Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "tax"

Sac Parks Examine Parcel Tax Possibility

2011-11-21T10:32:10Z

A new tax could be on the horizon for Sacramento property owners, as the Sacramento Parks and Recreation Commission begins plans for polling voters on their support for a parcel tax that could appear on the November 2012 ballot.

The parcel tax, a form of property tax, requires a two-thirds approval from the voters. The tax is a flat fee for property owners in the district, rather than a property tax that is based on the assessed value of the property.

The money will not replace contributions from the General Fund. Currently, the general fund provides 3.9 million for park maintenance costs.

The Commission considered a parcel tax between $25 and $30, a number they believe voters will view as acceptable and a good investment in Sacramento parks. Overall, this will generate approximately $5 to $6 million in revenue for park sustainability.

In the current economy, gathering support for a tax increase from city councilmembers and the public will be a tough feat by the Parks Department.

“We can’t live with ourselves as park supporters and say that we didn’t try everything we could,” Cindy Cooke, District Four Parks Commissioner, said at the November Commissioners meeting.

The polling will begin in mid to late January of 2012 and the results presented to city council around February or March.

“We must ask questions about priority of choices, because there are certain things that can kill this before it even gets launched,” Jim Combs, Director of Parks and Recreation, said at the November Parks and Recreation meeting. “It has to come back with a strong two-thirds. We also have to look at our competition on the ballot.”

Combs pressed the importance of prioritizing services based on the polling information. The results of the poll will reflect what aspects of Parks the public is most concerned about: community centers, recreational programs for senior citizens, youth programs, park maintenance, planting or keeping pools open in the summer. This will determine where the tax revenue derived from this parcel tax will fund, if passed by the voters.

“People want to see what they’re getting in the parcel tax. Park maintenance is not sexy, you can’t sell it in a picture or on a brochure,” Jonathan Rewers, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, said at the October Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. “We need to figure out what people are most interested in funding, something tangible.”

A Sacramento County Regional Parks Phone Poll conducted in February of 2011 found that 74 percent of the respondents were willing to pay a tax increase of $19 per year, while 46 percent of the respondents were willing to pay $49 per year for park improvement.

Finding money to sustain parks has been a challenge for the Sacramento Department of Parks and Recreation Department, which has seen a steep decline in funding from the city’s general fund.

The Sacramento’s Department of Parks and Recreation has a budget of just over $37 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year to sustain 207 parks and 8 parkways.

Meeting minutes from June of 2004 stated that the Department had a budget of $75 million inclusive of all funding sources. The Department has been stripped of $38 million in the last six years.

Annually, the department reports a total of 5.1 million visitors to the Sacramento parks each year. Finding sufficient public support for the tax measure will be crucial in the spectrum of improvement and maintenance the Department of Parks and Recreation will be able to provide.

Property owners in the North Natomas area currently pay a tax for park maintenance. If the parcel tax is passed, deciding whether areas like these will be asked to pay an additional amount, a lower amount or be dissolved of the prior tax obligation is still up for debate.

“People don’t generally make change until it’s right in front of them. This summer, that might become very evident to people,” Jeff Harris, District 3 Parks Commissioner, said at the November meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

More than 1,000 local nonprofits lose exemption

2011-06-24T00:43:36Z

The Internal Revenue Service announced June 10 that it revoked the tax-exempt status for more than 1,000 nonprofit organizations in Sacramento, though the majority of them were no longer in existence.

Those that still exist, including several Sacramento-area organizations, will have to re-file for their tax-exemption status, said IRS spokesman Jesse Weller.

“We believe that most of the organizations on the list are defunct, although some may still be in existence and just didn’t get the word,” he said.

Nationwide, the number of nonprofit organizations whose tax-exemption status was revoked was 275,000.

The revocation was an automatic action taken after the passing of a pension reform act in 2006. Nonprofit organizations are required to file paperwork with the IRS each year under the parameters of the law, and those that do not file anything for three consecutive years get their status revoked.

“This was the main action from the law change,” Weller said. “Going forward, we expect a lot less to be revoked.”

One of the Sacramento organizations that’s still in existence and had its tax-exempt status revoked was the Sacramento City Taxpayers’ Rights League, located at 2509 Capitol Ave.

The letter from the IRS came as a surprise to President Mark Whisler.

“They sent a letter saying I hadn’t filed, but we file our paperwork every year,” Whisler said. “I was surprised. Who knows? Maybe they transposed a digit in the paperwork somewhere.”

Whisler said his organization watches out for taxpayer rights in Sacramento and sued the city over the loan to Arco Arena in the 1980s.

