WHY CAN'T THEY OBEY THE LAW?

On July 25th the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors agreed to raise the County sales tax by a quarter of a penny for 15 years to raise money for undefined "quality of life uses" by the County and all its Cities. The total cost to the taxpayers over the fifteen years is estimated to be $1.2 billion. The tax is advertised as a "general" tax, requiring only a simple majority vote to pass. In addition they intend to place an "advisory" Measure on the ballot asking the voters whether they could use half the money to build an arena type "entertainment" center. The "advisory" Measure would be "none binding." In this way they believe they can build the Sacramento Kings an arena by a simple majority vote rather than having the Kings arena identified as a "special" tax requiring a two-thirds vote for approval. The Taxpayers League considers the combination of the Measures to be a deliberate subterfuge designed to circumvent Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, and thereby violates Constitutional law.

At the public hearing, the League's Executive Director, expressed the League's opposition to the tax. He stated, "On behalf of the Sacramento Taxpayers League it is important for you to know that the League has not taken a position either in favor of, or opposed to, construction of a new sports arena in Sacramento County or City." He went on to say, "However, the League absolutely opposes the transparent attempt by our elected officials to pass off the proposed increase in the County's sales tax to build an arena as a general tax, rather than a special tax as required by Proposition 218." Sullivan added that he was sure "all in these Chambers know that this tax was originally created specifically to build a new arena for the Sacramento Kings.", and "To now seek to end run the State Constitution, and the expressed will of the voters in enacting Article 13(c), Section 1(d) by the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996 is simply unconscionable." He repeated twice that "The law clearly states that 'Special Tax' means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund."

Sullivan admonished the Supervisors that they took an oath to uphold the State Constitution, and asked the Board to obey the law, and vote NO in placing a faulty tax increase Measure before the voters. He than asked that just one of Supervisors offer a substitute motion to require that any sales tax increase placed before the voters to finance a sports arena be subject to a two-thirds special tax vote as required by the California Constitution. The request was ignored.

The vote by the Board to proceed with the staff's recommendation to put the two-vote scheme on the November ballot was four-to-one in favor and one opposed. The "NO" vote was cast by Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan, who stated the County voters approved Proposition 218 in 1996, which requires a two-thirds vote on specific tax increases, and "I don't think 58 percent of the voters intended for us to find creative ways to not apply that requirement." The final vote by four of the members of the Board of Supervisors to put the Measures on the November ballot was made at a second meeting on August 2nd, and once again Supervisor MacGlashan voted NO, demonstrating to every taxpayer in the County that she intends to abide by the California Constitution in the County's headlong rush to use taxpayers dollars for a sports arena, recognizing clearly that the tax has a specific purpose, even if the proceeds of the tax are deposited in the County's General Fund.

The final question is "Why can't all the Supervisors obey the law?"

THE ARENA DEAL

In mid July, Sacramento Supervisor Roger Dickinson and the City of Sacramento's Vice Mayor Rob Fong, both lawyers, accompanied by County Economic Director Paul Hahn and Assistant Sacramento Manager John Dangberg, hauling along stadium and arena consultant Dan Barrett, journeyed to Las Vegas to develop a final agreement with Sacramento King owners Joe, Gavin, and George Maloof for a new Kings Arena in the Sacramento area. Working with the Maloofs was another lawyer - former Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, Kings team President John Thomas, and a couple of lawyers representing the National Basketball Association.

Originally the so-called local plan was for a quarter-cent temporary general sales tax for 10 years, aimed at a simple majority vote for approval to raise $600 million to build the arena in the UPS rail yard, coupled with the illusionary "non binding" advisory Measure asking voter approval to use the money for the arena. The scheme was an obvious violation of Proposition 218 as it was a special tax, requiring a two-thirds majority for approval.

Our so called "negotiators" were taken to the cleaners in Las Vegas. What they came back with was a deal which increased the temporary sales tax to 15 years, to raise an estimated $1.2 billion, as a "Quality of Life" Measure for undefined uses by the County and all its Cities. Nowhere was the Kings Arena mentioned. The gaggle of lawyers obviously recognized the original scheme could not get by Proposition 218, so they doubled the cost, adding sweeteners for the County and all its Cities, obviously to disguise the Measure as a general sales tax. Then they changed the advisory Measure, asking the voters to approve using half the money for a sports and entertainment complex. By this squirrely maneuver they believe they can circumvent Proposition 218.

