Gov. Jerry Brown’s decision

But attempts to block the law have never stopped. Backers of a lawsuit seeking to scrap the measure may have lost the battle last week in a Riverside County courtroom, but they appear to still have a chance to win the war.

In refusing a request for an injunction to put the law on hold, Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ottolia cited the safeguards touted by its advocates: the requirement that the patient establish his or her mental competence; that the patient have statements from two medical doctors that he or she will die within six months; and that the patient and only the patient can administer the lethal drugs.

Nevertheless, Ottolia let the lawsuit — technically against Riverside County District Attorney Mike Hestrin as the local symbol of the state’s legal system — proceed. The judge concluded that the lawsuit raised enough serious issues that it should not be dismissed.

Is psychiatric evaluation needed, not competency check?

Plaintiffs include the American Academy of Medical Ethics, the Christian Medical and Dental Society, and six Riverside-area doctors. The argument they made that appeared to resonate the most with Ottolia is that the End of Life Option Act is at odds with the clear intent and plain meaning of another state law meant to provide emergency help to people who are a physical danger to themselves. That law specifies that people with suicidal impulses get professional treatment. A mental competence check-up does not meet this test, according to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Alexandra Snyder, who belongs to  the Life Legal Defense Foundation, which is based in Napa.

The plaintiffs’ brief in the case noted that California law holds that helping in or encouraging a suicide is a felony and questions how a doctor can legally counsel someone — even if they are dying — to consider suicide. 

The brief also contends the End of Life Option Act does an end run around laws meant to protect ailing older people from elder abuse.

Defenders of the law expressed disappointment that the lawsuit was not thrown out and said that Oregon’s history of allowing “death with dignity” since 1997 had been marked by none of the “hypothetical” abuses warned of by the plaintiffs.

California is the fifth state with such a law.

Besides Monning, the law was also co-sponsored by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman, D-Stockton. Their legislation was modeled on the Oregon law.

“Proposed by state Democrats, SB707 passed the Senate in a 23-12 vote in June sending it to the Assembly where it cleared in a largely partisan 54-24 roll call in September, moving it to Brown’s desk,” as Guns.com recounted. “Despite widespread resistance to the bill by state and national gun rights groups that included threats of litigation and 40,000 opposition letters delivered to Brown’s office last week, the governor was not swayed.”

The change upended prior state law, which had not circumscribed the gun rights of permit holders. “Those with concealed-weapons permits had previously been allowed to enter a college or university campus with weapons at will,” the International Business Times observed. State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, introduced the bill in an effort to close what she called a loophole in the 1995 Gun Free Schools Act, which “prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless with the written permission of certain school district officials,” as the Vallejo Times-Herald noted.

California already boasted one of the strictest regimes in the country for regulating guns. “The new law bolsters existing restrictions in the state that prohibit the possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school or college campus without written permission from administrators, and comes less than two weeks after a gunman opened fire at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, killing nine people and wounding nine others,” Bloomberg Politics reported. Oregon was one of eight states to legalize so-called “campus carry.”

College crisis

A recent spate of shootings has ratcheted up the fight over whether popularizing concealed carry would increase or decrease public safety. “The fight over whether guns should be allowed on college campuses is gaining prominence nationally. Advocates argue that students may be able to help prevent crimes such as mass shootings and rapes, but gun control supporters counter that throwing firearms onto campuses with young people, alcohol, mental health issues and strongly held beliefs on controversial topics is a dangerous mix,” the Sacramento Bee noted.

Both critics and supporters have attempted to determine how shooters and potential shooters would respond to knowledge of the new restrictions. Firearms Policy Coalition president Brandon Combs argued that the response would be opportunistic one. “Criminals will know that their intended victims are totally vulnerable when they’re on California school grounds because SB707 will ensure that they’re defenseless against a violent attack,” he said. But in most states with concealed carry, “an applicant must be at least 21 to obtain a concealed-carry license, which rules out most undergraduates at many universities,” The Washington Times observed.

The politics of opposition to the law have not always conformed to traditional expectations. In a critical analysis, the Firearms Policy Coalition noted that California’s law enforcement lobby responded to the introduction of SB707 “by offering their full support — in exchange for preservation of existing exemptions for law enforcement retirees. They later cut deals to add in even more special exemptions, including for retired police reservists. Combs believes that this is blatantly unconstitutional,” it added.

Concealed carry has taken on special significance at colleges and universities in part because schools independently maintain their own security staff — not always with great rigor. A recent report revealed that California’s Community College system, the nation’s largest system of higher education at 113 campuses, “does not require schools to have security or training plans that address active shooter scenarios,” according to Guns.com.

