Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 218, Voter Approval Required Before Local Tax Increases (1996)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(References)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{TOCnestright}}'''Proposition 218''' was on the [[California 1996 ballot propositions#On November 5 ballot|November 5, 1996 general election ballot]] in [[California]], where it was '''approved.'''
 
{{TOCnestright}}'''Proposition 218''' was on the [[California 1996 ballot propositions#On November 5 ballot|November 5, 1996 general election ballot]] in [[California]], where it was '''approved.'''
  
Prop 218 amended the [[California Constitution]] (Articles XIIIC and XIIID) to require local governments to obtain the approval of property owners in a local ballot measure before levying a new or increased tax assessment on those property owners.   
+
Proposition 218 amended the [[California Constitution]] by adding [[Article XIII C, California Constitution|Articles XIII C]] and [[Article XIII D, California Constitution|XIII D]] to require local governments to obtain the approval of property owners in a local ballot measure before levying a new or increased tax assessment on those property owners.   
  
 
Prior to Proposition 218, cities and counties were not required to obtain approval from property owners before levying special tax assessments on them.
 
Prior to Proposition 218, cities and counties were not required to obtain approval from property owners before levying special tax assessments on them.
Line 9: Line 9:
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
  
{| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #a3bfb1 solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;"
+
{{California outcome
|- style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;"
+
| title = Proposition 218
! colspan="5" | California Proposition 218 (1996)
+
| yes = 5,202,429
|-bgcolor="#cef2e0 align="center"
+
| yespct = 56.55
! colspan="2" style="width: 17em" |
+
| no = 3,996,702
! style="width: 7em" |Percentage
+
| nopct = 43.45
|-
+
}}
| colspan="2" | [[Image:15px-600px-Yes check.png|14px]] '''Yes'''
+
 
| align="right" | '''56.5%'''
+
==Constitutional changes==
|-
+
{{ShortCAConstitution}}
| colspan="2" |  No
+
 
| align="right" | 43.5%
+
Proposition 218 added:
|-
+
 
| colspan="2" style="text-align: right; margin-right: 0.5em" | '''Total votes'''
+
* [[Article XIII C, California Constitution|Article XIII C]] to the [[California Constitution]].
| align="right"            | '''100%'''
+
* [[Article XIII D, California Constitution|Article XIII D]] to the [[California Constitution]].
|}
+
  
 
==Ballot language==
 
==Ballot language==
  
The language that appeared on the ballot:
+
===Summary===
 +
[[File:218.gif|right]]
 +
The official [[ballot summary (California)|ballot summary]] that appeared on the ballot said:
  
 
* Limits authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterates that two-thirds must approve special tax.
 
* Limits authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterates that two-thirds must approve special tax.
Line 35: Line 36:
 
* Fees and charges are limited to the cost of providing the service and may not be imposed for general governmental services available to the public.
 
* Fees and charges are limited to the cost of providing the service and may not be imposed for general governmental services available to the public.
  
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
+
===Fiscal impact===
- Short-term local government revenue losses of more than $100 million annually.
+
 
- Long-term local government revenue losses of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
+
The [[California Legislative Analyst's Office]] provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 218.  That estimate was:
- Local government revenue losses generally would result in comparable reductions in spending for local public services.
+
 
 +
:*"Short-term local government revenue losses of more than $100 million annually."
 +
:*Long-term local government revenue losses of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually."
 +
:*Local government revenue losses generally would result in comparable reductions in spending for local public services."
 +
 
 +
==Supporters==
  
==Proponents==
 
 
*[[Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]]
 
*[[Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association]]
  
==Lawsuits based on ==
+
==Related lawsuits==
  
 
* [[Paso Robles Water Use Fees Referendum, Measure A, 2009]]
 
* [[Paso Robles Water Use Fees Referendum, Measure A, 2009]]
 
== See also ==
 
*[[List of California ballot measures]]
 
  
 
== External links ==
 
== External links ==
Line 54: Line 56:
 
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218.htm Official Voter Guide to Proposition 218]
 
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218.htm Official Voter Guide to Proposition 218]
 
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218text.htm Full text of Proposition 218]
 
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218text.htm Full text of Proposition 218]
* [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1996_general/sov_nov96.pdf November 1996 California election results] (PDF)
+
* [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1996-general/1996-general-sov.pdf November 5, 1996 California election results] (PDF)
 +
* [http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1996g.pdf PDF of the paper version of the November 5, 1996 Ballot Propositions Voter Guide]
 
* [http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/2006/07/california_supr_1.html Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil]
 
* [http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/2006/07/california_supr_1.html Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil]
 
* [http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html Understanding Prop 218 from the Legislative Analyst's Office]
 
* [http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html Understanding Prop 218 from the Legislative Analyst's Office]
Line 63: Line 66:
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
  
<small>The original version of this article on Ballotpedia was partially taken from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_218_%281996%29 Wikipedia's article on Proposition 218].</small>
 
 
{{Taxes in California}}
 
{{Taxes in California}}
 
{{california}}
 
{{california}}

Revision as of 07:17, 9 May 2011

Proposition 218 was on the November 5, 1996 general election ballot in California, where it was approved.

Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution by adding Articles XIII C and XIII D to require local governments to obtain the approval of property owners in a local ballot measure before levying a new or increased tax assessment on those property owners.

Prior to Proposition 218, cities and counties were not required to obtain approval from property owners before levying special tax assessments on them.

Proposition 218 was seen as a victory for fiscal conservatives. It is often cited by local government officials, more than a decade after it passed, as making it harder for them to raise local taxes.[1]

Election results

Proposition 218
Result Votes Percentage
Approveda Yes 5,202,429 56.55%
No 3,996,702 43.45%


Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXAXBXIXIIXIIIXIII AXIII BXIII CXIII DXIVXVXVIXVIIIXIXXIX AXIX BXIX CXXXXIXXIIXXXIVXXXV

Proposition 218 added:

Ballot language

Summary

218.gif

The official ballot summary that appeared on the ballot said:

  • Limits authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterates that two-thirds must approve special tax.
  • Assessments, fees, and charges must be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection, after notice and public hearing.
  • Assessments are limited to the special benefit conferred.
  • Fees and charges are limited to the cost of providing the service and may not be imposed for general governmental services available to the public.

Fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 218. That estimate was:

  • "Short-term local government revenue losses of more than $100 million annually."
  • Long-term local government revenue losses of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually."
  • Local government revenue losses generally would result in comparable reductions in spending for local public services."

Supporters

Related lawsuits

External links

References

  1. San Diego Union-Tribune, "A drop in the bucket; Some cities' storm-water fees fall far short of costs", March 15, 2009