Janice Keating: Safety tax shouldn’t rely on League analysis

Re “Modesto moves ahead with College road diet; One-half percent tax increase will be on November ballot” (Page A5, July 17): Is The Bee serious quoting someone from the California League of Cities on whether City Hall wrote the ballot text for the new general tax in an unbiased manner?

As a former Modesto City Council member, it was clear the League of Cities institutionally sided with tax increases with little or no concern for taxpayers. They are not an unbiased source. The league staffer didn’t say the language is legal, rather that the language is “straightforward and typical of what other cities use.” So, if all cities break the law it is OK if Modesto breaks the law?

I watched the Stanislaus Taxpayers Association presentation and they had some common-sense observations. For example, city hall is trying to confuse voters into thinking the tax is voter-sponsored initiative instead of the city hall sponsored measure it really is.

The City has used all sorts of emotionally charged language to convince voters that their future safety depends on voting for the tax. Scare tactics have no place in impartial analysis; leave that to the pro and con arguments in the sample ballot and campaign mailers.

This story was originally published July 17, 2015 at 9:51 AM with the headline "Janice Keating: Safety tax shouldn’t rely on League analysis."