National reverberations

In the midst of the presidential campaign season, California’s approach to campus carry has become a touchstone for partisan debate. On the campaign trail, Republican candidates like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush have argued that the urge to enact new gun restrictions in the wake of mass shootings is the wrong response,” Bloomberg Politics noted. “Democrat Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, decried Bush’s response.”

Senate Bill 128, the so-called “End of Life Option Act,” was introduced earlier this year by state Sens. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, and Bill Monning, D-Carmel. Modeled on an Oregon law governing physician-assisted suicide, SB128 set out a series of conditions that would legalize but limit the practice.

Retooled after it initially stalled, the bill has now passed through the state Senate appropriations committee. “Backers of the assisted suicide proposal made some changes to the bill to gain more support after it initially met with strong opposition from hospitals, doctors, anti-abortion organizations and disability rights groups,” Reuters reported. “As currently written, it allows hospitals and medical providers to refuse to comply with a patient’s wish for assisted suicide, and also makes it illegal to pressure or manipulate people into ending their lives.”

The bill’s final language required that medication be self-administered by a mentally competent patient diagnosed by two physicians with six months or less to live, according to California Healthline.

Deepening controversy

One key to the bill’s committee clearance, Reuters noted, was the California Medical Association, which “still opposes the concept of assisted suicide” but “removed its formal opposition to the bill.”

Yet this attempt at a compromise position has left many palliative doctors unsatisfied. Among those supportive of assisted suicide, some have argued that all patients should have a right to avoid discomfort at the end of life — an objective even diligent palliative care cannot always meet.

Others, arguing against the practice, insisted that affirmatively ending patients’ lives was an unnecessary and crude response to the discomfort of death and dying. Newport Beach doctor Vincent Nguyen told Southern California Public Radio that patients’ typical fears — “about pain, losing control or being a burden on family — can be managed with spiritual and emotional counseling and pain medications, all of which are part of the palliative care toolkit.”

Dr. Ira Byock, a palliative care physician in Torrance, went further. Contrary to their wishes, he warned, the chronically ill often “spend their last weeks in intensive care units, hooked up to life support,” according to SCPR. “To address this problem, he says that all doctors — from medical students to veteran practitioners — should be required to have training in end of life conversations.”

A moral shift

As SB128 came one step closer to becoming law, analysts began a closer look at how much popular support the bill might attract. As has long been the case on high-profile and hot-button issues, California has been seen as a bellwether in the struggle over how the law treats those who want to die.

Despite gathering momentum to legalize assisted suicide, public opinion has remained split. But in-state and nationwide, data suggested an ongoing shift in mores that benefits how SB128 is perceived. “Nearly seven in 10 Americans (68 percent) say doctors should be legally allowed to assist terminally ill patients in committing suicide, up 10 percentage points from last year,” Gallup reported. “More broadly, support for euthanasia has risen nearly 20 points in the last two years and stands at the highest level in more than a decade.”

The shift has left opponents pivoting to warn that even relatively narrow authorizations of the practice would lead to ever-broader accommodations down the road. “In the Netherlands, after many years, legal assisted suicide for the dying has evolved into death on demand, with six out of 10 doctors admitting to killing a patient who was simply ‘tired of   living,'” wrote  Jacqueline Harvey of Euthanasia Prevention International at National Review. “California is approaching that slippery slope.”

Changing mores among MDs

For disability-rights advocates like Marilyn Golden, senior policy analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, “the marriage of a profit-driven healthcare system and legalized aid in dying sets up dangerous possibilities,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “She warned of a scenario in which insurers might deny or delay life-sustaining treatments and a patient ‘is steered toward assisted suicide.'”

But views among doctors have moved strongly toward accepting illness-driven suicide. A recent nationwide poll conducted by the Medscape Ethics Center showed that 54 percent of respondents agreed that medically-assisted suicide should be permitted — an 8 percent increase in support among American doctors over the past five years.

The numbers showed how sharply and deeply the divide among physicians has become. “Historically, doctors have been some of the most vocal critics of assisted suicide,” The Atlantic recently noted.

“The American Medical Association still says that ‘physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.’ Similarly, the California Medical Association takes the view that helping patients die conflicts with doctors’ commitment to do no harm. ‘It is the physicians’ job to take care of the patient and that is amplified when that patient is most sick,’ said a spokeswoman, Molly Weedn.”

