The Ventura County Assessor Race

Friends and fellow bridge players:

Are you content with our national, political dialog? Do you believe our system is fair to all and that our democratic traditions are safe?

We are now looking down the barrel of our political system, as it exists today; and we’re being asked to vote on it.

Religion in this country is a $100 Billion business. (Religion is the business of spirituality.) Churches and such control about a Trillion dollars in property. By federal law, this enterprise is largely untaxed, both the revenue and the property. You and I pay for this short-fall in tax revenue either with OUR taxes, or by having it tacked onto government debt.

County governments levy property taxes and monitor exemptions. Assessors in the counties are charged with 1) overseeing the payment of taxes and 2) assessing property values. To some extent they have the prerogative to oversee tax laws; and as such, by offering extended exemption they can INCREASE the value of untaxed property, simply by ignoring tax laws.

We are being asked by our esteemed officials to consider two candidates for Ventura County Assessor: 1) the incumbent, Dan Goodwin, and 2) the challenger, John Griffin. In recent mailings our officials presented a fair assessment of the issue from the standpoint of how our bridge venues MAY be affected, and from the standpoint that we MAY have to pay slightly more to play bridge.

So how does this fit into our national dialog?

John Griffin, challenger and “Central Committee” member of the Ventura County Democratic Party, has launched a campaign to unseat the incumbent. His premise is that the incumbent assessor is endeavoring to “…set tax policy in Ventura County, by himself…” 

[Griffin%20soliciataion-01.ZIP (2758.2 KB)]  

County statutes demand that for a TOTAL exemption, a qualifying property must be used exclusively for the stipulated purpose. But since the statutes allow for “proportional” assessment based upon the extent to which non-qualifying activities are engaged, this accusation IMPLIES that Mr. Goodwin is threatening to retract the entire exemption. Furthermore, Mr. Griffin is deploying the “tax card,” which is designed to make us see red. 

His accusation is untrue. It is the prerogative of the Board of Supervisors, not the assessor, to make tax laws. In fact, Mr Goodwin is ENFORCING county tax laws, not “setting” or undermining them. 

Do you tire, my friends, of looking at ballots with confusing, ambiguous propositions? Are you irritated by claims and contradictory counter-claims that you know are false or misleading at best? Are you fed up to here with being manipulated by lying politicians?! Mr. Griffin, the challenger, has used coded words, misleading claims and inflammatory language designed to appeal to our emotions, rather than a rational description of the situation and what he intends to do about it. 

What he proposes, in coded language, is to turn around the incumbent's efforts by ignoring tax codes on behalf of those interests that pay into his campaign. This is classic ”political patronage for sale.” For us, about 250 active bridge players in the county, he offers a few dollars a week of  “tax relief.” So Mr. Griffin is proposing to do precisely what he has falsely accused the incumbent of doing.  

What about his similar claims regarding museums and affordable housing providers?

Under the rules for welfare exemptions, affordable housing projects must spend what they save on property tax to "maintain the affordability of, or reduce rents otherwise necessary for the units occupied by lower income households.”

The truth, unmentioned by Mr. Griffin: of the eighteen groups in the county engaged in this enterprise, only four contractors are under scrutiny. They are reaping annual profits of nearly $250,000 by using PILOT contributions instead of the required procedures. Under the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) program, they make the payment to a municipality, which then returns “certain favors.” Presumably by paying into Mr. Griffin’s campaign, these contractors will also be able to preserve their illegal savings.

So, my friends, we have the opportunity, by voting against this kind of politics to say that we place greater value on the integrity of government than upon the small price that our microscopic group will have to pay to play bridge. And, by the way, in a May 3 editorial, the Ventura Star has endorsed  Dan Goodwin, the incumbent, for re-election. 

I apologize for bringing politics to your bridge table. And I appreciate your time and consideration. Maybe by spotlighting this matter we can prevent this kind of thing from coming our way again. Now, whose bid is it?

Sincerely, Mark Robbins