Given a choice of things to tax, a progressive would avoid taxing essentials, on the grounds that people with the lowest income spend most of their income on essentials. Given the taxation choices available at the municipal level in California,* a progressive would pick a sales tax (which exempts all services, including essentials like water, sewer, and garbage collection -- as well as essential goods like food and prescription drugs, so there isn't much "regressiveness" slipped in elsewhere). A progressive would not pick a utility tax, which by its very nature taxes essential services.

And yes, Measure X has everything to do with water rates. This measure taxes water. Because the City is raising its water rates so drastically, the "take" from Measure X will also increase drastically.

A progressive should be concerned about City government spending practices that call for laying off (junior/politically less important) employees to give (senior/politically more important) employees raises. The progressive would favor modest gains for all of the employees. Could a progressive justify giving raises and full-pension-at-50 to police, and cutting hours at Louden Nelson to pay for these things?

Re: parrotting conservative ideas, I haven't talked with any conservatives about Measure X. To whom would I talk? There is no organized opposition to X. The ideas presented here are my own. They are backed up and referenced.

* About municipal taxation choices: Some other states, like Pennsylvania, allow cities to levy income taxes (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh do it). A sales tax is already much less regressive than a utility tax, but an income tax is even better. Unfortunately, California does not allow cities to have income taxes.

NO ON X