A Bad Idea, a la Proposition 13

Any serious discussion of Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment on local government taxes on the November ballot, logically must begin with a look back at Proposition 13, the overarching measure passed into law by voters back in 1978. The same people who helped bring us Proposition 13, and created the situation they now find so appalling, would wreak even more fiscal havoc with the ill-conceived “solution” of Proposition 218. Don’t be fooled.

Proposition 13 ultimately became a structural impediment that reduced budget flexibility throughout the state. It required that a daunting two-thirds of California voters approve any tax revenue increase, which has severely constrained the ability of municipalities, counties and the state to raise revenue to meet burgeoning public service needs. We’re not talking about frills here. Education, infrastructure, social services, fire, police and prisons have been adversely affected.

It was Proposition 13 that forced cash-strapped cities and counties to lean more heavily on the use of special property assessments to pay for a wide variety of public services such as libraries, fire suppression, extra police and the like. They also relied more on general taxes such as those on hotel occupancy and business licenses and on fees for general services such as street sweeping.

So, now, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. folks are livid. These assessments and fees, they argue, amount to an unconscionable end run around 13’s mandate. Now, they say, 218 is needed to plug the hole.

But Proposition 218 would place onerous revenue-raising restrictions on local governments. It would require a vote on all general tax increases, even on those already imposed in several cities and counties. It would prohibit assessments for such things as police, fire and library services and make it far more difficult for local governments to impose other assessments.

Under it, only landowners would have the right to vote on special assessments. Only the votes of those who responded to mailed notices would count, and the votes would be weighted against individual homeowners and in favor of large landowners because the latter would have to pay more in an assessment district.

If 218 passes, the state’s impartial legislative analyst expects short-term local government revenue losses of more than $100 million annually and potential long-term losses amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars more each year. Moreover, some California securities analysts worry about the possible deterioration of the credit quality of local governments, should 218 pass.

It is opposed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the California Fire Chiefs Assn., the California Police Chiefs Assn., the California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen, the California Library Assn. and many others.

Proposition 218 is just a lousy idea. Vote no.