Mercury News – Dec. 4, 2020

With property tax season upon us once again, it is worth noting that many Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Cruz) willingly disclose each monetary line item on the annual property tax statements, while Santa Clara County continues to omit data, thus perpetuating the annual charade to the detriment of taxpayers.

My criticism of this policy dates back several years. The Mercury News printed both my letter to the editor in 2018 and my op-ed on the topic back in 2019. Yet, even though Santa Clara County has been called out publicly, there has been no constructive change in policy or practice, leaving property owners scratching their heads.

Why has this lack of transparency been perpetuated? Is it because county forms lack the space for the omitted data on the annual paper tax statement? No, the field is actually there already, but it is simply left blank. Is it because the county does not have the information? No, they certainly know how much you owe and will put a lien on your property if you do not pay.

This exclusion is similar to a grocery shopping receipt with a total at the bottom yet omits itemized pricing for numerous items. Instead you would be expected to do the math by multiplying the number of ounces by unit price to get the actual line item amount. We would not tolerate this from business, so why should we tolerate this from the county government? The answer, of course, is because we let them.

Many otherwise intelligent, engaged citizens have no idea what county government does in terms of its responsibilities prior to COVID. Often residents share concerns with their city councilmember on issues such as homelessness, the severely mentally ill and substance abuse, when in reality the county is the only local government entity responsible for social welfare, not the city. The county is also the entity we rely on for precise records such as deeds, trusts and voter registration. We would not tolerate ambiguity in official government records, yet our county continues omitting pertinent and very relevant information from the property tax statement.

This absence of corrective action year after year by the county has led me to believe that the lack of transparency is not merely a casual omission but rather a deliberate way, by design, to keep taxpayers in the dark. Local bond measures are equivalent to additional property taxes, and despite the distinct nomenclature, they are one in the same. The county apparently wants to do all that it can to assist other government entities in getting their proposed bond measures approved.

Due to the county’s opacity, homeowners may be unaware of how much they are paying each year for existing bonds. If duly informed, homeowners may vote against additional bonds that utilize deceptive language, intended to downplay the real cost to property owners. New tax proposals may have merit, but this is something individual taxpayers should decide for themselves, and government entities owe it to voters to be as transparent as possible about exactly how much/how/when/where revenues will be spent.

Fixing this omission is simple and should be rectified now for next year’s mailing. The county tax collector in charge of this is not an elected position but instead reports to the county Board of Supervisors, who in turn should promptly direct this official to simply fill in the blanks. Transparency in tax policy should be the rule, not the exception, and would benefit taxpayers much more than the obfuscation to which we’ve grown accustomed.

Pierluigi Oliverio is a member of the San Jose Planning Commission and a former City Councilman.