A legislative push

With the shift in medical opinion, political support has also increased. While the doctors’ lawsuit makes its way through the courts, Sacramento Democrats have begun to advance legislation that would go even further. In a letter to state Sens. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, and Bill Monning, D-Carmel, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., gave her stamp of approval to Senate Bill 128, the so-called California End of Life Option Act:

“The right to die with dignity is an option that should be available for every chronically suffering terminally ill consenting adult in California. I share your concern that terminally ill California residents currently do not have the option to obtain end-of-life medication if their suffering becomes unbearable. As a result they may well experience terrible pain until their illness has taken their life naturally.”

The bill “would allow mentally competent California residents with less than six months to live obtain physician-prescribed lethal drugs that they’d administer themselves,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “A patient would need two doctors to confirm the illness was terminal. Also required: two oral requests 15 days apart and a written version witnessed by two people. Physicians, pharmacists and healthcare facilities could opt out. Those participating would be protected against lawsuits. Coercing a patient would be a felony.”

SB128 recently passed through the Senate Health Committee, which viewed a video message prepared by the activist Brittany Maynard, who moved to Oregon from California last year in order to end her life in accordance with that state’s assisted-suicide law.

“Before she died, Maynard recorded testimony in favor of passing such a law in California,” Reuters reported. “I am heartbroken that I had to leave behind my home, my community, and my friends in California, but I am dying and I refuse to lose my dignity,” Maynard said in the video. “I refuse to subject myself and my family to purposeless, prolonged pain and suffering at the hands of an incurable disease.”

A bellwether in the making

The assisted-suicide movement has positioned itself well to exploit a potential success in California. In addition to Oregon, Washington and Vermont also legally permit the practice. “Courts in New Mexico and Montana also have ruled that aid in dying is legal, and a suit was also recently filed in New York,” according to The Atlantic.

First bond: On Friday, Senate Republicans refurbished their own water-bond proposal, now for $8.7 billion. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Nearly a third of the money in the new proposal would go to water storage. Like the 2009 plan, the new GOP proposal would designate $3 billion for storage such as reservoirs and dams.”

Second bond: In an Aug. 5 open letter to Califonians, Gov. Jerry Brown urged support for his proposed $6 billion water bond, $2 billion of it for water storage.

Third bond: Still in the water table is SB848, by state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Vacaville. It would spend $7.5 billion, including $2 billion on water storage.

Fourth bond: Any new proposal, if adopted by the Legislature, would be placed on the November ballot for voter approval. And it would replace the $11.1 billion water bond, Proposition 43, currently slated by the Legislature for the November ballot, but delayed in 2010 and 2012 because legislators knew it would be defeated because of the bad economy.

Aside from price, the major difference is that the Brown and Wolk bonds spend $2 billion on water storage, while the GOP and Prop. 43 bonds spend $3 billion.

New water storage wouldn’t be available for about another 10 years because it would take seven to eight years to get any new reservoir designed and engineered, environmentally cleared, constructed and certified for operation.  It then would take one or more years to fill the reservoirs.

The last time voters approved bonds for building new water storage facilities was 1960 for $1.8 billion for the State Water Project. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Inflation Calculator, that would be $14.5 billion today. And California’s population has more than doubled.

Some aspects of the new bond proposals

GOP bond. The major problem with the Republican proposal, of course, is that party members are a minority in both houses of the Legislature, so their ideas can be ignored — yet not completely. Their emphasis on $3 billion for water storage, instead of the $2 billion in the Brown and Wolk proposals, appeals to inland farm voters that have been leaning Republican.

In 2013, State Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Fresno, won a special election in a Democratic district in part by appealing to farmers hurt by the water shortage. Vidak is a co-sponsor of the new GOP bond proposal. So despite the Republicans’ minority status, they cannot be ignored.

If Vidak holds his seat in November, and up-and-coming GOP candidate Janet Nguyen takes back a state Senate seat in Orange County now held by Democrats, then Democrats’ chances of taking back their supermajority status in the Senate likely would be ended.

Brown bond. One aspect of Brown’s proposed bond is that it contains $475 million for the controversial Central Valley Project Improvement Act. And an additional $215 million would go to restoration of watershed lands that support endangered species. This could worsen water farm shortages during droughts.

Wolk bond. As to Wolk’s bond, it prioritizes groundwater storage over dams and surface water storage.  Her bill allocates only $1 billion for dams, but that funding would be diluted among a number of other projects and programs.

But Wolk’s water bond contains a hydrological fatal flaw: How do you get water to percolate into groundwater basins if it is not captured first instead of allowing it to flow through rivers to the sea?  As Dan Nelson, Executive Director of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, wrote in the Aug. 1 Sacramento Bee, “Groundwater Can’t be Regulated Without Increasing Surface Supplies.”

Farmers

If Brown’s 2012 negotiations over the tax increase that became Proposition 30 are any indication, the result passed by the Legislature likely will be a blend of two more of these proposals. Voters especially should look for the effect on water rights.

Under California’s water management system, farmers with “junior water rights” are asked to make fallow their fields during droughts so that the water can be used for cities, farmers with senior water rights and fish runs on rivers.

Rather than storing up enough water for droughts, California’s water policy forces some farmers to get wiped out during droughts.  Therefore, all voters might want to know if there is any water for those drought-hit farmers who sacrifice for everyone in this bill.

Farmers too often sit in the back of the tractor in California politics. But for bonds this year, they’re trying to crawl up into the driver’s seat.

Almost every year in the California Legislature Proposition 13 becomes a target for those seeking higher taxes. The 1978 tax-limitation measure, among other things, requires a two-thirds vote for local tax increases.

As budget maneuvers heat up in the Legislature, state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, last week pushed Senate Bill 1021 through her State Governance and Finance Committee on a 5 to 2 vote. It was a strict party-line tally, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against.

It would allow “split-roll” parcel taxes to fund schools. The bill is complicated, as even the Senate analysis pointed out. But the analysis gets the gist of the bill:

“According to the opposition, this bill overturns the Borikas decision on a prospective basis by allowing more than 1,000 school districts to impose nonuniform parcel taxes. In other words, this bill allows school districts to use property classifications commercial, industrial, single-family residential and multifamily residential to impose different tax rates.”

In the 2012 decision Borikas vs. Alameda Unified School District, the California Courts of Appeal cited Government Code Section 50079, which reads that the code allows only “taxes that apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the school district.” In the court’s words, the code prohibits “differential tax burdens,” which sometimes are called split-roll taxes.

SB1021 would change the state code to get around Section 50079.

Prop. 13

This is where Prop. 13 comes in. It already authorized school districts to impose a flat tax on each parcel of land in their district with 2/3-voter approval.  What SB1021 does is authorize school districts to apply the tax on the basis of the square foot of the land or the building to a combined category of commercial, industrial and multifamily residential properties, and at a lower rate for unimproved land.

In testimony against the bill before the committee, CalTax Vice President of State Tax Policy Gina Rodriquez said:

“The bill … allows school districts to impose layered parcel taxes. A school district could impose a parcel tax based upon square footage, and based upon the classification – for the same parcel. Of critical importance, however, is that if parcel taxes are split, homeowners would lose their parcel tax deduction, and face higher state and federal income taxes. To be deductible, real property taxes must be levied for the general public welfare ‘at a like rate against all property’ in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction.”

For example, someone with a home business could have the home declared a “commercial” property,  thus eliminating the federal and other tax deductions.

Opposition

The written opposition to the bill was massive, with opponents including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors. (Full list at the bottom of the bill wording here). 

Chartered property appraiser Charles Warren of Pleasant Hill told CalWatchdog.com that a split-roll parcel tax could end up encouraging property demolition for marginal properties. He asked, “How much property value will be raised if a lot of buildings gets bulldozed? Or will it be a land tax?  If a land tax, it will encourage higher density development that could be blocked by growth controls in local communities.”

Thus, small commercial building owners could be hit by a school parcel tax with no way to develop their properties to a higher use to offset the higher taxation.  Warren warned, “Given 5 percent capitalization rates, for every $1 per square foot of tax a property would take a $20 per square foot hit on property value.”

In general, the number of business establishments in a community only comprises about 5 percent of all the residential households. Moreover, 97 percent of commercial property owners are comprised of small businesses, residential duplexes, Mom and Pop restaurants, and even some elderly homeowners with old houses on land that has been upzoned for commercial use.

There are no special waivers in SB1021 for any of these commercial property categories because they comprise the bulk of properties on which the tax would be imposed. And small, older commercial building stock is likely to be mostly found in Hispanic-populated areas of Southern California such as Huntington Park.

Large investment-grade commercial and multi-family properties would probably feel the pain of a new parcel tax less because the tax can be passed through to wealthier tenants.

By contrast, small businesses, residential duplex properties, and homeowners on commercial-zoned land have no one to whom they can pass along the tax.

Prospects

The real problem for the bill could come from Gov. Jerry Brown. Running for re-election this year, so far he has come out against any new taxes.

Brown well remembers the strong support for Prop. 13, which was passed in 1978 during his first term as governor. His Proposition 30 tax increase of 2012 was not passed by the Legislature, but by voters, giving Brown the cover of voter support.