He said he thinks the move to revoke tax-exemption status is a good one, since it should clean up the list of nonprofit organizations.

“The nonprofit database has been cluttered for years,” he said.

In his case, he said he has 30 days to reply to the IRS letter and work from there.

Weller said organizations whose nonprofit status was revoked will have to reapply for it, typically a process that takes three to six months. The fee for a small organization that takes in less than $50,000 per year amounts to $100. Larger organizations have fees from $400 to $800.

“The law required a revocation,” he said. “The IRS has no discretion over it. If it’s still in existence and wants to get back its tax-exempt status, they can reapply.”

Bob Achermann, executive director of the California-Nevada Soft Drink Association, a trade organization for soft drink bottlers, said questions from The Sacramento Press were the first things to alert him to the revocation of his tax-exemption status. The association is based in Sacramento.

“It’s not only shocking,” he said, “but we have been filing tax returns for over 40 years.”

He said the address in the list of organizations with revoked nonprofit status the IRS had an address that was 20 years old.

“We have filed tax returns all these years, under our current address, and we have filed under the same name all these years with the correct address,” he said.

Achermann said he will be doing what is necessary to retain tax-exemption status.

Weller acknowledged that some organizations could have slipped through the cracks of the IRS’ outreach campaign.

“It’s definitely true that somebody moved and didn’t get the letters or the word in some way over the last three years,” he said. “Basically, the law is clear. We don’t have the discretion to say, ‘OK, because you didn’t know about it, you can have (tax-exemption status) back.’ ”

All donations given to nonprofit organizations until the revocations went out are still recognized as tax-exempt, and Weller said that won’t present a problem on tax returns.

He recommended checking to make sure an organization is tax-exempt before making donations by checking the IRS website.

For a list of nonprofit organizations with tax-exemption status revoked by state, click here.

For a list of all nonprofit organizations by state – whose status was not revoked – click here.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.

Everyday Law: Federal Tax Deductions

2011-04-04T19:09:10Z

Organization is key. If you've kept careful records all year, completing your tax returns and getting those deductions should be a breeze. If you haven't, it is not as easy. But it still might be worth your while to itemize deductions this year, or, at least, think about getting organized for next year. One step at a time.

The list of deductions most of us can take is not that long. The first is “Medical and Dental Expenses.” Because this deduction is limited to the amount that exceeds 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income (aka “AGI,” the amount that ends up on line 38 of your Form 1040), not as many people can take this deduction as you might imagine. Let’s look at an example. Assuming your 2010 AGI was $56,799, the median household income in Sacramento County, you can only deduct the amount you spent on medical and dental expenses that exceeds $4,259.92, or 7.5% of $56,799. Hopefully you didn’t have to spend that much. According to a popular baby cost calculator, the average annual cost for healthcare from birth to age 18 is $735. Multiply that by four (the average family size in Sacramento County is 3.29), and you get $2,940.

For each medical expense you should keep a record of the name and address of the person paid, the amount and date paid, and the amount paid for transportation (mileage, taxi, etc.) to get medical care. You can deduct either actual transportation expenses or you can use the standard medical mileage rate of 16.5 cents per mile. For more information about deductible medical expenses, see IRS Publication 502.

The second type of itemized deduction you can take is “Taxes You Paid.” You can deduct either state and local general sales taxes or state and local income taxes—not both. If you live in a state that imposes income tax, like California, you probably paid more income tax than sales tax, so the income-tax deduction is the better deal. Obtaining the amount you paid in state and local income taxes should be easy—all income taxes withheld from your salary are listed on your W-2. If you choose to deduct state and local sales taxes, instead, however, you can use actual expenses or the optional sales tax tables contained in the Instructions to Schedule A.

You can also deduct state and local personal property taxes you paid; save your payment stubs. In California, personal property tax includes part of the amount you paid for your car tags. If you’ve misplaced your receipt, you can use the DMV’s Vehicle Registration Fee Calculator to figure out how much of your vehicle license fee was in lieu of local property tax. Just plug in your license plate number, the last five digits of your Vehicle Identification Number, and the appropriate tax year.

You can also deduct real estate taxes paid on your home. If your mortgage payments include your real estate taxes, the amount paid will be on the statement you receive from your mortgage company. If it isn’t, you can contact your taxing authority. In Sacramento County you can use Sacramento County's Online Property Tax Bill Information System. Just pop in your parcel number for a property tax bill payment history. If you do not know your 14-digit parcel number, you may obtain it by entering your address at the Sacramento County Assessor's Office Parcel Viewer.

The third category of itemized deduction is “Interest You Paid.” The most common types of interest people pay and wish to deduct are home mortgage interest, student loan interest, and personal interest. Unfortunately, personal interest paid on car loans, credit cards, and the like, is not tax deductible at all.

