City Council Will Go to Court Over Prop. 218

The Los Angeles City Council on Friday narrowly decided to sue over Proposition 218, the recently passed state initiative that gave voters much greater say over local tax and fee measures.

Although several local government groups have talked about going to court over the measure--approved by California voters 56.5% to 43.5% on Nov. 5--Los Angeles could well be the first to do so, initiative-watchers said Friday.

Proposition 218 targets all municipal levies--general taxes such as those imposed on hotel rooms, fees for specific services such as street sweeping, and special assessments on property to pay for such things as libraries, police and fire services.

It calls for local governments to win approval from a majority of voters before raising taxes or imposing new ones, retroactive to January 1995.

State fiscal officials estimated that the measure would cost local governments about $100 million a year, and Los Angeles officials have identified about $31 million in revenues they believe are affected.

In the sometimes emotional debate that preceded the 8-3 vote directing the city attorney to prepare a lawsuit--a move spearheaded by Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg--council members zeroed in on a provision that allows only property owners a say in most types of assessments.

Disenfranchising those voters who do not own property “is appalling . . . regardless of how you happen to feel about Proposition 218,” Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said in urging her colleagues to ask the courts to sort out the constitutional issues involved.

But Councilman Hal Bernson, who joined Joel Wachs and Rudy Svorinich Jr. in voting no, said local government officials had “brought this on ourselves” by using assessment districts and other devices to “try to get around” Proposition 13, the landmark property tax limitations that voters approved in 1978.

“I don’t think we should be spending any taxpayer dollars” to thwart the wishes of the voters who roundly approved Proposition 218, Bernson said.

Joel Fox, head of the organization that sponsored Proposition 218, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., said he was not surprised by the council vote but nonetheless found it “outrageous.”

“Their first response is to try to kick sand in the face of their constituents,” Fox said.

He defended the assessments provision, saying his organization “carefully built [the measure] on previous law.”

Up to now, many types of assessments could be levied by municipal lawmakers unless a majority of the affected property owners protested.

A spokeswoman for the League of California Cities said the organization has been working with a team of volunteer city attorneys to go through Proposition 18 and see what it will take to implement it, both in terms of new legislation and litigation.

The league strongly opposed Proposition 18 during the campaign, but spokeswoman Debbie Thornton said its efforts now are focused on trying to clarify the measure’s provisions, not on overturning it.

“The voters have spoken,” Thornton said. “Now we are trying to see how it can be implemented.”

Also on Friday, City Councilman Richard Alatorre, head of the council’s budget committee, called for the city attorney to report to his committee within two weeks to help sort out in greater detail what effect Proposition 218 will have on the city.

The information he is seeking includes:

* A list of general taxes imposed, extended or increased after the measure’s January 1995 cutoff date, which should be placed before voters on the June municipal ballot.

* An analysis of the likely effects of the measure on the city’s special utilities rates for low-income or elderly residents.

* An analysis of how it will affect current assessments and what steps must be taken to preserve them.

* A report on what, if any, other city revenues will be affected by the measure.

* Information about any other lawsuits that might be filed against the measure.