City Officials Seek Tax for Ocean Vistas : Port Hueneme: Coastal homeowners protest the planned shore-cleanup assessment. They say beach-goers should pay.

Newt Neyer finds the sunsets from his oceanfront balcony a pleasure to behold. But the city of Port Hueneme may soon tax his view of the Channel Islands and the Pacific.

To pay for beach upkeep, officials in the financially pinched city are planning to charge beach-area homeowners $66 to $184 a year for their views and access to the ocean.

The proposed assessments--the first in California based on proximity to sea and sand--would tax a property’s aesthetic value, with homeowners who enjoy a panoramic ocean view paying the highest rate.

In forming the special assessment district, Port Hueneme would be employing a technique used by a growing number of California cities strapped for revenue because of the stalled economy, dwindling state and county aid, and the tax-increase constraints of Proposition 13.

By shifting the cost of specific services such as street lighting and landscaping to property owners, cities are increasingly able to use the savings to their general funds for other purposes.

Port Hueneme is proposing to stretch the concept and assess homeowners for their views, which several officials of cities and counties along the California coast say they find intriguing.

“We need money. It doesn’t sound like a bad idea,” said Lois Standly, auditor-controller for Del Norte County, the state’s northernmost coastal county.

“It’s certainly creative, though I’m not sure we would try it here,” said Laguna Beach Mayor Neil Fitzpatrick.

Others said it may be only narrowly skirting state codes governing assessment districts, traditionally formed to pay for public amenities that benefit specific neighborhoods.

“It’s a can of worms,” said Jack Steineger, Santa Barbara County assistant auditor. “What is the benefit to each property owner as a result of the city providing beach cleanup? It has to be a tangible benefit.”

The proposal has many of Port Hueneme’s 1,200 beach-area homeowners crying foul. They contend that the city is discriminating against its wealthiest property owners rather than making beach-goers pay a user fee.

“We shouldn’t be penalized because the city needs to keep the beach clean,” said Neyer, a 63-year-old retired businessman who would pay $171 annually for the view of Anacapa and Santa Cruz islands from his two-bedroom condominium.

“We don’t use that beach 20 minutes a month,” said Neyer, who lives most of the year in Woodland Hills.

“Just because we are fortunate enough to live near the ocean does not mean that our money rolls in on the surf,” complained homeowner Anthony L. Brogna.

City officials decided that beach-area homeowners, rather than all property owners, should be charged for landscaping and cleanup of Hueneme Beach Park because their houses are worth more due to proximity to the coast and because they are spared daily beach parking fees.

The graduated assessments would be highest on beachfront homes and condominiums. Homes with obstructed ocean views would pay about a third less, while those with no view, but within two blocks of the beach, would be charged the least. The square footage of each residence would be factored into the rate.

The City Council is scheduled to vote next month on the proposed beach-maintenance district, which would raise $150,000 toward the $425,000 annual cost of beach upkeep, said Jim Hanks, the city’s finance director.

The projected revenue already has been included in the city’s $13-million 1991-92 budget, passage of which is awaiting a public hearing on the beach tax July 17. Mayor Orvene Carpenter said the council will approve the district’s formation if fewer than 50% of affected property owners protest.

Best known as home to the U.S. Naval Construction Battalion Center and the only deep-water port between Los Angeles and San Francisco, Port Hueneme is the second-lowest-taxed city per capita in Ventura County largely because of those landmarks.

Neither the Seabee base nor the port pays property taxes. The city is 95% developed and lacks big sales-tax generators such as car dealerships and department stores. And 15% of the city’s 20,000 residents live on the base, where they spend much of their money in tax-free shops.

The city’s beachfront homes and low-rise condominiums were built during the last two decades as part of redevelopment of its once-blighted beach area, where some homes had dirt floors and lacked plumbing.

Nearly half of the condominiums are weekend retreats owned by Los Angeles residents, many of them from the San Fernando Valley, according to city estimates. Only 25% are owner-occupied, said City Manager Dick Velthoen, one of the architects of the so-called view tax.

Since beach-area homes have appreciated in value nearly 40% more than homes elsewhere in the city in the last three years, he said, their owners should pay a greater share to maintain their precious amenity.

“If the beach were poorly maintained, it would affect the value of those properties,” Velthoen said.

Velthoen dismissed the arguments of many beach homeowners that they are being unfairly taxed because they rarely use the beach. “I suppose they bought here just for the salt air,” he said.

A survey of the state’s 15 coastal counties found that no other city assesses property owners for ocean views.

The Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors said it considered forming a beach assessment district to offset its $9-million annual beach-operations deficit, but found it would be infeasible. It would be impossible for the state and the cities whose beaches the county manages under contract to agree on the details of such a district, said Eric Bourdon, the department’s assistant director.

Beach homeowners in Port Hueneme contend that they will end up being doubly taxed because their property values--and consequently their property taxes--already reflect the worth of their views.

“We’re paying more than our proportionate share for the maintenance and upkeep of this city,” said Lucille Nylander, who presented the council with a self-conducted survey showing that outsiders far outnumber property owners at the beach.

Some contend that the assessment is a thinly disguised property tax that violates the intent of Proposition 13’s tax-increase limits, since it is based on the value of their homes.

“I’m not asking not to have an assessment district, only that it be fair,” said Dorothy Blake, another beach condominium owner. “A public beach is a community benefit.”

At least one opponent advocated closing the city’s beach to non-residents if the district is approved. Several others said the city should instead charge beach-goers a daily user fee.

Neyer does not deny that his condominium has soared in value since he bought it 16 years ago as a result of the city’s redevelopment of the once run-down, ill-kept public beach.

But looking out on a group of boisterous, beer-drinking beach-goers, he wondered why he and his neighbors should foot cleanup costs.

“My Austrian aunt used to tell me a story of how the Kaiser once imposed a tax based on the number of windows in a home,” Neyer said. “He just came up with any excuse to take people’s money. This beach tax is really no different.”