Proposition 218 -- No

WHY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDS NO ON PROPOSITION 218

Fees for essential community wide services should include provision for those unable to pay. Assessments should confer a benefit primarily to those paying. There should be notification to the owners of property to be assessed and a simple, clear, speedy, widely publicized protest and appeals process.

The LWVC in its 1993-94 study of State and Local Finance also reached consensus that in the interest of flexibility there should be "minimal use of direct voting by citizens on tax sources and rates" at the state and local level. When a vote of the public is utilized, a simple majority vote, rather than a super-majority, should decide the matter. Local Leagues also agreed that user fees established by local governing bodies in an open and public process need not be subject to a vote of the general public.

Proposition 218 would create significant barriers to adequate and flexible funding of important local general government and property-related services, which the League supports. The immediate loss of revenue to local governments would exceed $100 million. Future losses are difficult to estimate but may also be significant.

The weighted protest vote for assessments does not appear to assure better safeguards in the public's interest than current statute and may introduce new inequities into the system.

Proposition 218 grants huge voting power to corporations, large landowners and developers and reduces individual homeowner voting rights.

Three million renters will be denied the right to vote. Proposition 218 denies voting rights to renters. The measure is deceptive as it purposes to provide more decision-making to the general public while, in reality, shifting much of the power to property owners of the highest valued properties who may or may not live in the community or be citizens of the state or country.

It forces taxpayers to pay millions in new costs. Under Proposition 218 every local tax or assessment must be voted on even if local residents don't want an election, and even for tiny assessments or increases that generate as little as a penny per day per household. Five thousand separate local elections would be required in 1997 costing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. In addition local government will have extensive costs to compute the proportional benefit to each parcel.

Public Safety and other vital programs will be cut. Vital services for our communities such as police, fire, emergency medical services, park and recreation programs, and public libraries may be wiped out by this measure, leaving the future of such services at risk.

Assessment for these purposes becomes illegal if "the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners." That is why Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs, the California Highway Patrol, the California Library Association and Professional Firefighters and Police Officers Associations oppose the measure.

The Legislative Analyst estimates that upon adoption local government revenue would immediately be reduced by more than $100 million annually and may be reduced by an additions $100 million over the next two years as elections are held on recently adopted taxes and existing assessments.

Proposition 218 imposes new taxes and diverts funds from classroom size reduction efforts in your public schools. Proposition 218 for the first time imposes a new assessment tax on publicly owned property. The new tax on public school property will divert millions of dollars away from the classroom. Libraries will lose funds also. That is why the California Library Association opposes the initiative.

Special utility assessments that pay for LifeLine services for seniors and the disabled would be prohibited.

Proposition 218 does not permit local officials to pass emergency assessments to deal with major natural disasters, such as the repair of roads, bridges and utility services damaged by storms, earthquakes or fires.

Separate public votes on a variety of revenue measures at each election will encourage piecemeal decision-making and discourage long range planning and policy development.

On Ballot Measures: LWVC Recommendations - LWVCEF Pros & Cons - Other Links
LWVC Home - Election '96 - Voting Q&As - Our Issues - Outside Links - About Us

Last updated: October 20, 1996
Send comments and suggestions concerning this page to lwvc@thecity.sfsu.edu