Taxpayers shouldn’t have to twice pay for Fresno State building boom. No on Measure E | Opinion

When politicians who consider themselves fiscal conservatives are suddenly in favor of taxes, my instinct is to ask why.

Likewise, when self-styled liberals come out against them.

The discourse surrounding the Fresno State tax, which appears as Measure E on countywide ballots in the March primary election, is full of anomalies that send my mind spiraling in a series of questions.

Who benefits from a countywide 0.25% sales tax hike, and who does it most harm? Are new taxes the only way to fund university projects, or merely the most advantageous for certain individuals and institutions? Is there any fine print that can’t be stomached? And finally, can the initiative deliver what it promises?

After months of turning over those questions in my head and listening to arguments on both sides, I can’t get there with Measure E. This registered voter of Fresno County will be returning a ballot marked “no” — for a second time.

Opinion

My base reasoning remains the same as November 2022: The upkeep and expansion of Fresno State is a state responsibility and should not be shouldered twice over by county taxpayers, especially the poorest among us. Nor should local politicians and university officials get a pass from one of their primary functions: finding money.

“At a time when the cost of living is on the rise, Measure E is not the right solution for Fresno County taxpayers,” said state Assemblywoman Esmeralda Soria, standing among a group of opponents that included fellow Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians.

“Supporters of the measure minimize the financial impact of a sales tax increase, because guess what? They can all afford it. The people that I’m concerned about are the residents that are low income or on a fixed income … who cannot afford to pay more.”

It’s easy for Measure E backers, Assemblyman Jim Patterson among them, to claim the Legislature refuses to adequately fund Cal State University campuses and hold up Fresno State’s $462 million maintenance backlog as proof.

Speakers at Monday’s press conference outside Valley Children’s Stadium called out Patterson for not sponsoring legislation to address Fresno State’s crumbling facilities during his 12 years in Sacramento. I won’t join in, because that’s not entirely accurate nor fair.

As a Republican in the state capitol, where Democrats enjoy supermajorities in both houses, Patterson doesn’t have much sway. Good thing Fresno is also represented by a rising star in what Patterson refers to as “the ruling party.”

Yes to Merced, no to Fresno?

During her first term in Sacramento, Soria (with help from state Sen. Anna Caballero) managed to secure more than $300 million for her district, including $100 million for student housing projects at UC Merced and Merced College. You read right: $100 million.

Measure E supporters would have us believe this same Legislature that just kicked down nine figures to college students in Merced have willfully ignored those in Fresno, and will continue to do so unless voters here take it upon themselves to further pry open their wallets.

I don’t buy it. If Fresno State’s facilities are in such pitiful shape from decades-old neglect, that tells me local politicians haven’t been doing their jobs for decades. It also doesn’t say much for the university’s internal lobbying and fundraising efforts. Do not ask with the requisite volume and force, and thou shall not receive.

In the organizational chart for Fresno State’s Division of University Advancement, you’ll find no fewer than 13 individuals (including two vacancies) with a title that contains some derivative of “director of development.” Meanwhile, the athletic department’s primary fundraising arm, the Bulldog Foundation, lists nine development directors and coordinators on its web site.

These are the folks being paid good salaries for the sole purpose of raising money for the university. And if this tax initiative passes, they’ll have the cushiest gigs in town.

Those aren’t the only cushy gigs Measure E has in store. The initiative creates a seven-member Citizens Oversight Committee entrusted with verifying that campus-approved projects align with the intent of the ballot measure.

For this service, oversight committee members will be well compensated. How well? Roughly $80,000 at present if they choose. Five of the seven are appointees of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, practically an open invitation for cronyism.

Soria: ‘We need to be wary’

It bears saying there are numerous boards and committees in our local government, including those associated with Measure C and Measure Z. In none of them do members receive anything more than a small stipend for attending meetings.

Take those seven bloated $80,000 salaries for each Measure E committee member, multiply by 25 years and you get $14 million. How many lecture halls and chemistry labs could be built for $14 million? Instead, that money will go to pad the retirements of retired politicians and insiders.

“We need to be wary,” Soria cautioned. “This seems so wrong to me, and a waste of our taxpayer money.”

While Fresno State stands to benefit from Measure E, so too does the building industry. There’s a reason why construction magnate Richard Spencer is the primary instigator and that entities associated with Spencer have donated $1.7 million to the Yes on E campaign.

As I previously reported, Spencer-owned Harris Construction built the $29 million Jordan Agricultural Research Center and was responsible for four other recent campus projects totaling to $22 million.

Even though CSU requires a competitive bidding process for all such contracts, I hope that people can see why it might be in the best interest of a construction magnate to sponsor a tax initiative that generates more money for construction.

Because that’s all Measure E really does. It supplies money for new and improved facilities — including $160 million to modernize a football stadium that gets used six times a year.

The initiative does not, in any way, provide the university with the means to hire extra faculty, offer additional degree programs or admit more nursing and engineering students to address our regional shortages. Regardless of the optimistic scenarios espoused by its supporters.

Local taxpayers already pay the freight for Fresno State. They shouldn’t be required to double dip for the next quarter century so that construction firms, political insiders and ineffective administrators can prosper.