Before yesterday\u2019s 9-2 vote to oppose taxpayer protections, San Jose officials were forced to peddle some blatant falsehoods to justify their attack on taxpayer rights. We caught up with HJTA\u2019s Susan Shelley who made quick work of the council\u2019s wild disinformation-palooza\u2026<\/p>\n
Mahan pounds the panic button<\/p>\n
Mayor Matt Mahan claims: \u201cThe immediate impact in San Jose, and it would be immediate, this would not be something phased in, is something between $98 and $130 million per year.\u201d<\/p>\n
Susan Shelley responds: “That’s completely untrue. It is not immediate. Cities will have two years to replace the unconstitutional taxes with measures that comply with the state constitution and respect the rights of California voters.”<\/p>\n
A \u201csinister\u201d state constitution? <\/p>\n
Councilmember David Cohen claims: \u201cThe sinister idea of retroactively taking funding away from governments is what makes this measure so sinister. In my mind, it’s not a question of changing the rules going forward. It’s a question of changing the rules that we were operating under previously, and would make it very, very challenging for many jurisdictions across the state.\u201d<\/p>\n
Shelley responds: “The state constitution is very clear (Article XIIIA, Section 4) that real estate transfer taxes are prohibited and special taxes require a two-thirds vote to pass. What’s “sinister” is taking those constitutional protections away from the people of California through judicial interpretations that contradict the constitution’s plain language.”<\/p>\n
How about earning the voters\u2019 trust? <\/p>\n
CM Pam Foley claims: \u201cIf [the Save Prop 13 Act] passes, the cuts will be huge. I am particularly concerned about the retroactive nature of it, having just solved the $50 million deficit, what deficit would we have faced with the retroactive deficit or loss of Measure E?\u201d<\/p>\n
Shelley responds: “The city can place general taxes on the ballot and they would pass with a simple majority. If voters don’t trust the City Council to spend the money appropriately and to sensibly prioritize the budget, then City Council members should ask themselves why voters don’t trust them to make the right decisions for the city.”<\/p>\n
A two-year grace period is \u201conerous\u201d? <\/p>\n
Foley: \u201cThe rollback nature of this, or the retroactive nature of this, is just so onerous.\u201d<\/p>\n
Shelley: “Cities have two years to propose replacement taxes that comply with the state constitution.”<\/p>\n
Yes, this is about Prop 13 <\/p>\n
CM Anthony Tordillos claims: \u201cI also think it’s important to highlight the unfortunate disinformation campaign that we’ve already seen emerging around this initiative, as we see many supporters attempting to frame the initiative as somehow being a referendum on Prop 13.\u201d<\/p>\n
Shelley responds: “The Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13 restores, reinstates and reinforces what Proposition 13 put into the state constitution but judges have removed. So this is about Proposition 13. The protections Prop. 13 added to the constitution (Article XIIIA, Section 4) are on the ballot again, even though they are still right there in the plain language of the constitution. The words are there. The meaning has been removed by the courts. The voters will have the opportunity this November to put the meaning back into the words.”<\/p>\n
You can\u2019t keep stealing once you\u2019re caught<\/p>\n
CM Rosemary Kamei claims: \u201cI fully respect all voter decisions, but I find most concerning that the initiative would apply retroactively, potentially invalidating numerous voter-approved local revenue measures\u201d <\/p>\n
Susan responds: “Unconstitutional\u00a0taxes are like a home invasion robbery. The robbers, once caught, can’t claim the right to keep their ill-gotten gains forever.”<\/p>\n
Follow Susan Shelley on X<\/a> and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association Save Prop 13 Substack here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity<\/a><\/p>\n