who support the measure have stopped at the store to harangue her, Turcinovic said. One man told Turcinovic’s husband, who does not speak English, that the Turcinovics, who are Bosnian immigrants, could not understand the meaning of the sign and that they should go back to their own country.
“We work hard, and it’s a lot to pay right now,” said Turcinovic, whose shop, International Aria Market & Bakery, sits at the corner of Webster Street and Lincoln Avenue.
Civic life in Alameda has been upended in recent weeks by Measure E, a school financing initiative that would extend an existing parcel tax for businesses by six years and double the residential parcel tax, to $659 from $309.
The measure, which was not on Tuesday’s primary ballot and has been mailed out separately, requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Ballots will be counted June 22.
Alameda has long prided itself on its strong school system. Many parents and administrators say both the tax and its increase are needed to compensate for steep cuts in state financing. Without the $14 million in anticipated revenue from the tax, they say, the district would be forced to lay off one quarter of its teachers and reduce the number of schools to 6 from 18.
“The schools can’t function without some form of parcel tax,” said John Knox White of APLUS, a group that has raised more than $40,000 in recent months in support of the initiative. “They’re the reason why a lot of us moved here.”
But businesses and residents who say they cannot afford the tax at a time of financial hardship have rallied as well.
Passions have led to physical threats, business owners say. Steve Case, Turcinovic’s landlord, has distributed anti-Measure E signs to every business along Webster Street, but Case said many shops took them down within days after receiving threats.
One day, Case said, he happened to be around when Turcinovic’s store was set upon by angry parents. Case said he took a man aside to talk, and after heads cooled a bit, one of the men revealed that he was a young father who had recently moved to Alameda. He feared that the city’s schools were being systematically dismantled.
“I understand this is not what they thought they were getting into,” Case said of the parents. “It looks like it’s all getting torn down.”
Marie McIntosh
I live in Alameda, and boy was this a hot issue. I couldn't get over the amount of signage for both sides, it seems that every lawn had an opinion. When I was teaching there, they were talking about closing Encinal HS, one of two public high schools, and combining the student body into Alameda High- even the students were pretty passionate about the issue. Kids at St. Joseph's Notre Dame, a private HS in Alameda, seemed to be the only ones kind of excited, because it might bring a few more kids into their graduating class (the class of 2011 only had 60 or so students)- parents who decided to enroll their children there instead of subjecting them to the overcrowding sure to happen when the two public schools merged.
CarolineSF
The great divide in our country is between the "you're on your own" anti-tax people who claim they want government "strangled in the bathtub," as one Republican said; and the "we're in this together" advocates who believe in community, public services, infrastructure and a safety net.
One point is that the "you're on your own" folks tend to drop that tack when THEY need or want the government to provide a service. The Chronicle did a report a while ago on the California county that receives the highest amount of public money per capita, Modoc County, and the fact that its residents vote far-right and believe themselves to be fiercely independent. They're in mass denial about how dependent they are on the government they profess to hate.
Jennifer Bestor
Is this is the Aria International Market at 1552 Webster? If so, we are reading about a three-part Prop 13 tragedy that’s taking place throughout California. The victims? All California residents with the exception of a few corporations and rich property owners. First victim here? Jenny Turcinovic, the business owner. Second? Steve Case, the landlord. Third? The parents of Alameda schoolchildren (and the children).
With only street parking, Aria depends on immigrants looking for a taste of the old country and well-educated Americans who appreciate foreign food. Any Eastern European immigrant knows that an individual's most valuable asset is between their ears – war and inflation can destroy anything else. So immigrants flock to good school districts, trying to give their children the best chance in this new country.
Jennifer Bestor
Ms. Turcinovic is relying on a strong school system to attract her target market. If local schools fall into the California educational abyss, her customers move or settle elsewhere.
But, doubtless, her landlord has a clause forcing her to pay some share of the building’s parcel tax. So she’s torn between customers and her bottom line.
Particularly galling to her might be the fact that the landlord appears to be delinquent on both his scheduled Nov 2009 and Feb 2010 property tax payments.
Jennifer Bestor
The next victim may well be the landlord, Steve Case.
Looking at the assessor’s map for that parcel (APN 73-419-36, covering the premises at 1546, 1548, 1550, and 1552), then at the Alameda County Assessor’s website, this 9135 square foot parcel (two-story building) is assessed at $248,413 (land) and $938,451 (building/improvements) for a total of $1,186,864. Looking at that block, the block on each side, and the three blocks facing them, this parcel is just above the median of the 26 parcels for land value ($27/sf vs. $26 median), probably purchased sometime in the late ‘80s. Including improvements, it’s at $130/sf (vs. $109 median for all 26) – though about half of the parcels that pay less are one-story and/or have onsite parking.
So Mr. Case is paying about average or a little more in taxes for his property. So far, so good, except ...
Jennifer Bestor
Mr. Case probably looks down the street at the parcel that stretches from 1501 to 1519 Webster (APN 74-428-2) – 26121 sf assessed at $509,022. Three times the land at half the price! And both installments paid the day before they would have become delinquent. So Mr. Case is either swallowing $11,304 of property tax each year (compared with his competitor) or force feeding it to his tenants – or not paying at all. (This is such an egregious example that I have to hope the competitor’s tenants are paying for a ton of improvements in their unsecured property tax rolls. But I won’t bet too much on that.)
Jennifer Bestor
It might help Mr. Case's mental health to look instead at the small parcel at 1520 – 1522 Webster, which is paying almost three times what he is per sf (APN 73-420-29-3) – well, actually, they’re delinquent, too, so perhaps one should say that they are not paying three times more than Mr. Case is not paying. Better to look at the bank at 1528 Webster, which did pay, ahead of time, about twice as much per sf.
Bottom line: Mr. Case and about 70% of his fellow landlords are dealing with a wildly uneven playing field that makes it very hard, especially in bad economic times, to compete. The improvements he seems to have put in to his building just add to his financial burden.
Jennifer Bestor
The final victims?
Parents – especially homeowners. They are contributing most to the local property tax base (the recent California Tax Reform Association report shows residential owners are now paying 19% MORE of the total for local services than before Prop 13 in 1974 -- now 75% of the total, up from 56%). They are paying for the police, fire, roads, courts, and schools that support the commercial infrastructure. And, when times get tough, they must wonder whether commercial property owners aren’t just in it for the money, seeing the community as a target rather than a neighbor. Hence the strife in the article.
Prop 13 envisioned paying for services that communities desired via parcel taxes. Whether it completely foresaw that commercial landlords -- especially those who could finagle assessment-free transfers (25% of all California parcels), is anyone's guess.
Time to limit Prop 13 tax loopholes for commercial property and see what our local finances really look like.