WEATHER »

Looking for RNA Fair Play


Monday, May 12, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

In The Santa Barbara Independent‘s endorsement of Janet Wolf for 2nd District County Supervisor, you ignored the justice of Goleta’s attempt to recapture its tax dollars from the county. The Revenue Neutrality Agreement (RNA) that Mike Brown, Bill Chiat, and Santa Barbara County forced on Goleta at incorporation has taken more than $85 million from our small city of 30,000 in just the last 12 years. The annual $5 million currently extracted is about half of one percent of the county’s $850 million budget. Goleta pays what all other county cities do and then pays an additional 50 percent of our property tax share and 30 percent of all of our sales tax, which no other city in the county pays.

I have always considered The Indy a champion of the underdog, a newspaper that tries to create a better commonwealth for all the area’s citizens. So for you to dismiss Goleta’s RNA grievance against the county in such an offhand way is very disappointing.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Disappointing but of course highly expected.

The Indy is a mouthpiece for hand-wringing lib-dem locals who prefer to read things that make themselves feel good vs. discuss ideas that are uncomfortable but work.

Besides, the lib-dems that voted for and pushed to incorporate Goleta as city so they could tax residents at higher rates to build their own version of Ventura or L.A. have it coming anyway.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
May 12, 2014 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Does Jim Farr really think people- especially those of us who were here in the community in the late nineties and early 2000s- are stupid enough to believe that Goleta would even BE a city in the first place if not for that Revenue agreement?! The city hood proposal had so many flaws- not taking in IV, taking all the hotels and the marketplace- that the ONLY WAY Lafco and then the Board would allow the proposal to go forward was with that particular revenue sharing arrangement. So to imply to perhaps naive people that somehow Goleta was a city and then the county "took" it's money is ludicrous not to mention completely false. Many of us thought the proposal was a loser from the beginning. But back then Mr Farr was a big champion of it in his paper. Buyers remorse? Bait and switch?

clintoneradem (anonymous profile)
May 13, 2014 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: