Remember Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1? A bill introduced by a group of California legislators who want to lower the voter threshold for tax measures from 2/3’s to 55 percent?
It went to a vote on the assembly last week, and a friend sent me a notice:
You are receiving this email because you subscribed on the HJTA website, or you provided your address in response to direct mail. Please see the bottom of this message to unsubscribe.
Immediate Action Needed! Call the Capitol to protect Proposition 13!
ACTION ALERT: We need every HJTA member to oppose Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1, which attacks Proposition 13 by making it easier to raise taxes. ACA 1 cleared the Assembly Appropriations Committee last week, and is now awaiting a Floor vote. Unlike previous committee votes, and per Proposition 13, passage on the Assembly floor requires a two-thirds vote.Communicating with your legislators now is crucial.
WHEN TO TAKE ACTION: NOW! A vote on ACA 1 could occur at any time. We’ve been told by reliable sources that a vote will likely occur tomorrow 5/23 or Friday 5/24.
WHY:
- ACA 1 would lower the vote needed to approve new local taxes from two-thirds to just 55 percent if the tax hike was for “infrastructure” (which is almost anything).
- The most imperative message is that a vote for ACA 1 is a vote for a tax increase because it makes it easier for local governments to propose and authorize higher taxes.
- Lowering the two-thirds vote for bonds and parcel taxes makes it easier to approve debt that is included “below the line” on property tax bills and is not included in Prop 13’s one percent cap. This can add hundreds of dollars a year to residential and commercial property tax bills, and last for decades.
- Parcel taxes are very regressive in that all property owners typically pay the same amount, regardless of the size of the home or business.
For ACA 1 to be defeated, eight Assembly Democrats must oppose or abstain. While the odds seem daunting, we do believe there is a path to victory. Please call the following Members of the Legislature who have yet to clarify their position on the bill, especially if you live in the areas they represent. Also, for calls to Mr. Ramos, please thank him for abstaining on ACA 1 in the Assembly Local Government Committee and ask him to do the same on the Assembly Floor.
Assembly Member James Ramos (Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino) – 916-319-2040
Assembly Member Rudy Salas (Bakersfield, Hanford) – 916-319-2032
Assembly Member Christy Smith (Santa Clarita) – 916-319-2038
Assembly Member Jacqui Irwin (Camarillo, Thousand Oaks) – 916-319-2044
Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi (Torrance) – 916-319-2066
You can also call your own representatives and urge them to oppose ACA 1. To find their names and contact information, go to findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov.
Thank you for helping to strengthen the voice of taxpayers in California. We greatly appreciate you.
|
|
|
I’m sorry, I was out of town with no internet all weekend, and I missed it. So I went to this “bill status” site:
https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211US105G0&p=ca+assembly+constitutional+amendment+1+current+status
It looks like it passed the committee last week with a bare margin of 11 – 7, but was ordered for a third reading before the assembly.
I’ll admit, I don’t know that much about the process, I don’t know where it goes next – to the senate, I assume. I will sign up for HJTA updates, and I think I’ll also give some of those legislators a call to ask about the process.
If this bill passes you might as well sign your house over to the city of Chico and the “Homeless Industrial Complex”. Look at your property tax bill, and see how many bonds and assessments you already pay – those were passed with 2/3’s of the vote, think how easy it would be to pass a slough more with the threshold lowered to 55%.
Here’s an article from the HJTA website that fills in the details:
Major Threats to Prop. 13 and Homeowners
Here’s the text of the bill, with amendments, read for yourself:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA1
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Chico Taxpayers Association 
Walter’s has another good article.
‘Fungibility’ means there’s no free lunch
Let’s talk about “fungibility” – the economic concept that one unit of a commodity may be interchangeable with another.
https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary/fungibility-means-theres-no-free-lunch/
I would add to it. If the city gets their sales tax increase as a special tax requiring a two-thirds vote and they say the money will go for roads there is nothing stopping them from using more of the existing money for roads (the non-sales tax increase money that is supposed to go for roads) for CalPERs payments or for raises or whatever else they want to do with it.
So if they get ANY kind of tax increase they will spend more on pensions, raises and/or cottonheaded schemes like the city of Sacramento is doing with their tax increase money and that includes the possibility of using it to fund debt the city can’t afford.
Agreed, thanks Bob.