Sunday, September 3, 2017

California Supreme Court: Local tax hikes proposed via initiative are different from those by elected officials

Mod: Interesting article from the Los Angeles Times detailing the latest breach in the Prop 13 tax control wall.

California Supreme Court: Local tax hikes proposed via initiative are different from those by elected officials (Los Angeles Times link): California’s highest court weighed in Monday on how voters raise revenue for local governments, deciding that tax increases proposed by city and county elected officials should be treated differently than those put on the ballot through citizen initiatives.

No consensus has emerged over how far-reaching the ruling might be, but some said the decision could make passage easier for local tax increases to finance school, road, transit or other specific repairs or expansions.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) cheered the decision as undoing state tax restrictions that have tied the hands of local governments.

“It’s hard to overstate how important this ruling is,” Wiener said in a statement. “Communities will now have a much easier time funding schools, transportation and other critical needs.”

But Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., warned of a spate of tax increases on their way to city and county ballots.

“I don’t think there’s any way we can sugarcoat this,” Coupal said. “This is a significant decision that will lead to unbridled collusion between local governments and special interest groups.”

At issue is nearly four decades of California tax policy that began after Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 initiative that said local governments couldn’t increase taxes for specific purposes, such as road or school repairs, without the approval of two-thirds of local voters. California voters strengthened those rules to also apply to assessments and other fees in 1996 through Proposition 218.

Monday’s decision, however, drew a clear line between measures put on the ballot by local elected officials and those sponsored by citizen initiatives.

“Multiple provisions of the state Constitution explicitly constrain the power of local governments to raise taxes,” Justice Mariano-Florentino CuĂ©llar wrote in a 5-2 majority opinion. “But we will not lightly apply such restrictions on local governments to voter initiatives, ‘one of the most precious rights of our democratic process.’”

By that logic, under an initiative, which is placed on the ballot via outside groups through the signature-collection process, the two-thirds threshold may no longer apply, and a tax increase for a specific purpose could possibly pass with a simple-majority vote.

Coupal said his organization plans to urge state lawmakers to place a constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot to ensure that the higher standard remains in place in all cases.

Mod: The rest of the article can be accessed by clicking on the link posted above.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

32 comments:

  1. Now it appears California will be hit with more TAXES being generated by local politicians to cover up their thievery and ineptness while in office to further cover up their crimes. Long live the King?? Fees and taxes are all the same and in some cases worse!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You mean some private citizen could actually pass around a petition to RAISE taxes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you mean city council member's as being private citizens YES~!!!!!!!! These people know no boundaries with their insane actions to save their backsides.

      Delete
  3. I'm afraid there are many right here in Sierra Madre willing to raise taxes!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeps. Can't you just see the usual stooges going door to door on behalf of the Sierra Madre Police Association? 15% UUT for CalPERS and cop raises.

      Delete
  4. Senator Wiener is such a wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Emergency cost cutting measures must be set in motion ASAP or taxes will creep in and surround the good citizen's of Sierra Madre, California. Never trust a local politician farther than you can toss them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Taxation through representation on a local level how unamerican.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because they were elected doesn't mean they're representing the interests of the voters.

      Delete
    2. I don't recall Prop 13 being passed by elected representatives.

      Delete
  7. I don't recall voting inorder to support a town for the poor planning in the business district, which is suppose to bring in enough taxes to operate City Hall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are lots of cities in the area that have fine downtown shopping districts. Most of which look exactly the same. Go move to one of those.

      Delete
    2. 12:57 - take the bus.

      Delete
  8. Left Coast California run by Pregressive Politicians is being pushed into a have and have not society.
    If you work for the state or any form of government, you have a golden parachute.
    If you work and choose to live in California, the jokes on you.
    The land of fruit and nuts is also the land of, show me your money and I could care less about you politicians, along with give me all your money till your broke welfare recipient's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that was immature.

      Delete
    2. He's right though

      Delete
  9. This Socialist agenda has failed everywhere it is applied. I fled Europe to escape it. It just does not work. Yes it may sound nice but it is naive and it eventually runs out of other people's money to fund the largess.
    Just ask an ex-Swede what happened to his/her country. They will tell you Socialism ruined it.Ask an E.European and they did not know a decent society nor a successful economy in generations after WW2.
    It doesn;t matter how they dress it up. It is a power grab and it fails us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder what brought that on ..

      Delete
    2. ...still unemployed.

      Delete
    3. Girl, you cray!

      Of all the many nations on earth, Sweden is ranked as #3 in quality of life.

      U picked the wrong example, foo!

      Delete
    4. Sweden WAS ranked that high.Ask a Swede now what happened. Ask a Brit what happened to their NHS(obamacare). I have done so.Unlike you.
      Socialism sounds 'nice' but it always fails.Particularly those it purports to help.

      Delete
    5. Sweden now circling the drain thanks to wrongheaded thinking

      Delete
    6. Trolls hate the truthSeptember 4, 2017 at 8:48 AM

      Sweden’s economy is resilient and growing strongly, but must address rising challenges
      http://www.oecd.org/economy/sweden-s-economy-is-resilient-and-growing-strongly-but-must-address-rising-challenges.htm

      Delete
  10. 1:10pm. Better idea. You, pay my share of high city taxes for this town that looks like every else as you say; why should I move? You can support me. Besides iam a prop 13 senior, I have seniority over your length of stay in this town that your generation has messed up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You weren't here when everything got messed up?

      Delete
    2. Old timers are the ones that blew it

      Delete
  11. Immature, is when you don't have a response for the failures that you have voted into office in California.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. U just crying to yourself at this point

      Delete
    2. Think a lot of people are disgusted, 8:22. If you had half of a mind you would be, too.

      Delete
  12. I am 75 years old, lived in SM since 1973, and I voted against Prop 13! Sure I now benefit as far as my property taxes are concerned but I voted against Prop 13 as I knew it would reduce programs for schools, parks and recreation, other public programs that I supported. Generalizations are fairly useless in these discussions. It is never that simple. I do know that home ownership is a struggle for young people but buying our home in Sierra Madre was a financial stuggle for us even then. You can just stop the blame game and figure out who is the real culprit in all this. It is not the middle class homeowner/wage earner from the age bracket you distain.

    ReplyDelete