https://www.csda.net/advocate/take-action/voterlimitations
I love the URL for this article – yes, it’s about limiting the voters’ rights. A lot of government agencies seem to think the voters have too many rights. Tsk. Tsk.
The purported “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” a statewide initiative measure to amend the California Constitution sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (“CBRT”), is the most consequential proposal to limit the ability of the state and local governments to enact, modify, or expand taxes, assessments, fees, and property-related charges since the passage of Proposition 218 (1996) and Proposition 26 (2010). If enacted, public agencies would face a drastic rise in litigation that could severely restrict their ability to meet essential services and infrastructure needs.
That last line isn’t a fact, it’s a threat. If we pass this measure, government agencies around California are saying they’ll cut services again. They won’t cut their salaries, or their outrageous benefits, they won’t pare down their management heavy staff – they’ll turn and bite the hand that feeds them. Just like the French public workers, faced with a later retirement age (65), they are burning garbage in the streets of Paris. We already have that here, so what’s to lose?
On February 1, 2023, California Secretary of State Shirly Weber issued a memo to all county clerks/registrars of voters announcing that proponents of Initiative 21-0042A1, or Initiative 1935 as now numbered by the Secretary of State, had filed the necessary number of valid signatures to make it eligible for the November 5, 2024 General Election ballot. Proponents now have until June 27, 2024 to consider withdrawing the initiative before the Secretary of State officially certifies it for the ballot.
And here they are asking other agencies, like the City of Chico, to join them. Mark Sorensen carried this invitation to Chico City Council two weeks ago but they threw it out for reasons undisclosed.
CSDA has joined a coalition of local government leaders in adopting an Oppose position on Initiative 21-0042A1 and encourages all special districts, partners, and community leaders to join the coalition by passing a board resolution. Once approved, please email your resolution to advocacy@csda.net and consider issuing a press release to local media. Individuals may also register their opposition with the growing coalition by emailing their name, title, and organization.
This is the kind of stuff that is carried on behind our backs constantly. Sorensen brought this “resolution” forward on the Consent Agenda, hoping for no conversation in front of the public. Kasey Reynolds, on the advice of her mentor James Gallagher, pulled the plug on it, asking to table it. Last week the city clerk informed me that Sorensen would no longer be pursuing the resolution. Just like that.
Here’s the opposition’s argument against the TPGAA:
Ballot Initiative 21-0042A1 would result in the loss of billions of dollars annually in critical state and local funding, restricting the ability of local agencies and the State of California to fund services and infrastructure by:
1) Adopting new and stricter rules for raising taxes, fees, assessments, and property-related fees. 2)Amending the State Constitution, including portions of Propositions 13, 218, and 26 among other provisions, to the advantage of the initiative’s proponents and plaintiffs; creating new grounds to challenge these funding sources and disrupting fiscal certainty. 3)Restricting the ability of local governments to issue fines and penalties to corporations and property owners that violate local environmental, water quality, public health, public safety, fair housing, nuisance and other laws and ordinances.
The initiative includes provisions that would retroactively void all state and local taxes or fees adopted after January 1, 2022 if they did not align with the provisions of this initiative. This may also affect indexed fees that adjust over time for inflation or other factors. Effectively, it would allow voters throughout California to invalidate the prior actions of local voters, undermining local control and voter-approved decisions about investments needed in their communities.
would result in the loss of billions of dollars annually in critical state and local funding – the only funding that is threatened are revenues from taxes that were passed without a full two-thirds voter approval. Two-thirds approval was mandated by the voters under Prop 13, but the legislature, behind our backs, went to cutting it out over the past few years. The only funding they will lose is funding they took illegally. In the case of the city of Chico, we hounded them for a 2/3’s measure – here’s the news – I was ready to support a 2/3’s measure! But they went the illegal route, they should have known better.
1) Adopting new and stricter rules for raising taxes, fees, assessments, and property-related fees. The 2/3’s rule is NOT NEW. Yes, it’s stricter than the loosey goosey rules the legislature put in place of voter mandated minimums, and that’s a good thing. See the way they twist the truth? Here’s a pretty blatant lie – ” Amending the State Constitution, including portions of Propositions 13, 218, and 26 among other provisions, to the advantage of the initiative’s proponents and plaintiffs..”
The TPGAA DOES NOT AMEND Prop 13, 218, or 26, it RESTORES provisions removed by the legislature without the approval of the voters. The opponents go on to insinuate that it’s a bad thing for the voters to challenge these illegal taxes. Oh Sweet Paul Revere.
I don’t know where they got #3 – sounds like something they pulled out of their ass to attract the environmentalists – don’t fall for it.
That last paragraph is a mouthful of hooey. Yes, this measure would void those taxes initiated without 2/3s approval – whether local or state legislature – after January 2022. This statement is absurd: “Effectively, it would allow voters throughout California to invalidate the prior actions of local voters, undermining local control and voter-approved decisions about investments needed in their communities.
That is just not true. This measure would allow agencies to bring an illegal tax back as a ballot measure, and give the voters a chance to give it full approval instead of sliding it under the wire with 50% + 1 vote. A “simple” majority isn’t democracy, it’s arm-twisting, mob rule, and usually to the benefit of public employees, who get all the money.
Chico City Council knew when they were crafting Measure H and putting it on the ballot as a simple measure that they couldn’t get full voter approval. Why would they want a tax that doesn’t have full voter approval? Remember: a 2/3’s measure is also restricted to certain uses, and they didn’t want to be restricted in their spending. It’s a pay-to-play environment they’ve created Downtown and they like it that way.
For further reading, here’s a piece by Dan Walters that explains a lot about how they do business Downtown.
Chico Taxpayers Association 
Leave a Reply