Search
Subscribe to Updates
 |
 |
 |
PROPOSITION 218Below is an analysis of select portions of Proposition 218, the State Constitutional Amendment that restricts and defines the ability of local government agencies to assess or levy special taxes or assessments. The illegal June, 2001 Assessment District vote conducted by the LOCSD that imposed fees from $3500 and up on each property in the Prohibition Zone has been under contention for a number of reasons. These reasons include improper and deficient information sent to voters, including deliberate misinformation conceived through deliberately crafted tactics intended to intimidate and coerce voters into approving the Assessment District. This is election fraud. The use of the vote to circumvent at least 3 required votes relating to: 1) Permission to build a sewer; 2) Permission to enter into an SRF Construction Loan with the State and, 3) Permission to issue and sell obligation bonds. The Sentinel has addressed these issues in depth. Proposition 218 includes additional material invalidating the illegal June 2001 vote. In order to help the reader better understand the information below, The Sentinel interjects “notes” along the way. FISCAL IMPACT BEGINS IN 1997The fiscal impact of Proposition 218 began almost immediately. Within eight months of Proposition 218's passage, local governments needed to reduce or eliminate certain existing assessments and fees to meet the measure's requirements. Proposition 218 also requires local governments to place before the voters certain existing assessments and taxes. Unless the voters ratify these assessments and taxes, local governments will experience additional revenues losses, potentially exceeding $100 million annually. Sentinel note: The County was granted approval for a $47.5 million dollar SRF Loan in or around 1990. This was done without voter approval as required by California Code. In or around January, 2002, the County transferred the 12-year old Loan approval to the LOCSD which deliberately failed to inform the voters or receive their approval as required by California Water Code 13360. Proposition 218 “…requires local governments to place before the voters certain existing assessments and taxes.” Since the SRF Loan approval was an illegal guarantee to the County (no voter approval), since the LOCSD was allowed to assume the [illegal] Loan guarantee, since the [illegal] SRF Loan would require an assessment against property for repayment, and since the voters were deliberately denied the right to approve or reject any existing or pending assessment, the entire SRF Loan process is illegal and void. LONGER TERM: DIFFERENT REVENUE SOURCES, PROBABLY LESS MONEYProposition 218 restricts local governments' ability to impose assessments and property-related fees -- and requires elections to approve many local government revenue-raising methods. Sentinel note: Neither the County nor the LOCSD allowed residents in the Prohibition Zone to vote on any of the requisites necessary to build a sewer, to enter into an SRF Construction Loan or to issue and sell obligation (or any other) bonds. The only vote was the illegal June 2001 Assessment district vote that did not cover any of the requisite votes. Despite this, the LOCSD used this [illegal] vote to state that they had fulfilled the requisite votes. The State and Regional water Boards allowed this. INCREASED ROLE FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERSPrior to Proposition 218, the local resident and property owner's role in approving most new local government revenue-raising measures was minimal. Local governments typically raised new funds by imposing new or increased assessments or fees. Proposition 218 shifts most of this power over taxation from locally elected governing boards to residents and property owners. In order to fulfill this considerable responsibility, local residents and property owners will need greater information on local government finances and responsibilities. Even with this information, however, the task of local residents and property owners will be difficult, given the frequently confusing manner in which program responsibilities are shared between state and local government, and among local governments. Sentinel note: The fraudulent and deliberate misinformation and terrorist campaign carried out by the LOCSD and the Regional Water Board prior to and after the illegal June 2001 vote deprived voters of the information necessary to make informed, intelligent decisions. The terrorists knew that most voters will only read what is sent to them and/ or rely on friends and neighbors. The community-blanketed misinformation campaign relied on this to succeed. Residents did not know what they were voting on, only that if they failed to approve the illegal vote, they would be fined up to $10,000 a day, forced to build a more expensive sewer and lose any opportunity to receive “low-interest” SRF Loans. All lies! WHAT IS AN ASSESSMENT?An assessment is a charge levied on property to pay for a public improvement or service that benefits property. Sentinel note: The alleged “benefit” to property owners in the PZ was the prevention of alleged pollution to the Bay and groundwater allegedly caused by Los Osos on-site systems. This despite the fact that there was no evidence that any on-site system was a cause of pollution and that there was an abundance of evidence that the on-site systems were NOT causing any pollution. Selected properties were said to cause pollution, therefore, a sewer was a “special benefit” because it would end pollution allegedly caused by these properties. The property owners in the PZ would receive a “Special Benefit” of clean water because of the sewer and expanded development. FIRST: DETERMINE IF A PROJECT OR SERVICE PROVIDES SPECIAL BENEFITS.The local government must determine whether property owners would receive a "special benefit" from the project or service to be financed by the assessment. Proposition 218 defines a special benefit as a particular benefit to land and buildings, not a general benefit to the public or a general increase in property values. If a project or service would not provide such a special benefit, Proposition 218 states that it may not be financed by an assessment. Sentinel note: The LOCSD continually referred to the sewer as a “special benefit” to residents in the Prohibition Zone. The “special benefit” was clean water and allowable expansion of the community. The exclusion of certain sections of the community from the