If your modified adjusted gross income is less than $75,000 ($150,000 if filing jointly), you can deduct up to $2,500 for interest paid on qualified education loans. You should receive a Form 1098-E, Student Loan Interest Statement, from each institution (such as a bank or governmental agency) that received interest payments of $600 or more during 2010. For more on deducting student loan interest payments, see IRS Publication 970, Tax Benefits for Education.

Home mortgage interest is generally reported to you on Form 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement, by the financial institution to which you made the payments. For more information, see IRS Publication 936, Home Mortgage Interest Deduction.

The fourth type of itemized deduction you can take is “Gifts to Charity.” To deduct monetary contributions up to $250, you must show a bank record, payroll deduction record, or a written communication from a qualified organization containing the name of that organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the contribution. If you donate cash or property worth $250 or more, you must also show a written acknowledgment from the organization showing the amount of the cash and a description of any property contributed, and stating whether the organization provided any goods or services in exchange for the gift. If your total deduction for all noncash contributions for the year is over $500, you must complete and attach IRS Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, to your return. For more information, refer to IRS Publication 526, Charitable Contributions.

The fifth type of itemized deduction you can take is “Casualty and Theft Losses.” You can deduct the amount of casualty or theft losses that exceed 10% of your AGI, after subtracting $100 for each occurrence. If your property is covered by insurance, you cannot deduct a loss unless you file a timely insurance claim for reimbursement, even if no reimbursement is expected. If you were uninsured, you must show some other kind of actual record or satisfactory evidence to support your deduction. For more information, see IRS Publication 547, Casualties, Disasters, and Thefts (Business and Nonbusiness).

The sixth type of itemized deduction you can take is called “Job expenses and Certain Miscellaneous Deductions.” These deductions are subject to subject to a 2% limit, which means you can deduct the amount left after you subtract 2% of your AGI from the total. Using our Sacramento County median household income example of $56,799, and assuming you spent $2,000 on job and other miscellaneous deductible expenses, the total amount you could deduct would be $864.02 ($2,000 - $1,135.98 [2% of $56,799] = $864.02).

“Job expenses and Certain Miscellaneous Deductions” include unreimbursed employee expenses, tax preparation fees, and other expenses paid to produce or collect taxable income or manage or protect property held for earning income. “Unreimbursed employee expenses” include dues to professional societies, educator expenses, licenses and regulatory fees, subscriptions to professional journals and trade magazines related to your work, union dues and expenses, and work-related education. For more information, see IRS Publication 529, Other Miscellaneous Deductions.

Perhaps the most popular unreimbursed employee expense deduction is the “Home Office Deduction.” It is not as easy to qualify for this deduction as the media might lead you to believe. Your home office must be used regularly and exclusively for your work: if your ten-year-old son uses the computer in that room for his homework, you fail the exclusivity test. For more information, see IRS Publication 587, Business Use of Your Home. Then there is figuring the deduction itself. For the kinds of records you will need to keep to prove all of this, see IRS Publication 583, Starting a Business and Keeping Records.

Although not an itemized expense, moving expenses to a new job location can be deducted, and they are not subject to the 2% limit like the other unreimbursed employee expenses discussed above. See IRS Publication 521, Moving Expenses.

The seventh, and last type of itemized deduction, is called “Other Miscellaneous Expenses." Although not subject to the 2% limit, these “Other Miscellaneous Expense" deductions are not that common. The most common deduction is one that hopefully, not too many of us, will have: gambling losses. If you are so unfortunate as to have suffered gambling losses, you may deduct them, up to the amount of your winnings. You cannot reduce your gambling winnings by your gambling losses and report the difference as a deduction; you must report your winnings as income. Therefore, your records must show your winnings separately from your losses. In addition to an accurate diary of your winnings and losses, you should also keep wagering tickets, canceled checks, substitute checks, credit records, bank withdrawals, and statements of actual winnings or payment slips provided to you by the gambling establishment. For more information, see Tax Topic 419, Gambling Income and Losses, at http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419.html.

We have several books at the law library that can help you with your 2010 taxes. You may wish to check out J.K. Lasser’s 1001 Deductions & Tax Breaks 2011, J.K. Lasser’s Your Income Tax 2011: For Preparing Your 2010 Tax Return, and Tax Deductions for Professionals. You may also wish to refer to our Legal Resource Guides on Federal Tax Law and California Tax Law.

For more information on this and other “Everyday Law” subjects, visit the Sacramento County Public Law Library, “Providing Free Public Access to Legal Information for over 100 years.”

