Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association - Proposition 218

Background on Proposition 218

Tue, 23 May 2006 23:21:53 -0700

Proposition 218 came to the rescue of Proposition 13.

Proposition 13 was a law designed chiefly to protect property taxpayers. It put limits on how high and how fast property taxes could climb and required a vote of the people on new local taxes. After Proposition 13's success, bureaucrats looked for ways to raise revenues while avoiding Proposition 13's restrictions. They hit upon assessment districts, which had been historically used to fund capital improvements that directly benefited property. Over time, bureaucrats molded assessments into property taxes that avoided Proposition 13's restrictions.

Proposition 218 came to the rescue of Proposition 13.

Closing the Assessment Loophole in Proposition 13

Wed, 31 May 2006 13:30:29 -0700

By Joel Fox

This article appeared in the October 20, 1996, issue of the Los Angeles Times

Proposition 13 could be rendered meaningless if Proposition 218 fails at the polls.

Consider: Proposition 13 is a law designed chiefly to protect property taxpayers. It put limits on how high and how fast property taxes can climb and requires a vote of the people on new local taxes. After Prop 13's success, bureaucrats looked for ways to raise revenues while avoiding Prop 13's restrictions. They hit upon assessment districts, which were historically used to fund capital improvements that directly benefited property.

Over time, bureaucrats molded assessments into property taxes that avoid Proposition 13's restrictions. The courts supported this artistry by ignoring the historical precedent demanding a link between assessments and a direct benefit to property. They held that assessments could be used for operational budgets and maintenance costs and were not covered by Proposition 13's limits and vote requirements.

Proposition 13 could be rendered meaningless if Proposition 218 fails at the polls.

Text of Proposition 218 with Analysis

Wed, 17 May 2006 17:13:14 -0700

Right To Vote On Taxes Act

Statement of Drafters' Intent

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, January 1997

SECTION 1. TITLE. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act."

Comment: The title reflects the unifying theme — there are three main elements of the initiative and each relates to voter and taxpayer control over local taxes. The first part of the initiative deals with general and special taxes; the second section deals with assessment reform; the third and last section deals with property related fees and charges.

Right To Vote On Taxes Act

Statement of Drafters' Intent

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, January 1997

SECTION 1. TITLE. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act."

Water Rates Under Proposition 218

Wed, 17 May 2006 17:14:07 -0700

By Jon Coupal and Jack Cohen

The September 1997 issue of Debt Line reported on an Attorney General opinion which concluded that water service was not "property
related" for purposes of Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). Such an interpretation, if adopted by the courts, would permit local governments to impose water rates in a manner that deviates from the important "costs of service" requirements mandated by the new law, as well as depriving California taxpayers of significant procedural protections.

In light of the importance of this issue, the drafters and sponsors of Proposition 218 desire to set the record straight as to what they believe the proper (and only) interpretation of Proposition 218 is with respect to Proposition 218's applicability to water rates.

The September 1997 issue of Debt Line reported on an Attorney General opinion which concluded that water service was not "property related" for purposes of Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218). Such an interpretation, if adopted by the courts, would permit local governments to impose water rates in a manner that deviates from the important "costs of service" requirements mandated by the new law, as well as depriving California taxpayers of significant procedural protections.