PROP. 218 SCRAPS A DAUNTING HURDLE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS.

Byline: Gary M. Galles

UNHAPPY that ``The Right to Vote on Taxes Act'' would reduce their ability to impose property tax assessments without more than a sham vote of those who would pay the bill, the Los Angeles City Council has decided to challenge Proposition 218 in court.

They directed the city attorney to ``prepare a legal challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 218 . . . based on the measure's requirement that assessments be voted on based on the assessed valuation of the landowner.'' However, both the constitutional and logical bases for this challenge are faulty.

The primary failing of the constitutional challenge is that property owners have long been the only ones with the power to vote on property assessments, with voting power based on the magnitudes of the property holdings (e.g., it could be based on acreage or frontage).

Whatever the weighing used, before Prop. 218, if the owners of more than 50 percent of the property filed written objections to an assessment - that is, voted no in the specified way - the assessment was rejected.

Under Prop. 218, an assessment would have to be voted on by property owners, with a majority of the voting owners (not a majority of all owners in the assessment district), weighted by what their financial obligation under the assessment would be, required to approve it.

Prop. 218 does not change the use of property holdings as a basis for voting on property assessments. Further, changing the weighing from, say, acreage, as is often used now, to the relative financial burdens that would be borne by property owners under the assessment (A property owner who would pay $2,000 would have twice the votes of one who would pay $1,000) improves electoral accountability to those affected. And something that improves voter accountability cannot be successfully challenged as undermining voting rights and therefore unconstitutional.

Rather than changing the essential basis for voting, Prop. 218 instead eliminates an almost insurmountable obstacle facing property owners who object to an assessment.

Currently, half the owners have to file written objections or else the assessment is upheld. But this requirement typically overwhelms owners' ability to inform themselves about the assessment and register their opinions in an effective way (over 1 million parcels were involved in the recent Los Angeles Community College assessment). As a result, even large numbers of objectors can very seldom overcome this requirement and assessments are almost always ``approved.'' Property owners get to vote on their assessments, but their votes seldom matter. Prop. 218, by requiring real elections on assessments, just provides property owners the substance of voting rights, rather than the sham voting rights they have now.

The argument that Prop. 218 will harm all California residents by undermining local governments' ability to provide efficient and necessary services is also misguided.

The primary logical failure of this argument is that it assumes property owners look only at their tax and fee bill, but not the valuable services provided for the cost.

Alloweing property owners a real vote on assessments does not hinder efficient policies financed by assessments (traditional assessments, such as local lighting, street improvements, etc., which provide clear, local benefits will still be able to pass).

It only restricts inefficient local policies and those that are designed to force property owners to pay for general government services, which should be paid for and voted on by the public through taxes (assessments which fund traditional tax financed government activities or nonlocal benefits, such as the community college assessment smorgasbord, will face more difficulty in passage).

Besides stopping the abuse of Prop. 13's restrictions on property taxes (accelerated by the California Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Knox v. Orland, which said that Prop. 13 only restricted taxes, not the various euphemisms for taxes, such as assessments and fees), Prop. 218 also increases voter power in another way.

By restricting the power of local governments to impose property assessments without any real vote of citizens, Prop. 218 forces those governments to more heavily rely on taxes to fund general government programs. Everyone gets to vote on taxes, so taxes are the most ``representative'' way to fund general government services.

The Los Angeles City Council's challenge to Prop. 218 fails both on constitutional and logical grounds. Further, it tries to defend current policy decisions, now heavily insulated against the will of the voters, from reforms that would increase local government accountability to voters. Perhaps this, not their rhetoric of defending voting rights, explains the council's opposition.