WE ARE GOING TO BE FOCUSED ON
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S
RECENT DECISION. IN THE
CALIFORNIA CANNABIS COALITION
VERSUS THE CITY OF UPLAND AT
CASE. BUT WE COULDN'T BE MORE
EXCITED THAT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS ACT WE ARE
CURRY TO MY RIGHT ALONG WITH THE
SENATE MEMBERS BURKE. INCREDIBLE
CHAIRWOMAN OF EACH OF THE TWO
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES AS WE BEGIN
TO WRESTLE WITH THIS COMPLEX BUT
IMPORTANT CASE. LAST AUGUST THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECIDED
THE CASE WHICH INVOLVED IN
INITIATIVE BROUGHT BY A CITIZEN
GROUP. IN THE CITY OF UPLAND TO
LEGALIZE MEDICAL CANNABIS
DISPENSARIES IN TO IMPOSE AN
ANNUAL FEE. AS YOU'LL HEAR FROM
OUR ALL STAR PANEL OF LEGAL
EXPERTS THIS MORNING THIS
DECISION WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT
CONSEQUENCES AND AS SOME HAVE
SAID. THE CONSEQUENCES ARE CLEAR
IS MIGHT.
WE'VE HEARD.
WAR HE WILL HEAR FROM SOME THAT
THE INITIATIVE POWER IN ARTICLE
TWO OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION TRUMPETS TRUMPS THE
TWO THIRDS VOTE THRESHOLD FOR
LOCAL SPECIAL TAXES WHICH COULD
SPECIAL TAXES. BY MAJORITY VOTE
WHEN DONE SO BY AN INITIATIVE.
SO TODAY WE HAVE BROUGHT
TOGETHER THE TOP MINDS IN
CALIFORNIA TO FOCUS ON THE
FOLLOWING AREAS. DOES THIS
DECISION ALLOW LOCAL INITIATIVES
TO IMPOSE SPECIAL TAXES BY
MAJORITY VOTE. DOES IT CHANGE
THE JOB THAT CITIES AND COUNTIES
HAVE TO DO SO IT FOR IT WILL MAKE FOR AN
INTERESTING DECISION. IN A
LIVELY CONVERSATION HERE TODAY.
BUT WE DID ASKED WE DID NOT ASK
ANY THE PARTICIPATING
ORGANIZATIONS WHO WERE DIRECTLY
INVOLVED IN THE COURT CASE TO
PROVIDE TESTIMONY TODAY. WE
DIDN'T WANT TO RE LITIGATE THE
MERITS OF THE CASE. THAT SAID AS
ALWAYS WE WELCOME THEM TO
PROVIDE COMMENTS DURING THE
PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION OF
TODAY'S HEARING AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THEM.
HERE TODAY COUPLE OF
HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS THOUGH THAT
WE HAVE SEVERAL. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FROM EACH OF THE
COMMITTEES THAT ARE GONNA HAVE
TO LEAVE DURING THE AT THE
HEARING. AND WE WILL NEED TO BE
ABLE TO JOURNEY HEARING A LITTLE
BEFORE ELEVEN FORTY FIVE TODAY
SO WE'RE GOING TO BE A VERY
TIGHT ON TIME. AND I NOW WANT TO
TURN IT OVER TO OUR COLLEAGUES
IN CO HOST OF THIS IMPORTANT
HEARING AND AGAIN I WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU TO CHAIRWOMAN. ACT WE
ARE CURRY IN BURKE FOR THEIR
WORK INTO THE VERY CAPABLE STAFF
IN THE PARTNERSHIP. THAT WE'VE
HAD A COMING TOGETHER HERE TODAY
AND TURN IT OVER TO MISS AND WE
ARE CURRY IN THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR PARTNERSHIP MA'AM.
THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU THAT ARE
HERE FOR THE INFORMATIONAL
HEARING A WE APPRECIATE YOU
TAKING THE TIME IT IS OBVIOUSLY.
OF POTENTIALLY CONTENTIOUS ITEM
ON ON THIS TODAY.
SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
DISCUSSION I'M LOOKING FOR DID
LISTENING AND LOOKING FORWARD TO
SEEING IF WE HAVE ANY SOME KIND
OF NEW OUTCOME THAT WE DIDN'T
THINK THAT.
AND I WANT TO THANK OUR
CHAIRMAN A CHAIRMAN MAGUIRES AND
WIRE AS WELL AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BURKE. AND.
WHEN WE GET IT GO AHEAD AND GET
THIS GOING SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR COMING TODAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH DEAR WOMAN
THAT WE NOW LIKE A BITTER
WELCOME CAROLINE SHUE WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE TO
SET THE STAGE FOR OUR DISCUSSION
TODAY. SHE'S GONNA BE PROVIDING
US WITH THE THIRTY THOUSAND FOOT
VIEW F THE CASE. AND AN
OVERVIEW AND WE WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU SO MUCH MISSED YOU FOR
BEING WITH US HERE TODAY. ISSUE
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO KEEP WITHIN
SEVEN TO EIGHT MINUTES I'LL GIVE
YOU A THIRTY SECOND HEADS UP.
AND AGAIN WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR ALL
OF YOUR REVIEW AS WE HEAD INTO
TODAY'S HEARING THE FLOOR IS
YOURS MA'AM.
THANK YOU SO YES CAROLINE TO
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE I'M JUST GONNA DO A BE A
BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE CHANGES
TO VOTER REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL
TAXES.
AND THEN SET UP SOME FACTS OF
THE CASE.
AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
WHAT WE'VE SEEN WHAT WE SAW IN
THE LAST ELECTION WITH REGARD TO.
LOCAL VOTER FRAUD TAXES ENTER
AND APPROVAL AND PASSAGE. SO
I'VE BELIEVE THE SURGEON HAS
HANDED OUT. A HAND UP IT'LL BE
SPEAKING TO THE FIRST PAGE.
AFTER THE TITLE PAGE IS A FIGURE
IT'S A TIME LINE UNABRIDGED
TIMELINE I SHOULD HIGHLIGHT THIS
DOESN'T IT NOT ALL ENCOMPASSING.
THAT WALKS YOU THROUGH THE
CHANGES TO VOTER REQUIREMENTS
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES OVER
TIME SO GOES FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
AND ON THE TOP IS GENERAL TAXES
AND ON THE BOTTOM ARE SPECIAL
TAXES AND IT THE BOLD. FONT IS
MEANT TO INDICATE CHANGES TO THE
VOTER THRESHOLDS FOR THOSE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF TAXES. SO AS
YOU KNOW PRIOR TO NINETEEN
SEVENTY EIGHT THERE WERE NO
VOTER REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL
ATTACKS TAXES PROPOSITION
THIRTEEN CHANGED ALL OF THAT. A
AND IT REQUIRED THAT THE THAT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RECEIVE A TWO
THIRDS VOTE OR APPROVAL FOR
SPECIAL TAXES HOWEVER THE
MEASURE DID NOT INCLUDE A
DEFINITION OF SPECIAL TAXES SO
THERE ARE SOME AMBIGUITY. AS TO
WHAT THAT MEANT AS TO WHAT WAS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT
TYPES OF TAX MEASURES.
THE FEDERAL DECISION IN NINETEEN
EIGHTY TO CHANGE THAT AND IT
FOUND THAT A SPECIAL TAX IS
DEFINED AS A TAX LEVIED FOR A
SPECIFIC PURPOSE SO FOR INSTANCE
A TAX LEVIED. A SALES TAX LEVY PRESS.
MOVING FORWARD IN NINETEEN
EIGHTY SIX PROPOSITION SIXTY TWO
WAS PASSED THAT WAS A STATUTORY
MEASURE THAT ESTABLISHED A
SIMPLE MAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR
GENERAL TAXES BUT IT MADE NO
CHANGES TO SPECIAL TAXES.
IN NINETEEN NINETY TWO WE HAD
THE KNOX DECISION WHICH FOUND
THAT PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS WERE
NOT SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL
THERE IS SOME QUESTION ABOUT
THAT.
IN DIFFERENT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ASSESSMENT OF OF PROPERTY. FOR
MAINTENANCE AND THAT SORT OF
THING. OUT AND THEN IN NINETEEN
NINETY SIX WE HAD PROPOSITION
TWO EIGHTEEN WHICH IS THE
MEASURE A QUESTION HERE TODAY.
PROPOSITION TWO EIGHTEEN
EXTENDED THE SIMPLE MAJORITY
REQUIREMENT FOR GENERAL TAXES TO
CHARTER CITIES BY MAKING IT A
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT
PREVIOUSLY AS I MENTIONED WAS
SIMPLY A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.
AMENDED ALSO EXPANDED THE
DEFINITION OF A SPECIAL TAX TO
INCLUDE ANY TAX LEVIED BY A
SPECIAL DISTRICT SCHOOL. OR
COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND IT ALSO
DEFINED PARCEL TAXES A SPECIAL
TAXES.
THE PORTIONS OF.
PROPOSITION TWO EIGHTEEN THAT
WE'LL BE DISCUSSING TODAY HAVE
TO DO WITH THE TIMING OF. THE
ELECTION FOR A GENERAL TAX. AND
THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. FOR SPECIAL TAXES.
IN TWO THOUSAND TEN WE'RE
PROPOSITION TWENTY SIX WHICH
EXPANDED THE DEFINITION OF A TAX
SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL.
EE MANY FEES THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS HAD BEEN LIVING.
WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS BECAME
SUBJECT TO VOTER APPROVAL. AND
THEN MOST RECENTLY WE HAVE THE
UPLAND DECISION.
WHICH FOUND SPECIFICALLY THE
TAX INITIATIVES TAX INITIATIVES
BY THE VOTERS CAN BE APPROVED IN
A SPECIAL ELECTION BUT THE
EFFECT ON.
SPECIAL TAXES REMAINS UNCLEAR.
SO JUST TURNING TO THE NEXT PAGE
SOME QUICK BACKGROUND ON ON THE
INITIATIVE THAT THAT CHAIR
ALREADY MENTIONED THE CASE FOR A
FOCUSED ON A LOCAL MARIJUANA
INITIATIVE THE INITIATIVE SOUGHT
TO. REPEAL THE CITY OF UPLANDS
BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES INSTITUTE
REGULATIONS. INSTITUTE SEVENTY
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR REGULATORY
OR. LICENSING FEE FOR
DISPENSARIES. AND THE PROPONENTS
REQUESTED THAT THE MEASURE BE.
PUT TO THE VOTERS AT A SPECIAL
ELECTION.
THE FEE WAS FOUND BY THE CITY TO
CONSTITUTE A GENERAL TAX
EXCEEDING THE COSTS OF LICENSING
FOR THE CITY. AND AS A RESULT
THE CITY DETERMINED THAT THE
MEASURE HAD TO BE PUT TO THE
VOTERS AT THE NEXT GENERAL
ELECTION. SUBSEQUENTLY THE
MEASURE WAS DEFEATED THAT SAID
TURNING TO THE THIRD PAGE OF THE
HANDOUT.
THE PROPONENTS DIDN'T FILE A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE.
SUBMITTING THAT THE VOTERS AT
THAT SUBMITTING THAT THE
INITIATIVE SHOULD BE PUT TO THE
VOTERS AT A SPECIAL ELECTION AND
THAT. THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PROPOSITION TWO EIGHTEEN DID NOT
APPLY BECAUSE IT WAS. THE FEE
WAS NOT A TAX AND MORE WAS NOT
BEING IMPOSED BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
THE SUPERIOR COURT DENIED THE
PETITION ON AND FIND FOUND THAT
THE FEE WAS IN FACT A TAX AND
HAD TO BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL
ELECTION BALLOT.
THE COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED.
AND THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED
THAT DECISION SPECIFICALLY THE
SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AS USED IN ARTICLE
THIRTEEN SEE SECTION TO BE. IS
DOES NOT INCLUDE VOTER
INITIATIVES THAT IS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT INCLUSIVE OF
THE ELECTORATE AS USED IN THAT A
PORTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE
SUPREME COURT'S DECISION WAS
BASED. WAS BASED IN PART ON
PROTECTING THE INITIATIVE POWER.
SO THE I'M TURNING TO PAGE FOR
THE CASE IMPLICATIONS AS THE
CHAIR ALREADY MENTIONED. ON THE
COMP ONE OF THE MAJOR
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CASE IS
THAT NOW VOTER PROPOSE TAXES CAN
BE APPROVED OF BY SPECIAL ACTION.
OUTSTANDING QUESTION THAT YOUR
PANELS WILL TALK ABOUT TODAY IS
THAT BOTH SECTION TO BE AND
SECTION TWO D. B. AS IN BRAVO D.
AS IN DELTA. OF BOTH REFERENCE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPOSED TAXES
AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
DEFINITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
IN THOSE TWO SECTIONS IS THE
SAME.
IF LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE ELECTION THE
ELECTORATE AD SECTION TWO D. IT
IS POSSIBLE THAT LOCAL SPECIAL
TAX INITIATIVES MIGHT NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE TWO THIRDS VOTE
REQUIREMENT. IMPOSED IMPOSED ON
THEM CURRENTLY.
SO LASTLY ON THE FINAL PAGE ON
WHAT COULD THIS ALL MEAN FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. IF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IS INTERPRETED TO NOT
INCLUDE THE ELECTORATE.
.
HAD ME IN THAT SPECIAL TAXES
COULD PASS MORE FREQUENTLY THIS
THE CHART ON THIS PAGE SHOWS THE
OUTCOMES FROM THE TWENTY SIXTEEN
LOCAL MEASURES. YOU'LL SEE THAT
CITIES AND COUNTIES A PROPOSED A
HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR GENERAL TAXES
IN TWENTY SIXTEEN THEY ARE THE
ONLY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT CAN
IMPOSE GENERAL TAXES. AND THOSE.
PASS AT AT AN EIGHTY FOUR
PERCENT RATE.
IN CONTRAST CITIES AND COUNTIES
ONLY PROPOSE SIXTY TWO SPECIAL
TAX MEASURES AND THOSE ON THE
PAST FORTY EIGHT PERCENT OF THE
TIME. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT AND
SCHOOL SPECIAL TAXES THERE WERE
THIRTY SIXTY THREE SIXTY THREE
SIXTY THREE OF THOSE THOSE PASS
WITH A LITTLE BIT OF A HIGHER
RATE AT SIXTY TWO PERCENT. SO
WHAT THIS COULD MEAN THAT
LOWERING THE VOTE THRESHOLD FOR
VOTER INITIATIVES COULD INCREASE
THE PASSING RATE PARTICULARLY
FOR SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
WHICH ARE WHOSE TAX MEASURES
ARE ALL CONSIDERED SPECIAL TAXES.
BUT RIGHT NOW THE IMPACT FOR
CITIES AND COUNTIES OF WHAT'S
CLEAR IN PART BECAUSE THEY
ALREADY CAN INCLUDE A NON
BINDING ADVISORY MEASURE OUT. AT
A LOWER THRESHOLD FOR GENERAL
TAXES. WITHOUT I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH MISSED YOU A THANK YOU
FOR THE ANALYSIS THAT WOULD LIKE
TO BE TO SEE IF THE CHAIR WOMAN
HAD ANY QUESTIONS AND WE LIKE TO
BE OPENED UP FOR COMMITTEE IF
THAT'S OKAY.
OKAY.
SIR MORLOCK.
IT'S ALL GOOD I JUST.
JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS I
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT. THE
STATE SUPREME COURT ONLY ACCEPTS
ABOUT TWO PERCENT OF THE CASES.
THAT ARE.
BUT BEFORE THEN.
I I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW THE THE
RATE THAT.
THAT AT WHICH THEY ACCEPT CASES
BUT WE'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO
THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU YEAH
WELL THAT'S WHAT. FORMER SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE SUBMARINO JUST
TOLD ME YESTERDAY IN THIS VERY
ROOM.
SO I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM IT.
BUT TO.
SINCE THE SUPREME COURT ENDED
UP AGREEING WITH THE APPELLATE
COURT THEY REALLY DIDN'T HAVE TO
TAKE THE CASE A GUY JUST SAID NO.
AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE
SO I'M JUST CURIOUS. IF YOU KNOW
WHY THEY TOOK THE CASE AND IF
YOU KNOW.
MAYBE IF YOU'RE A STUDENT OF THE
STATE SUPREME COURT. WHAT
CRITERIA DO THEY USED TO DECIDE
WHETHER TO ACCEPT MUNICIPALITY?
FINANCE RELATED CASES. I AM NOT
A LAWYER MYSELF SO THAT QUESTION
MAY BE BETTER POST TO YOUR OB
PANELS LETTERS COM.
THANK YOU MR.
THANK YOU SO MUCH SOONER. SOME
RESEARCH WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FOR THE LA RAIL.
OKAY IF YOU THINK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR TIME. IT'S GOOD TO SEE
YOU.
IT IS GERMAN THE COMMITTEE WOULD
NOW LIKE TO MOVE ON TO OUR.
LEGAL PANEL IF WE COULD HAVE
EACH OF OUR PANELISTS PLEASE
COME FORWARD WE'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE OUR PANEL ALL AT ONCE.
IN IF IT WORKS FOR THE COMMITTEE
AND WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS.
EACH INDIVIDUAL AFTER EACH
INDIVIDUAL PRESENTS FIRST WE
HAVE. MICHAEL CALL IN TO KNOW
HE'S A SHAREHOLDER COMING TO
KNOW HIGHSMITH IN WHAT LEE.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE
STATE SOLICIT MICHAEL'S
EXPERTISE IN A BROAD RANGE OF
AREAS INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW AND TAXES HE IS ONE OF THE
STATE'S FOREMOST EXPERTS ON PROP
TWO EIGHTEEN AND TWENTY SIX.
UNDER A PARAPHRASE WHAT
MICHAEL'S STANCE ISN'T FEEL FREE
TO CORRECT ME MICHAEL BUT HE
BELIEVES THAT THE VOTE THRESHOLD
TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT
REMAINS INTACT AND HE'S GOING TO
pA BIT. SECOND WE'VE KELLY SALT
SHE'S A PARTNER IN BEST BEST IN
KRIEGER PUBLIC FINANCE PRACTICE
GROUP KELLY WORKED WITH THE
UBLIC AGENCIES ON BOND
MUNICIPAL FINANCE MATTERS. RATE
SITTING IN COMPLIANCE WITH
PROPOSITION TWO EIGHTEEN AND
TWENTY SIX. NOW KELLY LEANS TWO
THIRDS VOTE ABOUT BELIEVES THERE
GOING TO
FORWARD. NEXT THE FREQUENT
VISITOR TO THE COMMITTEE.
WITH MR SHARANSKY FROM YOU SEE
THE EASY DAVIS AND AS AT TRUMAN
SAYS GO AGGIES MY RIGHT. MAY.
A PROFESSOR OF LAW AT UC DAVIS
HE SPECIALIZES IN STATE AND
LOCAL TAXATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LAW PUBLIC FINANCE AND POLITICAL
THEORY. AND BELIEVES THAT THIS
CASE IS OVERTURN THE TO THROW
TWO THIRDS THRESHOLD GOING
TOWARD SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR
SPECIAL TAXES OUT WITH LOCAL
INITIATIVES IN THAT. THAT RULES
THE DAY IN BATTING CLEANUP WE
HAVE GREG TURNER WHO HAS MORE
THAN TWENTY YEARS OF STATE AND
LOCAL TAX EXPERIENCE BOTH INSIDE
AND OUTSIDE OF CITY GOVERNMENT.
GREAT BELIEVES THAT THE SUPREME
COURT CASE WAS CLEAR IT'S NOW
SIMPLE MAJORITY BUT BELIEVES IT
IS A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS. SO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF YOU'RE
COMFORTABLE LET'S KICK OFF OUR
PANEL AND WE WELCOME MICHAEL
THAT MICHAEL WE'RE GOING TO BE
GIVING YOU SEVEN TO EIGHT
MINUTES I'LL GIVE YOU THIRTY
SECOND HEADS UP. WHEN YOU ARE
GETTING CLOSING IN ON THE EIGHT
MINUTE MARK THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO ATTEND
TODAY. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY LET ME START BY
ANSWERING CENTER MORE LATCHES
QUESTION ON THE SUPREME COURT
HAS THREE AREAS OF PRACTICE THAT
CASES WHICH THEY MUST TAKE.
CIVIL CASES WHICH THEY CHOOSE
FROM AND CRIMINAL CASES LESS
THAN DEATH WHICH THEY CHOOSE
FROM. THEY GET SOMETHING LIKE
NINE THOUSAND CIVIL PETITIONS A
YEAR AND THEY TAKE ABOUT TWO
PERCENT OF THOSE CASES SO THE
DATE OF YOUR TALK ABOUT OUR
CIVIL CASES INCLUDING THESE.
THIS CASE WAS MOOT WHEN THE
SUPREME COURT DECIDED IT.
BECAUSE THE VOTERS OF UPLAND
EVERY DEFEATED THE PROPOSAL BY A
SUBSTANTIAL MARGIN.
THE SUPREME COURT TOOK THE CASE
ANYWAY AND THEY TOOK IT UNDER A
RULE OF COURT WHICH EXPLAINS
WHAT HOW THEY.
APPLY THEIR RESOURCES TO SERVE
THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA.
AND THE ESSENCE OF THE RULE IS
THE BASE DECIDE PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND THEY
RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN THE LAW. I
DON'T KNOW THAT THERE HAD THAT
THIS IS EASILY CHARACTERIZED AS
A CONFLICT IN THE LAW AT THE
TIME THAT THE COURT APPEAL HAD
DECIDED IT.
SO I THINK THEY MUST DETERMINE
THAT IT WAS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT
QUESTION.
THERE'S ANOTHER IRONY IN THIS
CASE AND THAT IS THAT THE THE
SEED OF THE IDEA.
TO DISTINGUISH THE VOTERS ACTING
BY INITIATIVE A FROM THE
GOVERNMENT CAME FROM ANIMAGUS
BRIEF WRITTEN BY REALLY FINE
FIRM IN LOS ANGELES ON BEHALF OF
THE CHARGERS WHO HAD A MEASURE
ON THE BALLOT. TO FINANCE A NEW
FOOTBALL STADIUM AND AFTER THAT
MEASURE DIDN'T HE GET EVEN FIFTY
PERCENT MUCH LESS TWO THIRDS.
THE AUTHOR OF THE BRIEF TRY TO
WITHDRAW IT BUT THE DEED WAS
DONE THE IDEA WAS PLANTED IN IT
IT GREW INTO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE
US TODAY SO THERE LOTS OF.
CONTINGENCIES OF HISTORY WITH
BEFORE US.
I WANT TO COVER UP BRIEFLY
PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU JUST HEARD
BUT FROM A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVE.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES ARE SO
THOROUGHLY REGULATED THESE DAYS
BY THE WORK OF GENERATIONS OF
INITIATIVE DRAFTERS THAT. WE
HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT
EACH TYPE OF REVENUES SQUARELY
COMPLIES WITH A BUNCH OF
COMPLICATED RULES. SO A
REGULATORY FEE ON A MARIJUANA
DISPENSARY TO COVER THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS COSTS TO REGULATE
THAT SPENDS THREE MUST BE SHOWN
TO RECOVER ONLY THOSE COSTS. AND
IF THERE'S EXTRA MONEY IN THE
SYSTEM IT BECOMES ATTACKS
REQUIRING VOTER APPROVAL.
HERE YOU HAD A SITUATION WHICH
HAD A CITY COUNCIL SERVING A
COMMUNITY THAT DID NOT WANT
MEDICAL MAN OF MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES IN THEIR COMMUNITY
ADOPTED A BAM. THOSE WHO
DISAGREE WITH THAT POLICY
PROPOSED INITIATIVE. PERHAPS FOR
POLITICAL REASONS TO TRY TO MAKE
THE MEASURE MORE SALEABLE AND TO
DEFEAT AN ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS
GOING TO COST THE CITY MONEY.
PUT IN THIS PROVISION THAT SAID
SEVENTY FIVE GRAND PER YEAR PER
DISPENSARY TO MAKE THE CITY HALL
OF THE CITY.
FATHERS AND MOTHERS SO TO SPEAK
HAVE THE STAFF TO AN ALLISON
SAID WHEN I CAN SPEND ANYWHERE
NEAR THAT WE SPEND ABOUT TEN
THEREFORE IT'S A GENERAL TAX AND
THEREFORE WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT
THIS. ON A SPECIAL ELECTION
BALLOTWE CAN PUT IT ON OUR NEXT
GENERAL EX IN BALANCE WHICH WAS
AT THAT POINT WAS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS AWAY. AND EVERYONE ON THIS
BODY KNOWS THE TIMING IS
EVERYTHING AND POLITICS AND THAT
WAS WORTH FIGHTING OVER AND
FIGHT THEY DID.
YET ANOTHER IRONY.
YOUR LEGISLATURE PASSED A BILL
THIS YEAR TO ELIMINATE THE
POSSIBILITY OF INITIATIVES
CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION
DATES ANYMORE HAS LOTS OF THINGS
ABOUT THIS THAT ARE. CONTINGENT
NOTES THAT ADI'S THEM HISTORY
PLAYS OUT IN THE ODD WAY THAT
HISTORY PLAYS OUT.
SO ON THE VERY ABLE LAWYER
REPRESENTING THE INITIATIVE
PROPONENTS IN THIS CASE
BRODERICK PETITION BEFORE THIS
COURT. THE SUPERIOR COURT WAS
PERSUADED ON OF THE TOWN'S
POSITION AND KEPT THE MATTER OFF
THE BALLOT.
APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN
RIVERSIDE.
REVERSED DIDN'T PUBLISH AN
OPINION SAYING GIVE THEM THEIR
ELECTION ANSWERING COURT TOOK
THE CASE AND REACH THE RESULT
THAT IT DID.
WHAT I MOST OFTEN SAY ABOUT
UPLAND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS AN
ADVOCATE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND I SHOULD DISCLOSE I WROTE IN
ANY CASE BRIEF IN THE CASE ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAD CALIFORNIA
CITIES? AND WE HAD UNCOMMON
COMMON CAUSE WITH HOWARD JARVIS
IN THIS CASE BECAUSE CITIES FEAR
BOARD LEADS THE LEAGUE OF CITIES
FEARS. THAT IF IT'S TOO EASY TO
PROPOSE SPECIAL TAXES AND TOO
HARD TO POST GNERAL TAXES IN
POLITICAL TERMS. THAT SPECIAL
TAXES WILL PROLIFERATE AND WE
WILL BE TIED DOWN IN OUR
BUDGETING BY A THOUSAND TINY
LITTLE PATIENCE STRAINS. AND THE
UNSEXY NECESSARY GENERAL
GOVERNMENT LIKE LEGAL FEES AND
INSURANCE POLICIES AND RENT AND
THE LIGHTING WILL NOT BE FUNDED
AND THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE TOUCH
AND FEEL AND CARE ABOUT. OBVIOUS
SERVICE DELIVERY WILL BE AND
THAT IT WOULD BE VERY HARD TO
RUN GOVERNMENT IN A RATIONAL WAY.