Brown also just called for a special session of the Legislature to change the wording of an initiative on the fall ballot to strengthen the state’s “rainy day” fund by putting wording in the California Constitution.

But whatever happens with SB1021, it will not be the last attack on the redoubts of Prop. 13.

The California Tax Code is a monster. Just the first 136 sections of the code fill up 202 pages with more than 100,000 words. The entire code contain 60,709 sections. If those first 136 sections are indicative, the entire code contains more than 90,000 pages and in excess of 45 million words.

One of the contributors to the length and complexity of California’s tax law are the numerous tax credits built into it. There are scores of tax carve-outs for favored constituencies, for groups deemed to need help, and to incentivize activities deemed in society’s interest.

The largest credit is the mortgage interest deductions, for which taxpayers got to keep an estimated $4.4 billion that would have gone to the state in the 2012-13 fiscal year. Others deductions include the exclusion for employer contributions to pension plans ($4 billion), employer contributions to accident and health plans ($3.6 billion), Social Security benefits ($2.6 billion) and the charitable contribution deduction ($1.6 billion). Tax credits are also provided for low-income renters, the blind, low-income housing expenses, first-time home buyers, motion picture companies, student loan interest, clergy housing and on and on.

While the credits are a boon to the recipients, they have denied the state tax money that some politicians would like to get.

“Our current tax preference portfolio now exceeds $47 billion, equal to half of our total revenue,” said Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis on the Senate Floor April 22, speaking in support of her bill, SB 365. “This bill requires that all future bills that create tax preferences state the goals of the preference and identify specific indicators and data measurement to see if it works. It will require a 10-year sunset on these bills. SB 365 will ensure that the Legislature uses the public dollar wisely. The bill affects no current tax benefits, only future ones.”

Chamber calls it a ‘job killer’

There was no discussion or debate, and the bill passed the Senate 22-11 along party lines. But the California Chamber of Commerce, which has placed SB 365 on its list of “job killer” bills, is hoping to head it off in the Assembly.

SB 365 “creates uncertainty for California employers making long-term investment decisions by requiring tax incentives end 10 years after their effective date,” the Chamber states on its website. “When businesses choose to locate in a state, factors such as the availability of a skilled workforce, infrastructure, regulatory environment, and tax structure all play a significant role. Businesses evaluate whether they can rely on these factors to remain relatively stable and consistent in the long term.

“Furthermore, for capital-intensive industries like manufacturing and research and development, investment decisions are made many years into the future. The ability for corporate decision makers in these industries to plan anticipated costs over a span of many years is an important factor when determining locations for these investments. Establishing an arbitrary maximum 10-year sunset puts the long-term viability of any credit in jeopardy and, in many cases, could ultimately render the credit’s value useless in a company’s final decision on a location.”

Instead of an automatic sunset, the Chamber wants future tax credits “to be evaluated on their own merit. A reasonable sunset should be applied only if appropriate.”

Justification for tax credits

The Franchise Tax Board’s 2011 Tax Expenditure Report provides background on tax credits, which the government calls “expenditures” even though the state is simply allowing people and businesses to keep some of the money they earn rather than hand it over to the government.

“There are two primary policy motivations for adopting tax expenditures,” the report states. “The first is to move towards a more equitable tax system by providing relief to taxpayers facing a monetary cost due to their circumstances in life. The second is to provide taxpayers with incentives to alter their behavior.”

For example, carpooling has the societal benefit of helping reduce traffic congestion. So it may be in government’s interest to provide a tax incentive for carpooling to motivate those who would otherwise drive to work alone to instead share their commute.

“Thus, a credit for carpooling will allow the person who chooses carpooling to reap some of the social benefit of carpooling,” the report states. “This will increase the likelihood of a decision to carpool. In such a situation, if the net social benefit from carpooling is positive, the fact that the tax system alters private decisions (or violates tax neutrality) is actually good. Policy makers must be careful, however, to ensure both that tax incentives induce desired behaviors and that they do not induce too much of the desired behaviors.”

Common concerns about tax credits are that they may:

* Necessitate an increase in tax rates or a cut in expenditures.

* Complicate the tax code.

* Induce undesirable behavior from taxpayers. For example, if a tax credit is set too high, it might divert investment from other projects that would be more beneficial to the economy.

* Provide expensive windfalls to some taxpayers without furthering the intended policy goals.

Clumsy at best

And tax credits are clumsy mechanisms at best. The report lists numerous alternatives that might achieve the same policy objectives:

* Instead of providing targeted tax credits designed to improve the general economy, the same effect could be achieved by reducing overall tax rates.

