☆ HJTA rebuts local media and City’s baseless assertions about Taxpayer Protection Act
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is one of three orgs championing the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, which meets CA ballots next year. Susan Shelley (HJTA VP of Comm’s) recenters the conversation around Constitutional rights, as opposed to pointing fingers at the rich or theorizing public safety is in jeopardy. An Opp Now exclusive.
Opportunity Now: What are the loopholes in Prop 13 this Act addresses, and why does it matter?
Susan Shelley: The Constitution under Prop 13 requires that tax changes must go on the ballot for a vote, and that local taxes for specific purposes must have two-thirds approval. In 2017, in the State Supreme Court case California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, the justices opened a loophole suggesting that if the tax increase had gone on the ballot as an initiative, it wouldn’t have had to comply with the same rules. Many cities (successfully) tested that suggestion afterwards.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act addresses that loophole. It needs to be closed. Local taxes for an important special purpose can be passed with a two-thirds vote.
Overall, we’re not arguing whether individual tax proposals are important; we’re just defending taxpayers’ legal protections according to the Constitution.
ON: Do you agree with opponents’ assumptions that voters are unlikely to approve tax increases for public safety reasons? Historically, is there a precedent for this idea?
SS: I don’t agree with it as a general rule. Moreover, all these local voters are already paying very high taxes. If they feel their money isn’t being well spent and don’t want to approve additional taxes for the same thing again, our system allows them to say no.
Ultimately, taxpayer protections are in the Constitution to ensure that governments are accountable to the voters, and that they spend the money they’re collecting for the purposes they stated. If a government wants to raise taxes again, they must go to the voters and justify their proposal—not try to squeak through using loopholes.
ON: In a recent memo, San Jose claims that the initiative would “significantly restrict the City’s flexibility to raise revenue for City services and projects. The initiative would reduce local control and diminish the ability of voters and taxpayers to weigh in on local spending decisions.” How on Earth does a vote limit people’s ability to “weigh in”?
SS: The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote for special tax increases/additions, that is, taxes that are dedicated to funding a specific purpose. Local governments have long been looking for a way around this.
There’s what’s known as the “A/B tactic.” They put one measure on the ballot that’s a general purpose tax; thus, it only needs a simple majority. Then, they propose a second measure that says, “We intend to spend Measure A on police [or another public service interest].” Proponents encourage locals to vote for Measure A, which is a general tax, along with Measure B, which advises to spend Measure A’s funds on public safety. But this is completely non-binding. If Measure A is passed, they could spend its revenue on pensions, wallpaper, really anything.
The proposed Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would put a stop to this trick.
ON: In the Spotlight article, Myers-Lipton claims that this initiative is designed to “shield” wealthy Californians from paying their “fair share” of taxes. Is there anything in the Act to support this interpretation, or is it just divisive class-baiting?
SS: This initiative isn’t about wealthy Californians. Everyone pays sales taxes. All property owners pay for parcel taxes and get the bill for certain bond measures.
This criticism, then—that the proposed law is trying to stop the wealthy from paying their fair share—is a smokescreen. No, the initiative aims to hold the government to the Constitution, the special protections for taxpayers that make it more difficult to raise taxes. It aims to protect Prop 13 and defend the intent of voters. People are trying to pay for food, housing, their utility bills; the last thing they need is for it to be easier to raise already steep taxes in California.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity