I’ve been approached by Signal [Hill Community] First to sign their petition to schedule a local ballot measure to require all city fees, assessments and taxes to be subjected to a two-thirds vote. Never mind that the majority of fees, assessments and taxes are covered under California laws. The ballot measure provides no exemptions, so our police chief recommending increases in the fire-arm sales permit fee would be subject to a voter approval costing the city $30,000 for the election.
I wanted to get a sense of how high a “bar” Signal Hill [Community] First would set for our voters to approve future fee increases. There has been much debate that a two-thirds vote gives control to the minority. So let’s examine the facts.
There were 87 local revenue measures voted on [in] the June 5, 2012 Presidential Primary statewide throughout California. These included local school bonds, local school parcel taxes, [and] city and county fees increases.
There were eight city revenue measures that required a two-thirds vote. Of those, only two were passed (25 percent). There were 10 special district revenue measures that required a two-thirds vote. Of those, only four were passed (40 percent). This confirms what we all know— that it is very difficult to get two-thirds of the voters to agree on revenue increases, and costly for a city election.
Current state laws require a two-thirds vote for major increases, like sales taxes or utility taxes. The City is prohibited from raising property taxes under Proposition 13. Assessment districts are adequately covered under state law. So, it seems to me that placing all of our city’s fees under a two-thirds vote is excessive and over-reaching. It seems to me that the real motive behind Signal Hill [Community] First and their proposed ballot measure is to cede the management of our city to a minority. I won’t be signing their petition.
Joey Magid
Signal Hill