* Tax credits aimed at spurring investment in specific activities, industries, or geographic locations could be replaced with direct government loans, loan guarantees or rate subsidies.

* Tax credits can be replaced with government mandates. For example, the Low-Income Housing Expenses Credit could be replaced with requirements that lenders or developers divert a portion of their economic activity to the low-income market.

* Almost any tax credit could simply be replaced with a direct expenditure. For example, instead of offering a Child Adoption Expense Credit, California could make direct payments, equivalent to the tax savings available under the credit, to couples who adopt children.

“There are potentially many good reasons for using tax expenditures within a tax system,” the report concludes. “However, policymakers should give careful thought to the reasons why the tax expenditure is needed, and the potential adverse consequences of adopting or retaining the tax expenditure.”

If SB 365 is approved in the Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, there is a distinct possibility that it won’t achieve its 10-year automatic sunset objective. That’s because it would in effect allow the current Legislature to dictate to future legislatures the terms of future tax credit legislation.

“[E]ven if a general sunset requirement were included in statute, there would be nothing to prevent a future Legislature from enacting an open-ended tax expenditure ‘notwithstanding’ the statutory prohibition,” the bill’s legislative analysis concludes. “Courts have long held that one legislative body may not limit or restrict its own power or that of subsequent Legislatures, and the act of one Legislature may not bind its successors. In practical terms, it means that subsequent Legislatures are under no legal obligation to comply with the provisions of this bill.”

By Dave Roberts

If you think taxes are already high in California, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Winding through the Legislature have been a gaggle of constitutional amendments that would make it easier to raise local parcel taxes. The bills would  lower the vote-approval threshold to 55 percent from the current two-thirds requirement.

Four tax-hike-enabling bills were debated in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee on Tuesday, where they passed easily, 3-0. They were:

* SCA 3 is by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco. It would affect “school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education.”

* SCA 7 is by state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Vallejo. It would affect “cities, counties, or special districts.”

* SCA 9 is by state Sen. Ellen M. Corbett, D-San Leandro. It would affect “local government for the purpose of providing funding for community and economic development projects.” So it would bring back redevelopment, which the Legislature itself killed in 2011 to save the state money. Redevelopment commonly used eminent domain to condemn and seize homes and businesses in supposedly “blighted” areas — meaning middle-class and poor communites — to give the property to wealthy developers.

* SCA 11 is by state Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Oakland. It would affect “cities, counties, and special districts…. It would apply to nearly all services, from schools, to transportation, to public safety agencies.”

Tuesday’s debate was a preview of the one that will take place when the amendments (or perhaps one comprehensive amendment) are placed on a statewide ballot, where a simple majority of statewide voters would be needed to pass.

Already back in 2000, voters approved Proposition 39, which dropped the threshold for passing local school bonds from two-thirds to 55 percent. Referring to Prop. 39, Leno said, “So there’s already precedent for it. This will just make it the same” for local parcel taxes.

Democrats and representatives of government agencies, government labor unions and social service organizations argued that state government is no longer able to adequately fund schools, libraries, roads, parks, economic development projects and the like. This has forced cities, counties and special districts to try to make up the difference. But it’s difficult for them to do so when just over one-third of voters opposed to a tax hike can thwart the will of the nearly two-thirds who want to raise their taxes to pay for those amenities.

Tax failures despite majority support

Last November several school district parcel tax hike measures gained more than 55 percent of the votes, but fell short of the necessary two-thirds to pass:

* A $39 annual tax per parcel in San Leandro received 65.6 percent;

* A $65 tax hike in Pacific Grove — 65.1 percent;

* A $199 tax in San Bruno — 58.5 percent;

* A $48 tax in Fort Ross — 65.4 percent;

* A $60 tax in Three Rivers — 61.6 percent.

Business groups and taxpayer advocates countered that making it easier to raise taxes would place additional financial burdens on many businesses and homeowners that are still struggling in the wake of the Great Recession. They point out that many tax hikes are approved, despite the two-thirds threshold, showing that voters will support improvement projects when they are convinced of the need for them.

Also, according to Ballotpedia, “Prior to the passage of Proposition 39, about 60 percent of local school bond ballot questions succeeded in getting the previously required two-thirds vote. In the wake of its passage, about 75 percent of local school districts are passing with the 55 percent requirement.”

Moreover, tax opponents argue that the two-thirds requirement is needed to provide badly organized taxpayers protection against the well organized unions of state employees, such as the California Teachers Association and the Services Employees International Union. These unions take dues from the salaries of their rank-and-file members to fund pro-tax campaigns. Because the salaries are funded through taxation, ultimately the unions are using the taxpayers’ own money to raise taxes even higher.

