Dan Walters: Parcel tax could be big battle

January 7, 2013 

The Legislature's Democratic leaders want to use their newly minted supermajorities to do things that they could not do before, but they are leery of doing things that might alienate voters and jeopardize those supermajorities.

They prefer, therefore, an incremental approach to using their two-thirds legislative votes, thus slowly warming voters to the exercise of their new power rather than shocking them.

One likely way they'll wield their new authority is a constitutional amendment to reduce the voter approval margin for local government and school district "parcel taxes" from two-thirds to either a simple majority or 55 percent.

It appears to be popular and they see it as an extension of lowering the vote requirement on school bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent some years back, and also a small, if significant, erosion of Proposition 13, the iconic 1978 ballot measure that made it tougher for state and local governments to levy new taxes.

Parcel taxes are a form of property tax, but instead of being based on property value, they generally impose the same dollar amount of tax on every property parcel, regarding of size or value. School districts, faced with stagnant or even declining state support, have been asking local voters to approve parcel taxes with varying degrees of success.

There is, however, a complicating factor -- a new state appellate court ruling that spanks school districts for deviating from the one-size-fits-all concept of parcel taxes. Some districts have asked voters to approve differing levels of tax on different kinds of property -- lower for homes and higher for commercial properties and/or taxes based on square footage of properties.

Those variations have made the parcel taxes in some districts more closely resemble the value-based levies of traditional property taxes. Ruling in a case involving the Alameda Unified School District, the 1st District Court of Appeal said they violate state law requiring "uniform" rates of parcel taxes.

If the ruling prevails in the state Supreme Court, Alameda Unified and other districts which adopted parcel tax variations may have to refund many millions of dollars in revenues to commercial landowners.

They want the Legislature, therefore, to not only lower the threshold for approving parcel taxes, but validate the more creative, albeit illegal, ways in which such taxes have been levied and, perhaps, protect them from having to make the refunds.

Responding to those demands would make writing a parcel tax amendment much more complicated, because it would bring business interests, seeing it as an assault on Proposition 13, into the political equation. It could become, in brief, the high-

octane supermajority dustup that legislative leaders want to avoid.

E-mail: dwalters@sacbee.com.


Merced Sun-Star is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service