Difference between revisions of "San Mateo County Commercial Parking Lot Tax, Measure X (June 2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "San Mateo parking tax, Measure Q (November 2008)" to "County of San Mateo Parking Tax, Measure Q (November 2008)")
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}A '''San Mateo County Commercial Parking Lot Tax''' ballot question was on the {{jun05ca2012}} for voters in {{san mateo}}, where it was '''defeated.'''<ref name=tax>[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_20066164 ''Mercury News'', "San Mateo County supervisors quietly put three tax measures on June 5 ballot", February 28, 2012]</ref>
+
{{tnr}}A '''San Mateo County Commercial Parking Lot Tax''' ballot question was on the {{jun05ca2012}} for voters in {{san mateo}}, where it was '''defeated.'''<ref name=tax>[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_20066164 ''Mercury News'', "San Mateo County supervisors quietly put three tax measures on June 5 ballot," February 28, 2012]</ref>
  
 
If the new tax had been approved, companies that operate commercial parking lots in unincorporated areas of the county would have had to pay 8% of their gross receipts to the county. This included valet parking at restaurants and hotels, and at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).<ref name=up/>
 
If the new tax had been approved, companies that operate commercial parking lots in unincorporated areas of the county would have had to pay 8% of their gross receipts to the county. This included valet parking at restaurants and hotels, and at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).<ref name=up/>
  
The commercial parking lot gross receipts tax was on the ballot with two other tax increase proposals, [[San Mateo County Hotel Tax Increase, Measure U (June 2012)|Measure U, a hotel tax increase]] (which was defeated) and [[San Mateo County Car Rental Tax, Measure T (June 2012)|Measure T, a car rental tax increase]], which was approved. If all three tax increases had been approved by voters, they would have resulted in $13 million a year in additional revenue to the county.<ref name=tax/> Measure T, the only one to be approved, will result in about $8 million a year to the county.<ref name=t>[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_20809478/san-mateo-countys-measure-t-tax-measure-hanging ''Mercury News'', "San Mateo County's Measure T tax measure hanging on in win column", June 7, 2012]</ref>
+
The commercial parking lot gross receipts tax was on the ballot with two other tax increase proposals, [[San Mateo County Hotel Tax Increase, Measure U (June 2012)|Measure U, a hotel tax increase]] (which was defeated) and [[San Mateo County Car Rental Tax, Measure T (June 2012)|Measure T, a car rental tax increase]], which was approved. If all three tax increases had been approved by voters, they would have resulted in $13 million a year in additional revenue to the county.<ref name=tax/> Measure T, the only one to be approved, will result in about $8 million a year to the county.<ref name=t>[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_20809478/san-mateo-countys-measure-t-tax-measure-hanging ''Mercury News'', "San Mateo County's Measure T tax measure hanging on in win column," June 7, 2012]</ref>
  
 
Voters defeated a similar proposal, [[County of San Mateo Parking Tax, Measure Q (November 2008)|Measure Q]], on [[November 4, 2008 ballot measures in California|November 4, 2008]].
 
Voters defeated a similar proposal, [[County of San Mateo Parking Tax, Measure Q (November 2008)|Measure Q]], on [[November 4, 2008 ballot measures in California|November 4, 2008]].
Line 31: Line 31:
 
* Ann Campbell, Superintendent of the San Mateo County School District<ref name=u>[http://millbrae.patch.com/articles/should-we-charge-more-for-guests-staying-at-county-hotels ''Millbrae Patch'', "Should We Charge More for Guests Staying at County Hotels?"]</ref>
 
* Ann Campbell, Superintendent of the San Mateo County School District<ref name=u>[http://millbrae.patch.com/articles/should-we-charge-more-for-guests-staying-at-county-hotels ''Millbrae Patch'', "Should We Charge More for Guests Staying at County Hotels?"]</ref>
  
A group called "San Mateo County Forward" also supported Measure X, and the other two tax hike measures on the {{jun05ca2012}}. David Pine, a representative of the group, said, "These revenues are critical to avoiding future cuts that will harm people in our community."<ref>[http://burlingame.patch.com/articles/tourist-tax-foes-are-liars-or-clueless-supe-backed-group-says-a6fd08c1 ''Burlingame Patch'', "Tourist Tax Foes are Liars or Clueless, Supe-Backed Group Says", June 1, 2012]</ref>
+
A group called "San Mateo County Forward" also supported Measure X, and the other two tax hike measures on the {{jun05ca2012}}. David Pine, a representative of the group, said, "These revenues are critical to avoiding future cuts that will harm people in our community."<ref>[http://burlingame.patch.com/articles/tourist-tax-foes-are-liars-or-clueless-supe-backed-group-says-a6fd08c1 ''Burlingame Patch'', "Tourist Tax Foes are Liars or Clueless, Supe-Backed Group Says," June 1, 2012]</ref>
  
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
Line 37: Line 37:
 
John Ballesteros, the vice president of public policy for the San Francisco Travel Association, argued against the tax, and two other tax increase measures on the {{jun05ca2012}}, saying, "These measures before you will undoubtedly have a negative impact to attracting visitors, creating an opportunity cost in terms of lost jobs to the region."<ref name=tax/>
 
