This falls outside the purview of State Assembly, but my opponent Jim Patterson endorsed Measure E, so this was my response to the Fresno Chamber of Commerce Government Activity Council hearing on this matter:
Measure E is a tax paid by all to subsidize entertainment enjoyed by few.
Measure E is a proposed sales tax increase of 0.2%, or $35M/yr, for twenty years. It is earmarked to expand funding to Fresno State University and 1/3 of the revenue is earmarked for improvements to athletic facilities. While 2/3 is earmarked for building improvements, programs to “expand access” to educational programs, and some scholarships for low income students- these funds are not well defined or enforceable. I suspect that “building improvements” would take the majority of these funds based on the measure’s major financial backer.
Financial support for this measure comes primarily from Richard Spencer of Harris Construction. Harris Construction has contracted with Fresno State in the past, and it is logical to assume that Harris would be the preferred contractor for any future construction contracts resulting from this measure. It’s worth noting that “preferred” contractors in the bidding process on public construction projects don’t typically offer the lowest bid to win the contract, as I’ve seen in my years as a building contractor in Southern California.
So we know that this measure’s largest single-ticket item will be stadium expansion/improvement and built by Harris Construction. Decreased competition in the bidding process aside, we need to look at the role of college athletics and how important it is in the role of educating students. While it may be important to student athletes who get athletic scholarships, to the general population it is entertainment. Whether it is viewed at the stadium or on television, college athletics is entertainment.
Putting economic efficiency aside, we need to look at who is paying the tax and if it’s appropriate. A sales tax is paid by everyone who purchases goods and services in the county. That includes people who may be on public assistance, disadvantage people not required to pay income tax, or middle class people like myself who don’t watch football or any other college sports. It forces everyone in the county to finance improvements to this form of entertainment, even a single mother on assistance struggling to get her bachelors degree; immoral in my opnion.
If stadium and athletic facility improvements are desired by the school, a more appropriate method of finance might be to increase ticket prices at the gate. Let the market, private individuals, decide how much those improvements mean in financial terms
As for the unspecified amount that might go to scholarship or “expanded access” (whatever that means), the school gets 15% of its funding from the federal government, 36% from the state’s general fund, 30% from student tuition, 19% from the lottery and other state funds; if more money is needed it should come from there or improving efficiency in spending policy. There are already grants in place for students like Pell Grants and Cal Grants as well as scholarship programs for lower income students.
We don’t need the first county sales tax in California history to finance a Cal State University when a more appropriate use of county tax would be to address other issues like homelessness or crime. I absolutely oppose Measure E.
Just so you know where I stand, along with my Libertarian colleagues.
Cheers