Tax revenue and blowing smoke

Take a deep breath before you read any further but don’t inhale — yet.

Last year Colorado generated $996.2 million in legal sales of medical and recreational marijuana resulting in $135 million in taxes and fees going to the state.

In 2015 the state of Washington collected between $65 million and $70 million in tax revenue from the sale of recreational marijuana. By 2020 the state expects to generate about $1 billion in tax revenue related to the legal sale of marijuana.

While you may not be able to run an entire state on the income generated from those taxes alone, the tens of millions of dollars earmarked for schools certainly goes a long way.

That’s something voters in California will have to consider when and if there is an initiative to legalize the sale of pot for recreational use.

I thought of this while listening to Chula Vista Mayor Mary Casillas Salas make her case for putting a local sales tax increase on the November ballot.

The city’s infrastructure needs mending and there is not enough money to make all the needed repairs, the mayor said in explaining why she was in favor of asking voters to chip in with an extra half cent each time they made a purchase in the city. Furthermore, the state isn’t doing much to help municipalities make ends meet.

In that they are constantly  crying poverty, why legislators  would not consider exploring ways of generating revenue —aside from squeezing already struggling working class shoppers for an extra half cent — perplexes me.

I don’t think I’ve ever given this or previous councils much credit for imagination. After all, they are the ones who like to build their way out of fiscal tight spots by generating more residential structures than commercial zones. And given the way they tightened their choking grip on the medical marijuana dispensaries in this town I am inclined to give them even fewer points for bold thinking outside the box.

So it would not be surprising  if ever California legalized the sale of recreational marijuana the city banned those businesses from operating here. Nor would it be surprising if the council or a majority of its members took a stand opposing legalization.

It seems the pattern for this city is to talk about bringing in new businesses and pointing to the eventual development of the bayfront as a means of generating significant tax revenue.But the movement toward those goals is slow and in the meantime they fall back on asking people to pay more out of their pocket for the services needed by a population that is growing because of the cheap and plentiful housing encouraged by city leaders. Watching that silly repetitive cycle is enough to make you want to inhale.