WEATHER »

Measure P and Property Taxes

County Fiscal Impact Statement Answers Few Questions


Thursday, August 7, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

As campaigns for and against Measure P gear up, new information continues to trickle in about how the initiative to ban all new fracking, acidizing, and cyclic-steam injection operations will impact the county and its coffers. A fiscal impact statement released this week states the ban would affect property-tax revenues ​— ​how much and when remains to be seen.

Oil companies pay $20 million in property taxes, or 3.1 percent of the total, and approximately $12.7 million goes to schools. But the report does not break down the revenue brought in from “high intensity” operations. The number of such unconventional operations in the county is still being debated. At the heart of the dispute is whether or not an ordinance regulating maintenance or repairs that require energy division permits would eventually shut them down. The protocols being developed by the planning department would define this and other ambiguities, such as whether or not landowners with mineral rights would receive exemptions.

For proponents, the potential revenue lost is minimal in comparison to what’s at stake if a large-scale spill occurred. Yes on Measure P spokesperson Katie Davis said the initiative was what she expected because it would not have an “immediate impact” on tax revenues. Assemblymember Das Williams, who supports the measure, also warned that some of the roughly 800 oil operation applications ​— ​most of which are cyclic steam injection ​— ​that have been submitted to the county’s energy division will go forward before November.

The Yes on Measure P campaign has raised $44,876, most of which was from individual donors; Davis donated $10,000. Supporters have previously stated it’ll take approximately $500,000 for them to be successful. The No on Measure P committee just formed, and it does not have any campaign finances to report as of the end of June. Campaign spokesperson Jim Byrne called the initiative “deceptive” and said he plans to educate voters about its widespread effects between now and November.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Actually, here is some info about No On P Financing:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign...

"Californians For Energy Independence has contributed over $300,000, from May 18, 2014, to June 30, 2014, to oppose Measure P. Californians For Energy Independence is funded by several oil and gas companies, including Chevron and Houston-based Freeport-McMoran."

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fracking causes earthquakes.

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SO what, nitrogen. Not proven, random_kook; correlation is not causality.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just read this measure, which apparently was taken down from the water guardians site. I don't think it bans anything in the south county, but it sure takes a chunk out of the north county economy over time. Yeah fracking sounds like a bad thing but WE DON'T FRACK IN SB COUNTY! So why ban existing methods that have been used for more than 50 years? This sounds like ideology run amok to me.

And some wonder why there is such a divide between north and south county. This kind of measure hurts more than it helps and all the pain is felt by hard working people who aren't twisting facts to suit their twisted ideology. No different than ultra religious trying to ram their beliefs down our throats.

Gives us a break with all these crazy measures already.

Validated (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So why ban existing methods that have been used for more than 50 years? This sounds like ideology run amok to me. (well said)

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 8, 2014 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately, ideology run amok has become a defining characteristic of the environmental movement.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 8, 2014 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What I'd like to know is how measure P would prevent a large scale spill? It doesn't ban oil drilling in the county.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 8, 2014 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany: Measure P prevents spills because it (effectively) shuts down oil production. Glad I could help.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 9, 2014 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes on Peeing.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2014 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please dont P on us

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2014 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I cannot help but join the anti-P crowd on this issue. It sounds like even with P passing, a lot of current practices would continue - with the questionable benefit of even more bureaucratic review and barriers.

I firmly believe that IF fracking were suddenly on the agenda, OR if there was a problem from current drilling practices that are not responsive to correction, we have time to always then re-create this proposition.

I do not support increasing the difficulty of businesses and related taxes being more complicated in the absence of a current, identified problem. And right now, I'm not persuaded.

This government so-called oversight and regulation is going to continue to hamstring our economy. Stop the endless creation of more and more business hostile regulation.

TheEvolOne (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: