City Starts to Repay ‘View Tax’ to Homeowners

From the window of her beachfront condominium, 77-year-old widow Dorothy Blake savors the anticipation of a breaking wave.

She enjoys glorious winter sunsets. And watches cargo ships steam in and out of nearby Port of Hueneme.

“I live here because I love living at the edge of the sea,” she said.

Blake figures she pays for the privilege of that view via property taxes and the $100,000 purchase price she paid in 1980 for her modest, 1,000-square-foot condominium. She is unwilling to pay any extra for that privilege.

So when the city tried to assess what became known as a “view tax” in 1991, she sued.

And won.

Now the city has begun paying back the $621,617 it collected from hundreds of property owners such as Blake over a four-year period that ended in 1995.

Including fees for Blake’s attorneys and interest earned on all assessments collected, the bill to the city of Port Hueneme will come to $1,215,885 in the case that drew national media attention. This figure does not include the city’s own legal fees.

“I feel badly about it--I really do--even though I’m going to make my claim,” Blake said Monday. “I know the city is hurting financially.”

But Blake said the city’s rationale for the fees was improper.

“To say a public beach, which has 100% public access, is of special benefit to us is ludicrous,” she said.

That’s what city officials reasoned when they levied what courts eventually called an illegal tax in a bid to collect about one-third of the $450,000 annual cost of maintaining the municipal beach. City Manager Dick Velthoen still believes the city was right.

“If that beach went to hell in terms of its looks and maintenance,” he said, “those properties would suffer a disproportionate amount of damage or loss of value.

“I think it was fair,” he said of the tax. “And the council thought it was fair. It became a political thing, and it was labeled a view tax. And once that was done, there was no dealing with the issue, because that’s what people thought it was.”

*

Especially when the national media picked up the story, holding up the assessment as an example of how money-hungry government stood ready to tax just about anything.

But city officials helped give the assessment the “view tax’ label in the first place.

In an August 1991 report, officials noted the assessment would be levied in three categories.

Residents of beachfront homes that boasted a “good view” and “good access” would pay one rate. Owners of homes with an “obstructed view and good access” would pay another. Those with “no view and less access” would be charged a third figure.

References to “view” disappeared in subsequent city documents, Blake noted.

City officials have long railed against the notion that the assessment had anything to do with “view.” Moreover, officials maintained that the fees charged constituted not a general-purpose tax, but an assessment, which is used for a particular purpose. In this case, it was to maintain the beach.

But the courts disagreed.

In a 1996 opinion, Superior Court Judge Ken Riley said the fees amounted to a “special tax.” He said assessing 40% of the cost of maintaining a 52-acre stretch of beach on some 1,250 property owners was “grossly disproportionate to the benefit received by these homeowners.”

*

Indeed, Paul Boog, president of the homeowners association where Blake lives, noted that every court--the city unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court--ruled on the side of the aggrieved homeowners.

Boog, a former city manager, said he understands the financial pressures faced by the city of Port Hueneme, where sales tax revenues are among the lowest in the county. But the so-called view tax is not the answer, he said.

“It’s flawed logic,” Boog said. “It’s unreasonable, illegal and unethical.”

Refunds will range from as little as $500 to as much as $1,000, depending on the property’s size and view.

Those who paid the assessment have one year to apply. Some wasted no time.

“We got claims within four or five days,” said Finance Director Jim Hanks. “It was amazing. . . . It’s been an expensive proposition to us.”

Blake has yet to apply for her refund, which she calculates at $625.74, not including interest.

“I can get me a new stove,” she said, standing on the patio of her condominium, watching a sailboat cruise by. “Where else can you get a view like that for about $100,000?”