There are millions, probably billions, of tax dollars at stake in California in the coming decades, depending on which side wins the debate.

Pro-tax arguments

Two of the arguments for the pro-tax side may appeal to moderates and even Tea Party conservatives:

* Taxation at the local level allows for more local control than relying on the state or federal government for funding. “This is a way to give local districts the opportunity to be able to reinvest in public education,” said Leno. “We have taken control away from them. Due to crises and other reasons in Sacramento, we have been unable to invest in public education to the degree that we need to. So [this provides] a tool in the tool box to let the majority rule.”

* The founding fathers restricted the two-thirds voting requirement to major issues like presidential impeachment and ratification of international treaties. Leno quoted James Madison in Federalist Paper 58 that requiring more than a simple majority for most votes means “the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer that the majority would rule. The power would be transferred to the minority.” Leno himself added, “In the end it would be a recipe for a dysfunctional government.”

That dysfunction has manifested itself in the fact that, despite many schools needing additional funding, “only 10 percent of school districts currently have school parcel taxes in existence,” said Leno. “So this is an underutilized tool.”

Leno is optimistic that voters will support lowering the tax-hike threshold. He said a recent Public Policy Institute of California poll shows 57 percent of Californians support lowering it to 55 percent for local parcel taxes for public schools.

Majority opposed to lowering tax threshold

But that May PPIC poll actually shows that likely voters oppose by a 53-44 margin lowering the tax-hike threshold. It does have slight support among all adults, 46-44 percent.

David Wolfe, representing the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, cited another finding in that poll: 61 percent of likely voters say that Proposition 13, which in 1978 imposed the two-thirds threshold for both state Legislature tax hikes and local special tax hikes, has been mostly a good thing for California. Even 55 percent of Democrats agree with that, as well as majorities throughout the state and racial, ethnic, age and income categories.

“So it just goes to show that even 35 years later, support for Prop. 13 is very strong, and support for lowering the two-thirds for various special taxes is not popular at all,” said Wolfe.

Leno countered that most Californians are unaware that Prop. 13 includes the two-thirds threshold requirement for tax hikes.

“The way Prop. 13 was sold was that property taxes were rising at the local level to fund school operations, and retirees and those on fixed income were being taxed out of their homes and we had to protect grandma and grandpa,” he said.

Grandma losing her home

Wolfe, however, is concerned that grandma and grandpa are in danger of once again being taxed out of their home if the tax hike threshold is lowered. That could lead to foreclosures, decreased property values and residents moving out, resulting in a loss of property and sales tax revenue for local government and perhaps leading to more bankruptcies.

“Undercut the threshold. Go ahead and do it,” Wolfe dared. “And you know what happens? Stockton happens, Vallejo happens, San Bernardino happens, Mammoth Lakes happens.” Vallejo declared bankruptcy in 2008; the other three cities did so last year. “Because that’s where the majority of the revenue comes from.” So raising property taxes is “incredibly damaging not only to homeowners but to local government.”

It will also be incredibly damaging to small businesses, according to Ken DeVore, legislative director for the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents about 23,000 small businesses in the state.

“Over 90 percent of the business owners from all demographics are opposed to anything that makes it easier to raise taxes,” he said. “Because at the end of the day it’s the small business owner that gets hit. It costs almost three times as much to comply with taxes for a small business owner over a big business. It’s 37 percent more expensive to comply with regulations. It’s over 20 percent more expensive for health care.

“The whole reason why we have a two-thirds majority required is to ensure that local government will make the case for why a project is needed. They have done so almost 60 percent of the time over the last two decades in California. It also guarantees that a significant number of people who actually are going to pay the taxes will be included in the vote as well.”

Potential for business tax targeting

The California Chamber of Commerce, which has added the constitutional amendments to its list of bills dubbed “job killers,” is also concerned about the impact of tax hikes on larger businesses.

“There are few parameters or restrictions under which the tax may be imposed, other than that the revenue be used for the designated purpose,” the Chamber states on its website. “With such broad discretion in the type or scope of the tax to impose on real property, the CalChamber is concerned that the constitutional amendments could lead to targeted taxes at the local level against unpopular taxpayers, industries, products or property.

“For example, a parcel tax could be disproportionately directed at commercial property within the local jurisdiction, thereby potentially undermining Proposition 13 protections and discriminating against commercial property versus residential. Similarly, a special sales tax could be imposed solely on sweetened beverages or high calorie items.”

The constitutional amendments will next be considered by the Senate Rules Committee.

