BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
Bay Area politicians have decided they want to raise the sales tax by a half-cent to as much as 10% to bail out BART, Caltrain, SamTrans and other mass transit agencies, and they’ve come up with a sneaky way to get it passed.
Prop 13 requires a two-thirds majority for voter approval of local special taxes, such as this bailout. But there’s a loophole the politicians want to exploit to make it more likely the tax will pass.
This loophole, created by the state Supreme Court in the 2017 case California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, states that if a special tax is placed on the ballot by a citizen’s initiative (that is, regular people circulating petitions to put the tax before voters), it only requires a simple majority to pass, rather than the two-thirds supermajority required by Prop 13. If the government were to put the tax on the ballot, a two-thirds threshold would apply.
A fake grassroots movement
So the politicians behind the bailout, such as state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, are going to recruit people to do their petition drive to make it look like it’s a citizen’s initiative.
They’ll probably use paid signature-gatherers. Wonder who will pay them? A vendor to Caltrain or BART who wants special treatment?
Instead of a grassroots effort, it’s an astroturf push for higher taxes.
The politicians run an enormous risk with this approach. Let’s say the voters approve the tax. Then suppose a taxpayer advocacy group sues to get the courts to say that you can’t use fakery to pass a new tax. The court would look at whether this was a real citizen’s initiative or something dreamed up in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission board room.
In the meantime, it’s embarrassing to see local elected officials endorse this tax. When they endorse it, they’re saying they don’t support Prop 13 anymore, which remains popular decades after its approval because it controls tax increases.
Picking on the poor, middle class
But this tax is getting pushback because it hits the poor and the middle-income residents the hardest, since they spend a larger percentage of their paycheck on goods that are subject to the sales tax. The wealthy will never notice the increase.
There’s talk about going with a tax on businesses. That will just lead to more companies leaving California or laying off employees.
Instead of raising taxes, the Bay Area’s political class should force the transit agencies to live within their means.
In 2000, voters generously approved Measure RR, which gives Caltrain an estimated $100 million a year in sales tax revenue. At the time, Caltrain said it needed a dedicated source of income. What happened to that money?
Before putting a tax on the ballot, bring in some outside accounting experts who could examine whether these agencies are wasting the money they now get from fares and taxes.
At election time, government agencies seeking tax increases say “trust us … your money won’t be wasted.” But that relationship of trust is shattered when they use tricks like this loophole to win at the polls.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.
You’re opposing a regional tax, calling it “sneaky”, “a loophole”, and “fake”, but the state Supreme Court precedent you referenced is current state law. Special taxes based on simple majorities are already happening throughout California.
We need a statewide solution to a statewide problem. But our state Supreme Court tossed the ballot measure which could’ve solved the problem in 2024.
Look for more and more special taxes. It’s democracy in action, and there’s no hope in any court in California.
Woody, can you name any taxes approved in the last five years under the Upland loophole?
Measure E in L. A. County in November, 2024, was one.
I’m not sure the loophole had been fully opened five years ago. There were a few successor cases based on Upland and the Supreme Court declined review.
Well, that’s one, which was put on the ballot by the firefighter unions. Not exactly a disinterested party since they all got raises from the tax increase. Got any citizens put on the ballot? I didn’t think so.
It takes some kind of organization to qualify an initiative. The proponents and signers of the petition must be registered voters in the jurisdiction. They are individual citizens and it takes effort. It defies reason to expect they’d be “disinterested part[ies]”.
Another special tax passed with less than 2/3 was Measure Q in Santa Cruz County in November, 2024, sponsored by the Land Trust of Santa Cruz. Contributors got tax deductions and the Land Trust paid the signature gatherers and for the election campaign advertising.
You misread me if you think I’m saying these things are good. I’m just pointing out the reality of California election law as it stands today.
We taxpayers just paid $2.7 billion to switch Caltrain to electric. Why should we have to pay more? And if the fares are too high and nobody uses it? Shut it down. Don’t throw good money after bad.
Just say no to Caltrans’ incompetence that cost many of us hundreds if not thousands of dollars in vehicle repair costs for their many years of failure to repave El Camino Real.
Just say no because of Caltrans’ ludicrous proposal to replace ALL parking on both sides of El Camino with bike lanes and those costly and silly bollards in case someone’s crazy enough to bike there.
How many businesses will they have destroyed and how much sales tax revenues have we lost?
Extra credit for reporting on whether you’ve see lots of bicyclists on El Camino. I haven’t. Those writing letters to the editors haven’t.
Just say no.
If Scott Weiner is behind this, look out!!! That should be the first red flag. And saying, “force the transit agencies to live within their means.” Wow, are we living in the 1940’s/1950’s. I seem to remember my grandmother who lived through the great depression mentioning something about how you never spent more than you had and you lived within your means. No credit cards to swipe back then, if you didn’t have the money, you didn’t buy it. Too bad our politicians never learned from their grandparents…we would all be better off.
Public transit is already subsidized to the hilt in the Bay Area by taxpayers, yet not very many people use it. Over its history, BART has caved to its unions every time a strike was called or was threatened. During the pandemic, ridership fell 80%, yet the federal government kicked in tax money so no highly paid and pensioned workers were laid off. How many times has anyone received that kind of treatment in the private sector? Not once. BART needs to reduce service to the point where it at least breaks even. No more going to ballot box to try and remain relevant. And what nuts take VTA light rail anyway? It makes BART look like a stunning success.