I agree that the city has squandered any benefit of the doubt that they once enjoyed, when voters approved various general-fund revenue measures in the past. There is little reason to trust that Council will allocate money to the "usual hostages": police, fire and parks. Instead, there is every indication from history that additional money will be spent to reward cronies and further the progressive agenda.
The CVC wants what any agency wants: a stable, dedicated revenue stream, which the people of the CVC feel that the Council has failed to provide. Whether or not the CVC deserves its own dedicated revenue stream is another question, for another day. Their proposal to get what they want does NOT, however, interfere with the city's ability to dispose of its own tax revenues, especially the general fund. Rather, it involves the creation of a new and separate revenue stream that DOESN'T "belong" to the city, and which the latter cannot diminish. Seen from one direction, the CVC proposes to go into competition with the City for dollars, but let's not forget that the City does not OWN all of those dollars in the first place -- it has no claim of either ownership or morality on them.
Speaking of morality, when the authors of this piece say that they are confident that 51% of Santa Cruz voters would agree to raise the TOT, all they area saying is that they are confident that local citizens will assume of the role of bullies, to gang up on tourists and visitors and shake them down. It seems only fair that tourists and visitors should pay "their share" to replenish infrastructure they consume and support services from which they, themselves benefit. But who is to say what is their "fair share"? Would it be covered by a 10% TOT? 12%? 14%? The only justification given in the article for picking any specific, higher number is that "other cities are doing it." I would like to see an actual study that estimates tourist and visitor impact on infrastructure, so that we could set the TOT amount more fairly and rationally than by tossing a dart at a board. The argument that "other cities are doing it" is the same argument that led us to the compensation/benefits/pension debacle that is laying city after city low. Mothers of toddlers do not accept the "all the other kids are doing it" argument. They respond, "if all the other kids jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" Unfortunately, Santa Cruz appears to be taking that leap with too many other "me, too" cities in California. Voters need to provide adult supervision. The City has shown exceedingly poor judgment in the past, and so needs to be restrained from its own excesses. Voters need to ensure this, in part, by putting new council members in place, who will act with reason and common sense. Voters also need to refuse to endorse the robbing of Tourist Peter to pay Local Pol.