March 6, 2013 

By Dave Roberts

California’s Democratic politicians, not content to have enacted some of the nation’s strictest restrictions on their citizens’ right to keep and bear arms, now want to do the same to the rest of the country. The Senate Public Safety Committee on a 4-2 vote (Republicans dissenting) last week passed SJR 1, a resolution urging President Obama and Congress to ban so-called “assault” weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines as well as require universal background checks.

State Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, presented the resolution at the request of U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force of the Democratic Caucus. The task force is pushing for a ban on “assault” weapons and magazines along with requiring background checks for every gun sale and updating the national background check database. Thompson, in a town hall meeting in Vallejo in January, rejected the National Rifle Association’s preferred solution to preventing school shootings: providing trained personnel in schools who can access weapons in an emergency.

“Existing law in California is already much stronger than the federal law in that it regulates and requires background checks for the possession and transfer of assault weapons,” Wolk told the committee on Feb. 26. “But without a comprehensive federal approach, states will remain unprotected and vulnerable in protecting their communities from the violence associated with these weapons.”

She was backed by Amanda Wilcox, representing the 25 California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Wilcox’s daughter was killed in 2001 by a disgruntled patient who went on a rampage at the mental health clinic where the daughter worked.

“We need a comprehensive approach to address the problem of gun violence in our nation,” said Wilcox. “And this resolution is very simple. It urges the president and Congress to pursue that approach. I have family members and friends across the nation and want them to be safe. From a California perspective, we have strong gun laws. Guns do not stop at our border. We cannot do it alone. We need national solutions to reducing gun violence. And in particular a universal background check. So that people who cannot pass a background check in our state are unable to go across the border to neighboring states and buy a weapon through a private party sale.”

‘Assault’ weapons same as regular firearms

Two gun rights supporters spoke in opposition to the resolution.

Tom Pedersen, representing the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said his organization supports background checks and would like California to adopt an instant-check system. But he argued that, with “so-called assault weapons, there’s actually no real difference in the function of a firearm. A semi-automatic firearm, you pull the trigger each time, it discharges one round. And so to say that they are distinguishable between an assault weapon, so called, and a sporting firearm, that really is not the case.” An AR-15 semi-automatic rifle of the type he was discussing is pictured above.

Pedersen also argued against limiting the capacity of magazines.

“The reality of it is citizens want to have the same ability to protect themselves for the same reason that law enforcement officers want those high-capacity magazines,” he said. “The reality of it is that a woman by herself in her house at night who is 5-foot-2, and somebody breaks in who is 6-foot-2 and weighs 300 pounds, the firearm is the only equalizer there is.”

Ed Worley, representing the NRA, argued that the profusion and complexity of gun control laws has turned law-abiding citizens into criminals.

“Throughout the history of California, with the so-called gun bans that we’ve had in California, the biggest victims have been those who cannot understand what the law means,” he said. “Because laws are so arbitrary and capricious: if it has a pistol grip, if it has a magazine this size. What we’ve seen over the years is that thousands and thousands of people who have tried to comply with the law can’t figure out when the law took effect, didn’t know they had to register their gun again.

“The last case was a gentleman 69 years old, a school teacher who recently retired. He got in trouble because he tried to comply with the law. He contacted his state Assembly member and said, ‘I recently realized that I need to re-register my gun.’ So he went to his Assembly member to help with the Department of Justice and do the paperwork. He was informed that he needed to surrender his rifle and have it cut up.

“So in the state of California, what you have is an overly broad list of so-called assault weapons that don’t exist. So-called assault weapons are not machine guns. They are guns with various features on them. The federal assault weapons law that Dianne Feinstein [Democratic Senator from California] put into effect [from 1994 to 2004] had absolutely no effect. … You have tens of millions of people who lawfully possess high-capacity feeding devices, magazines of 10 rounds, usually 15 rounds. And now we have in the state of California legislation that is going to require them to be surrendered and confiscated. So what we are seeing in this resolution is trying to take the failed policies in California and trying to move them across the United States to people who have never committed a crime.”

Committee Chairwoman Loni Hancock, D-Oakland, who has introduced SB 396 limiting magazines to 10 rounds, responded that gun control legislation is effective.

“Of the 10 states with the strongest gun safety regulations, seven of them have the lowest level of gun crime, and that includes California,” she said. “Guns in homes result more often in suicide, or family members, mistakenly or not, killing or injuring one another, than they do for protection from outside people entering the home.”

Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, said he supports universal background checks, and would support Wolk’s resolution if it were limited to just that provision. Wolk said she would consider that. But Anderson joined Steve Knight, R-Palmdale in voting against it in committee.