MORE ON THE ATTACK ON PROPOSITION 13

The Legislature has intensified its deliberate attack on the two-thirds vote requirement in the State Constitution for passage of special taxes. On May 25th Jim Sanders of The Sacramento Bee described in his article "Further easing of tax votes sought" eight specific constitutional amendments that would make it easier for local voters to increase taxes by reducing the two-thirds requirement. However, the amendments themselves require a two-thirds supermajority in each house to pass. The amendments are:

SCA 2 - Would allow local government agencies to impose a sales tax or special tax with a majority vote. Purpose: transportation and smart growth.

SCA 11 - Would allow cities, counties and special districts to impose special taxes or incur general obligation bond debt with a simple-majority vote. Purpose: affordable housing, transportation, open space, other such needs.

ACA 4 - Would allow school district, community college district or county office of education to impose a parcel tax with a 55 percent vote. Purpose: educational operating funds.

ACA 7 - Would allow local or regional transportation agencies to impose up to a half-cent sales tax with a 55 percent vote. Purpose: transportation needs

ACA 9 - Would allow a city, county or special district to impose a special tax with a majority vote. Purpose: public facilities.

ACA 11 - Would allow local governments to incur general obligation bond debt with 55 percent vote. Purpose: public facilities.

ACA 14 -Would allow local governments to impose a special tax with a 55 percent vote. Purpose: public facilities, land conservation, emergency shelters, low-income housing, neighborhood improvements.

ACA 15 - Would allow local governments to impose a special tax with a majority vote. Purpose: police, fire and other public-safety departments.

It was pointed out that this is nothing more than an attack on Proposition 13, approved in 1978, which created the requirement that special taxes be approved by a two-thirds vote of the affected residents. Our Vice President Jon Coupal, who is also President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, was quoted by The Bee as contending that leveling taxes is "government's most draconian power" and should never be abused. He also said a property tax can be easier to sell, perhaps, to someone who doesn't own property, and that before dipping into Californian's pocketbooks, the interest of everyone should be considered - not just those of a majority. Further, the US Supreme Court confirmed the need for the two-thirds vote by stating: "in voting to issue bonds voters are committing, in part, the credit of infants and of generations yet unborn, and some restriction on such a commitment is not an unreasonable demand."

Comments on the issue by Daniel Weintraub of The Bee are also interesting. He said the "3rd rail in California IS prop 13." "There is talk to revamp the tax structure." "The 2/3 vote did not get us into this mess and the 55% will not get us out"

Our comment to Dan is "A-men brother, A-men, "cause it will only get us in deeper, not out."

MISUSING THE TITLE "TAXPAYERS"

A scheme, prevalent among professional campaign managers, is to select misleading names for campaign committees sponsoring or opposing propositions. A contrived name is designed to mislead voters as to the true identity, composition and purposes of the group. Among words most often used in the bogus titles are "Taxpayer" or "Taxpayers". A blatant example just surfaced with regard to the campaign to recall Gov. Gray Davis. To quote the May 28th Sacramento Bee, "A consortium of organized labor, firefighters, teachers, environmentalists, and religious leaders will meet today " to announce the formation of Taxpayers Against the Recall. The anti-recall forces - longtime campaign contributors with hundreds of thousands of members and the ability to quickly raise millions of dollars - expected to raise perhaps $3 million, organizers said." In addition, The Bee advised, "The anti-recall petitions have no legal standing and no ability to prevent a recall election"" Later the article also advises, ""the new campaign could have one significant effect: interfering with recall signature-gathering efforts by offering petition circulators better-paying work." The so-called "Taxpayers" phantom organization has hired Kimball Petition Management Inc. to organize the anti-recall signature gathering. Kimball is authorized to pay $1 per signature collected, 25 cents more than the 75 cents per signature being paid by those backing the recall effort. In other words, they hope the guys with the most money, and the most to gain, can defend the Governor's putrid performance.

What is really happening is that unions and other organized groups, most directly benefiting from taxpayers money, who spent millions to put their puppet governor in place, are worried that a real Taxpayer organization, The People's Advocate " the late Paul Gann's organization, is about to cut the puppet's strings. And once cut, the puppet will no longer be able to be manipulated by the puppet masters to dance to their tune.