OPINION: Sac to Charge for "Scene Stabilization"

2011-01-26T18:12:01Z

I felt compelled to write this after reading Brandon Darnell’s report on the Sacramento’s City Council’s 5-4 decision in favor of requiring non-resident drivers to foot emergency bills. You can view his article here

I find this to be complete nonsense (not the article, the decision). Especially when reading some of the responses from the City Council and others.

The Fire Chief states that it’s not to bring in revenue, but to recover costs? He’s joking right? What else is this but a new revenue stream? Top that off with the old school mentality of budgeting, especially in a government environment. Towards the end of each fiscal year budgets are reviewed to ensure all monies in the budget are spent. If it appears there will be money left over, it’s spent with no regard to fiscal responsibility. Why? Because then they can claim last years budget was just barely enough and next year they will need a bigger budget to fight increased costs, inflation, etc..

Councilwoman Angelique Ashby said by declining to discuss a confidential memo, authored by the City’s Attorney’s Office, is a way to safeguard the city against potential litigation. I believe not discussing the memo and the comments made by the city council is a perfect recipe for a lawsuit. However, I’m certain by the time this goes to trial they will have figured out a way to charge the public for the City Councils ignorance.

Councilwoman Ashby goes on to say “ . . . There is no free lunch.”. Did she really just say that? Does she not realize how much in taxes people pay to support our government infrastructure? Rather than cut costs cities and states continue to spend money. Why? It goes back to the budget and the “I gotta spend it” mentality along with police and fire unions.

The worst part about this is we will now have yet another contract with another vendor, Fire Recovery USA. Who are these people and why are we going to pay them 17% to handle billing? I’m thinking their friends with someone on the city council. They have to be with people on their team such as:

Greg Schmidt – Developer in and around Sacramento
Rick Benner – Former president of the Sacramento Kings
Kevin Trost - Retired captain for Sacramento Fire
Thorne Auchter – Former director of OSHA under Ronald Reagan

Auchter is the most controversial due to his colorful past. Including his role as CEO for Grace News Network, which landed a U.S. government contract to launch an Arabic language satellite TV news station for Muslim Iraq. You can read more about Auchter here.

Based on Fire Recovery USA’s website it looks like they will be using strong arm tactics. According to their site:

“. . . While there is nothing really different about the way we bill, we do have several interesting recovery techniques in our system. We also have exclusive methods that we've developed during our years of collection experience in other industries that convinces those responsible of their fiscal responsibilities.”

That's so Soprano's. Will those techniques include new ways for individuals to sue the city?

Based on the cast of characters working for Fire Recovery USA, I have to believe they have been the driving force behind this being presented to and approved by the City Council.

Having ranted on about this I just wanted to add that the majority of firemen and policemen go above and beyond in providing services to the community. This is a rant about the Saramento City Council and government in general and should not reflect poorly on those that serve our cities.

Original "Survivor" Richard Hatch in Sacramento this weekend

2011-01-12T21:52:15Z

Richard Hatch is one of the featured interviewees in the locally produced documentary "Death or Taxes: The Sad Truth About Our American Taxation System" that will be screened as part of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival's WinterFEST this weekend. Mr. Hatch will be attending the screening in support of the film and a question and answer session with the filmmakers will follow the screening.

About the film - from the producers:
With a run time of 78 minutes, Death or Taxes takes a hard look at the horrifying realities faced by the millions of taxpayers who owe back taxes, many of whom are forced to make life-changing decisions. Should they pay their rent or pay their back taxes? Put food on the table or pay the often exorbitant fines issued by IRS agents in the name of Uncle Sam? Death or Taxes tells the story of the good, honest people who get caught in IRS quicksand—some of whom are pushed beyond hope into the last decision they’ll ever make.

About Mr. Hatch:
Richard Hatch is best known for winning the first ever season of Survivor. Following his success on the reality television show and his $1,000,000 prize, Richard worked with attorneys and accountants to determine his tax obligations for the prize money. In spite of his best efforts, Richard was accused and convicted of tax evasion. Richard served 52 months in federal prison, 4 months spent in solitary confinement, without ever having been assessed a tax debt. Richard’s ongoing battle with the tax and legal systems continue today, as Richard works to clear his name, and come to a settlement with the IRS.

Death or Taxes screens at 1:30pm on Sunday, January 16th at the Crest Theatre.

The Sacramento Film & Music Festival WinterFEST is at the Crest Theatre from Saturday, January 15th - Monday, January 17th and the full schedule, with ticketing links and links to individual film pages can be found online at www.sacfilm.com/schedule.html

See also the overview Sacramento Press article about the Festival: LINK

Disclosure: Tony Shepppard is a Festival Co-Director.