John Ballesteros, the vice president of public policy for the San Francisco Travel Association, argued against the tax, and two other tax increase measures on the {{jun05ca2012}}, saying, "These measures before you will undoubtedly have a negative impact to attracting visitors, creating an opportunity cost in terms of lost jobs to the region."<ref name=tax/>
  
The U.S. Travel Association conducted a nationwide survey of 366 convention, trade show and meeting industry professionals. They were asked whether Measure X would have an impact on whether they would plan to have a meeting in {{san mateo}}. According to this research, 40% of those surveyed would would either "definitely" search for a new meeting destination or would "reconsider" holding a meeting or event in the county. 58% of those surveyed also said that it is their belief that the Bay Area's taxes on visitors are among the highest in the nation and are second only to New York City's.<ref name=impact>[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_20553640/san-mateo-countys-tax-measures-could-repel-business ''Mercury News'', "San Mateo County's tax measures could repel business visitors, survey by travel group says", May 5, 2012]</ref>
+
The U.S. Travel Association conducted a nationwide survey of 366 convention, trade show and meeting industry professionals. They were asked whether Measure X would have an impact on whether they would plan to have a meeting in {{san mateo}}. According to this research, 40% of those surveyed would would either "definitely" search for a new meeting destination or would "reconsider" holding a meeting or event in the county. 58% of those surveyed also said that it is their belief that the Bay Area's taxes on visitors are among the highest in the nation and are second only to New York City's.<ref name=impact>[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_20553640/san-mateo-countys-tax-measures-could-repel-business ''Mercury News'', "San Mateo County's tax measures could repel business visitors, survey by travel group says," May 5, 2012]</ref>
  
 
==Ballot text==
 
==Ballot text==
Line 50: Line 50:
 
:: ''See also: [[Costs of administering local elections#California|Costs of administering local elections]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[Costs of administering local elections#California|Costs of administering local elections]]''
  
The cost to {{san mateo}} of holding the election on the hotel tax increase, and two other tax increase measures, was about $280,000.<ref name=up>[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_19941385 ''Mercury News'', "San Mateo County could spring three tax measures on June ballot", February 10, 2012]</ref>
+
The cost to {{san mateo}} of holding the election on the hotel tax increase, and two other tax increase measures, was about $280,000.<ref name=up>[http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_19941385 ''Mercury News'', "San Mateo County could spring three tax measures on June ballot," February 10, 2012]</ref>
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==

Latest revision as of 08:03, 21 March 2014

A San Mateo County Commercial Parking Lot Tax ballot question was on the June 5, 2012 ballot for voters in San Mateo County, where it was defeated.[1]

If the new tax had been approved, companies that operate commercial parking lots in unincorporated areas of the county would have had to pay 8% of their gross receipts to the county. This included valet parking at restaurants and hotels, and at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).[2]

The commercial parking lot gross receipts tax was on the ballot with two other tax increase proposals, Measure U, a hotel tax increase (which was defeated) and Measure T, a car rental tax increase, which was approved. If all three tax increases had been approved by voters, they would have resulted in $13 million a year in additional revenue to the county.[1] Measure T, the only one to be approved, will result in about $8 million a year to the county.[3]

Voters defeated a similar proposal, Measure Q, on November 4, 2008.

Election results

Measure X
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No60,67953.1%
Yes 53,616 46.9%
These final election results are from the San Mateo County elections office.

Support

Adrienne Tissier, president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, supported the new tax. She said it would have no impact on the number of tourists who choose to come to the area: "We've got 40 million people who come through that airport annually. I find it hard to believe, being the destination that we are, that it will have any impact at all."[4]

Measure X was also supported by:

  • Carole Groom, member of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
  • Ann Campbell, Superintendent of the San Mateo County School District[5]

A group called "San Mateo County Forward" also supported Measure X, and the other two tax hike measures on the June 5, 2012 ballot. David Pine, a representative of the group, said, "These revenues are critical to avoiding future cuts that will harm people in our community."[6]

Opposition

John Ballesteros, the vice president of public policy for the San Francisco Travel Association, argued against the tax, and two other tax increase measures on the June 5, 2012 ballot, saying, "These measures before you will undoubtedly have a negative impact to attracting visitors, creating an opportunity cost in terms of lost jobs to the region."[1]

The U.S. Travel Association conducted a nationwide survey of 366 convention, trade show and meeting industry professionals. They were asked whether Measure X would have an impact on whether they would plan to have a meeting in San Mateo County. According to this research, 40% of those surveyed would would either "definitely" search for a new meeting destination or would "reconsider" holding a meeting or event in the county. 58% of those surveyed also said that it is their belief that the Bay Area's taxes on visitors are among the highest in the nation and are second only to New York City's.[4]

Ballot text

The question on the ballot:

MEASURE X: "Shall Chapter 5.152 be added to the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, imposing a business license tax of eight percent of gross receipts on operators of commerical parking facilities located in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County?"[7]

Cost of election

See also: Costs of administering local elections

The cost to San Mateo County of holding the election on the hotel tax increase, and two other tax increase measures, was about $280,000.[2]

See also

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References


Flag of California.png

This article about a local California ballot measure is a stub. You can help people learn about California's local ballot measures by expanding it.