Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Riverside

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 666·73 Cal. App. 4th 679·86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 592·99 Daily Journal DAR 7303·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5739
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1999E022717California4,088 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

J. — The question before us is whether streetlighting assessments come within Proposition 218’s exemption for assessments imposed exclusively to finance the maintenance and operation of streets and sidewalks. We will hold that they do and therefore that preexisting streetlighting assessments are “grandfathered” under Proposition 218.

I

Statutory Background

Proposition 218 can best be understood against its historical background, which begins in 1978 with the adoption of Proposition 13. “The purpose of Proposition 13 was to cut local property taxes. [Citation.]” (County of Los Angeles v. Sasaki (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1451 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 ].) Its principal provisions limited ad valorem property taxes to 1 percent of a property’s assessed valuation and limited increases in the assessed valuation to 2 percent per year unless and until the property changed hands. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, §§ 1, 2.)

To prevent local governments from subverting its limitations, Proposition 13 also prohibited counties, cities, and special districts from enacting any special tax without a two-thirds vote of the electorate. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, §4; Rider v. County of San Diego…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.