When the city of Upland had its day in front of the California Supreme Court, the clear winner was the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The city’s dispute with the California Cannabis Collection over when a marijuana initiative should appear on an election ballot wound up blowing a hole in Proposition 218, the measure that requires a two-thirds vote for passage of local special taxes. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, such taxes proposed by citizen initiative — rather than by the local government — will now require just 50 percent plus one vote.
That has the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and various Republican groups scrambling for an initiative fix that would restore the two-thirds requirement.
The city’s wending trail toward the state’s highest court began in January 2015 when the California Cannabis Coalition got enough signatures on an initiative petition — allowing three marijuana dispensaries in the city — to qualify the measure for a special election. But City Hall balked at the idea of a special election, and decided the measure would have to wait until the next general election. The city’s reasoning was that the $75,000 fee the initiative would have imposed on each of the dispensaries was actually a tax; and under Prop. 218 new taxes must be approved in a general election rather than in a special election.
The coalition sued over that point. The city prevailed at first but the coalition won on appeal. Upland would have given up then, but HJTA, not wanting a precedent from the appellate ruling, offered to cover the costs to appeal to the Supreme Court, and Upland accepted the offer.
The decision might turn out to benefit Upland City Hall, which has been talking for some time about the need to pass a sales tax increase to make the city’s troubled finances whole. Usually, taxpayers are likelier to pass a special tax — one that would spend the money on something specific, such as public safety — than a general tax. If, say, a citizen group made up largely of public employees should qualify an initiative for a special tax, it would need just majority passage.
That could happen anywhere in the state, not just in Upland, and that’s what has the tax watchdog groups upset.
(1014)
Leave A Reply