Sen. Jones: ACA 1 “wrongly chips away” at Prop 13, empowers “greedy” pols

 
 

ACA 1's proposal to lower California's two-thirds voter approval requirement down to 55% for “infrastructure” measures is controversial, many claiming it'd amplify crazy tax hikes and expensive gov't projects. KCRA News reports that State Senator Brian Jones—along with Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association head Jon Coupal—believes the measure would undermine taxpayer protections. Meanwhile, SJ City Council has greenlighted ACA 1 despite residents' Prop 13 concerns.

A group of California Democratic state lawmakers are hoping to ask voters to approve a measure that would make it easier for local governments to raise taxes to help fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects.

The measure, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1, would lower the vote threshold for local bond approval and tax measures from a two-thirds vote to 55%. Lawmakers note the 55% threshold already applies to all local school construction bond measures. …

"Californians pay some of the highest taxes in the nation," said State Senator Brian Jones, R-Santee. "This measure wrongly chips away at critical taxpayer protections by making it easier for greedy special interest and politicians to raise taxes at the local level."

Jon Coupal, the president of the Howard Jarvis Tax Payers Association, said the measure is a direct threat to the voter-approved Proposition 13 from 1978, which limits the government's ability to raise taxes.

He noted there have been several attempts through several recent legislative sessions to do something similar.

"I think the proponents are trying to capitalize on the issue of homelessness and housing," Coupal said. "ACA 1 would simply return us to those days in the mid-70s when people were being taxed out of our homes."

This article originally appeared in KCRA News. Read the whole thing here.

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.

Jax OliverComment