Youth jobs tax derailed

2010-07-21T05:34:58Z

A proposed measure to tax Sacramento property owners to pay for youth job training was derailed Tuesday night.

Councilman Ray Tretheway removed the proposal from the City Council’s agenda, which means that it won’t be placed on the November ballot.

Tretheway told reporters after Tuesday’s meeting he removed the plan from the agenda because council members were not interested in advancing it to the ballot. The City Council faced a Tuesday night deadline to move the proposal onto the ballot in November.

“I think that the respect for the process trumped what I believe is a chronic problem of lack of resources and investment in our youth.”

Tretheway said he thought his colleagues were concerned there would be a lack of public process if the council voted Tuesday to place the plan onto the ballot. However, he said he did not know the views of all the council members.

Tretheway had received criticism from Mayor Kevin Johnson for placing the proposal on the council’s agenda. In a July 20 blog, Johnson pointed out issues with the signatures the measure’s backers had gathered.

The Sacramento County Registrar of Voters had not confirmed that the measure’s backers had delivered the mandatory number of authentic signatures, according to Bill Camp, the executive secretary of the Sacramento Central Labor Council and one of the measure’s key supporters.

In his blog, Johnson wrote: “Rather than continue the drive and prepare for the next election, supporters last week decided to have the City Council place the initiative directly on the ballot — without discussion, analysis or debate.”

Camp told reporters that the proposal’s supporters will campaign for the proposal to go on a 2012 ballot.

The youth programs envisioned in the proposal would be funded by a $29 annual tax on parcels of property.

Young people ages 11 to 25 would participate in the programs. Funding would be doled out in three ways. Youth jobs and job training would receive at least 40 percent of the dollars.

Programs for at-risk youth would receive at least 20 percent of the funding. At least 20 percent of the money would pay for programs to help students with their academic skills.

Photo by Brandon Darnell.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Council considers pot and business taxes

2010-06-23T05:36:53Z

The Sacramento City Council wants to start taxing pot dispensaries and possibly increase a business tax.

Expecting California voters to legalize recreational marijuana in November and facing continued financial problems, the council discussed putting a measure on the general election ballot to ask Sacramentans to enact a tax on pot dispensaries and to increase the city's business operations tax (BOT) so bigger companies could pay a more proportionate share.

At a public hearing Tuesday afternoon, several council members indicated they're leaning toward alternatives to a 5 percent, across-the-board pot tax after hearing from at least a dozen patients, operators and advocates for the industry.

Other city councilmen said they may not support a tax increase for other businesses after business leaders Matt Mahood with the Sacramento Metro Chamber and Patty Kleinknecht with the River District opposed an increase, at least until further discussion could take place.

Pot sales are already taxed by the state at 8.75 percent. Currently, only Oakland and Berkeley impose city taxes on the facilities.

Some operators said they're willing to be taxed by the city at a "reasonable" rate, identified by some as 1 to 1.5 percent. The proposed 5 percent tax would be the highest in the state. Others said a city tax would make it impossible for them to provide medical marijuana free to no- or low-income patients, as they currently do. Marijuana advocates and patients alike said medical use of pot shouldn't be taxed because other legal drugs are not taxed.

"I understand the city is in a difficult financial situation. But you want to balance the budget on the backs of patients," said Joy Cole, a Sacramento resident and medical marijuana patient in her fifth year of remission from lung cancer. She was laid off nine months ago. "My ability to earn is limited. Now you want to penalize me further."

The ballot measure, as proposed by city staff, would ask voters to approve phasing in a 5 percent tax on pot stores and increasing the business tax to .07 percent of annual gross receipts for most other businesses within three years. If approved as proposed, the measure could mean an additional $4.5 million in general fund revenues in the first year and $8.8 million each year by year three, according to city staff estimates.

The current BOT is .04 percent of annual gross receipts, but a $5,000 cap exists. So 283 businesses that take in $10 million to $72 million and 38 businesses that take in more than $72 million pay only $5,000 in business operations taxes to the city each year. The measure would propose raising the cap to $50,000 annually.

Businesses pulling in $100,000 in annual gross receipts currently pay $66 in taxes each year, but they'd pay another $27 annually. Businesses with $10 million in annual gross receipts would pay an extra $3,000.

The measure proposes that clean-tech businesses be exempt from the tax for three years. Three categories covering professional business owners such as attorneys and lobbyists as well as hotels have a different rate structure involving flat fees.

Both items were proposed by city staff to provide more revenue for the city for fiscal year 2011/2012, when Sacramento is expected to face a $25 million deficit, said Interim City Manager Gus Vina.

Several council members said they'd like to consider a lower tax — more in line with Oakland's 1.8 percent — and the possibility of categorizing medical and recreational pot as two different products.

"I wouldn't think we would want to be so far out there on the extreme with this," Councilman Kevin McCarty said.

"I, too, have a problem with a tax that is so high," said Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy.

Sacramento has 39 medical marijuana dispensaries. The city has a ban on any new shops opening up after the council moved earlier this month to extend a moratorium on new dispensaries for another year.

Councilman Steve Cohn proposed broadening the measure's wording to include pot cultivation and production. Several council members asked city staff to do more research and provide alternatives for the pot tax and the proposed increase in the business operations tax.

Medical marijuana dispensary advocates said they'd like to meet with city staff between now and July 13 to discuss alternatives to the current proposed tax.

Oakland attorney James Anthony, who drafted Oakland's medical cannabis tax, said that city's 1.8 percent tax has proven burdensome. Representing the Sacramento Alliance of Collectives, he said after the meeting that he will propose creation of "low-scale" cultivation and production facilities in Sacramento, which could then be taxed.

"The problem is we're competing with an underground market that has no overhead.... and that certainly doesn't pay sales tax," he said. "What's going to happen... if you pile on a 5 percent tax — it will drive all of that activity back underground."

Several city councilmen, including Mayor Kevin Johnson, indicated they might not vote for any tax increase for other businesses right now, due to the economy. Companies already pay the highest utility taxes in the region, Mahood said.

In a unanimous vote, the nine-member council directed the city attorney to prepare language for the ballot measure allowing the council to consider options when the measure is brought back for a vote July 13.

The budget proposed for fiscal year 2010/2011 is balanced yet "full of fragile decisions" that include department consolidations and layoffs, said Vina, who urged the council to plan for the future by approving the proposed "minimal" revenue increases. The new measure wouldn't take effect until next July.

"I believe it is a moderate increase and, quite frankly, it brings equity to the BOT," he said.

New $5 Wine Tax Proposal? Say it Ain't So!

2010-04-14T18:20:47Z

Life.

It's good, but it hasn't exactly been all rainbows and butterflies, what with the failing economy, record unemployment, escalating gas prices and health care 'reform'---oh, and lest I forget, Tax Day, which is mere hours away. Nevertheless, no matter how bleak the headlines read with my morning Fruit Loops, I rely on my nightly glass of 'vinous panacea' to ease the sting of the bureaucratic fingers digging deeper into my shallow pockets.

Until now, that is. Adding insult to my fiscal injury, a couple from Southern California have proposed an initiative which would levy a massive 12,675% tax increase on alcoholic beverages.

No, this is not a belated April Fool's joke.

Kent and Josephine Whitney of San Diego have penned The Alcohol Related Harm and Damage Services Act, or what I will heretofore refer to as TARHDS. Their initiative, which includes beer and spirits, as well as my fermented grapey goodness, proposes a tax increase that would add $5.07 per bottle of wine, about $6 per 6-pack of beer, and about (gulp) $17 per 750ml bottle of distilled spirits. They claim that funds raised from the tax would go to finance programs 'that address alcohol-related injuries and damages'.

Is it me, or does this have the familiar ring of the Lottery's 'Our schools win' mantra, which was uttered to death during it's successful campaign?

As we speak, the Whitneys are working to collect an additional half-million signatures to get their initiative on the November ballot. I, on the other hand, am attempting to collect every pen in the state of California to thwart their misguided intentions...

Although it is highly unlikely that a proposal of this ilk would pass muster with the good, wise and tipsy citizens of California (Assemblyman Jim Beall's attempts to pass a 5 cent alcohol tax has failed twice), it still shivers me timbers to think that there's a movement afoot to make my indulgence even more cost-prohibitive. Seven-Buck Chuck? Good grief, this could mean an end to cheap plonk as we know it!

Will TAHRDS collect the five-hundred thousand signatures needed to get this atrocity on the ballot? And if it does make it, would it have an Ice Wine's chance in hell of passing? I'd like to think that it's highly unlikely the mega-tax bill would ever survive in a state so heavily immersed in wine culture (as well as wine 'agri-culture', for that matter).

So, it's with high hopes that I raise my glass and toast to the dismal failure of this proposal---fellow Californians, feel free to join me.....Saluti!

Support for the legalization of cannabis grows

2009-11-01T06:04:02Z

Standing outside of a Sacramento medical cannabis dispensary, you might detect something in the air. No, it's not secondhand THC vapor — public medicating is prohibited in the county. What you sense is a shift in perspective. Public pressure is building for the legalization and regulation of one of the oldest cash crops in America: the plants of genus Cannabis.

