It ranked as one of the most dismissive tone-deaf arguments I had ever read to “shame” people into voting for a tax measure.

It occurred during the 2014 election cycle when the $159 million Measure G bond was placed on the ballot by the Manteca Unified School District Board.

It was a letter penned by a supporter of the bond measure.

They argued the average monthly cost of the bond measure would be roughly the cost of sacrificing one latte a month from Starbucks.

Given it was such a small sacrifice, how could anyone justify voting against the bond?

Several of my neighbors that read that were irked.

Among them was an elderly lady who owned her home free and clear and was getting by on just a Social Security check.

She also was helping raise a young grandson.

The letter hit the paper the day before a large postcard came in the mail.

The postcard was from the committee favoring the bond.

It was a bit different than previous postcards they had sent and a major departure from straight-up information the school district was allowed to provide under state law.

California law restricts agencies that place tax and bond measures to providing educational details of their proposals and not advocate for passage.

Such restrictions do not qualify for independent committees whether they are for or against.

That latest postcard from an independent committee stated the fire alarm system at East Union High was routinely failing.

To be clear, there were serious issues with the fire alarm system.

That was pointed out by no less than three East Union High teachers concerned that people were being misled. But the system wasn’t, as implied, for all-practical purposes inoperable.

Here’s where the rubber hit the road.

My neighbor, who was barely getting by and could barely afford a quart of milk let alone a Starbucks latte, voted for the bond measure.

I voted against it.

In fact, it was the first time I’d ever voted against a local school bond measure.

My reason?

The school administration, at the time, declined to distance itself from the embellished misinformation implying it wasn’t their problem.

I disagreed. They doubled down.

Fast forward to today.

The biggest issue on the Manteca ballot is Measure Q.

It’s the temporary three-quarter of a cent sales that will expire after 20 years if it is passed.

The argument the city has another way to raise $13 million on an annual basis over 20 years is absurd.

One suggestion was to bring back developer fees. The only way to replace funding that way is to try to find a legal way to charge each developer, say $20 million paid in $1 million annual installments, for the privilege of building here.

That isn’t going to happen if for no other reason it is illegal as it is virtually a pay-to-play scheme.

Slashing city department head salaries by 20 percent wouldn’t make much of a financial bump but it would grease the revolving door.

Yes, some positions pay $200,000 while an average resident may earn $80,000. But guess what? When those positions paid $100,000, the average resident was making $40,000.

It’s called inflation.

No one likes paying taxes.

But it is the cost we pay for roads, police and fire protection, parks, libraries, and such on a local level.

And of all the taxes, a sales tax is the most equitable.

It is not a tax on shelter such as a property or parcel tax.

Instead, it is on the taxable products one consumes.

It doesn’t tax unprocessed food in a grocery store or medicine.

The more you spend on items that are taxable, the more you pay.

Proponents have refrained from saying “its only pennies a day.’

Such an argument is almost as tone deaf as the latte line.

But to say you are against the sales tax because your poorer neighbors can’t afford it reflects a major disconnect with reality.

The poor, perhaps more than anyone else, rely on government services.

But the truth is we all rely on government services.

The question should be framed as to what level of government services do we want to afford Manteca being the community one expects it to be.

There really isn’t a right answer.

However, it is wrong to demand more on the belief you can get more without paying more.

Thanks to politicians across the political spectrum that have fanned the fantasy to get elected to obtain or retain power, we collectively believe we can get more and even pay less at the same time.

There is colossal waste primarily in the form of expensive red tape and regulations created by bureaucracy. That is especially true of federal and state government that is farther away and much harder for rank and file voters to influence,

Cities are where people live.

As such they provide the day-in and day-out services most depend on daily.

It is why the question needs to be framed in terms of what type of a city do we want and can we afford it?

If we decide we want more than what has been the standard for the last 20 or so years, then we have to pay for it.

There is no magical source of money that can cover the larger bill that provides better roads and stepped up services. It’s funded by taxes of some sort.

That said, there is nothing wrong with voting no.

What is wrong is voting no and then demanding you want more.

A city is the sum total of the people who reside in it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I voted no in 2014 on the school board as it was clear to me those in charge had no problem exaggerating to get it passed.

If you truly believe the need is being exaggerated, by all means send the message.

But my elderly neighbor who voted for the bond that I declined to support, saw the world differently,

The people who would get hurt if the bond failed — once you stripped away any hyperbole and saw there clearly was an overwhelming need — were those in the community.

Does Manteca need better streets, dependable fire engines, more police and firefighters, plus the leverage for growth fees to secure other amenities or is Manteca OK?

Strip away the posturing on both sides, and that is the real question Measure Q answers.

And there are two right answers — yes and no.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com