RICHMOND — Just weeks after Richmond city councilors agreed to place a refinery tax measure on the November ballot, a newly formed nonprofit called Coalition for Richmond's Future has challenged the measure in court, arguing that its language was misleading and biased in favor of approval.
Council members voted unanimously at a June 18 meeting to place a refinery tax measure, dubbed the “Poluters Pay Initiative” by activist groups, on the November ballot. If Richmond voters approve it by a straightforward majority, the measure would raise an estimated $60 million to $90 million a yr in taxes, depending on what number of barrels of raw material come to the Richmond plant for processing.
But a lawsuit filed June 28 in Contra Costa Superior Court argues that the language of the initiative as approved by the City Council is “false, misleading and biased.” It is in regards to the language of what the tax revenue can be used for. The ballot says the cash ought to be used to fund city services resembling “clean air and water treatment, streets, parks, fire and emergency response, toxic soil cleanup and improving community health and youth services, as well as for general governmental purposes.”
However, since it is a general tax, if approved, the funds would go into the final fund and be used on the discretion of the City Council, the lawsuit says. Much of the final fund is used for worker wages, advantages and pensions, the lawsuit says.
The petitioners ask the court to ban the town or any election authority from using the present wording of the measure on ballots or sample ballots and to declare the usage of public funds to develop, print, or distribute the wording of the measure a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The motion was filed by Hilary Gibson, an election law attorney with the Nielsen Merksamer law firm, on behalf of the Coalition for Richmond's Future, and Daniela Dickey, a Richmond voter and Chevron worker. Attorneys from the firm were also listed in documents forming the brand new coalition on the identical day the lawsuit was filed, based on state records.
Nielsen Merksamer was also the law firm that worked with the California Independent Petroleum Association in a push to repeal Senate Bill 1137a 2022 law that might prohibit the development of latest oil and gas wells inside 3,200 feet of sensitive areas resembling homes, schools and hospitals. Implementation of SB 1137 was placed on hold after CIPA successfully collected enough signatures to place a referendum on the law on the Nov. 5 ballot. But the group recently withdrew the measureand as a substitute opted to take legal motion to dam the law.
A Chevron spokesman said in an email, including a duplicate of the lawsuit, that “special interests pressured the Richmond City Council to put the measure on the ballot.”
“If a fair and impartial ballot question is asked, as the law requires, we believe Richmond voters will strongly reject this measure and the negative impact it would have on their cost of living,” said spokesman Ross Allen. “It is imperative that the language that Richmond City Council has unlawfully proposed be corrected so that voters are not misled by false promises.”
On Tuesday, Guerin reiterated that stance, declaring that the language was lifted from similar bills which were put before voters across the state. The proposed measure, she argued, was a “much-needed general tax” that might force Chevron to pay its justifiable share of city services, claiming the oil company underpays its taxes by thousands and thousands of dollars.
“The oil companies have never acted in the best interests of Richmond residents. Chevron is using this legal ploy to deprive Richmond voters of the ability to decide for themselves what is right for them,” Guerin said. “We believe in the legitimacy and legality of our action to pay the polluters. We know that the big polluters will continue to act without regard for the health of their neighbors until they are held accountable.”
The offices of the town manager, city attorney and mayor didn’t reply to requests for comment. The lawsuit names Richmond's city clerk and Contra Costa's election official as defendants.
image credit : www.mercurynews.com