Reports of Measure Z's demise are greatly exaggerated

Opponents of Measure Z claim the loss of tax revenue will decimate the finances of the district. This accusation is utter nonsense. Measure Z's proponents have one goal in mind - to hold elected officials responsible and accountable for reading, understanding, and adhering to California's Constitution.

Is Measure Z, the effort to repeal the Fire Protection Service Zone (FP-5) special tax, really and truly dead as reported? Not hardly.

Political considerations

The fight against the FP-5 special tax has always been anchored in the text of our State's governing document. "No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote."

For proponents of Measure Z, and apparently a majority of the citizens, this is clear and unambiguous language.

To put it simply, "you gotta ask us before you tax us." However, given that over 1 million county residents are subject to the FP-5 tax, and only 1,022 voters ever actually approved the tax, it is also clear that between the protections of the Constitution and the voracious appetite of county government, something has gone entirely awry. This must be changed via the political process.

Legal considerations

From the legal perspective, Measure Z remains very much alive. Judge Cohn's ruling was in no way a coup de grace. This is because there is a legal arguments for Measure Z to stand.

Attorneys for Measure Z immediately filed an appeal against Cohn's ruling. Should the appeal court choose to overturn Cohn's initial ruling, and the "Yes" vote hold, Measure Z will stand and the tax will be repealed.

With respect to Cohn's decision, it must prove against two claims. First, the petition must contain false and misleading information. Second, the proponents must have intended to deceive the voters via that misleading information. Cohn's decision ignores both of these requirements and thereby creates a path for his decision to be overturned.

Although we understand the complexities associated with rapidly shifting stories, the Daily Press did miss some details pertaining to Measure Z. We would like to set the record straight.

"A measure on Tuesday's ballot seeking to repeal a special fire district tax won't be enforced even if voters decide in favor of it." - VVDP

This is no longer accurate. If Measure Z wins on appeal, the tax will be repealed just as the voters have determined.

"In May, the appeals court denied the petition from the measure's proponents and lifted the stay, essentially agreeing with Cohn" - VVDP

In fact, the appeals court disagreed with Cohn by allowing the measure to be printed on the ballot. The court then left the door open for the proponents to appeal further by refraining from issuing a ruling on the merits of the issue.

"An attorney for the Measure Z proponents argued that false or misleading statements must have been intentional in order for the initiative to violate elections code and that intentionality was never proven." - VVDP

The Daily Press made a substantial omission by reporting a fragment rather than the entirety of the attorney's argument. Measure Z's attorney argued first that there were no factual misrepresentations contained in Measure Z.

Second, the attorney argued if there were misleading statements in the petition, the elections code required the plaintiff to prove the measure's author intended to mislead the public.

Cohn ignored both the intentionality requirement and the compelling legal case that Measure Z was in fact entirely accurate.

Financial considerations

Measure Z's proponents are often accused of wanting to destroy San Bernardino County Fire Protection services by repealing the FP-5 special tax.

Opponents of Measure Z claim the loss of tax revenue will decimate the finances of the district. This accusation is utter nonsense. Measure Z's proponents have one goal in mind - to hold elected officials responsible and accountable for reading, understanding, and adhering to California's Constitution.

However, to respond to the financial "gloom and doom" predictions sourced from County Fire and the fire unions, we offer the following arguments.

Claim No. 1: Repealing FP-5 will create a 42.7 million dollar loss of revenue for the Fire department.

Prior to the imposition of the FP-5 tax, County Fire's budget shortfalls were met via the county general fund. There is nothing to preclude a return to this arrangement. Not a single fire station needs to be closed, and not a single first responder needs to find employment elsewhere.

Claim No. 2: 15 of 48 fire stations may be closed and a reduction of first responders by up to one-third.

This is a curious claim. How can a loss of 12.2% of County Fire's budget result in closing 31% of its fire stations? Or a concurrent loss of first responders? Regardless, a simple reprogramming from the general fund will cover any gaps created by the FP-5 repeal.

Claim # 3: Increased response time

How can County Fire claim increased response times when they do not appear to know their current response times? Our organization has submitted multiple requests for response times. County Fire has responded to repeated inquiries by claiming they do not track response times.

Claim No. 4: Homeowners' insurance may go up

Homeowner insurance has already gone up. Currently, many county residents have been dropped by private insurers. This forces residents to purchase fire insurance from the State of California.

Residents pay more for lower-quality insurance. In fact, some homeowners resort to coupling government insurance with a private policy just to ensure adequate coverage. This entire situation is disconnected from the FP-5 special tax.

Finally, San Bernardino County is the largest county in the lower 48 states. Yet the county spends more than 163 times the amount on fire as the next largest county in the lower 48 and 32 times more than the next four largest counties combined.

This is indicative of the wider problem within San Bernardino County. Government entities are unable to control spending. Elected officials refuse to step in and roll back the excesses. The only thing left is for voters to that enough is enough. This is exactly the intent of Measure Z and the motivation behind the proposal to repeal the FP-5 special tax.

Tom Murphy is the president of The Red Brennan Group, which advocates for small, responsible government.

Opponents of Measure Z claim the loss of tax revenue will decimate the finances of the district. This accusation is utter nonsense. Measure Z's proponents have one goal in mind - to hold elected officials responsible and accountable for reading, understanding, and adhering to California's Constitution.