Backers of a Sacramento sales tax hike are lying to voters. They should reject Measure A
Sacramento County voters have a new reason to reject Measure A, the special-interest-driven proposal to raise sales taxes for transportation infrastructure.
A flyer from the measure’s supporters, which is likely to land in a mailbox near you, makes a curious claim: “Measure A improves air quality, attacks climate change and makes Sacramento County a better, healthier place to live. It will provide the resources to achieve 90% of our regional greenhouse gas reduction target.” In another section of the mailer, the 90% figure is omitted, but the claim that Measure A is good for the environment is attributed to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the regional planning agency known as SACOG.
That’s odd given that SACOG disputes that.
“It’s inaccurate,” said James Corless, the agency’s chief executive.
In fact, this regressive sales tax hike would fund unsustainable transportation projects that would probably cause the region to fall short of its climate goals. After experiencing 116-degree this past summer, we can no longer afford to support any measure that blows up our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. Measure A is a bad deal for Sacramento, and voters should reject it.
According to the website of SACOG, the organization tasked with overseeing the long-range transportation and land use policies of the six-county region, the campaign flyer “mischaracterizes our agency’s analysis on the climate and greenhouse gas impacts of the measure that we released in May 2022.”
Even Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, a Measure A supporter, agreed that the claim is inaccurate.
So I asked Josh Wood, the head of the Sacramento Region Business Association and a key figure in the Yes on Measure A campaign, to cite a source for the claim that it “would achieve our regional greenhouse gas reduction target.” He said SACOG is the source, which is bizarre in light of the agency’s response to the mailer.
The truth is that Wood can’t honestly argue that Measure A is good for the environment because it isn’t. The 40-year, 0.5-percentage-point sales tax increase would generate $8.5 billion that could fund needed transportation projects, which would be great for Sacramento if our air quality were protected by the measure. But based on the analysis of the experts, no one can make that claim.
Steinberg and others are trying to impose safeguards to ensure that a slew of new roads potentially funded by the tax increase would not worsen Sacramento’s climate crisis. There’s no doubt that Steinberg will try hard to achieve that goal. But there simply aren’t enough protections within the measure to guarantee that it will be anything but harmful to air quality, the climate and traffic.
Requiring a simple majority vote to pass, Measure A is complex and dense. Information about it can be easily manipulated if voters aren’t paying attention. So stay with me here.
SACOG issued its assessment of the measure in May, stating: “The analysis concludes that the region would likely fall short of meeting its state-mandated 19% per capita greenhouse gas reduction target. Failing to meet the greenhouse gas reduction target would, in turn, threaten the six-county region’s ability to be eligible to compete for state transportation and housing funding programs.”
On Oct. 10, the California Air Resources Board issued this conclusion about what the measure would fund: “The projects would create a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions in the Sacramento region, by expanding roadways and by potentially increasing development outside the region’s existing developing footprints, notwithstanding mitigation efforts.”
Those mitigation efforts would be whatever could be done to offset vehicle emissions in the future. That’s a tall order if the measure passes, however, given that it would fund 26 roads that aren’t in the region’s long-range transportation plan.
The most controversial of these roads is the proposed Southeast Capital Connector, a 34-mile expressway between Folsom and Elk Grove. Just imagine the emissions from such an expressway. Then consider that there is nothing in Measure A’s language that provides for the mitigation of that air pollution.
There is a side agreement between SACOG and the Sacramento Transportation Authority that anticipates $510 million in Measure A funds for air pollution mitigation. But the California Air Resources Board poured cold water all over that idea in its recent assessment: “The $510 million that SACOG cites as mitigation funding will be grossly inadequate. Strategies to build projects first and mitigate emissions later could be highly susceptible to implementation failure.”
In other words, Measure A as it’s currently written is a terrible idea if you’re worried about climate change in Sacramento. I am, so is the Editorial Board of The Bee and so are many others. We are in a climate crisis — there’s no denying it anymore.
Especially at a time of high inflation as well as global warming, raising a regressive tax to fund huge transportation projects that create sprawl is among the last ideas we should be approving.
Probably sensing a weakness in their campaign for the tax hike, its proponents are resorting to untruths. Based on what state and regional experts are telling us — and based on the dishonest tactics of its backers — the right choice for Sacramento is to say no to Measure A.
This story was originally published October 27, 2022 at 12:29 PM.