SO WE HAD COMMON CAUSE WITH OUR
DRIVERS IN THIS CASE AND I THINK
IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT BOTH THE
LEAGUE AND HOWARD JARVIS WERE
DISAPPOINTED BY THE RESULT.
THE. BUT AS I USUALLY SAY ABOUT
THIS CASE IT'S MUCH LESS
IMPORTANT WHAT IT SAYS.
THEN WHAT IT MIGHT PORTEND ABOUT
THE TREND OF THIS COURT AND THIS
AREA A PUBLIC POLICY MAKING.
BUT THE LANGUAGE OF THE DECISION
IS IN MY JUDGMENT ON HELPFULLY
BROUGHT.
THE SUPREME COURT KEEPS
REFERRING TO SECTION TWO OR
SECTION TO SUBDIVISION DE WELL
EVEN SECTION TWO SUBDIVISION BE
OF ARTICLE THIRTEEN SEE A PROP
TO EIGHTEEN HAS FIVE DISTINCT
RULES IN IT. THERE FIVE DISTINCT
IDEAS THAT REGULATE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IN THAT ONE PARAGRAPH
AND SO BY REFERRING TO THIS BOX
OF THINGS WHEN REALLY ONLY ONE
ELEMENT WAS IN ISSUE CREATED THE
PORTENTOUS NIS THAT FOLKS ARE
WORRIED ABOUT.
HOWARD JARVIS WROTE A PETITION
FOR REHEARING IN THE CASE WHICH
IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COURT
TO ADJUST ITS OPINION AFTER THE
DECISION WAS MADE. AND THE COURT
SUBJECTIVELY DECLINED THE
INVITATION UNLESS THE RELATIVELY
BROADLY WORDED.
DECISION ON THE BOOKS.
THE NEXT STEP IN THIS STORY FROM
MY PERSPECTIVE ARM IS A CASE
THAT I HANDLED ARMEN STILL
HANDLING FOR THE CITY OF VENTURA.
AND THIS IS A DISPUTE OVER
GROUNDWATER AUGMENTATION CHARGES
THAT THE CITY PAYS TO TAKE WATER
OUT OF THE GROUND WATER TABLE TO
SERVE ITS CONSTITUENTS.
AND.
THAT WAS LITIGATED UNDER PROP
TWO EIGHTEEN AND PROP UP TWENTY
SIX.
I WON IN THE TRIAL COURT LOST
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUCCEEDED
IN GETTING THAT TO PERCENT SHOT
TO THE SUPREME COURT. AND THE
COURT SAID IN A VERY NARROW
DECISION THAT I THINK REFLECTS
THE FACT THAT THIS IS A THREE
THREE COURT IN PARTISAN TERMS IF
YOU WANT TO VIEW IT THAT WAY AND
WE HAVE A VACANCY THAT THE
GOVERNOR WILL FELT. BY JANUARY
FOURTH I IMAGINE I'M PERHAPS NOT
SOONER.
AT SOME VERY NARROW DECISION
ALL THE DECISIONS THAT WAS ITS
TWENTY SIX NOT TO EIGHTEEN GO
BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT AND
FIGURE OUT WHETHER YOU PASS THAT
TEST OR NOT.
THE REASON I'M MENTIONING THE
CASE IS THAT THERE WAS A
FOOTNOTE IN THE ORIGINAL
DECISION THAT NOBODY ASKED FOR
AND NOBODY BRIEFED BUT SAID THE
SPECIAL TAXES THAT ARE SUBJECT
TO A TWO THIRDS APPROVAL UNDER
PROP THIRTEEN. ARE NOT THE SAME
SPECIAL TAXES THAT ARE GOVERNED
BY PROP TWO EIGHTEEN BECAUSE
PROP THIRTEEN IS LIMITED TO
PROPERTY TAXES. WELL THAT WAS
VERY ON WELCOME NEWS TO OUR
FRIENDS AT THE HOWARD JARVIS
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION BECAUSE IT
WAS ONE MORE PORTENT ON A PATH
TOWARDS MAYBE FREEDOMS DO
SPECIAL TAXES WITHOUT TWO THIRDS
VOTE OR APPROVAL.
THE COURT GOT THREE REQUESTS
REHEARING IN THAT CASE I FILED
ONE MY OPPONENTS FILED ONE
HOWARD JARVIS WAS MERELY ANY
CASE IN THAT CASE FILED ONE AND
WE ALL GOT WHAT WE AK FOR. ALL
OF US GOT THE CLARIFICATIONS WE
WERE SEEKING AND THAT FOOTNOTE
IS NO MORE.
SO THAT THAT THAT CONCERN THAT
THIS COURT IS MARCHING TOWARDS A
DESTINATION WITH AN AGENDA
DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TRUE AND AT
LEAST IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED
IN VENTURE.
THERE ARE COMPETING READINGS OF
UPLAND I. RAISED IT TO PRINT OUT
WITHIN DAYS OF THE SESSION OR
HOURS OF DECISION MY ANALYSIS
SAYING. NOTHING TO SEE HERE.
NOTHING CHANGED SOMETHING MIGHT
CHANGE IN THE FUTURE IF IT DOES
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW BUT DON'T GET
TOO EXCITED.
AND QUITE FRANKLY THAT WAS
MOTIVATED BY TWO CONCERNS ONES I
DIDN'T WANT MY CLIENT BASE
CITIES LEAPING ONTO THIS PATH
WHICH I THINK IS STILL DANGEROUS
FOR THEM AND SECONDLY I DIDN'T
WANT TO GIVE IT A POLITICAL
OPENING TO THOSE WHO WANT TO
TAKE AWAY WHAT LITTLE REVENUE
POWER. WE STILL HAVE A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT BY CREATING A FALSE
SENSE OF CRISIS WHERE THERE
ISN'T ONE SO I'M BEING HONEST I
GOT APPOINTED YOU.
THE SAME DAY THAT I'M GETTING
MINE HOUSES OUT MY COMPETITORS
ANOTHER FIND LAW FIRMS AROUND
THE STATE INCLUDING ONE TO MY ON
MY RIGHT HERE HAD A COMPETING IN
HOUSES. THAT WERE FREER TO
PREDICT THAT SOMETHING IMPORTANT
HAD HAPPENED AND THEN WE GOT.
OPINION FOR THE ELECTED CITY
ATTORNEY OF SAN FRANCISCO POSTED
TO THE WEBSITE OF THAT A CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ADVISING THE
ELECTION OFFICIALS OF THAT CITY
THAT SHOULD THEY GET AN
INITIATIVE TAX PROPOSAL. THAT
THEY WILL OPINE THAT IT ONLY
NEEDS FIFTY PERCENT APPROVAL
EVEN IF IT'S A SPECIAL TAX.
ONE OF MY ADVISING MY CLIENTS.
I'M TELLING THEM IF YOU WANT
MONEY TO DELIVER SERVICES GET
TWO THIRDS. IF YOU WANT TO
BECAUSE YOU CAN GET SUED AND
TAKE A CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT
AND MAYBE CHANGE THE LAW GETS
FIFTY PERCENT.
EITHER WITH ONE MINUTE AND I
DON'T THINK I NEED IT I WILL
LAST HOW THE FOR MY TIME TO
KELLY AND OTHERS AT THIS POINT
NOW THINK YOU SO MUCH MICHAEL
WOULD LIKE ME TO SEE IF ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MIKE
OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO BE TO. GO
STRAIGHT TO AN INSULT TO ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT IF IT'S WORKS FOR THE
COMMITTEE LET'S WELCOME ASSAULT
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE
AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR
EXPERTISE. MY PLEASURE ONLY
PRESSED THE SPINE REMARKS BY.
THE PAIN IS EXPRESSED TODAY ARE
MINE NOT A SLAVE MY FIRM OR ANY
PARTICULAR CLIENT.
AND I WOULD ALSO SAY I AGREE
ENTIRELY WITH MICHAEL.
AND AGAIN ANOTHER THOUGHT I JUST
WANT YOU TO KEEP IN MIND IS.
BY BACKGROUND I DO BOND
DISCLOSURE COUNSEL WORK IN
ADDITION THE PROP TO EIGHTEEN
WORK. AND BY NATURE BONNIE
DISCLOSURE COUNSEL ARE VERY
CONSERVATIVE AND RISK AVERSE
BECAUSE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
THEIR CLIENTS. SELECT MICHAEL.
I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO ADVISE
MY CLIENTS UNTIL THERE'S CLARITY
PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT
THIS EXTENDS TO THE CONCEPT OF
ALLOWING. MAJORITY VOTER
APPROVAL FOR CITIZENS INITIATIVE
I WILL CONTINUE TO BUY SOME TO
CONTINUE TO SEEK A TWO THIRDS
VOTE APPROVAL FOR ANY. TAX
MEASURE OF THIS SPECIAL TAX BY
DEFINITION.
I'M SO WITHOUT I MEAN I DID WHAT
WE TRIED TO DO IS DIVVY UP KIND
OF OUR OUR PRESENTATIONS FOR YOU
TOO SO WE WERE DUPLICATING EACH
OTHER. AND SO I WENT TO SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POSED
AND SO THE FIRST QUESTION HAD TO
DO WITH AS A HOLDING AND IN THE
CASE. OF CITIZENS GROUPS.
THE LOCAL INITIATIVES IMPOSE
SPECIAL TAXES TO ENACT THE BY
MAJORITY VOTE. I THINK FIRST AND
FOREMOST THE COURT DECLINED TO
ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION.
IT WAS ASKED TO ADDRESS THAT
PARTICULAR QUESTION AND A
CONTINUED DECLINE THAT. SO THEY
THEY CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THAT
THEY'RE HOLDING WAS ONLY
PARTICULAR TO THE TIMING OF
ELECTIONS FOR CHANNEL TAXES EXES
ME TAXES AND BY INITIATIVE. AND
THE TIMING FOR THOSE. SO BASED
UPON THAT I'M NOT WILLING TO
RELY UPON THE EXTENSION OF THAT
AT THIS TIME IN ADVISING MY
CLIENTS THAT THEY SHOULD
CONTINUE WITH. IN THE EVENT OF A
VOTER INITIATIVE TO ALLOW FOR
THE ADOPTION OF A SPECIAL TAX
YOUR VOTE INITIATIVE IN A
MAJORITY VOTER APPROVAL.
THE SECOND QUESTION WAS HAS THE
ROLE OF LOCAL AGENCIES IN
DETERMINE APPROPRIATE VOTER
THRESHOLD. VERSUS A NATION IS
PROPOSING TO IMPOSE SPECIAL
TAXES CHANGES RESULT OF THE
POLITICIZATION.
AGAIN IT BECAUSE OF COURSE
REFUSAL I THINK WE WOULD
CONTINUE TO TAKE THE SAME
POSITION WITH A GUARD THE TWO
THIRDS VOTE APPROVAL FOR A
SPECIAL TAX.
AND THIRD IS THE UPLAND HOLDING
APPLY ONLY TO CITIES AND
COUNTIES OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY
TO SPECIAL DISTRICTS SCHOOL
DISTRICTS.
AGAINST. US CITIES EXCEPT CITIES
AND COUNTIES ARE THE ONLY ONES
ALLOWED TO OPPOSE GENERAL TAXES.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE
GONNA GOING TO EXTEND THIS
BALLOT AT THE OR EXCUSE ME THIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE TIMING OF
ELECTION.
IT'S APPLICABLE SPECIFICALLY TO
TO.
CITIES AND COUNTIES ONLY. IF
YOU ARE TO EXTEND IT TO THE
VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT LEVEL
FOR ANY SPECIAL TAX AND
CERTAINLY IT WOULD.
IMPACT ANY OF SPECIAL TAX
ELECTION. FOR EIGHT DAYS A
SPECIAL DISTRICT OR SCHOOL
DISTRICT. SO ULTIMATELY I THINK
IT IT'S GONNA DEPEND IN OUR VIEW
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT AT
SOME POINT THE FUTURE OR THE
LEGISLATURE OR THE VOTERS EXTEND
THIS CONCEPT OF. VOTER APPROVAL
LEVELS FOR MAJORITY OF FOR
SPECIAL TAXES.
AND WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE
UPLAND DECISION ON TAXPAYERS.
BASICALLY THAT DECISION
REQUIRES CITIES AND COUNTIES TO
ORDER A SPECIAL THIS ELECTION ON
ASUS IS INITIATED MEASURE THAT
RECEIVES IT REQUISITE NUMBER.
ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE
IN THE LECTURES CODE IN THAT IN
THAT REGARD.
IF COURT LATER TERM IS THAT THE
ALBUM DECISION EXTENDS TO THE
VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE TWO.
ARTICLE THIRTEEN SEE SECTION TWO.
SUBDIVISIONS A ND THAN ANY
CITIZENS INITIATIVE PROPOSE A
TAX WOULD ONLY REQUIRE THE
APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY THE
QUALIFIED VOTERS. SO AGAIN I
THINK WE NEED TO HAVE
CLARIFICATIONS BEFORE THE COURTS.