The US federal government has held since 1970 that cannabis is a danger to public health and safety and listed the annual flowering herb under US code as having "high potential for abuse" and "no accepted medical potential."

"A lot of people are thinking that federal drug laws are arbitrary and now we're starting to see the translation of public sentiment into political will,” Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D - San Francisco) told The Sacramento Press.

In 1996, California voters passed a ballot initiative, Proposition 215, which allowed the possession, cultivation and use of cannabis for patients with a doctor's recommendation. Since then, voter majorities in Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have passed ballot initiatives to allow seriously ill Americans to use cannabis.

In 2003, after numerous rewrites, the California Legislature recognized and further protected medical marijuana uses with SB 420. State legislatures of Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, and New Mexico have passed bills that do mostly the same. SB 420 is unlike other bills in that it also allows for the formation of patient collectives — not-for-profit businesses that provide medical cannabis to qualified patients.

American Association for Medical Cannabis state director Ryan Landers had a hand in the shaping of 420. "Originally, 420 started out as 187, a bill that was more conservative and, I felt, would help less people. It was sent to the suspense file and I had this feeling it would be coming back, so I helped to rewrite it for greater patient coverage."

Before 420, several bills entered debate that would contravene Proposition 215. In 2000, two of these bills emerged. Former state Senator Maurice Johannessen authored SB 2089, a bill that would have limited the recommendation of cannabis and restricted patients to two indoor plants. It failed in the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, its first committee.

SB 848, authored by former state Senator John Vasconcellos, would have placed harsher regulations on medicinal cannabis and was refused passage in the Assembly.

"I testified to kill those bills to ensure that there would be no misunderstanding," Landers said. "I want to provide freedom for the most patients possible."

According to a 2004 survey by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), over 75,000 Californians have become cannabis patients under the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act (215) and the Medical Marijuana Program (420).

Physicians and medical professionals have been a vital source of support for the medical cannabis movement. Dr. Frank Lucido, a 30-year private practice doctor and respected medical cannabis spokesman, estimates that 1,500 doctors in California recommend cannabis to chronically ill patients. He said that significant stigma still surrounds the drug, however.

"There are two reasons doctors are hesitant to prescribe cannabis," he said. “First, a lot of doctors don't know the value of the drug because they simply weren't taught that in medical school. Second, many are afraid of the California Medical Board and federal law enforcement, even though they're protected by Supreme Court rulings."

Lucido believes that medical cannabis, despite its enduring taboo in the medical sector, has wide applicability.

"Every doctor knows they have about 20 slam-dunk patients that could benefit greatly from medical cannabis."

Full legalization is a completely different animal and Ammiano knows it. The state representative introduced AB 390 in March to a blaze of attention. Since then, the bill has failed to move through the legislature. However, Ammiano planned for AB 390 to be a two-year bill.

"The debate we're having is sustainable, it has legs," Ammiano said. "And it's way bigger than just me."

AB 390 is a bill of a rare breed: It is both a full decriminalization of cannabis for adults over the age of 21, and a plan to enforce systems of taxation to tap into the drug's booming commercial value.

This would work twofold by would generating tax receipts and reducing state expenses. The bill planned to institute a tax of $50 per ounce of dried marijuana sold by official retailers, who would pay no more than $2,500 for an annual sales license and $1,000 for a renewal. Further, the bill would free up state resources in law enforcement, no longer regarding cannabis users as a criminal priority.

"It's California's biggest cash crop and right now we're hemorrhaging money to prosecute and imprison minor drug offenders,” Ammiano said. “With the current budget crisis, this is looking like the perfect storm."

Cannabis activists largely support AB 390, though the seasoned Landers objects to some points.

"The bill started out ahead of itself," he said. "The profits and tax numbers it projects are based on the illegal price of cannabis. Once legalization gets through, supply will increase and prices will have to settle. A $50 tax on an ounce that costs $25, which is the final pre-tax price most people hope for, would be ridiculous."

The age limit in the bill -- that Ammiano modeled after alcohol regulations -- is also contentious.

"The age limit of 21 is entirely a concession," Landers said. "Putting cannabis into the same category of regulation as alcohol opens up a host of problems. Eighteen-year-olds could take the state to court and force them to explain why cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol, even though marijuana alone has never killed a soul."

Ammiano's bill has the support of San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey, although law enforcement has historically been extremely critical of legalization. "I think marijuana should be decriminalized," Hennessey told SFWeekly in February. "I'd like to give more thought to heroin and methamphetamines and that kind of stuff."

