Measure M

The four writers of arguments in opposition to Measure M issued the following statement:

“Once the final votes are tallied for Measure M, we will be weighing whether or not to pursue litigation that challenges this measure on several issues including violations of government code prohibiting the use of government resources for the passage of a ballot measure.

“We believe that the city used tax dollars to advocate for the passage of Measure M. Moreover, the mayor and several city council members used their personal emails to purposely mislead voters by stating Measure M is not a tax, when it is.

“They also told voters the transfers would be taken from surplus funds, when the ballot measure states it will take transfers from gross revenues.

“We have reason to believe that the office of city attorney instructed the mayor and city council members to stop sending communications that were misleading, however, they ignored those instructions and continued to do so.

“Additionally, some voters have complained that they did not receive the official ballot analysis on Measure M at all or in a timely manner.

“Finally, Measure M violates Propositions 218 and Proposition 26 in as much as the transfers would be paid for by increasing utility rates. Such increases are specifically prohibited if the rates of the utility exceeds the actual cost required to provide the utility.”

The four writers include: Gerrie Schipske, former councilwoman and taxpayer advocate; Diana Lejins, taxpayer advocate; Tom Stout, taxpayer advocate and Joe Weinstein, taxpayer advocate.

Despite the city and several interest groups spending close to $1 million to pass Measure M, the four opponents spent less than $2,000 to advocate for the defeat of the Measure.