We wonder if this bogus "Taxpayer" group has filed under California's Political Reform Act as a Committee that supports or opposes petition circulation drives. We hope so, as we sure want to download their contributors" list. Maybe we can than convince these "Taxpayers" to put some money behind the efforts of real organizations that defend taxpayers against the excesses of tax and spend elected officials.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO PROPOSED UTILITY RATE INCREASE

On Tuesday, June 3rd at 2:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber at 730 "I" Street, the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities will present a two-stage rate hike that will raise utility rates by roughly 10% in the next two years. These rate increases are on top of rate increases every year for the past five years. The rate increase is supposed to cover the increased costs of operations and other costs associated with garbage collection, lawn and garden refuse collection, sewers, storm drainage and water service. Not explained is that the rate increase is more than required, by 11% of the revenue currently raised, for these services, and that the 11% is diverted to the city's general fund. If this revenue was not diverted, there probably would be no need for an increase.

The 11% tax evolved from a challenge by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in conjunction with the Taxpayers League, of an illegal 10% In Lieu Franchise Fee levied by the City on city provided utilities operated by their own Department of Utilities, as though the Department was a private contractor. The City was challenged on the basis that the fee was actually a tax, and recommended was that the "utility tax" be put before the voters as required by law. To their credit they did so, advertising it as a "revenue neutral tax", and it was approved. However, instead of applying the tax as a line item on residents bills for each service, they designated the tax as the Enterprise Funds/General Tax, and applied it as an 11% tax against the Enterprise Fund, the gross of all the money collected from city operated utilities, and as part of the value of their capital infrastructure. In the Revenue Budget of 2001/02 it was listed as item 3122 on Schedule 6, under "Taxes" which covered all taxes going into the General Fund. In 1999-2000 the tax brought in $10,916,000.

The League looked into the tax, along with the unfair 7.5% Utility User Tax (UUT) levied on electric power, natural gas, telephone, and cable television, and rather than challenge both, decided ask the voters to reduce the 7.5% UUT to 2.5% over 5 years. The reduction was part of what became Measure T on last November's ballot.

Evidently the City became sensitive about the Enterprise Fund Tax (EFT), and in the 2002/03 budget line item 3122 disappeared from the Tax Table. It was renumbered as line item 3997 and put in the Other Resources Table, where it showed that in 2000-2001 it brought in $11,320,000, and in 2001-2002 it raised $12,059,00. It was budgeted at $12,360,000 for 2002-2003 and at $13,263,000 for 2003-2004. The increase over the four years could amount to $1,943,000 for the General Fund.

At the May League Board meeting utility taxes again became a matter of concern. The League Directors decided the 11% EFT provides the same kind of regressive windfall tax as does the 7.5% UUT. Windfall taxes resulting from rate increases on utilities, necessities in today's world, are just as egregious as would be taxing food. The Sacramento Bee defined the condition best in their October 17th Editorial supporting our Measure T when they wrote: "The utility users tax is a regressive tax on consumption. Unlike the sales tax, which exempts food and medicine, the city utility tax falls directly on necessities of life ". Because lower-income households spend a greater share of their incomes on such necessities, they also end up paying a higher share of the utility tax. A high utility tax hits particularly hard in Sacramento, home to many of the region's lower-wage workers."

The League Board voted to begin a program aimed at elevating public awareness of both these regressive taxes, and to once again try to reduce both by negotiation with the City if possible, or by direct action if necessary.

MORE ON THE SIMPLIFIED STATE TAX FORM PATTERNED AFTER THE 540-2EZ

United Californians for Tax Reform 2000 has had its statewide petition approved for circulation to gather signatures to place it on the March ballot in 2004. The Proposition provides taxpayers the option of calculating their state income tax by using a single rate of 2.5% after applying a standard deduction and filing a simple, one-page return, if their income (1) does not exceed $100,000 in the case of married persons filing jointly, or $50,000 in the case of a single person, and (2) consists only of wages, salaries, tips, taxable dividends or taxable pensions. The standard deduction, for taxpayers filing jointly, shall be equal to the hourly minimum wage multiplied by 2080 (currently $14,040) or one-half that amount for taxpayers filing singly ($7,020).

The one-page tax form would be patterned after the 540-2EZ by removing the current restrictions on age and income from dividends and pensions.

This proposal was originally introduced by Roland Boucher to the Legislature, which generated Legislative bills AB 2347, AB 305 and SB 831. Although SB 831 received a unanimous (40) vote on the Senate floor in 2002, it was never heard in the Assembly. As a result, Tax Reform 2000 sponsored the petition. For additional information search www.taxreform2000.org, or e-mail rolandfly@earthlink.net.

They are preparing the petition for direct downloading to gather signatures. All our members should be in favor of supporting this attempt to simplify filing state taxes. When petitions are available we can gather signatures to help Roland Boucher get the Income Tax Initiative before the voters next March.

