We talked about ACA 13, but another state ballot measure to be concerned about is ACA 1. I mentioned ACA 1 when it was introduced a few years ago. It lowers the voter threshold for special taxes and bonds to fund low-income housing projects. It went out of circulation when it failed to get enough votes in committee, but a Solano County assemblywoman reintroduced it and it made it’s way through the process to the ballot.
Yes, it is ironic that we have one measure aimed at protecting taxpayers and two others that aim to lower the bar for raising taxes while raising the bar for protecting taxpayers. Sacramento is the biggest fight pit in the state, a cock-and-bull circus. We pay for this manure pile – agencies like the Cal League of Cities are funded with our tax dollars, in the form of city membership dues, as well as exorbitant fees for conferences and “workshops”. The city of Chico (taxpayers) paid about $30,000 this year for our city manager to be a member of this non-public organization – does Cal League have more influence over our city council members that we do?
I would very much like to see ACA1 and 13 go down in flames, and while I hope to see the Taxpayers Protection Act pass with flying colors. I get disgusted with the slew of misinformation that agencies like the Cal League are spreading, using OUR MONEY. So I wrote a letter about it.
There are three state measures headed to the 2024 ballot regarding local taxes. ACA 1 and ACA 13, respectively, would lower the voter threshold for tax measures and raise the threshold for taxpayer protection measures. The Taxpayer Protection Act would raise the voter threshold for tax measures back to 2/3’s.
The California League of Cities claims ACA 1 and ACA 13 would actually “empower local voters”. How would measures that raise voter approval for taxpayer protection to 2/3’s, while lowering the bar for tax measures to less than 55%, empower voters?
Opponents, including CLC, claim the Taxpayer Protection Act “would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon.” I hear, “we’ll tell you when you need to pay more, or we’ll cut services…”
Opponents also claim the TPA would “create major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.” But they don’t list the loopholes, and they again threaten service cuts.
Here’s what they’re really worried about – besides restoring the 2/3’s voter threshold for tax measures, the TPA would void tax increases passed with less than 2/3’s approval since January 2020, including Measure H, the one-cent Chico sales tax increase.
The city of Chico pays $30,000/year for membership in the CLC. Last March Mark Sorensen handed council a resolution to oppose the TPA, but it was not discussed publicly. Ask your council representative what they plan to do.
Juanita Sumner, Chico CA
Chico Taxpayers Association 
Leave a comment