BEFORE WE EXTEND THAT CONCEPT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES WELL THINKING LIKE
A BOND ATTORNEY. I'M GONNA THINK
ABOUT IF THERE IS OF THE
CITIZENS INITIATIVE. AND THE
REVENUES FROM THOSE TAXES ARE
GOING TO BE USED TO SECURE
SECURITY BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.
I'M GONNA HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF OPINIONS ARE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE PROVIDED
WITH REGARD TO THOSE BONDS.
YOU HAVE TO. GIVE OPINIONS WITH
REGARD TO THE VALIDITY BONDS
REVENUES ASSOCIATED WITH BACING
THOSE BONDS AS WELL AS PROVIDING
AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT WHICH
PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION
ABOUT THE SECURITY FOR THE BONDS.
AS WELL AS ANY RISKS ASSOCIATED
WITH ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AND
CERTAINLY THERE'LL HAVE TO BE A
LOT OF INFORMATION PROVIDED. IF
YOU ARE GOING TO RELY UPON THE
SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO
EXTEND THE CONCEPT.
A MAJORITY VOTER APPROVAL FOR A
SPECIAL TAXI A CITIZENS
INITIATIVE. IF THE BOSS SECURE
BY THOSE TAXES. SO AGAIN I THINK
THERE'S RISK TO. OUR LOCAL
AGENCIES FIRST AND FOREMOST I
MEAN MAKE CERTAIN THAT THEY'RE
NOT THE SUBJECTIVITY LITIGATION.
I SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE DO
ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
I THINK AT THIS TIME YOU KNOW.
WHETHER NOT YOU PROVIDE ANY
CLARIFICATION AND THE
PROPOSITION TWO EIGHTEEN ON THE
DISCIPLINE IMPLEMENTATION ACT.
CERTAINLY THE COURTS ARE STILL
THE ONES WHO ARE GIVEN THE.
THE OBLIGATION TO INTERPRET THE
CONSTITUTION. WERE NOT ANY THAT
CLEAR FACE CLARIFY LEGISLATION
BE HELPFUL IS UNCERTAIN I THINK.
ULTIMATELY I THINK THE DECISION
WILL HAVE TO BE FURTHER
DEVELOPED BY THE COURTS. FOREVER.
OR BY THE VOTERS ON THROUGH A
FURTHER AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION.
IF THAT I WILL.
HEADED OVER TO. THANK YOU SO
MUCH BUSINESS WOULD LIKE TO
RECEIVE THE COMMITTEE AND THE
CHAIRMAN HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
PLEASE CHAIRMAN.
SO AS A RESULT OF THE
UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING THIS
CASE DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE
WE SEE MORE CITIZEN INITIATIVES
PROPOSING SPECIAL TAXES THE
VOTERS MAY FACE. OVER FACE TAX
OVER SATURATION OF THE BALLOT.
WE'RE ALREADY SEEING MEASURES
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GONE WOULD
HAVE GONE TO THE CITY COUNCIL
THAT AREN'T GOING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO GOING THE INITIATIVE
ROUTE. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO
CONTROL THE ELECTION DATE AND
BECAUSE THE SIGNATURE
REQUIREMENT SOLO.
IT'S A IT'S THE SAME STANDARD
FOR A STATEWIDE INITIATIVE WHICH
MEANS FIVE PERCENT OF THE NUMBER
OF VOTERS WHO CAST A VOTE IN THE
LAST GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION. HAS
GIVEN ISRAEL TURNOUTS ARE
COMMONLY IN THE FORTY PERCENT
RANGE FIVE PERCENT TO FORTY
PERCENT IS TWO PERCENT.
THANK YOU SOLD ANY ITEMS YOU'D
LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.
OKAY I COMPLETELY CONCUR WE WE
TALKED ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
GREAT. THANK YOU ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THUS FAR
BEFORE RETURN OF RUSSIAN SKI.
THANK YOU COMMUNICATE YOUR WOMAN
CHANCE COULD FORCE YOURS YOU
HAVE SEVEN EIGHT MINUTES FROM
GIVE YOU THIRTY SECOND HEADS UP
AND WE WELCOME YOU THANK YOU FOR
COMING BACK. GREAT THANK YOU TO
ENTER TO BE HERE ON BEHALF. OF
MISTER BUT JUST SAY I COMPLETELY
AGREE WITH A DISTANCE JOURNEYS
TO MY LEFT IS CERTAINLY IN TERMS
OF GIVING CONSERVATIVE HICE. TO
CLIENT STATES DID THAT THEY'RE
COMPLETELY RIGHT AND AND.
THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO BE
CAUTIOUS IN TERMS OF
OVERSTEPPING ITS BOUNDS IN TERMS
OF THE DID THIS DECISION HAS NOT
BEEN APPLIED. TO THE SPECIAL TAX
AREA. THAT SAID.
I AGREE WITH THE UPLAND
DECISION AND I AGREE WITH IT I'M
PREPARED IN TERMS OF ITS BROAD
PRINCIPLES I'LL GIVE YOU A JUST
A LITTLE ADDITIONAL CONTACTS SO
I HAD THE. HONOR OF SORTS OF
WORKING ON A COMMENTARY ON THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND I
WILL TAKE SECTIONS ON THIRTEEN
EIGHT THIRTEEN B. THIRTEEN C.
THIRTEEN D.. ALL THESE VERSIONS
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND WHAT I.
WHAT ABOUT THIS THE ISSUE AN
OUTLET RIGHT BEFORE I EVEN READ
THE UNDERLYING PEEPS AT ALL WELL?
OF COURSE THAT THAT'S NOT GOING
TO BE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES
THE SUPREME COURT HAD JUST IN
NINETEEN NINETY ONE IN A CASE
CALLED KENNEDY WHOLESALE.
DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE
INITIATIVE POWER NINETEEN NINETY
FIVE I DECIDED IN TERMS. OF THE
MISSION OF POWER IN THE CONTEXT
OF TAXES.
PROP TWO EIGHTEEN IN NINETEEN
NINETY SIX SORT OF EMBRACED ONE
OF THOSE DECISIONS AND SO FAR AS
IT STOOD FOR THE FACT THAT THE
VOTERS COULD USE THE INITIATIVE
POWER. TO LIMIT TAXES AND
THERE'S NO DISCUSSION IN THE
BALLOT LANGUAGE AROUND PROP TWO
EIGHTEEN IN TERMS OF CONTENIDOS
TURN ABOUT THE VOTERS. I'M
PUTTING A MEASURES ON THE BALLOT
AND SO THE BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE THAT YOU SHOULD
INTERPRET AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE
LIKE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN FAVOR
OF INITIATIVE POWER WAS HAD BEEN
RECENTLY APPLIED. ADVICE OF A
CAN OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
SHOULD BE IMPUTED TO THE PEOPLE
WHO PASS THE POPOSITION NINETY
SIX ADD TO IT REALLY SEEMS A
STRAIGHTFORWARD DECISION. THOUGH
STRANGE WAY THIS CASE GOT TO THE
COURT.
IS ADDED TO THE I I HAVE NO
COMMENT ABOUT THAT AND I HAVE NO
NOTHING CAN HOLD UNDERSTANDING
OF DID WHY DID TO THIS
PARTICULAR CASE IN THIS IN THIS
PROCEDURAL POSTURE. I DO
UNDERSTAND WHY THEY DIDN'T
ACTUALLY.
RULE ON SECTION TO DEAL WITH THE
ISSUE NOT A FOR THAT ONE SPECIAL
TAXES THAT'S NOT PROPERTY TO
PRACTICE YOU YOU YOU YOU
OFFICIAL HOLDING ON THE CASE
BEFORE YOU. BUT I THINK THIS AT
CISCO CITY ATTORNEY IS CORRECT
THAT BASED ON THE BROAD
PRINCIPLES THE COURT HAS APPLIED
REGULARLY I'M AND NEW TRULY BOTH
I'M IN FAVOR OF PROPONENTS AND
OPPONENTS OF TAX MEASURES IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE INITIATIVE POWER.
UPLAND WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED
AND THAT ONE DAY IT IS VERY
LIKELY THAT THE SUPREME COURT
WILL GO THE NEXT STEP AND FIND.
THAT THE SPECIAL TAX RULES ALSO
NOT GOVERNED BY I'M A SUPER
MAJORITY. THAT IS WHAT I THINK
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ACT
ON THAT.
AT THIS POINT IS A DIFFERENT
QUESTION RIGHT THAT IS UP TO THE
COURTS TO DECIDE ON WHAT. PRISON
SHOULD BE I LIKE TO QUICKLY
PIVOT TO THE SORT OF BROADER
POLICY QUESTION RIGHT SO IF IT'S
TRUE. THAT SOMETIME SOON.
VOTERS WILL HAVE GREAT LOCAL
PHOTOS A LOT GREATER POWER THAN
PERHAPS ANTICIPATED ON TO PUT
MEASURES ON THE BALLOT ATTACKS
WHICH IS ON THE BALLOT HOUSE THE
LEGISLATURE APPROACH THAT. AND I
THINK THE CONCERNS. THAT THERE
ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT
HOW THE LOCAL TAXING POWER WOULD
BE USED AND THE LEGISLATURES
PROPER ROLE. IS TO CHANNEL THAT
POWER RIGHT SO. AND THIS IS
GOING GOING TO.
MICHAEL KELLY'S POINT AND THEN
START THINKING ABOUT THE SORT OF
DEER IS A FISCAL FEDERALISM MOST
PROBABLY IS THAT. YOU WANT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO COMPETE WITH EACH
OTHER ON THE BASIS OF TAX RATES
BUT NOT ON THE IS AN OVERLY.
.
A CRUDE INSTRUMENT TO
CONTROLLING A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM
NAMELY THE CONTROL OF LOCAL
TAXATION THERE IS A CONCERN THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD USE
STANDARDIZED WELL DESIGNED TAX
BASES. THERE IS A CONCERN THAT
THOSE TAX BASE RATES SHOULDN'T
BE ALLOWED TO GET TOO HIGH THERE
OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PERHAPS NOT USING
THAT METHOD GET WISELY OR
BUDGETING PROPERLY BUT THOSE
CONCERNS CAN BE ADDRESSED IN
DIFFERENT WAYS IN FACT IN
CALIFORNIA. ON USING THE COUNTY
OFFICE OF EDUCATION IN THE THICK
MAT SYSTEM IN SCHOOL DISTRICT
CONTACT HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL
AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT.
CALIFORNIA HAS A ALREADY A
PRETTY GOOD TOOL FOR THE JOB IN
TERMS OF CONTROLLING THE REAL
PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FINANCES. AS WELL AS
SOME MODELS IN TERMS OF SALES
TAXES HAVE APPROVED ONE BROAD
BASED THAT GOVERNMENTS CAN
SUPPLEMENT THAT CAN BE APPLIED
TO.
SPECIAL TAXES AS WELL SO PERHAPS
BUT IS THAT YOU COULD SAY IF
VOTERS ARE GOING TO USE THIS
POWER TO PUT A SPECIAL TAX ON
THE BALLOT. THEY SHOULD ONLY
THEY CAN ONLY DO SO IF THE TAX
STRUCTURE IN THE FOLLOWING
UNIFORM SENSIBLE WAY. ON IN
TERMS OF APPLICATIONS I WOULD
ALSO JUST.
REITERATE SOMETHING THAT CAME
THROUGH IN THE LA ALL
PRESENTATION WHICH IS THAT.
COUNTIES AND CITIES CAN READY
APPLY GENERAL TAXES WITH A
MAJORITY VOTE THEY CAN'T READY
DO SO. WITH AN ADVISORY MEASURES
TO HOW THAT MONEY SHOULD BE
SPENT. IT SEEMS TO ME UNLIKELY
THAT I'M NOT A POLITICAL
SCIENTIST A POSTER THAT THIS IS
THAT GOING TO BE A GIGANTIC
GROUND SWELL. OF CITY AND COUNTY.
ELECTIONS LIKE THIS GET IT'S
POSSIBLE AND IF IT HAPPENS I
THINK IN THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
CHANNEL AND ORGANIZE THAT
ACTIVITY. AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
LEVEL I DO NOT THINK THOUGH THIS
IS SOMETHING HE'S FOR THE
RESEARCH THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT
ELECTRICALLY CURRENTLY PUT A
SPECIAL TAX ON THE BALLOT. IF A
SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD.
THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE
IMPORTANT SO RIGHT NOW YOU'RE IN
A NOVEL SITUATION WHERE SCHOOL
DISTRICT ELECTRIC COULD PUT.
UPON MEASURE ON THE BALLOT USING
A PROP THIRTY NINE ELECTION
COULD PROVE WITH FIFTY FIVE
PERCENT MAJORITY SO THEY CAN
BUILD A SCHOOL FIFTY FIVE
PERCENT MAJORITY BUT THE STAFF
TO SCHOOL THEY NEED TO GET A
TUTOR TO MATURITY. ON TO PROTECT
PASS THE PARCEL TAX. ON IF THE
WORLD IF THE LEGISLATURE WERE TO
PERMIT SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
ELECTORATE TO IMPOSE SPECIAL
TAXES AND THE COURTS WERE TO
ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN BY MAJORITY
VOTE. THAT COULD INDEED BE
SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL IN TERMS
OF LOCAL VOTERS RESPONDED TO
THAT AND APPROVING INCREASE
LOCAL SCHOOL MEASURES BUT AGAIN
I WOULD URGE THAT IF THAT
HAPPENED THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
ACT TO CHANNEL THAT ENTHUSIASM.
IN A UNIFORM RATIONAL WAY.
WITHOUT COST.
TAKE QUESTIONS BECAUSE SO MUCH
IS CHANCY WE WELCOME THE VICE
CHAIR GOVERNMENT'S FINANCES WELL
THANK YOU SO MUCH MAJOR WHEN.
GOOD TO SEE YOU WOULD LIKE TO
RECEIVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ARE FROM STRANSKY THIS
TIME OTHERWISE WE CONSIDER. ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR
SENATOR WOMEN OR.
MEMBERS.
ALRIGHT CHANCE HE ONCE AGAIN
THANK YOU SO MUCH MISTER TURNER-THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
GOVERNMENT WE'RE SAVING THE BEST
FOR LAST A BATTING CLEANUP BUT.
YOU KNOW SITUATIONS THAT THEY
WANT TO OUT WE'RE LOOKING AT A
HOT DAY AND WATCH I JUST WANNA
MAKE SURE THE GIANTS ACTUALLY
WIN THIS YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT IT'S FUN AND ONE SPRING
TRAINING THIS WEEKEND AND SO
I'LL REPORT BACK TO WHAT I SEE.
AS LONG AS THEY CAN BE THE
DODGERS WERE GOOD EXACTLY THAT'S
THE WAY THEY'RE.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
CONSIDER WITH THIS. YOU KNOW.
I GUESS EXCEPT TO AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE SO FAR IN TERMS OF.
WHAT THE CASE SAYS I THINK THAT?
YOU KNOW FOR QUESTION HERE IS.
WHAT THE CITY OF A CASE AND
SAVE UP AND SAYS? THE COURTS AS
THREE TIMES WE CONCLUDE THAT.
WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE
THIRTEEN SEE SECTION TO BE WHICH
IS JUST ABOUT TO. A GENERAL TAX
BASED ON THE GENERAL SHIN BALLOT.
BUT THE TERM LOCAL GOVERNMENT
DOES INCLUDE A INITIATIVES.
LOCAL VOTER INITIATIVES.
I THINK THAT UNDERSTANDING. OF
THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE THIS
USED BY THE COURT IN CONTEXT
REQUIRES.
TO LOOK AT THAT CASE.
OUTSIDE THE VACUUM IF YOU WILL
AND AND AND WHAT I WROTE FOR THE
COMMITTEE.
IS A COMMENTARY NOT SO MUCH AS
LEGAL ADVICE CERTAINLY BUT.
IS COMMENTARY ON THE COURT'S
OPINION BECAUSE I GREW THE LEGAL
ADVICE SAID IT RIGHT NOW ALL WE
KNOW. SPECIFICALLY IS THAT THE
COURT HAS DECIDED THAT ARTICLE
THIRTEEN SEE SECTION TO BE. DOES
APPLY TO VOTER INITIATIVES.
BUT THERE IS ON ON
UNFORTUNATELY THE WAY THE COURT
DRAFTED THAT OPINION.
THEY RAISE MORE QUESTIONS AND
THE ANSWER AND SO THE QUESTION
IS HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW DO YOU
LOOK AT THAT CASE AND AND AND MY
PAPER AND WHEN I WROTE THE
COMMITTEE. YOU SORT OF GET IT.
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU BRING WITH
YOU TO ADD TO THAT DISCUSSION.
ME PERSONALLY A LITTLE OF MY
BACKGROUND I'VE BEEN SINGLE TAX
FOR FOR TWENTY YEARS FOR SURE
AND AN INSIDE OUTSIDE WE TAX OTHER THAN A PROPERTY
TAX YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THIS
CONCEPT OF. SOME OF THE ATTACKS
SPENT ON A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND
SO WHEN YOU LOOK BACK OVER THE
LAST THIRTY YEARS YOU SEE. UP
YOU KNOW PROP THIRTEEN AND WE
HAVE RICHMOND THEN WE HAVE FERAL
ADEN NARROWING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF WHAT PROP THIRTEEN MOTOR
LIMITATIONS.
ONTAXES STOOD FOR.
THAN WE HAD PROP SIXTY TWO WHEN
THE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT REGARDING
WHETHER BEING A STATUTORY
MISSION OF. WHETHER APPLIED TO
CHARTER CITIES ARMS
CONSTITUTIONALITY AND WE HAD.
KNOCKS FOR CITY FOR AWHILE
ORLAND THEN WE HAD PROP TWO
EIGHTEEN AM HAD SINCLAIR PAINT.
THIRTY SEVEN AND WE HAD THE
DISCARDED THE BACK AND FORTH AND
LEGISLATURE IN THE.
MID TWO THOUSANDS ABOUT WHETHER
OR NOT WE COULD PASS A. MAJORITY
VOTE BILL.
THAT ESSENTIALLY SHIFTED TAXES
AMONGST TAXPAYERS ON THE WE HAD
BROUGHT TWENTY SIX IMAGE MIR. ON
THAT SORT OF BACK AND FORTH A
DYNAMIC AFTER I THINK YOU HAVE
TO UNDERSTAND WHEN WHEN A
TAXPAYER AT LEAST AND THAT'S
BEEN MY PROOF MIGHT. PRACTICES
WHAT BEEN. OBSCENE TAXPAYERS
LOOKING AT THIS CASE. I SO WHY
CAN'T WHY PURCHASE CASE I I
UNDERSTOOD THAT HISTORY THAT
CONTEXT OF THE SORT OF BACK AND
FORTH I YOU WILL BETWEEN.
TAXPAYERS AND.
THE COURTS WIN IN TERMS OF
TRYING TO.
HONESTLY TRYING TO SIT ON A
DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT.
IS SPECIFIC DOES WHAT IT WANTS
DOES WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WOULD
NOT BE SO BROAD.
AND.
BUT SAME TIME THEN SURVIVE THE
ARTFUL CONSTRUCTION OF THE
COURTS AND THAT'S BEEN A
STRUGGLE I THINK FOR TAXPAYERS
ARE LAST THREE YEARS. TO BRING
THAT SORT OF HISTORY IN THAT
THAT KNOWLEDGE THAT READING CITY
OF UP ON THE FIRST THING THAT
STRUCK ME ABOUT IT WAS THE COURT
MISSED ALL THE EXIT SIGNS. IT
WAS MOVED WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE
FACT THAT THE CASE ITSELF WAS
MOVED. BUT THE QUESTION REALLY
BEFORE THE COURT WASN'T ABOUT
WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT THE
QUESTION FOR THE COURT WAS
WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY. WAS IN
ITS RIGHTS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE
PROPOSED CHARGE WAS ATTACKS HER
FEET WAS LABELED A FEE. AND THE
COURT MAKE IN THIS CASE SAYS. IT
WASN'T THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CITY TO DO TO. ORDAIN THAT THAT
WAS A TAX AND THEREBY PUT IT ON.
THE GENERAL BALLOT PURSUANT TO
THE CONSTITUTION. YOU COULD EVEN
MAKE THE ARGUMENT THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY.
WAS BOUND BY THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS PUT ON SPECIAL
ACTIONS PUTS THE GENERAL
ELECTION. BUT THE CORDON STATUS
WHILE AND THEY DECIDE TO GO TO
THIS LARGER QUESTION ABOUT WHAT
THE DEFINITION LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MEANS.
AND THEN WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE A
QUESTION THEY REFUSED TO ANSWER
THE CONSEQUENCES THAT THEY
REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THAT DECISION.
IN SO WHEN IT WHEN THEIR THEIR
POSTS I THINK WITH PROBABLY THE
EASIEST QUESTION WHICH WAS.
ASSUMING THAT A LOCAL VOTER
INITIATIVE GROUP A LOCAL WATER
GROUP PROPOSED INITIATIVE. TO WHICH I I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY
AN EASY CASE OCCURRED OF SIMPLY
SAID WILL OF COURSE HAVE TO PUT
ON THE ON THE ON TH BALLOT
BECAUSE IT'S A VOTER INITIATIVE
IT'S THE NATURE OF THE PROCESS.
THEY DIDN'T ASK THE MORE
DIFFICULT QUESTION WHICH WAS IF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEANS WHAT THEY
HAVE DETERMINED AT WHAT THEY
HAVE SAID IT MEANS IN THE
CONTEXT OF. THIS QUESTION WHAT
DOES IT MEAN FOR ARTICLE
THIRTEEN C. AND D. GENERALLY OR
MORE SPECIFICALLY THE DEFINITION
OF TAX VERSUS FEE THEY DIDN'T
ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS AND SO.
YOU KNOW AS A AS A TEXTURE
REASON OF LIGHT I.
I I I KIM'S CASES ARE ASKING ALL
THOSE QUESTIONS SO WHAT IS IT
THAT THEY'RE DOING THEY'RE
LAYING A FOUNDATION THAT SEEMS
TO ME WHAT. I READ THE CASES IN
IN TERMS OF COMMENTARY NOT ME
PROVIDING ADVICE TO MY CLIENT
BUT.
IN TERMS OF MY CONJURE WITH
THIS CASE STANDS FOR THE
FOUNDATION. AND I THINK THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OPINION IN SERVICES
GO.
REFLECTS THAT IT'S BEEN HIS
OPINION VERY LIKELY AND THAT
MEMOS DIRECTLY TO HIS ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS. IS VERY LIKELY IN HIS
OPINION THAT THE COURT WHEN
PRESENTED WITH THE PROPER FACTS.
IS GOING TO ELIMINATE THE TWO
THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT WITH
RESPECT TO. THIRTEEN C. THIRTEEN
D. AND AND ARGUABLY ON THIRTEEN
A SECTION FOR AS WELL WHICH IT
WAS IT TO ME IS IT RAISES A
PARTICULARLY INTERESTING
QUESTION BECAUSE. IN CITY OF
UPLAND.
PROFESSOR CHANCE HE MENTIONS A
CANDY WHOLESALE THREE KENNEDY
WHOLESALE THE CORE ALTHOUGH THE
COURT SAID THE INITIATIVE THE
LIMITATIONS ON THE LEGISLATURE
RESPECT TO. THE TWO THIRDS VOTE
REQUIREMENT FOR PASSING TAXES
DIDN'T APPLY TO VOTER
INITIATIVES.
THE COURT IN CANADA WHOLESALE
ACTUALLY LOOK TO SECTION FOUR
WHICH IS THE TWO THIRDS VOTE
REQUIREMENT ON. ON CITIES
COUNTIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
ARM AS. RATIONALE FOR WHY.
THE. TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT
A LEGISLATURE DIDN'T APPLY TO.
VOTER INITIATIVE IN THE IN THE
COURT SETTING KENNY ALSO IS
BECAUSE THE VOTERS UNDERSTOOD.
THAT IF THEY WANTED TO PLACE A
LIMIT PON THEMSELVES THEY COULD
DO THAT AND THEY POINTED SECTION
FOUR. BUT EXPLICITLY AND THERE'S
A COURT OF APPEAL. DECISION OUT
THERE.
COLD ALTADENA LIBRARY JUST
RECESS ESSENTIALLY THAT THAT
THAT. THAT A VOTER INITIATIVE IS
SUBSTITUTED A REQUIREMENT OF
SECTION FOUR. AND THE COURT
DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT QUESTION AT
ALL WHICH IS THE SORT OF LOGICAL
CONSEQUENCE I THINK OF. OF THEIR
OPINION SO I THINK THAT THE CITY
ATTORNEY I THINK I THINK IS A
AMABLE JOB OF. SOME OF OF
RECOGNIZING THAT THAT'S THE NEXT
STOP SO I RECIEVE UPLAND I'M I I
I THINK OF ANOTHER TAX CASE IT'S
OUT THERE YOU MIGHT BE AWARE OF.
IT WAS HE REMINDS ME OF A CASE
THAT IF THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT CALLED A AN IDEA
MAY VERSUS BOWL IF YOU'VE BEEN
FOLLOWING V..
THE NATIONAL DEBATE OVER THE
REMOTE COLLECTION OF SALES AND
USE TAX BY STATES FROM REMOTE
SELLERS. VERSES BRAWL WAS AND TEXAN JUNCTION AXES YOU
CAN'T CHALLENGE ATTACKS WITHOUT
PAYING THE TAX UPON CLAIM FOR
REFUND AS WE HAVE THE SAME
VISION OUR CONSTITUTION.
AND SO THAT QUESTION ONE UP TO
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
AND THREE QUARTERS REMANDED IT
SAID NO THIS IS ABOUT THE TAX
INJUNCTION I CAN JUST KENNEDY
SAID. IN A CONCURRING OPINION.
YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S TIME THAT
WE REVISIT QUILL AND I'M
PARAPHRASING OF COURSE BUT.
HE.
ISSUED BY A CONCURRING OPINION
SAID TECHNOLOGIES TEENS INVITE
THE ECONOMY CHANGED AND QUILL
WAS SORT OF A QUESTIONABLE
DECISION QUILL HAS A PHYSICAL
PRESENCE REQUIREMENT FOR STATES
TO IMPOSE A REMOTE COLLECTION
OBLIGATION. TO CLOSE OUR TAX I'M
SORRY THANK YOU.
AND SO.
KENNEDY INVITED ESSENTIALLY. I
THINK A GOOD OVERTLY INVITED.
CHALLENGED QUILL AND SO WE HAVE
THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BEING HEARD
ANOTHER MONTH BEFORE THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT IN THAT WAY
FOR SOUTH DAKOTA.
