The Times won't like how we sign our letters

Cool and patchy cloudy Tuesday in Tazerville! A couple letters to the editor in the Times caught our eye, and we figured we'd offer our thoughts...

Though we don't have anything like the readership of the Times, we nonetheless grant space on this humble blog for balance, so if any of these letter writers would like to respond to our response, please feel free.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept. 25, 2006

Utility tax cap allows Chevron to pay too little

Joshua Genser, a member of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, misleads the readers of his Sept. 19 letter, "Taxpayers will lose," when he states Chevron has paid "the maximum required of any taxpayer" for the utility users tax.

The "cap" perk was created for Chevron more than 20 years ago. Chevron has always used this perk, and the city always accommodated.

However, contrary to Genser's statement, the amount paid each year by Chevron is really the "minimum amount required" under the cap-perk option of the UUT ordinance, as well as the "only amount required" under that ordinance.

If the cap is removed from the ordinance, or if the city chooses not to enter into the yearly agreement with Chevron to allow the use of the cap, or if Chevron chooses not to pay with the cap-perk method, as it has done at the beginning of the current electoral cycle, there is no maximum. The amount depends on usage.

Chevron, however, would not let anyone know about its usage. Chevron provided a lower payment than under the cap and sent its fear-mongering allies to scare the voters against change.

Chevron pollutes our democracy.

Juan Reardon
Richmond

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Chevron pollutes our democracy." Sigh. Many eyes rolled to that one...because it makes us think of bad bumper stickers and protest drumming on 5 gallon buckets...

Gotta love the utopian "what-ifs" from the "progressives" in their quest to either drive Chevron out of business (because business, especially big biz, is evil) or try to squeeze as much money out of Chevron as they can (because money is evil and only made right through confiscation).

But that was yesterday, and there's another letter today...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept. 26, 2006

Response to letter

A Sept. 19 letter from Josh Genser accused Gayle McLaughlin and me of rudeness toward Chevron and acting unwisely in insisting on transparency in Chevron's utility user tax calculations.

He seems to even gloat that McLaughlin and I are somehow responsible for Chevron changing the method by which it calculates its tax liability, which is trending nearly $5 million less than the city anticipated. Genser even goes so far as to conclude that this somehow makes McLaughlin unfit to serve as mayor.

In 1984, Richmond adopted the UUT and gave Chevron two ways to pay because otherwise Chevron would have vetoed it. Although Chevron has paid, using the maximum tax payable method (the "cap") for many years, Chevron made the decision to switch to the 10 percent method this year. The decision was solely Chevron's.

What Chevron has not done is to provide the city with the basis for its tax calculations. It's as if you sent the IRS a check for $100 and didn't bother to send your income tax return. But Genser would have us simply trust Chevron.

The IRS wouldn't let you get away with that, and Chevron shouldn't be able to either.

Councilman Tom Butt
Richmond

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We love you, Tom. Honestly, we do. We just think you and Gayle and any other council member who wants to ride Chevron need to exercise caution.

You're right when you say that the IRS wouldn't let you just pick your taxes, but then the City of Richmond let Chevron basically pick theirs. Now that the City of Richmond is dissatisfied with the results (and need $$$), the hands of the Council are out.

Well, residents and most businesses are already being pinched, and doing much more pillaging on them would be even more unpopular. Where to go? Chevron, of course. They're the "haves," so it's only right to take "have" dough for the "have-nots." Like the mis-managers of the City Council. Right is right, of course, but if Chevron is paying what was agreed upon, whose fault is that?

And the moral of this story, Tazer Faithful, is to be careful what you wish for. The Tazer believes that the City of Richmond would be greatly vexed by Chevron having the ability to prove that it owes far less than the City Council "anticipates."