In a legal response to a Chevron-backed lawsuit, the city of Richmond rejected the argument that the Richmond Refining Business License Tax ballot measure’s label contains misleading wording that would be biased.
According to a Contra Costa County Superior Court filing, the city maintains that the petitioners, Chevron employee Daniela Dickey, lead strategic planning analyst, according to her LinkedIn profile, and the Coalition for Richmond’s Future, have an “exceedingly heavy burden” of proof in asking the court to reword the ballot measure, which voters would decide upon in the upcoming General Election.
“It is not misleading to inform voters of some potential uses of funding as well as the tax burden proposed — the sweet with the bitter,” the filing states.“The Coalition’s desire to eliminate spending discussion entirely or to focus on the most bureaucratic aspects of government is not neutral — it is an argument.”
Richmond’s City Council unanimously approved the ballot measure at its June 18 meeting. If approved, the measure would create a $1 per barrel tax that would generate an estimated $60 million to $90 million in General Fund revenue annually. It was brought to the council by the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) and environmental justice group, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE).
According to the ballot measure, the tax would potentially be used for “clean air and water treatment, roads, parks, fire and emergency response, toxic land cleanup, and improving community health and youth services, and for general government use.”
The newly formed coalition and Dickey filed the lawsuit on June 28, seeking to prevent the ballot measure from listing potential uses of the tax revenue and to establish that stating the possible uses of public funds for the tax ballot measure is biased and violates voter rights under state and federal law.
“When provided a fair and impartial ballot question, as required by law, we believe Richmond voters will soundly reject this measure and the negative consequences it would have on their cost of living. It is imperative language the Richmond City Council has unlawfully proposed be corrected so voters are not led astray by false promises,” Chevron spokesperson Ross Allen stated in a press release when the suit was filed.
Additionally, the petitioner’s filing also stated that because the city references potential specific uses of the Refining Tax — a general tax requiring a simple majority vote to pass — that it “falsely and misleadingly characterizes the measure as a ‘special’ tax that will finance the specific purposes listed in the Ballot Label.”
The city contends that listing some potential uses of the tax revenue in the ballot measure description does not make it a “special tax,” which would mean it would require a two-thirds vote to pass. That’s because the funds can be used for any lawful city purpose — including paying city employees for carrying out city services.
“The Coalition alleges the label misleads because most of the City’s general fund covers employee wages and benefits. However, that is true of any service organization, including this Court,” the opposition response stated. “Omitting this rather obvious fact from the 75 words permitted for a ballot label does not mislead. Paying City employees does produce services.”
The city of Richmond is adamant that the wording of the ballot measure does not take sides or advocate for one side, according to the filing, and that Chevron and the Coalition are free to campaign against the measure but shouldn’t use the courts to rewrite what they believe is an impartial ballot label.
“It (the Coalition) is free to argue that the funding is unneeded or will fund only salaries and benefits,” the filing said. “But it is not free to use this Court’s writ power to rewrite the ballot label to include information which is not necessary to an understanding of the measure.”
Chevron held a press conference Thursday during which Richmond Refinery Director Tolly Graves told reporters the proposed tax undermines the refinery’s viability and hurts consumers and employees.
Both parties are expected to appear for a hearing before Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John Divine on Aug. 12, according to court records.
I donate to Richmondside regularly. I almost withdrew my membership after the first article on the Make Polluters Pay ballot measure. This article is an improvement but still does not give enough voice to the plucky Richmond residents’ argument in favor of Make Polluters Pay. We have had enough of fossil fuel damage — damage to health and to tax payers’ pocketbook.
If the special tax was *actually* earmarked for the suggested purposes, I’d be in favor. But it’s just grandstanding by RPA to look “progressive” and to cover the general budget, salaries, all the “special studies” that council likes to fund, the failed bikeshare program, etc…and the mayor and council know that it won’t pass as a special tax, so they are trying to position it as one without any obligation to use the money for “clean air and water treatment, roads, parks, fire and emergency response, toxic land cleanup, and improving community health and youth services, and for general government use.” except general government use.
How about just shutting down the refinery? That will stop their pollution and we can all get electric cars, trucks, fire trucks, semi trucks, boats, airplanes and cargo ships.