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND-ATION A FORM OF "TAKING" PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATING OWNERS

This is a subtle move that has developed in City of Sacramento planning operations which runs rough-shod over the rights of property owners, yet coasts by under the radar of virtually all citizens. It amounts to a "taking". Black's Law Dictionary states: "constitutions generally provide that a man's property shall not be taken for public purposes without just compensation." Black's goes on to describe a form of take "when there is interference with use of property to owner's prejudice, with resulting diminution in value thereof."

What is occurring involves an Amendment to the City of Sacramento's General Plan evolving from the recommendations of the Transit of Livable Communities (TLC) project, including Light Rail Stations. The City Council approved the TLC (smart growth) recommendations and directed staff to prepare an interim Ordinance to preserve development appropriate for the transit areas. The Ordinance prohibits certain uses within a 1/4-mile radius of existing and general plan designated Light Rail Stations. And therein lies the rub. The present transit station corridors have, so-called "outdated" commercial enterprises. The planners want mix land uses around the stations, made up of housing, retail, office and employment centers that generate transit ridership. But a number of sites are surrounded by light industrial and other commercial zoning that allow auto-oriented use, and allow low employment intensity uses. The planners want them gone, and the owners object. Consequently the Ordinance has been devised to freeze present use, prohibit expansion, and provides other restrictions that will greatly reduce owners' options and lower property values. It's a squeeze play, and present owners are rebelling. It is a form of take by edict, and bypasses any suggestion of compensation. Small businesses should watch this action carefully, for if successful it can shift to any redevelopment activity, many of which are already questionable.

MEMBERSHIP RECRUITMENT

Our Members constitute the League's strength, and Members provide coverage on many issues we try to resolve. And now we must ask Members to recruit others to strengthen our base. During the next few years taxpayers are going to be assailed as never before in recent state history as every level of government is going to seek more money in the form of fees, assessments, rates, and taxes. And locally, the Taxpayers League is the only long term recognized and organized defender of the County and its Cities taxpayers capable of putting up a viable defense.

Over 120 taxing and rate based agencies in Sacramento County and its six Cities handle billions of taxpayers' dollars yearly. Surveillance of their activities has been our mission for 42 years. We have rooted out many illegal uses of taxpayer's money, and have defeated the last three attempts to raise sales taxes in the City and County of Sacramento. The last alone has kept $150 million in the pockets of taxpayers over the last five years. Our work during the past two years offset $30 million in rate costs for County and Cities services. Our Measure T on last November's ballot forced the City of Sacramento to pass a Resolution granting a full rebate of 2002 utility taxes to all those who paid the taxes with yearly incomes of less than $25,000, some 44,000 taxpayers by the City's estimate.

Such battles are expensive, and anticipating those to come we know we will be engaged in many more than in the past. Members, both current and future are reminded that the League has no one on salary. Our only administrative cost involves sustaining our permanent office and its part-time office manager. All League Officers, Board Members, and the Executive Director do the work as Volunteers.

We need more Members, and look to our present Membership to strengthen the League by recruiting friends and associates as Members.

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek "Letters to the League" from Members concerning projects and issues on which we are working, along with recommendations on those we should look at. Letters may be edited and republished in any format, primarily in the interest of available space. Send letters, faxes, or e-mail to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League. Our e-mail is sactaxleague@prodigy.net; our telephone and fax number is (916) 921-5991; and our address is:

Sacramento County Taxpayers League
1832 Tribute Road
Sacramento, CA 95815

JOB FRIENDLY SACRAMENTO

Sacramento County must become the most jobs-friendly county in California and the nation. Sacramento cannot achieve long-term budget stability unless it has a flourishing economy that creates high paying jobs.

In order to help accomplish the goal of becoming a job friendly County we need to do two things:

1. The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and the City Councils must resist TAX and/or FEE INCREASES that will worsen the ability to attract new business or slow the growth of existing businesses; and must

2. Create a Sacramento Regulatory Review Commission that will review all existing or proposed new regulations for cost-effectiveness and negotiate with business and government agencies to achieve regulatory results without adding new cost.

Most taxpayers assume that taxes and regulatory policies are the primary determinants of whether businesses move or stay in Sacramento, but the quality of life that Sacramento has to offer plays a significant impact on how job friendly SacramentoCounty is.

Businesses and employers look for the same thing that families look for in a quality economic environment: good schools for their employees' children that create an educated future work force, good affordable health care, a good and reliable transportation system, a clean environment, and safe neighborhoods. We need better schools, better health care for all our citizens, improved transportationsystems, a cleaner environment, and safer neighborhoods.

To achieve our goal, Sacramento must expand its revenue base through more high paying jobs in the private sector. We must do all in our power to attractand retain employers who offer better jobs. Sacramento must be JOB FRIENDLY.

Carl Burton
Executive Director

<< Back to Index

Officers