illegal sewer was deliberately used as another justification of satisfaction of the “special benefit” requirement since the sewer would allegedly only “benefit” a certain segment of the community. In fact, the vaccine-resistant, deadly pathogen-producing factory is not a “special benefit.” Our review indicates that local governments will find it difficult to demonstrate that some existing assessments for ambulance, library, police, business improvement, and other services satisfy this tightened definition of special benefit. As a consequence, some existing assessments may need to be eliminated. SECOND: ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL BENEFIT.Local government must use a professional engineer's report to estimate the amount of special benefit landowners would receive from the project or service, as well as the amount of "general benefit." This step is needed because Proposition 218 allows local government to recoup from assessments only the proportionate share of cost to provide the special benefit. That is, if special benefits represent 50% of total benefits, local government may use assessments to recoup half the project or service's costs. Local governments must use other revenues to pay for any remaining costs. This limitation on the use of assessments represents a major change from the law prior to Proposition 218, when local governments could recoup from assessments the costs of providing both general and special benefits. Sentinel note: At no time did the County or the LOCSD offer this information to the voters, nor did they ever produce an independent engineers report as required. The only engineers’ reports they produced were those produced by Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) or a firm hired by MWH. All scientific and engineering reports that condemned any central sewer were deliberately ignored and concealed from then public. THIRD: SET ASSESSMENT CHARGES PROPORTIONALLYFinally, the local government must set individual assessment charges so that no property owner pays more than his or her proportional share of the total cost. This may require the local government to set assessment rates on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Properties owned by schools and other governmental agencies -- previously exempt from some assessment charges -- now must pay assessments. ELECTION REQUIREMENT: ALL PROPERTY OWNERS VOTE ON ASSESSMENTSLocal governments must mail information regarding assessments to all property owners. Sentinel note: Prior to the illegal June, 2001 Assessment District vote, the LOCSD sent a series of “Messages” to voters. Each “Message” was deliberately crafted to misinform, coerce and intimidate voters into approving the illegal vote. At no time were the voters given the factual information because the vote itself was illegal. Each assessment notice must contain a mail-in ballot for the property owner to indicate his or her approval or disapproval of the assessment. After mailing the notices, the local government must hold a public hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the local government must tabulate the ballots, weighing them in proportion to the amount of the assessment each property owner would pay. (For example, if homeowner Jones would pay twice as much assessment as homeowner Smith, homeowner Jones' vote would "count" twice as much as homeowner Smith's vote.) The assessment may be imposed only if 50% or more of the weighted ballots support the assessment.  WHAT MUST A LOCAL GOVERNMENT DO TO RAISE NEW REVENUES?
REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW ASSESSMENTSAll new or increased assessments must follow the assessment calculation and election requirements discussed in the previous chapter. There are no exceptions to this requirement. As a practical matter, this requirement will mean that programs that benefit people, rather than specific properties -- such as libraries, mosquito abatement, recreation programs, police protection, and some business improvement programs -- must be financed by general or special taxes or by other non-assessment revenues. MAY RESIDENTS OVERTURN LOCAL TAXES, ASSESSMENTS AND FEES?Proposition 218 expands California residents' power to challenge local revenue-raising measures. Greater Initiative Powers. Prior to Proposition 218, the extent to which local residents could use an initiative to challenge local government revenue-raising methods was not certain. In a 1995 case, Rossi v. Brown, the California Supreme Court ruled that people had the power to use the initiative to repeal a minor tax. There have been no court rulings, however, addressing the question of whether an initiative may be used to repeal a more substantial revenue source. Proposition 218 eliminates any ambiguity regarding the power of local residents to use the initiative by stating that residents of California shall have the power to repeal or reduce any local tax, assessment, or fee. In addition, the measure forbids the Legislature and local governments from imposing a signature requirement for local initiatives that is higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives. As a consequence of these provisions, the only limits on local residents' ability to overturn local revenue raising measures appear to be those in the federal constitution, such as the federal debt impairment clause. SHIFT OF BURDEN OF PROOF
Sentinel note: The LOCSD deliberately excluded all renters from participation in then illegal June, 2001 vote. (i) “Special benefit” means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. Sentinel note: At no time was this requirement satisfied. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Sentinel note: The only engineers reports were done by MWH and Cleath & Associates, hired by MWH as approved by the LCOSD. All independent engineer reports were deliberately ignored and the public was never made aware. (c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount thereof chargeable to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. CONCLUSIONThere were a number of deliberate violations of Proposition 218 to invalidate the illegal June, 2001 Assessment district vote. Primary among them are the “special benefit” requirements and the deliberate campaign of misinformation, threats and lies meant to coerce and intimidate voters into approving the illegal vote – that constitute election fraud. You can do something to help right now by investing in the Los Osos R.I.C.O. Civil Action. Click Here for Details. |