The California Police Chiefs Association disagrees, having issued a 2009 White Paper that rebuked even the medicinal use of cannabis. The white paper characterizes medical cannabis dispensaries as "multi-million dollar enterprises" which are "often used as a front for organized crime" where "many violent crimes have been committed," fostering "generally unhealthy conditions."

But actual instances of crime in and around dispensaries is fairly rare, according to Sacramento Police Department spokesman Norm Leong. "Service calls are generally uncommon, he said. “And when we do get calls, it's the dispensary owners that call it in."

Ammiano sees a gradual change of mind regarding cannabis in law enforcement.

"There's certainly a mindset there, but there are cracks in that as well. It's not as monolithic as it used to be."

He also cited the late conservative economist Milton Friedman, who supported cannabis legalization and taxation toward the end of his life.

Outside of Ammiano’s efforts, activist groups are taking other routes. Two voter initiatives are circulating through California, both of which propose to legalize, regulate and tax cannabis.

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, introduced by Oaksterdam University, would enact largely the same legalization measures as Ammiano's bill. This would allow the pro-cannabis supporters to get legalization directly onto the ballot and circumvent any lack of political support.

"The cannabis regulating system we currently have in place has failed," said Salwa Ibrahim, spokesperson for the initiative. "We want to empower the state to benefit from something that's already existing."

Ibrahim cited other benefits that are frequently discussed in the cannabis debate. "We don't think consumption or crime would increase at all. Similar to prohibition in the '20s, the black markets [that] illegality has created would disappear."

Regardless of the outcome of any of these movements, it seems clear that the public dialogue on legal cannabis has taken a step forward.

"390 has done an amazing thing, and that's this: It ignited the conversation," Landers said.

With or without the blessing of the law, humans worldwide are planting the cannabis seed. The renewed question on everyone's mind is what to do with the harvest.

This story was written by former Sacramento Press intern Cheyenne Cary.

Medical marijuana activist Ryan Landers speaks

2009-11-01T06:01:56Z

Medical cannabis in California wouldn't be what it is today if it wasn't for Ryan Landers. The Sacramento activist helped to develop the laws, policies and realities of medical marijuana in a career of activism that spans more than a decade. He was there to help roll Proposition 215 into motion in 1996 and had a significant hand in crafting SB 420 in 2003.

"I live the cause," he said. "When I'm not out testifying or counseling or negotiating for the cause, I'm just home and sick."

He's a 15-year survivor of HIV/AIDS, a personal fact that he doesn't usually publicize partly due to prior experience.

Landers, now 37, became a member of Californians for Compassionate Use in 1995. CCU is the group behind the successful Prop. 215 ballot initiative that won state medical legalization.

"When we got started, the public perception was really different," Landers said. "As we were collecting signatures, people were shocked. 'What do you mean you want to change drug laws?'"

As a volunteer, Landers ran information tables and collected signatures at California colleges, the Capitol, bookstores and food co-ops. “The press was giving us coverage every night, and I started appearing on TV,” Landers said.

Prop. 215 landed on the 1996 ballot and swept through into law on a 55.6% margin.

Landers is no stranger to news cameras and microphones. His media skills made public figures of his friends Steve Connell and Jacqueline Mahone, who testified beside him for years. He has also worked extensively with activists like East Bay resident Dr. Frank Lucido and Sacramento attorney Joseph Farina, to whom Landers says he probably owes his life.

Getting a tattoo at 16 changed his life forever. He was diagnosed HIV positive in 1995.

He started medicating to help deal with the nausea and pain that the HIV virus and medication brought with it. Cannabis helps relieve his neuropathic pain and allows him to eat and keep food down once a day, even though he hasn't been hungry in 15 years.

Landers' activism reads like a history of medical pot. He testified in the California State Legislature against SB 535 (1997), SB 847 (1999), SB 848 (1999), and SB 187 (2001). He helped to author a revised version of SB 187, which went on to become the successful SB 420.

In appearance, Landers is not what you'd expect when you think of a cannabis activist. He keeps his hair cropped and short, reminiscent of his service with the Navy during the first Gulf War, and stays snappily dressed in three-piece suits on a normal day of business. He looks nothing like Tommy Chong.

The medical cannabis cause wound up making Landers a parent. As he was working with teens at risk of expulsion for cannabis use, he took two kids under his wing and eventually officially adopted them. David, 23, and Nate, 24, both graduated with their senior classes. More recently, they made him a grandfather at 37.

"In the end, that's why I could never walk away, when I thought about how many lives in the community could stand to benefit from this," Landers said. "If what I was doing was dangerous, or if it were wrong, I wouldn't be doing it."

(This story was written by former Sacramento Press intern Cheyenne Cary.)