July 15, 2024


Law for politics

Alameda County’s Measure C for child care scores legal win


OAKLAND — An Alameda County decide has ruled that 2020’s Measure C — a fifty percent-cent product sales tax evaluate that would present $150 million annually for pediatric health and fitness care, early education programs and affordable baby care — can go into influence, pursuing two years of legal debate.

Nevertheless, opponents of the Alameda County evaluate say they intend to attractiveness the selection, and an appeal could even now preserve the tax dollars from remaining used. The tax has been gathered considering the fact that previous July, but the cash are currently being held in escrow pending the final result of the authorized challenge, in accordance to county reviews.

Initially 5 Alameda County, which would administer the funds from the tax, indicated it is all set to shift forward.

“As a modern society, we have failed to entirely fund early care and education for a long time to the detriment of vendors, the workforce, and families,” Kristin Spanos, main executive officer of Initial 5 Alameda County, said in a statement Thursday.

“The pandemic has made the issues even additional acute and worsened inequities that have harmed small-earnings and people of shade for way too extensive. These public resources are necessary now a lot more than at any time to help and reinforce our county’s early childhood technique, specially with an fairness lens,” Spanos claimed.

In a ruling issued Wednesday, Alameda County Superior Courtroom Judge Jeffrey Brand name rejected the arguments of the Alameda County Taxpayers Affiliation, which experienced challenged the validity of the measure.

The evaluate handed in the March 2020 primary election with about 64.35% of the vote, according to the county registrar.

While the evaluate was headed up by recent Alameda County Supervisor Dave Brown — who at the time was the main of workers for the late Supervisor Wilma Chan — it was deemed a citizens initiative, only put on the ballot right after sufficient signatures were being gathered in guidance of it.

Alameda County officers argued that due to the fact it was a citizens initiative, it only desired a basic bulk vote to go, which it much surpassed.

But the taxpayers affiliation, represented by attorney Jason Bezis, sued the county, arguing that the measure should really have been demanded to obtain a two-thirds the vast majority in get to go, as it is efficiently a ballot evaluate propped up by the county governing administration. Condition legislation calls for tax steps proposed by governments to meet up with that threshold.

“The principal officer of the marketing campaign was Dave Brown, Wilma Chan’s chief of staff. So is this truly a citizens initiative or is this county-orchestrated initiative?” Bezis said Thursday in an job interview.

Bezis said the county experienced tried using to go a related early schooling and child treatment evaluate in 2018, called Evaluate A, but it failed without two-thirds assist.

Bezis contends the county, in order to pass Measure C, “struck a deal with Children’s Clinic Oakland” to set up in excess of $1 million to again the signature-accumulating initiative and the ballot measure, with the comprehending that the healthcare facility would get 20% of the proceeds from the measure for pediatric well being care when it passed.

“Because the county was so deeply involved with this so-termed voter initiative, it ought to be subjected to the two-third threshold,” Bezis claimed.

He claimed his clientele will appeal the determination.

“This implies that as lengthy as this charm is pending, Measure C cash are not likely to be produced to the courses,” he mentioned.

In component for the reason that of Measure C, Alameda County now has the optimum base tax rate of any county in the point out, 10.25%, Bezis explained. Quite a few metropolitan areas in the county have even bigger costs, up to 10.75%.

“The goal of this situation is to invalidate (the evaluate) and refund the dollars that has been gathered,” Bezis mentioned.

Supervisor Brown did not answer to a ask for for remark, nor did attorneys for the county.


Resource website link