☆ D10 candidates differ on TPA, Prop 13 defense
We asked SJ D10's Council candidates to provide their perspectives on some of the upcoming election's most pressing issues—the attacks on Prop 13 via ACA 1 and 13, and the strengthening of Prop 13 with the Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA). Comments from the three who replied to our query below in this Opp Now exclusive.
Nooran Bayzaie:
I personally support the Taxpayer Protection Act and will vote in favor of it on the upcoming November 2024 ballot. We need to amend this act in our constitutional amendment so we may restore the taxpayer protections that we were afforded under Proposition 13. I was rather disappointed to hear that Councilmember Doan was the only member of our City Council who supported the TPA.
In regards to ACA 1, I have been and always will be against the idea of lowering the threshold for voting approval when it comes to how our tax dollars are spent. We already have enough mismanagement of funds in all levels of government.
ACA 13 is a direct attempt by our state legislature to silence citizens' voices on the ballot by increasing the threshold for voting approval on citizens' initiatives ONLY. Going back to what was said about standing against lowering the threshold for voting approval, this is giving legislatures a louder voice than regular, everyday citizens. We should have the exact opposite if anything, making our legislators have to work harder to have ballot measures approved.
I have and will continue to defend Prop 13 protections whenever I can, if nothing else, for our seniors.
George Casey:
Taxpayer Protection Act — I don’t support new taxes on the ballot next year and believe we should make sure we spend all of our existing tax funds effectively — particularly with so many families struggling to make ends meet in this era of rising costs. But I do not support this measure because I think it locks into our state constitution limitations that could make it harder to make needed investments in our economy and safety in the decades to come.
ACA 1 — Oppose. The two-thirds threshold established by Prop. 13 protects struggling taxpayers against excessive taxation.
ACA 13 — Oppose. Shifts power away from the people to the legislature.
Prop. 13 — Protect it.
Lenka Wright:
I support San José Mayor Matt Mahan, along with the mayors of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, and Irvine, in their concerns regarding the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.” I agree with the sentiments expressed in their Sept. 26, 2023 letter to the California Supreme Court that stated, “Not only does the Measure impermissibly use the voters’ initiative power to revise the California Constitution by making fundamental changes to the structure and foundational powers of government, it also includes a retroactivity provision that poses an immediate threat to vital state and local services that are so important to our cities’ residents.”
I am supportive of ACA 1, which would allow for a majority vote for tax measures when the use is defined such as for public infrastructure projects.
I am supportive of ACA 13 since it would prevent a small percentage of voters from driving our communities’ fiscal viability for the future.
I am resistant to Prop 13 changes, but if any changes are proposed at the state level, I would seek assurances that older adults age 65 and older as well as small business owners would not be affected by them.
Related:
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.