But that's only the beginning of the story. The Las Vegas crowd neatly skinned our negotiators completely, giving credence to the ode that "what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas." The "deal" made with the Kings is for Sacramento taxpayers to pay $500 million or more for construction of the arena and a garage - and any over-runs; to set up a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that will own the arena, and be responsible for construction - but the Kings will choose the architect. The JPA will pay a tax based on the yearly value of the Kings lease, in lieu of a property tax. As for the Kings, they will pay off the $72 Million loan owed the City for the Arco Arena; will put up $20 million when construction begins for capital repairs or any other purpose; will sign a 30-year lease, at $4 million a year, keeping the Kings and Monarchs in Sacramento for 30-years; and will operate and maintain the facility during the lease period. The final clincher is that the Maloof Sports and Entertainment organization will arrange all activities in the facility, keeping all profits gained from events, concessions, parking, and even naming rights. And one of our negotiators actually stated: "I believe the agreement is a good and reasonable one under all the facts and circumstances." Yep! But for Kings, not the taxpayers.

ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 30

The California Tax and Spend Legislature, most of our County Supervisors, and virtually all elected City Council Members in the State, absolutely hate Propositions 13, 62 and 218, and will do anything in their power to destroy or circumvent them. Yet each of the three Propositions was created for, and approved by, the voters who had to use the ballot box to protect State taxpayers from greedy elected officials. Now the Assembly has ginned up Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA 30) which sets up a system to increase assessments and property taxes specifically for flood control. If successful, there is little doubt that it will be expanded to cover other things. The technique is very simple. As assessments are paid only by property owners an assessment district will be set up, in this case for flood control. In the election within the district, only those who actually vote to oppose the assessment will be counted. If the number is 50-percent or less than the total number of voters registered in the district, all the other registered voters, whether they actually vote yes, or not, will be considered as yes votes! To repeat, even if people don't return their ballots, they will be considered as yes votes.
Unffortunately in an election of this type many people don't respond when a new assessment property tax is put up for a vote. If less than 50% of the registered voters don't vote, the assessment will be considered to have passed, without even having to count the votes. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is actively fighting this monstrosity, and we highly recommend that everyone help them by advising their Legislator to oppose ACA 30.

REDISTRICTING PROPOSAL MAY NOT BE ON FALL BALLOT
By Joe Sullivan

Last month I wrote about the June 24th Bee Commentary article titled "Put redistricting proposal on the fall ballot", written by Robert (Bob) M. Hertzberg (former Democrat Speaker of the Assembly) and James (Jim) Brulte, (former Republican Leader of the Senate). They described the gerrymandering that takes place when legislators redraw districts after each 10-year census, recognizing that allowing legislators to draw their own districts is inappropriate, and must be eliminated.

In 2001, tailored districts were drawn by the legislators and approved by Governor Davis. In the next general election not a single incumbent Legislator or Congressional candidate running for re-election lost their seat. That was the genesis last year of Ted Costa's People's Advocate Proposition 77 to put redistricting in the hands of judges. Although defeated in last year's election, recent polls show that 66 percent of Californians want control of redistricting removed from the Legislature, and turned over to an independent commission.

Dan Walters pointed out in the August 8th issue of The Bee that although no one in the Legislature seems to disapprove of putting the redistricting in the hands of an independent commission, the Legislature is having problems with the details. He believes that chances of redistricting overhaul being on the November ballot are fading. I'm afraid that Dan is right, and if it doesn't appear on the ballot, we'll have to shake Ted Costa into action, and I know that he'll get it done in 2008, three years before the next redistricting effort in 2011.

AUBURN DAM REVISITED

Gus Thomson of the Auburn Journal wrote that Senator Dianne Feinstein has added a potential roadblock to Congressman John Doolittle's renewed push for the multipurpose dam at Auburn. Doolittle was successful in getting $3 million in funding for initial work on a new Auburn dam feasibility study in the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. Feinstein expressed concern about seismic and cost issues, and inserted language in the Bill that would block additional funding for the study until a seismic and cost-benefit analysis is conducted.

This is an interesting move considering that the Senator knows the City of Sacramento has the lowest level of flood protection of any major city in the United States. Consider that this year is the twentieth anniversary of the devastating 1986 flood that came within minutes and inches of topping Sacramento's levees and flooding our valley. The '86 flood was followed by the '95 flood that overwhelmed our local drainage systems, and the '97 flood flanked the American River watershed, and destroyed levees north and south of the county, inundating the flood plains.

All our elected officials agree that the 200-year storm level should be the minimum for protection of Sacramento. Yet in the judgment of the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, SAFCA, and virtually all of the people living in the flood plain agree that the best solution to protect Sacramento is a flood control dam at Auburn, with its potential for affording 500-year flood control. With this level of control, protected from flooding would be the lives of more than 250,000 people, and safe from damage would be many billions in real and personal property, along with the Capitol of the State of California. Further, there would be no need for government mandated flood control insurance for federally regulated home and business loans now required in the flood plain. And, in the quest for environmentally clean electrical power, Auburn Dam could generate 300-megawatts or more of hydroelectric power, enough power to supply the needs of 84,000 homes, or 4,500 new commercial facilities.

Senator Feinstein's concern appears to be the contention the dam is unsafe due to a fault trace near the construction site. This contention is the major scare tactic used to frighten people. It is refuted by state and federal officials, who established worse case conditions for the dam's construction specifications. The Report to check is the Bureau of Reclamation Report titled: "Seismic Safety and Auburn Dam" a "Chronology on Earthquake Evaluation Studies of Auburn Dam Site." The report points out that studies of faults and seismic activities at the dam site involved the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, independent consultants including Woodward - Clyde Consultants, and a panel of five internationally known consultants referred to as the Auburn Dam Consultants. In addition, the California Division of Mines and Geology, and the Department of Water Resources Division of Dam Safety and their consulting boards reviewed the work and published their own findings. Public hearings were held on the design criteria in 1979. When the seismic design parameters were selected then Reclamation Commissioner Keith Higgenson noted there was "more seismic information about this (Auburn) damsite than a damsite anywhere else in the world." Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus announced that: "a safe dam could be constructed on the North Fork of the American River." The new "gravity" dam, replacing the high thin arch dam originally proposed, whose strength depended on anchoring itself into the walls of the canyon, will be located at the same site originally selected. However, the new cement dam will be oriented straight across the canyon, and will depend on it inherent weight and strength for safety. With respect to the fault that concerned everybody as a result of the quake at Oroville Dam in 1975, the Corps of Engineers reported: "the dam's present alignment is outside the trace of fault F-1 in the footprint of the original arch dam."

The Taxpayers League, as supporters of a full service flood control dam at Auburn, are dismayed by Senator Feinstein's seemingly lack of knowledge of seismic information already available about the dam site. We also believe it is time that the leaders in the state of California assert themselves, and provide the Sacramento Valley with the flood control measures that the people so desperately need. Hurricane Katrina, and its destruction of New Orleans should have been a sharp wake-up call to all our leaders. Congressman Doolittle has always understood the need for further flood protection, and fought for the dam. Its time for Senator Feinstein to help him, instead of throwing roadblocks in his way.

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek “Letters to the League” from Members concerning projects and issues on which we are working, along with recommendations on those we should look at. Letters may be edited and republished in any format, primarily in the interest of available space. Send letters, faxes, or e-mail to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League. Our e-mail is sactaxleague@prodigy.net; our telephone number is (916) 921-5991. Our fax number is (916) 567-1279. And our address is:
Sacramento County Taxpayers League
1804 Tribute Road, Suite 207
Sacramento, CA 95815.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

TEMPORARY TAXES

The belief that an elected official believes there is such a thing as a temporary tax is a myth. An example is the attempt by the County and City of Sacramento pitch for a 15-year temporary increase in the sales tax to build an arena for the Kings. That the City of Sacramento agrees to support a temporary tax is the best joke of the year. The City Council Members probably don't know, or don't want to remember, that they have been sitting on a temporary increase to their Utility Users Tax (UUT) since 1988.

Here's the story. The City established the UUT at 5% in 1969. However, they got into financial trouble in 1983, and covered a budget short fall by raising the UUT to 9%, promising that the increase would be assessed for one year only. However a year later they voted to continue the 9% tax. In 1986 the UUT became a major political issue in Council races as rapid rate increases also raised the UUT, having a heavy impact on low-income people. The League, the Metro Chamber of Commerce, and SMUD lobbied the Council for a UUT decrease, reasoning that its increase was a tax windfall. The Council compromised, and agreed to reduce the UUT by one-half percent each year until the tax reduced to 5%. The tax was reduced over three years to 7.5%. In1998 the Council again reneged, and voted to continue the UUT at 7.5%, where it has remained ever since. We are still waiting for the additional 2.5% reduction of the temporary UUT tax increase the City promised in 1986. And now they want us to accept a "temporary" tax to build a super playground for multimillionaires.

Joe Sullivan

<< Back to Index

Officers