AND SO IS SOUTH DAKOTA TOOK UP
THE CHALLENGE BY PASSING A A
STATUTE WHICH DIRECTLY CHALLENGE
OF HIS PRESENCE REQUIREMENT AND
I YOU KNOW I THINK. BRAUNTON
PURPOSES THERE'S. A LOT OF
PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE COURT
WILL OVERTURN QUILT ON BY BY
JUNE THIS YEAR I ANSWER LOOK AT
THIS CASE IN THAT CONTEXT. THE
COURT DIDN'T HAVE THE FACTS
BEFORE THEM.
TOO FAIRLY ADDRESS THE LARGER
QUESTION OF WHAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT MEANS IN THE CONTEXT
OF ARTICLE THIRTEEN SEE AN
ARTICLE THIRTEEN D. GLOBALLY.
BUT THEY CLEARLY LAID OUT ALL
THE ARGUMENTS FOR DOING SO AND
SO FROM A TAX PERSPECTIVE AND
LOOKING AT THE CITY OF.
SERVICES GOES SEE TREES OPINION.
YOU CAN'T HELP BUT EXPECT
THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND
TREATED AS IF IT'S ALREADY
HAPPENED AND I'M SURE THAT THERE.
ARE ALREADY.
MORE THAN A COUPLE GROUPS THAT
ARE DRAFTING INITIATIVES AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL RIGHT NOW. TO TEST
THIS VERY QUESTION. AND SO WITH
THAT HOLLYWOOD FOR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH AS TO TURN TO
OUR ENTIRE PANEL AGREED FOR THE
YOU'RE ALL HERE TODAY TO BE A
PROVIDER EXPERTISE. BUT WOULD
LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO IS OPEN UP
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE THEN WE OF COURSE
WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT. UP BUT WE LIKE TO BE TO
START O SEE IF ANY THE
CHAIRWOMAN I WOULD LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE IF THEY HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THEY'D
LIKE TO. ADVANCE THIS TIME.
IT WILL GET THE MESSAGE.
I THINK HE'S MATURE WOMAN IF IT
WORKS FOR THE COMMITTEE WOULD
LIKE TO BE TO GO TO THE VICE
CHAIR OF GOVERNANCE AND BOTH THE STATE AND THE LOCAL
LEVEL. FOR MORE TAX INCREASES SO
MIGHT MY CONCERN AS A RESULT OF
THE CORT'S DECISION. IS THAT WE
WILL SEE AN INCREASE IN LOCAL
VOTER INITIATIVES.
THAT'S OPPOSE RAISING SPECIAL
TAXES REQUIRE ONLY SIMPLE
MAJORITY. TO PROVE THEM SO.
YOU KNOW TWO MONTHS AGO AFTER
THE UPLAND DECISION THE CENSUS
OF CITTERN IS TELLING. THE CITY
DIRECTOR OF LACK OF ELECTIONS
THAT SPECIAL EDITION OF OPPOSED
BY INTEREST GROUPS MAY NOW BE
SUBJECT ONLY TO MAJORITY VOTE.
SO THAT'S VERY CONCERNING FOR ME
IS ONE IS THE INCONSISTENCY
ACROSS THE STATE. AND GIVEN THAT
WE HAD PROP THIRTEEN AND ALL
THESE OTHER DISHES. ON. IF WE
ARE SETTING THE STAGE FOR
WIDESPREAD TAX INCREASES. BY
INITIATIVE.
THROUGH A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
ARE THERE ANY TRUE LIMITS.
TO POTENTIALLY.
TO A POTENTIAL TAX PROPOSALS
THAT CAN BE PUT BEFORE THE
VOTERS THAT THEY MEAN.
IN IN CALIFORNIA TO TO STOP.
THE INCONSISTENCY OF ALL OVER
THE PLACE.
AND DIFFERENT MEDIA SPECIAL IT I
MEAN. YOU'VE GOT LOCALLY.
SCHOOL DISTRICT YOU GOT. YOU
KNOW SPECIAL DISTRICTS YOU'VE
GOT CITY YOU'VE GOT COUNTY
YOU'VE GOT COLLEGE DISTRICTS
WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY ANYBODY IT'S
NOT JUST. THE CITY OR THE COUNTY.
YEAH YOU THIS WHOLE.
A LOT OF WAYS I GUESS I COULD
ANSWER THAT ARM I THINK EACH ONE
OF THOSE ENTITIES HAVE.
DIFFERENT INHERENT TAXING
AUTHORITY VERSES WHAT.
THEY ARE PROVIDED IN TERMS OF
TAXING AUTHORITY.
THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTS SO
SCOPE OF WHAT THEY CAN DO IS
SOMEWHAT.
RESTRICTED BY STATUTE. BUT BUT
THAT SAID I GUESS THE THE PART
THAT STRUCK ME ABOUT THAT THAT I
WORRY ABOUT WE WERE ACTUALLY
JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS FASTER
MY.
BEFORE IS THAT THE IDEA OF THE
TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT IS.
IS IS IN IN SOME SENSE EIGHT
PROTECTION OF OF OF GROUPS OF
MINORITY GROUPS OR INSULAR
GROUPS. AND WE'VE HAD A KIND OF
HISTORY LAST I THINK TEN OR
TWENTY YEARS IN CALIFORNIA OF.
OF TARGETING PARTICULAR GROUPS
RENSSELAER TAXATION IT'S A WAY
OF FUNDING. SOMETIMES BROAD
POPULAR PROGRAMS BUT WE TARGET
UNPOPULAR GROUPS AND THE TWO
THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT THINK
PROTECTS AGAINST THAT TO SOME
DEGREE AND I THINK. YOU
ELIMINATION OF THAT PROTECTION
IS GOING YOU'RE GOING TO SEE
ESPECIALLY WHEN SPECIAL
INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED. AND THE
HOUSE. A LESS THAN THE ENTIRE
COMMUNITY OF THAT THEY'RE
REPRESENTING WHICH IS THE YOU
KNOW YOU COULD ARGUE THAT CITY
COUNCIL OR THE COUNTY THE RIBS
OF THE WHOLE COUNTY RIGHT SO
THEY HAVE THE TAKING COMPETING
INTERESTS WHEREAS. NOW WE'RE
SETTING UP A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE
A SPECIAL INTEREST MIGHT. HAVE
HAD A DESIRE FOR SPENDING BUT
THEY DON'T REALLY SO MUCH ONE
TAX THEMSELVES SO THEIR TARGET
SOMEBODY ELSE YOU KNOW IT WAS
THE ISFIELD SAW. A DON'T TAX
YOU DON'T TAX ME TAX THE
FOLLOWING TO THE TREE AND THAT'S
BEEN A POLICY IN CALIFORNIA OUT
FRANKLY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE
LASTED TEN TWENTY YEARS AND I
THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT
RATCHET UP IF THIS. IF THE COURT
TAKES UP THE CHALLENGE AND AND
ULTIMATELY SAYS THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
I'M SORRY LOCAL FURNISHES ARE
SUPPOSED TO THE TWO THIRDS VOTE
REQUIREMENT YOU SEE THAT
TARGETING BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO KATE OLD YOU KNOW ON. VOTERS
INITIATIVE OF LOCAL TAX
INITIATIVE WITH THAT IT COULD I
MEAN I THINK THAT THAT'S THE
HISTORY I MEAN I HAVING BEEN
INVOLVED IN PROP TWENTY SIX
THAT'S WHAT ITS PURPOSE WAS PART
TWENTY SIX DID TO YOU. REALLY
THREE THINGS THAT. ADDRESS THE
SINCLAIR PAIN DECISION IT
ADDRESSED THE THE AMBIGUITY N.
ARTICLE THIRTEEN IS SECTION
THREE AS TO WHETHER THE
LEGISLATURE COULD PASS.
EIGHT ATTACKS THAT WAS
OSTENSIBLY REVENUE NEUTRAL BUT
SHIFTED OBLIGATIONS AMONGST
GROUPS. ARM AND THEN IT SHIFTED
THE BURDEN PROOF FOR FOR
DEFENDING A SUIT CHALLENGING
WHETHER A A NEW POSITIONS
ATTACKS HER FEET. BUT CRITICS
WAS SPECIFICALLY AN ANSWER TO
THOSE QUESTIONS AND AND I
SUSPECT THERE WILL BE AN ANSWER
TO THIS AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
TO COME IN APART FROM ANY LEGAL
IMITATION THERE ARE TWO
PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS ON THE
ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUE FOR
GOVERNMENT ONE IS EVERYTHING
REQUIRES VOTER APPROVAL AND EVEN
A FIFTY PERCENT STANDARD IS NOT
AN EASY SELL BECAUSE VOTERS
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IN THEIR
POCKET BOOK ABOUT LIKE IT TO
STAY. THERE.
AND SECONDLY THERE ARE ECONOMIC
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REALITIES YOU
HAVE TO HAVE THE ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY IN YOUR COMMUNITY AND
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REASONABLY
EFFICIENT WAY TO TAX IT BUT I'LL
CHASING IT OUT OF YOUR COMMUNITY.
SO FOR EXAMPLE WE HAVE STATE
SALES TAX AND WE HAVE TO RELY ON
THE STATE TO OPERATE THAT TAX.
MOST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE A
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX AND SET UP
AN ENGINE TO DO IT AND UTILITY
TAXES RELY ON THE UTILITY
COMPANIES BUT WHEN YOU START TO
THINK MORE.
MORE BROADLY IT'S HARD YOU HAD
TO SET UP A WHOLE ADMINISTRATIVE
SYSTEM IN EACH OF THE FOUR
HUNDRED EIGHY CITIES IN
CALIFORNIA IN FIFTY EIGHT
COUNTIES IN ORDER TO CHASE WHAT
MIGHT BE AND ITS REVENUE. SO
PRACTICALLY THE ECONOMY AND THE
ECONOMICS OF TAXATION LIMIT OUR
CHOICES.
BECAUSE WHAT YOU AS A COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN OF THAT QUICKLY. SHUTS.
WHICH I CAN WHICH GOES TO WHY IF.
THIS WERE TO BE A.
IF WE WANTED THIS TO HAPPEN OR
AT LEAST IT DID HAPPEN HERE THE
REASON TO PROVIDE STANDARDIZED
BASIS AND SO IN ORDER AND
CAPTAIN MILLER CHURCH.
AROUND THIS PROBLEM IN TERMS OF
THAT I WOULD TO SAY SOMETHING
ABOUT THE TWO THE TWO THIRDS
RULE AND.
RECENT HISTORY OF TAXATION IN
CALIFORNIA IT IS TRUE THAT
THERE'S NOW BEEN BALLOT BOX
BUDGIE WHERE PEOPLE ARE THERE
NOW THINGS ON THE BUDGET THAT'S
EVER GOING TO RAISE THE SPECIFIC
TAXES FOR THE SPECIFIC. PROJECT
BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
RIGHT.
THERE ARE POST PROP THIRTEEN
PHENOMENON RIGHT THERE BECAUSE
THE LEGISLATURE CAN'T DO TAX
POLICY BECAUSE OF THE TWO THIRDS
RULES.
YOU NOW HAVE BALLOT BOX
BUDGETING NOW I'M NOT AS DOW.
I'M NOT THE DIRECTOR'S. IT'S A
COMPLICATED QUESTION BUT IT'S
WORTH UNDERSTANDING BOTH SIDES
OF IT RIGHT AND AND FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE IF THERE'S GOING TO
BE A SPECIAL RULE MAKE IT VERY
HARD TO RAISE TAXES. IF THERE'S
GOING TO BE A RULE LIKE THAT AND
I THINK THAT AGAIN THERE'S SOME
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ABSOLUTE
FIRST GOT PAST TO BE. BEFORE YOU
LOCK THE DOOR MAKE SURE THE
TAXES DO YOU HAVE IN PLACE IS
BROAD STABLE AND WELL DESIGNED.
AND THE ISSUE OF CALIFORNIA IS
THAT WE. COULD LOCK THE DOOR
WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS UNSTABLE AND
POORLY DESIGNED AND THAT'S THE
SITUATION WE'RE IN NOW BUT WE
HAVE A HARD TIME CHANGING. A
SYSTEM THAT'S NOT WELL DESIGNED
AND.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE
FLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE IT WHILE
ALSO TAKING DUMB TO MEASURE UP
THE CONCERNS OF UP UP AN ARTICLE
TO BE PROTECTED.
THANK YOU MISSILE.
I JUST ECHO MICHAEL'S COMMENT
THAT IN A MAJORITY OF HER
APPROVAL IS NOT A SIMPLE THINGS
SO EVEN IF IT IS FOR SPECIAL
SPECIAL PURPOSE. IS INITIATED BY
VOTERS THEY STOPPED ME THAT
THRESHOLD.
AND ULTIMATELY IT IS THE VOTERS
CHOICE IF THEY WANT TO WANT TO
HOW THE TAX WITHOUT THEY WON'T
BE TAXED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
IF IT WORKS FOR THE COMMITTEE
WOULD LIKE TO BE A GOOD LISTENER
MORLOCK WITH ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM. THE COMMITTEE
AS WELL.
THEY CAN ATTAIN DISCUSSING MARLA.
SURE IT'S NICE TO HAVE BB K. IN
THE ROOM. AFTER TWENTY YEARS OF
BEING INVOLVED IN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT TO BRING INTO YOUR
FIRM TWENTY. ON MANY OF THE BORG
COMMITMENTS AND MICHAEL I THINK
WE GO BACK TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICTS OF.
