California high court strikes down Santa Clara County open space tax

San Jose Mercury News ^ | 14 July 2008 | Howard Mintz

[CounterCounterCulture]

California high court strikes down Santa Clara County open space tax

The California Supreme Court today struck down a special fee on Santa Clara County homeowners used to pay for open space acquisition, possibly wiping out more than $50 million collected over the past seven years for parks, trails and other services.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices found that the 2001 special assessment by the county's Open Space Authority violated Proposition 218, a 12-year-old voter-approved law known as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act." Proposition 218 was designed to limit local governments' ability to raise revenue without voter approval.

The Supreme Court's decision is expected to make it tougher for cash-strapped local governments to raise money through special assessments, in many instances forcing agencies to seek that money from voters who must approve any new taxes by a two-thirds majority.

The Supreme Court sided with the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, which sued to block the property assessment, arguing that it amounted to a tax that should be approved by all county voters. The Open Space Authority established the property assessment in 2001 to pay for open space from Milpitas to Morgan Hill.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Victory over the Open Space Authority!!!

[CounterCounterCulture]

Of importance for those in the rest of California...

The Santa Clara County open space case has been closely watched by local governments across the state, which rely on a variety of special assessments to pay for services. The ruling could further jeopardize fees such as San Jose's phone fee for 911 costs, an assessment already up in the air because of recent court rulings. Santa Clara County had also been contemplating such a 911 fee.

[CounterCounterCulture]

S.V. Ping

[goldstategop]

The infamous view tax was invalidated. Santa Clara County will now to refund hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegally collected revenue to the taxpayers. What the California Supreme Court's ruling did was send the message to local governments they can't make an end run around Proposition 218's requirements. If they want to institute a new tax, they must get voter approval for it before they can collect the tax.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Tzimisce]

...well let’s just call it a “fee” then. :)

[rahbert]

I hope they can administer a similar beotchslap to Rodney King Co here in WA who think they own our rural parcels.

[Paleo Conservative]

Not just struck down but tore ‘em a new one.

[highpockets]

My initial reading of it is that it is fairly broad," said Santa Clara County Counsel Ann Ravel. "It will be problematic for cities and counties to impose any kind of assessments that do other than provide a benefit to individual homeowners."

My gosh, what in the world is going on here?

Taxes/fees should only be used to benefit those who pay them.

Not sure the elected in Cali. will understand and abide by this novel approach.

[John Jorsett]

The downside of this is that it took seven freaking years to get this tax overturned. The refunds should include interest on all the money they stole.

[goldstategop]

That's exactly the intent of Prop. 218 - it was meant to ensure assessments must benefit homeowners, must fund a homeowner related service, must not exceed the cost of providing the service to homeowners, cannot be a general tax and must receive voter approval before it can be imposed and collected. Simple and straight.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Prop. 218 is part of the California Constitution and extends and provides constitutional grounding to the statutory language of Prop. 62. That one applied only to general law cities and counties in California. Prop. 218 extended that language to all of them and included additional requirements. Its purpose was to put a stop to end runs around Prop. 13 where local bureaucrats could use assessments to impose new fees and charges on property owners unrelated to an actual property benefit. That's now outlawed and after seven years, Santa Clara nor any other California county and city can't impose any assessment that is not in compliance with the terms set for in Prop. 218. Such an assessment of course, needs voter approval goes without saying.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[olivia3boys]

What I hate is when cities in CA—knowing they need 2/3 approval for a tax—put parcel taxes for schools on the ballots EXEMPTING senior citizens from the tax.

So, a wealthy senior doesn’t have to pay the tax, but can impose on me to pay it, and I don’t use the public schools either! (My children are in a Christian school.)

Either an educated citizenry is good for all, or not. If the seniors don’t benefit from an educated citizenry, then other should be excluded too, and only those who send their children to public school should have to pay these additional parcel taxes.

Really burns me up. . .

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

What I hate is when cities in CA—knowing they need 2/3 approval for a tax—put parcel taxes for schools on the ballots EXEMPTING senior citizens from the tax.

I thought a bill of attainder was unconstitutional. Age discrimination...

[martin_fierro]

Send FReepmail if you want on/off SVP list
The List of Ping Lists

[null and void]

Good.

[null and void]

“The law? What do I care for the law?” -Cornelius Vanderbilt

[TChris]

*** Free Clue for Needy Politicians ***

REDUCE SPENDING!

Thank you, that is all.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Updates Mercury News article: Court voids Santa Clara County open-space tax

(snip)

Taxpayer groups say cities and counties are skirting Proposition 218 to avoid asking voters to approve new revenue - far more difficult because new taxes require a two-thirds vote. Doug McNea, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, vowed to push the open-space agency to refund the assessment, calling it "an illegal tax."

(snip)

"This was basically a test case," noted Harold Johnson, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which sided with the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association. "Our concern was that the county's strategy here would set off a trend up and down the state."

(snip)

[Old Professer]

They’ll be back...

[dhm914]

well they passed some law that now allows 55% vote to raise taxes. that burns me up, it shoudl be a 90% vote, with a 10% cap on total tax paid per your income. and no more taxation with out representation, that means stop deficit spending, the future is not represented by the people doing the spending. deficit spending is un-constitutional.