Voters face hundreds of local tax measures
http://www.elkgrovenews.net/2020/01/voters-face-hundreds-of-local-tax.html
By Dan Walters | CalMatters Columnist |
California
voters have seen a deluge of local government tax and bond measures in recent
elections and will face even more this year.
The
California Taxpayers Association has counted 231
local sales and parcel tax increases and bond issues(which automatically
increase property taxes if approved) on the March 3 primary ballot alone.
Hundreds
more are headed for the November ballot as local officials capitalize on the
higher voter turnouts of a presidential election year.
Turnout in
March will be very lopsided in favor of Democrats due to the state’s increased
role in choosing a presidential nominee of their party and November’s turnout
also will be heavily Democratic, given the unpopularity of President Donald
Trump.
Democrats
are generally more willing to increase taxes than Republican or
no-party-preference voters, so it makes perfect political sense to load up this
year’s ballots with taxes.
Do cities,
counties and school districts really need all of the new taxes they want voters
to approve, given the strong increases in revenues from existing taxes they’ve
enjoyed during nearly a decade-long economic boom?
Oddly
enough, many do, because their costs, particularly for pensions and health
care, have been rising faster than revenues — but don’t expect local officials
to acknowledge those costs as they make their pitches to voters.
They will
vaguely tell voters that the additional funds are needed for “public safety” or
such popular services as parks.
Why the
deception? They fear voters will be less willing to vote for new taxes if they
are told the money would be spent on retirement costs, and they know their
unions are less willing to finance candid campaigns.
The
pending measures do comply, at least sketchily, with a recent state law that
local officials dislike, requiring them to declare in their ballot summaries
the tax effects of their proposals.
Last year,
the Legislature voted to partially repeal that law, but Gov. Gavin Newsom
vetoed the
measure.
“I am
concerned that this bill as crafted will reduce transparency for local tax and
bond measures,” Newsom wrote in his veto
message.
Yes, the
measure would reduce transparency, and that was the whole point. Its author,
Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, publicly declared his concern that
telling voters how much their tax burdens would increase might discourage them
from approving local tax measures.
At least
one March tax measure also regenerates a simmering dispute over the vote
margins needed to raise taxes for specific purposes.
Long-standing
state law says that general purpose local taxes require only simple majority
voter approval, but those for specific purposes take two-thirds votes.
A few
years ago, the state Supreme Court indirectly
hinted that special purpose taxes placed on the ballot by initiative
petition might require only simple majority approval. Since then, local judges
have both affirmed the two-thirds requirement and ruled that simple majorities
are sufficient, creating a legal conflict that only the Supreme Court can
resolve.
Overarching
the battles over local taxes is whether the high Democratic turnouts this year
will also favor a statewide measure to modify the iconic Proposition 13
property tax limit, enacted in 1978, and thus allow increased taxes on
commercial property.
At the
moment, polls indicate that it’s a tossup, but that’s before public employee
unions and commercial property owners spend tens of millions of dollars to sway
voters one way or the other.
CalMatters
is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how
California’s state Capitol works and why it matters. For more stories by Dan
Walters, go to calmatters.org/commentary
Post a Comment