FOLK. WE'VE HAD GOOD DEBATES ON
THE PARTIAL TAX IN ITS VALIDITY
I THINK I WAS. IN THE MINORITY
VIEW BUT WE STILL HAD FUN.
DEBATING.
I AM. I I AM JUST CURIOUS HOW
OFTEN DOES A GROUP OF CITIZENS
CIRCULATE A PETITION TO TRY AND
RAISE A LOCAL TAX.
I HAVE NOT OFTEN SEEN IT YEAH
BUT I'M NOW SEEING IT.
SO IT'S GONNA BE A NEW TOOL
INSTEAD OF HAVING THE CITY
COUNCIL PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
BUILD.
BECAUSE YOU COMMISSION A GROUP
YOU CAN CONTROL THE DAY.
SO AND THEN YOU CAN GET FIFTY
PERCENT THRESHOLD.
I'M ON IT WE WE HAVEN'T I HAVE
NOT ADVISING MY CLIENTS THAT THE
INITIATIVE PROCESS CHANGES THE
VOTE STANDARD BUT WHAT DOES
CHANGE AND AND YOU KNOW IN
POLITICS IT MATTERS WHAT DAY
YOU'RE PUTTING THE BALLOT ON IT
GIVES YOU CONTROL OVER THE
ELECTION DATE. THERE WAS THE
BALLOT BOX BUDGETING EVERYTHING
THINK CITIES AND COUNTIES ALL
THEY'VE GOT LEFT IS MAYBE TO
RAISE THE SALES TAX AND.
SO YOU SEE THAT'S THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS LEVELED. AND THE
SALES TAX IS CAPPED AT TWO
PERCENT.
OF ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ON TOP
OF THE STATE TAX. ON THAT TAXES
HAVE A VESTED INDUSTRY OUT THERE
THAT WILL PROTECT THEIR TURF ON
BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES.
ARE COMPLEX A MEDICAL MARIJUANA
MARIJUANA TAXES OF THE FLAVOR OF
THE MONTH.
BUT I THINK WE'RE ALL GOING TO
DISCOVER THAT THE INDUSTRY IS
OVERTAXED. ESPECIALLY WHEN
THEY'RE.
PRODUCT PRICE FALLS TO THE
FLOOR LIKE IT DID IN EVERY OTHER
LEGALIZATION STATE.
AND I JUST ADD THAT. MY OFFICE
IS IS IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
I'VE SPENT SEVENTEEN HAVE YEARS
OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO BEFORE
I CAME TO BEST PASSING KRIEGER.
AND SO I WAS INVOLVED IN
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CHARGERS
BACK IN MY DAY OKAY.
A FAMILIAR WITH THEIR THEIR
ATTEMPT TO GET A NEW STADIUM
BUILT IN SAN DIEGO AND THEIR
ACTIVITY INVOLVED IN THIS
LITIGATION.
THERE ARE BUT A NUMBER OF
ACTIVITIES IN SAN DIEGO THAT
HAPPENED DRIVEN IN PART BY
SPECIAL INTERESTS SUCH AS THE
TOURISM GROUP IN TERMS OF TRYING
TO GET THE SPECIAL THE
CONVENTION CENTER THINGS OF THAT
NATURE. BUT ONE OF THEM EVER
TRY TO GET AROUND THE TWO THIRDS
VOTE APPROVAL REQUIREMENT.
AND THOUGH SO THOSE INITIATIVES
A BIT MORE ABOUT.
ARE THE VOTERS CAN APPROVE THE
THE PARTICULAR FACILITIES ARE
PROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO. ARE WE
GOING TO HAVE A TAX IMPOSED UPON
INDIVIDUALS TO PAY FOR THAT
EXPANSION. OTHER THAN IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE EXPENSE OF THE
CONVENTION CENTER WHICH WAS
GOING TO BE A TWO THIRDS VOTE
APPROVAL.
I'M NOT TOO RECENT SNEAKILY
HABITAT DEAN'S TINA BENNIS
SPANOS IS NOW ONE OF MY
CONSTITUENTS IN. HIS OFFICE IS
JUST DOWN THE STREET ALLIANCE
OVER.
THE CHARGERS.
MICHAEL YOU'RE TRYING NOT TO
GIVE ME THE DETAILS OF WHAT
CASES ARE TAKEN BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT. EXCEPT MAYBE ALL
FOUR OF YOU.
WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR
CASE IS THAT AFTER YOU WENT
THROUGH THE APPELLATE COURT
LEVEL YOU WANTED TO GO TO THE
STATE SUPREME COURT WHAT
PERCENTAGE OF YOUR CASES WENT TO
THE SUPREME COURT? I'VE HAD
REMARKABLE SUCCESS IN GETTING
THE ATTENTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT I'VE HAD ELEVEN CASES
SINCE TWO THOUSAND FOUR. ON THE
REASON FOR THAT I THINK IS THAT
I'M IN A SUBJECT AREA THAT IS OF
INTEREST TO THE COURT AND WHERE
THERE'S A LOT OF FERMENT IN THE
LAW. WHICH IS THE REVENUE SIDE
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SO I
ARGUE TWO CASES IN TWENTY
SEVENTEEN I'VE GOT A CASE COMING
ON FOR ARGUMENT SHORTLY AND I
HAVE TWO PETITIONS PENDING AT
THE MOMENT. TOOK A HUNDRED
PERCENT RATE NO BUT SOMETHING
LIKE FIFTY FIFTY WHICH IS NOT
BAD WHEN THE GENERAL AVERAGE IS
TWO PERCENT. OKAY.
GREG YOU HAVE PRESSED THE PANEL.
I'VE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
GET A CASE ALL WOULD SCREAM
COURT BECAUSE I WANT TO JUST
SPEND A LITTLE TIME. ON THE
SUPREME COURT BECAUSE IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT WHAT YOU'RE BEEN
COMMENTING ON HIS STICK.
SCHOLARSHIP OF THIS.
OPINION. AND SO I'VE HAD MY
EXPERIENCES AND COUNTY
GOVERNMENT WITH PRETTY SERIOUS
LAWSUITS.
ON THE RETIREMENT BOARD FOR AND
KENNY WE HAD BEEN SURE CASE
WHICH JUST.
WAS AN AMAZING SIGHT TO BEHOLD
IN.
VERY EXPENSIVE FOR ALL COUNTY
THIRTY SEVEN AT COUNTIES. ARE WE
HAD.
OF THE R. RECAPTURE CASE WHERE
WE HAD SOMEONE IN SEAL BEACH WAS
TRYING TO REDO PROP. THIRTEEN IN
A VERY INTERESTING EXPERIENCE IT
WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE SUPREME
COURT. I I HAD MY RETROACTIVITY
CASE.
WHICH WAS A MAJOR.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN IT
ACTUALLY I'VE I'VE FELT THAT
GRANTING RETRACTED. PENSION
BENEFITS BROKE TO CODE THAT
ARTICLE SECTIONS IN THE STATE
CONSTITUTION SO I WAS HOPING FOR
REAL SCHOLARSHIP.
IT'S A GREAT NOW WE'RE GONNA GET
THE SEVEN PEOPLE THIS DOES BRING
TRUST THAT TO COMMENT. BUT. THEY
DIDN'T TAKE THE CASE AND SO NOW
I. SORT OF LIVE WITH THE
BITTERNESS OF REALIZING THAT
MAYBE ALL THREE BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR
HANDS FOR THE HUNDREDS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DEBT THAT
WE. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH BUT
ANYWAY.
I'M JUST REALLY CURIOUS WOULD
YOU COMMENT ON THE SCHOLARSHIP
YOU KIND OF SAID IT DIDN'T GO
THROUGH. SECTION SEE ANDY AND
THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS.
SIGH I DO WE HAVE.
DO WE HAVE FOR YOU USE THE TERM.
A LAYING THE FOUNDATION.
AND I'M WONDERING OVER THEIR
HEADS.
SO I WANNA CONFIDENCE LEVEL OR
DO WE HAVE. A SUPREME COURT
THAT'S DOING A GOOD JOB BY THE
CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA.
WELL AT LEAST.
ANOTHER CAN HAVE A LARGER
COMMENTARY ON THE ON THE SUPREME
COURT GENERALLY I WOULD SAY FROM
THE TAXPAYERS PERSPECTIVE.
YOU KNOW OVER MY CAREER IT'S
CERTAINLY.
THE PASSAGE OF PROP THIRTEEN.
IN A ROW IT'S MY OPINION THAT IT
IT THERE'S BEEN A STRUGGLE WITH
TRYING FEELING LIKE.
AS A AS A DRAFTER AND AS A
TAXPAYER THAT YOU WERE NOT QUITE
GETTING THE LANGUAGE.
INITIATIVES. TIGHT ENOUGH FOR
SKILLED LAWYERS TO. GET AROUND.
AND IN THAT GOES BACK YOU COULD
GO BACK TO.
JUSTICE MOSS OPINION IN
RICHMOND BACK IN EIGHTY TWO
WHERE YOU KNOW HIS YEAH AFTER AM
OR AM OR DECIDED THE.
PROP THIRTEEN AND APPLIED A VERY
BROAD STANDARD FRANKLY TO IT
THAT THEY WERE TO GET TO GRANT.
A SORT OF A GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
OF A VERY BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO
THE. INTENT OF THE VOTERS IN
APPLYING THE LANGUAGE PROP
THIRTEEN AND THEN WHICH BECAME
ALONG AND AND A JUSTICE MOSS
SAID. THAT HIS VIEW OF THE TWO
THERE'S A REQUIREMENT IS
UNDEMOCRATIC.
AND I THINK THAT THAT TAINTS.
ANY LOOK AT.
THE EFFORT TO PLACE A LIMIT ON
THE TAXING AUTHORITY AND I THINK
THAT THAT. THAT VIEW HAS
PERMEATED SUBSEQUENT SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS BECAUSE YOU'VE
SEEN THIS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN.
THE WEATHER'S PROP SIXTY TWO A
PROP TO EIGHTEEN OR PROP TWENTY
SIX THEIR THEIR ANSWERS TO
SOMETHING THEY WEREN'T DRAFTED
EVEN PROP THIRTEEN SO WASN'T IN
A VACUUM IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO.
ACTIVITIES IN THE SIXTIES AND
SEVENTIES PROPERTY TAXES SO.
I GUESS IN I'M LOOKING AT THIS
OPINION.
I CAN'T SAY IT'S AN INDICTMENT
OF THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF.
IT IS THIS OPINION I DON'T
THINK IT'S I THINK THAT THEY.
TRUE OF THE IMAGE.
DRAFTED A FOUNDATION FOR
SUBSEQUENT.
QUESTION.
OF THAT THEY'RE DISSIPATING
COMING.
AND.
I DON'T KNOW THISOF A BROADER
STATEMENT ON THE COURT ITSELF
WHICH IS THAT THIS OPINION. BUT
I JUST THINK RAISES. MANY MORE
QUESTIONS THAN IT NEEDED TO
ANSWER AND THAT TO ME IT RAISES
QUESTIONS THIS ISN'T WHAT'S NEXT.
A COUPLE REACTIONS THE QUESTION
IF I MAY ONE IS THAT THE COURT
DOES EVENTUALLY THAT IT
SOMETIMES IT TAKES MORE THAN ONE
POSITION ON AN ISSUE FOR THE
COURT TO TAKE IT.
AND THE QUESTIONS YOU WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THEY DIDN'T
TAKE UP WHEN YOU WERE STILL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE ARE NOW BEFORE
THE COURT IN THE ALAMEDA AND
MARINE CASES. SO THEY GOT THERE
AND TOOK THEM LONGER HAN YOU
WOULD HAVE LIKED ON AND THEY
WERE COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED
ALONG THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD
LIKE TO AVOID IT BUT THEY DID
GET THERE. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY
ABOUT THE COURT.
IS THAT WE'VE HAD A MODERATELY
CONSERVATIVE COURTS INSTITUTE
MEIJIN MINISTRATION SINCE THE
RECALL. AND WE NOW HAVE THREE
YOUNG DEMOCRATIC APPOINTED
JUSTICES WHO ARE ALL VERY BRIGHT
YELLOW GRADS WHO DID NOT HAVE
SUBSTANTIAL EXPERIENCE IN THE
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH ACADEMIA
OR WAS THE FEDERAL SYSTEM INTO
THEIR ASKING QUESTIONS THAT HAVE
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKED BY
OTHERS AND THE COURT IS VERY
MUCH IN A TIME OF CHANGE. ON THE
FOURTH APPOINTMENT FROM THE
GOVERNOR AND.
PERHAPS WE'LL HAVE A FIFTH ON
DEPENDING ON HOW THE.
CONSERVATIVES ON THE COURT VIEW
THE RESULTS OF THE JUNE PRIMARY
IN THE COMMUNITY ELECTION I'M
GONNA MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO
THIS COURT. AND I THINK IT'S
GOING TO BE IN CHANGE UNTIL IT
REACHES SOME STABILITY AND THAT
STABILITY MAY BE A FEW YEARS
AWAY SO THIS IS A VERY. FERTILE
TIME.
AND THE CHANGE WILL BE ON
WELCOME TO THOSE WHO APPRECIATED
A MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE COURT
FOR TWO GENERATIONS.
SINCE YOU CAN'T CONCEIVE MISS
HOLT HAS ITEMS USED TO BE A
CHINAMAN'S CHANCE CAME IN.
