When California voters handed Proposition 13, the state’s iconic property tax restrict, in 1978, it was merely the opening salvo of a decades-long political conflict over curbing the flexibility of state and native governments to impose taxes.
The newest of many battles over tax limits occurred simply two years in the past, when voters rejected an effort to switch Proposition 13 by making it simpler to lift taxes on industrial property.
As officers normal new methods to lift revenues with out violating Proposition’s 13’s strictures, anti-tax teams countered with new poll measures to ban or restrict them and had been largely profitable.
One of many extra essential post-Proposition 13 clashes was over Proposition 218 in 1996, which sought to restrict the flexibility of native governments to levy non-property taxes with out voter approval and restrict charges to the precise value of companies, fairly than present normal income. Its limits on charges had been later tightened up by Proposition 26 in 2010.
One Proposition 218 part required that taxes for particular functions be permitted by two-thirds voter majorities, however the state Supreme Court docket lately dominated that particular taxes proposed by initiative, fairly than by governments themselves, require solely a easy majority vote.
Nevertheless, the remainder of Proposition 218 remained intact and figures in two lawsuits, one determined final week by the state Supreme Court docket, that take a look at the measure’s efficiency.
The Supreme Court docket case (Zolly vs. Metropolis of Oakland) entails franchises the town issued for the gathering of trash and different supplies. The go well with alleges that Oakland collected unreasonably excessive franchise charges from waste haulers and the additional prices had been handed on to customers within the type of expenses, thus violating Proposition 218 and Proposition 26 necessities that charges be strictly associated to the price of companies.
Town gained on the trial degree however an appellate courtroom dominated that the franchise charges are topic to constitutional limits and the Supreme Court docket upheld the appellate ruling, thus jeopardizing the validity of Oakland’s trash franchises and bolstering Proposition 218’s influence.
The second lawsuit involving Proposition 218 was filed this yr towards the Metropolis of Sacramento, alleging that an election to approve new charges for stormwater amenities was tainted as a result of the town, in impact, stuffed the poll field.
The election was restricted to property house owners who would pay the charges, fairly than bizarre voters, and the town forged greater than 2,000 ballots in favor of the charges on behalf of city-owned parcels whereas, the lawsuit alleges, limiting the flexibility of those that owned a number of properties to do the identical.
“By casting votes on behalf of city-owned property in favor of a payment that may successfully be paid to the town, the town subverted Proposition 218’s purpose of defending taxpayers by limiting the strategies by which native governments precise income from taxpayers with out their consent,” the lawsuit, filed by industrial property proprietor Dessins LLC, declares.
The Sacramento case shouldn't be solely one other take a look at of Proposition 218 however a brand new wrinkle within the latest phenomenon of native governments being extra aggressive in selling income and bond measures to voters.
As chronicled on this house and different venues, native officers typically rent political consultants to design full-fledged campaigns for his or her measures below the guise of “data.” At one level, the Honest Political Practices Fee was beginning to crack down on the misleading and maybe unlawful follow of spending taxpayer cash for political campaigns, however it continues.
It was as soon as stated, allegedly by Benjamin Franklin, that nothing is for certain however dying and taxes. In California, it’s additionally sure that we'll proceed to battle over tax limits.
Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.