Tax expert schools SJ's CM Cohen on Prop 13
Image in Public Domain
At SJ's latest Council meeting, CM David Cohen claimed—without evidence—that ACA 1 and 13 (two "devious" initiatives that aim to gut Prop 13) would “give cities more control over their financial futures and allow cities to be able to raise the funds that they need.” Jon Coupal—Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's president since 2001—forcefully rebuts Cohen's logic and conclusions, noting that these bills would replace our longstanding financial rights with unpopular, out-of-control government taxation.
ACA 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 because it would cut the vote threshold needed to pass local special taxes, dropping it from the current two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13 to only 55%. That change would make it easier for local governments to raise taxes.
Since Proposition 13 was enacted in 1978, voters have continued to support the important two-thirds vote protection. That support was reaffirmed with the passage of pro-taxpayer initiatives in 1986, 1996 and 2010.
Many people may not know that the two-thirds vote requirement did not originate in 1978. It has been in the California Constitution since 1879! For more than a century, local property owners have been protected against excessive bond debt by the requirement that local bonds – repaid only by property owners – need a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.
ACA 1 repeals the two-thirds vote protection for tax increases to support “infrastructure,” a term so expansive that local governments would be able to raise taxes for almost any purpose with a vote of just 55% of the electorate. This is a hatchet that chops away at the taxpayer protections in Proposition 13.
This article originally appeared in the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Read the whole thing here.
ACA 13 is a devious attempt to prevent taxpayers from protecting Prop. 13. It aims to derail the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA), an initiative constitutional amendment that has already qualified for the November 2024 ballot. TPA restores Proposition 13 protections that have been eroded by the courts and it is supported by a large coalition of taxpayer, business, and property rights organizations.
If ACA 13 is enacted, TPA itself would require a two-thirds vote of the statewide electorate to pass, instead of a simple majority. That is virtually an insurmountable threshold for a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment. In fact, if ACA 13’s two-thirds vote requirement had always been the law, then California wouldn’t even have a constitution. That’s because the state constitution of 1879, and all subsequent revisions, all required a two-thirds vote of the local electorate to approve bonded indebtedness. Moreover, under such a high threshold for a statewide vote, Proposition 13 itself would not be law as it “only” secured 65% approval.
In short, ACA 13 is an effort to prevent voters from ever again using the initiative process to protect themselves from excessive taxation.
Knowing how popular Proposition 13 is, the proponents of ACA 13 – local government associations and organized public sector labor, have resorted to new levels of lies and dissembling. For example, during the debate on ACA 13, several legislators claimed that ACA 13 doesn’t impact Prop 13. For that, they are awarded 5 “Pinocchios” for extraordinarily shameless lying. There can be no greater threat to Prop. 13 than a dagger at the heart of TPA which restores the protections of Prop. 13 that have been lost.
This article originally appeared in the Orange County Register. Read the whole thing here.
Related:
If ACA 1 & 13 pass, what seven Capital vices might prey on SJ taxpayers?
Santa Clara County was (and is) Prop 13 country—despite politicians' opposition
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.