I'M. A COUPLE THINGS ONE THING
INTERESTINGLY THE BROWN
APPOINTEES SPLIT ON THIS
DECISION RIGHTIST DECISION WAS
WRITTEN BY JUSTICE QUAI ARE.
BUT JUSTICES KRUEGER LOU I'M
DESCENDED SO THIS IS AN ACT SO
IN SO FAR AS TO YOU KNOW I AM.
DON'T WANT TO.
EOD BE OVERLY CRASS IN TERMS OF
THE COURT I THINK THAT COURTS
GENERALLY REACH UNANIMOUS
DECISIONS NOT BASED ON POLITICAL.
PARTY THOUGH SOMETIMES THAT'S
NOT TRUE BUT IN THIS CASE IT'S
REALLY NOT TRUE I'M AND SO I
WOULD JUST SAY THAT AND THEN
SECONDLY.
THE COURT REACHED A NARROW
DECISIONS.
HATED WHICH OUT THIS OTHER
DECISION ABOUT TAXES
SPECIFICALLY RESERVED IT AGAIN
THEY HAD IT IS SUGGESTIVE BUT IT
BUT IT COULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO
THAT QUESTION IT IS A SUPREME
COURT IT AS. IT DID NOT AND IN
ADDITIONALLY I'M IT IS FAIRLY
GROUNDED IN BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES THAT HAD BEEN APPLIED
JUST THE YEAR BEFORE PROP TWO
EIGHTEEN I'M IN FAVOR OF OF.
PEOPLE WHO ARE. CONCERNED WITH
I'M LIMITING TAXES SO PROPONENTS
OF. AN INITIATIVE TO OUR
PROSPECTIVELY REPEAL ATTACKS THE
QUESTION WAS CAN YOU DO THAT
USED INITIATIVE POWER TO REPEAL
ATTACKED THE SUPREME COURT SAID
WELL. WE INTERPRET INITIATIVE
POWER PROBABLY IT SO YOU CAN AND
SO IT IS A BROAD NEUTRAL
PRINCIPLE THAT OBVIOUSLY IS
GROUNDS IN CALIFORNIA LAW THAT
THE JUSTICES APPLIED AND THEY
DIDN'T APPLIED IN LOCKSTEP BY
TERMS OF ANY SORT OF IDEOLOGICAL
LITMUS TEST SO I THINK. AS FAR
AS DISTINCT CASES CONCERNED ONE
CAN HAVE LEGITIMATE
DISAGREEMENTS BUT I ACTUALLY
DON'T THINK THAT EIGHTY IS.
YOU KNOW OPT OUT. EIGHT ON
REASONABLE DECISION BY ANY MEANS
THANK YOU SO.
I WOULD ECHO WHAT WHAT WAS THE
FIRST CHANCE HE SAID.
BUT ALSO ADD THE LARGE PART
WE'RE WE'RE STUCK WITH A BALLOT
INITIATIVE WHICH QUITE FRANKLY
WAS POORLY DRAFTED FROM THE
CASCO.
AND YOU KNOW I'VE BEEN WORKING
ON ON PROP TWO EIGHTEEN ISSUES
CINCINNATI WHEN IN NINETEEN SO ULTIMATELY I YOU KNOW I
DON'T SEE AN END TO THIS
LITIGATION AND WE HAVE NOT ONLY
THE. ARTICLE THIRTEEN SEE HERE
BUT THIRTEEN D. WHICH CONTINUES
TO BE THE ONGOING DEBATE ABOUT
WHAT IT MEANS THE RELATIONSHIP
TO PROP PROPERLY FEES AND
CHARGES IN ASSESSMENTS. SO YOU
KNOW I DON'T BLAME THE CORE FOR
NOT GOING THERE NO.
ULTIMATELY I I I THINK THEY
DECIDED TO FOCUS.
ON THE SPECIFIC QUESTION AT HAND.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID IT
WHETHER IT HAS IMPLICATIONS
EXTEND BEYOND THAT. I DON'T
THINK THAT THEY SAW THAT AS
THEIR ROLE IN THAT PARTICULAR
DECISION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR I CAN
INNOCENT THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
OF THE PANEL THANK YOU SO MUCH
SOONER. LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT WOULD
LIKE TO CHIME IN UP PRIOR TO
GOING TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALL RIGHT TO ASK THE PANEL TO
HANG WITH US JUST IN CASE YOU
HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP AFTER PUBLIC
COMMENT. NOW WOULD LIKE TO BUILD
OPEN IT UP FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL
WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS
THE COMMITTEE WE'RE GONNA HAVE
YOU IF YOU DON'T MIND PLEASE
QUEUING UP BEHIND THE MICROPHONE
RIGHT UP HERE. YOU DON'T MIND
SITTING YOUR FIRST AND AST IN
THE ORGANIZATION OF TWO MINUTES
WE WELCOME YOU SIR AND THANK YOU
FOR BEING WITH US. MORNING
MEMBERS.
IF THE MICRON IS IT IS HER I I'M
TIM BIDDLE FROM THE HOWARD
JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION. I
REPRESENTED THE CITY OF UPLAND
IN THE OPEN CASE.
AS MENTIONED AT THE START
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MEDIA
CHATTER ABOUT THE UPLAND
DECISION SUPPOSEDLY HOLDING THAT
SPECIAL TAX AS PROPOSED BY.
INITIATIVE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A
TWO THIRDS VOTE. REQUIREMENT
ANYMORE I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU
THREE REASONS. FROM THE OPINION
ITSELF WHY I BELIEVE THAT VIEW
IS INCORRECT.
FIRST.
THAT QUESTION WAS NOT BEFORE THE
COURT THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE
THE COURT.
WAS A PROCEDURAL TIMING QUESTION
ABOUT THE DATE OF. THE ELECTION
FOR A GENERAL TAX.
ONE OF THE VIRTUES OF OUR
SUPREME COURT IS JUDICIAL
RESTRAINT IT NEVER OFFERS
ADVISORY OPINIONS ON QUESTIONS
THAT ARE NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE
IN RESOLVING THE CASE BEFORE IT.
IN UPLAND WHEN I IS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY
PARADED THE HORRIBLE'S THAT
WOULD ENSUE. IF INITIATIVE
SPECIAL TAXES WERE NOT SUBJECT
TO THE REST OF PROPOSITION TWO
EIGHTEEN.
COURT AT THAT PAGE NINE FORTY
SEVEN OF ITS OPINION SAID. THESE
FACTS ARE NOT PRESENTED HERE AND
WE DECLINE. TO TAKE UP WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN SHOULD THEY ARISE.
SECOND.
THE UPLAND DECISION ITSELF
EXPRESSLY AFFIRMS THAT THE TWO
THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT STILL
APPLIES TO SPECIAL TAXES EVEN IF
PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE.
AT PAGE NINE FORTY THREE THE
OPINION OF THE COURT STATES
QUOTE.
THAT THE VOTERS EXPLICITLY
IMPOSED A PROCEDURAL TWO THIRDS
VOTE REQUIREMENT ON THEMSELVES
IN ARTICLE THIRTEEN SEE SECTION
TWO SUBDIVISION DE.
IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT
IMPLICITLY IMPOSE A PROCEDURAL
TIMING REQUIREMENT IN
SUBDIVISION BE.
THIRD.
THE UPLAND DECISION ADDRESSED
ONLY PROPOSITION TWO EIGHTEEN
EVEN IF PROPOSITION TWO EIGHTEEN
IT IN ITS ENTIRETY DID NOT APPLY
TO INITIATIVES. OUR CONSTITUTION
STILL CONTAINS PROPOSITION
THIRTEEN WHICH INCLUDES ITS OWN
TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR
SPECIAL TAXES.
A PROP THIRTEEN CASE. MENTION BY
GREG TURNER ALTADENA LIBRARY
DISTRICT VERSUS BLOODGOOD HELD
THAT PROP THIRTEEN REQUIRES TWO
THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL FOR
SPECIAL TAX AS PROPOSED BY
INITIATIVE. AND IN FACT
INVALIDATED AN INITIATIVE OF THE
PROPOSED A TAX RECEIPT MAJORITY
APPROVAL BUT NOT TWO THIRDS. THE
ALTADENA LIBRARY CASE WAS
BRIEFED IN THE UPLAND CASE
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
IF THE SUPREME COURT DISAGREED
WITH THE HOLDING IN THAT CASE
THAT THE TWO THIRDS VOTE APPLIES
TO INITIATIVES IT WOULD HAVE
DISAPPROVED ALTADENA LIBRARY AND
IT DID NOT. TO BELIEVE THAT ONE
MINUTE SIR.
ALRIGHT WELL I PLAN DOES CONTAIN
SOME ODDLY BROAD LANGUAGE IT IS
CLEAR ON UPON CLOSER INSPECTION
THAT IT DID NOT MAKE A SEA
CHANGE IN TAXPAYER RIGHTS'. THE
TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT
STILL APPLIES TO SPECIAL TAX AS
PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH AS IF IT WERE
GRATEFUL YOU'RE HERE AND IT'S
ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE MISTER WOLF
AS WELL SO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS.
WE'D LIKE TO BE A TO SEE IF WE
HAVE ANYONE ELSE I'D LIKE TO BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS THE JOINT
COMMITTEES. IF YOU DO IF YOU
COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD WE
WELCOME YOU ANYONE ELSE ELECTED
ADDRESS THE JOINT COMMITTEES.
ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GONNA BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEES TO SEE IF THERE ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FOR OUR PANEL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN FOR YOUR HARD WORK
INFER PEPIN. AND THREE
PRESENTATIONS TODAY WE'RE
GRATEFUL YOU'RE HERE. WE'D LIKE
TO BETTER TURN IT OVER TO THE
CHAIRWOMAN OF EACH OF THE
COMMITTEES PAY TO SEE IF WE HAVE
ANY CLOSING COMMENTS. BY THE
CHAIR WOMAN CHAIRMAN BURKE.
I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE
PANELISTS THIS WAS EXTREMELY
INFORMATIVE AND.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPERTISE
SCIENCE AND THANK YOU TO MY CO
CHAIRS.
TEN CENTER MAGUIRE FOR RUNNING
SUCH AN EFFICIENT HEARING MY
GOODNESS.
BUT YES THANK YOU VERY MUCH
WE'VE I'VE LEARNED A LOT HERE
TODAY THINKING HE'S MATURING
INTO ONCE HE THINK YOUTH
PARTNERSHIP INTO YOUR FANTASTIC
STAFF TO GO TO WORK WITH THE
FOUR WERE WITHIN THE FUTURE AND
CONGRATULATIONS BY THE WAY. MANY
THAT'S GOOD. THE CHAT ROOM
PLEASE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PUTTING
THIS TOGETHER TODAY BUT I MUST
ADMIT I'M GONNA GO HOME AND
THINK THIS THROUGH A LITTLE BIT
BECAUSE.
I REPRESENT MANY OF THE RURAL
COMMUNITIES AND I'M CONCERNED OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
ADDITIONAL PAPERWORK AND
STAFFING AND EVERYTHING ELSE
THAT GOES COULD POSSIBLY GO WITH
THE SONG. I'LL BE INTERESTED IN.
FINDING OUT MORE INFORMATION I
WILL BE TAPPING INTO MANY OF YOU
THINK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHAIRMAN AND
AGAIN I WANT TO THANK YOU TOO
CHAIRMAN AGUILAR CURRY FOR HER
FANTASTIC WORK AND YOUR
CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP IT'S
ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.
WE'LL START THE BATTLE IN THE
HEARING AS WE STARTED IT AS WE
ARE COMING FORWARD. AND IT IS
NOT BECAUSE OF OUR FANTASTIC
LEGAL PANEL OF BUT.
REALLY THE DECISION IS SO CLEAR
AS MUD.
THERE ARE CHALLENGES AHEAD ON
THERE ARE GONNA BE SOME
POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
COMING FORWARD THIS YEAR THAT
WOULD HELP CLARIFY. THE COURT'S
DECISION WITH THE POTENTIAL
LEGISLATIVE FIX. THERE WILL BE
AN INITIATIVE THAT WILL BE
MOVING FORWARD. IN NOVEMBER AT
THAT WILL ALSO ASSIST IN CLEAR
FINE AT LEAST ASKING THE VOTERS
TO HELP CLARIFY AS WELL. AND I
THINK THAT WE ARE MOST LIKELY
GOING TO SEE SOME COURT CASES
THAT WILL BE ADVANCED. IF THE
DECISION IS TESTED ON THE JUNE
BALLOT IN MOST LIKELY AGAIN LOOK
INTO THE CRYSTAL BALL. THOSE.
RESULTS IF SUCCESSFUL WOULD
MOST LIKELY BE CHALLENGED AS
THERE MAY BE SOME LEGAL REMEDIES
AS WELL. AGAIN JUST WANT TO SAY
HOW GRATEFUL I AM TO EACH OF THE
CHAIRWOMAN FOR THEIR PARTNERSHIP
WHEN I SAY THANK YOU TO MISTER
NOW WHO'S THE CHIEF CONSULTANT
UP. A GUN AND FINANCE INTO THE
CONSULTANTS OF EACH OF THE OTHER
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES FOR ALL OF
THEIR WORK AND PREPARATION THAT
WENT INTO TODAY. WITHOUT FURTHER
DO WE LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CHURN
HEARING AND SAY THANK YOU ALL
FOR COMING TODAY THANK YOU SO
MUCH