Avoiding hard decisions by asking Turlock voters for more taxes is a recipe for failure
Turlock, California: Rich in charm, poor in government.
Do I mean City Hall is lacking in dollars or leadership? The answer is “yes.”
Turlock leaders could hardly have picked a worse time to ask voters to tax themselves more. That’s exactly what the City Council majority did (Mayor Amy Bublak dissented) when they agreed in July to create what has become Measure A, a three-quarter-cent sales tax increase that could raise $11 million a year.
No question, it’s badly needed, mostly thanks to poor decisions by leaders, some of whom have moved on.
The better question is whether Turlock people are in the mood to reward the makers of poor decisions by handing over more dollars from the pockets of everyone who spends money on almost anything in town.
And the answer to that is “probably not.”
It wasn’t that long ago that voters throughout Stanislaus County were more generous. From 2016 to 2018, our people embraced 11 school bonds, bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements to campuses in Turlock, Modesto, Hughson, Riverbank, Waterford, Patterson, Newman, Crows Landing and Salida.
Then came this year’s March primary, when — with our pre-pandemic economy still humming — voters rejected all six school bond measures put before them in Stanislaus County, including Chatom in Turlock, two in Salida and one each in Newman-Crows Landing, Patterson and Modesto’s Stanislaus Union. Tax fatigue all over California in March doomed 60% of local tax and bond measures across the state.
Even in a strong economy, taxpayers have their limits. We reached ours before COVID-19 slapped us silly, drastically reducing income for many and forcing businesses and employees out of work.
What makes leaders think that asking voters for more money now is a good idea? Maybe because Turlock voters have been generous in the past?
Ha.
Elections for half-cent sales tax hikes — costing Turlock shoppers even less than this year’s Measure A — both failed in 2004 and 2014.
So seriously. In what alternate reality are Turlock leaders living, to think voters in a struggling economy will go along this time?
Because we really, really, really need the money, leaders seem to say.
They admit that Turlock’s current budget is hemorrhaging. They’ve relied on dwindling reserves to plug holes in recent years, a very poor strategy that should have been corrected long ago. They’ve brought on yet another new city manager, Toby Wells, who shares no fault for past leadership, or lack thereof.
But enough about the past. Much more important is the path Turlock needs to take from here.
Turlock candidates lack answers
A month ago, our Modesto Bee Editorial Board interviewed via Zoom all five candidates for two City Council seats. The most important questions we asked were whether they support Measure A, and what their plan would be if voters reject it.
I wasn’t surprised that most of the five — incumbent Gil Esquer and challengers Rebecka Monez and Ruben Wegner for Seat 2, and Pam Franco and Bob Puffer for Seat 4 — are behind the measure (Wegner isn’t). But I was quite disappointed that none had a good answer for a course of action should it fail.
Because it probably will.
Closing your eyes and crossing your fingers is not a good strategy for keeping the second-largest Stanislaus city (population 74,297) out of bankruptcy. Smart leaders would already have plans incorporating very hard decisions, like merging police or fire services with regional agencies. Or finally getting serious about reducing excessive benefits for city employees.
To avoid making unpopular decisions, short-sighted Turlock leaders cry poor and ask more from taxpayers. That may be easier, but it’s not right. It’s an abdication of responsibility.
It’s easy to love Turlock, a college town with a quaint downtown, beautiful parks, numerous churches and bustling highway commerce.
Its residents should not have to put a heavier tax burden on their own shoulders to bail out a City Hall that hasn’t done its job.
