Building on Success

Mon, 07 May 2007 14:26:33 -0700

By Tim Bittle, HJTA Director of Legal Affairs

In every new year, it is customary to look back and assess last year's gains and losses. I am happy to report that HJTA had a very successful year.

The Supreme Court in 2006 issued its long-awaited decision in Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Beringson. The decision was so long-awaited, in fact, that while the case was pending, a new Registrar of Voters took office, thus changing the final name of the case to Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Vergil. Bighorn was a victory for taxpayers and a vindication for HJTA. The Court ruled that fees for property-related services, such as water, sewer and garbage, are subject to Proposition 218's cost-of-service rules. In reaching that conclusion, the Court thankfully overruled HJTA v. City of Los Angeles, a case we lost in 2000 that had been a thorn in our side ever since because it held that fees measured by the amount of service consumed were exempt from Proposition 218. Many cities, relying on HJTA v. Los Angeles, have been using their water, sewer or garbage utilities to raise money for their general funds. These cities must now discontinue that practice.

In every new year, it is customary to look back and assess last year's gains and losses. I am happy to report that HJTA had a very successful year.

Bighorn a Big Win for Taxpayers

Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:45:46 -0700

Tim Bittle, HJTA Director of Legal Affairs

July 27, 2006

Our file containing the Supreme Court briefs in Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Beringson is about seven inches thick. In addition to the briefs filed by the parties, this case drew briefs from several amici curiae (friends of the court), including the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the Association of California Water Agencies, and others. We were among the others.

When there are that many briefs filed in a case, you wonder whether the Justices of the Supreme Court have the time or inclination to read them all. Perhaps one Justice sees HJTA’s name on the cover and never opens the brief because, "Everybody knows what their position is." Maybe another Justice skims the table of contents and tosses HJTA’s brief aside because our argument headings were not catchy enough to arouse his interest. After investing many hours researching and writing a brief that represents the interest of California’s taxpayers, I always hope, but never know, that the Court will consider our arguments.

Supreme Court decision returns power to taxpayers.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association - Legal Action

Building on Success

Bighorn a Big Win for Taxpayers