[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Devolution

by: Brian Leubitz

Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 09:22:14 AM PDT


Sen. Steinberg raises idea of granting tax authority to local governments

by Brian Leubitz

With all the realignment talk running around, granting additional taxation authority to local governments hasn't been immune.  In fact, Sen. Steinberg has addressed the idea a couple of times.  However, the current proposal seems more fully considered to a particular government sector.

Senate Bill 791 would allow local transportation agencies to seek voter approval for a "regional transportation congestion reduction charge" on gasoline or diesel. The bill language, introduced in the form of amendments to existing legislation last week, would also allow a new vehicle registration charge on electric vehicles. Revenues raised by the fees, which would require approval of a majority of voters in the impacted region, would fund transit proposals developed by the local transportation planning agencies to reduce vehicle congestion.

The Sacramento Democrat called the bill an effort to create a "local option" for funding transit projects, saying it is "very consistent with the work that we've done this year on bringing services closer to the people" through realignment of state and local functions. (SacBee)

Now, at first blush this seems to be an indicator of nothing good.  The only reason such a proposal is necessary is that our state government is essentially unworkable.  And, in fact, that is the motivation behind much of realignment.  The supermajority requirements have done a number on Sacramento, and the only remaining solution is to recreate tiny little fiefdoms.  It is regrettable, but given the circumstances, not an unreasonable path for Steinberg and the Legislative Democrats.

We are essentially at the point that the state is better off without coordination, and, from a functional standpoint, that is a poor use of resources.  But from a where we are standpoint, any taxing authority that can be reasonably achieved seems like a good idea.

Brian Leubitz :: Devolution
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Devolution | 6 comments
Some success (0.00 / 0)
There have been several good successes in which local authorities have put a sales tax on the ballot for a specific purpose and then taken responsibility for executing a plan that effectively uses the money for the stated purpose.

Several transportation measures come to mind, but the most vivid is the one in Santa Clara County where the voters passed a half cent sales tax to build Highway 85.  The locals got the tax adopted, collected it, and worked with CalTrans to get the highway built.

This was a "you pay this, you get that" approach was simple for everyone.  It can work with transit, highways and other infrastructure projects.  It is not the solution to all problems, but I like the simplicity and the parameters.


It beats a statewide vote... (0.00 / 0)
...the proceeds of which get channeled away from the intended programs (education or roads, anyone?)

Inequality issues (0.00 / 0)
I once made a passionate appeal for more local control to a friend. I had good reasons: more able to address local concerns, brings government closer to the people, smaller agencies have smaller overhead. But his response was a kicker, in addition to a duplication of overhead for multiple smaller agencies (the reason some cities are consolidating police and fire services with larger neighbors), it begets economic inequality.

Yes, the citizens of Palos Verdes are likely to vote in a parcel tax to fill in gaps in state funding for schools. But how about San Pedro down the hill? Residents of this less affluent community are just scraping by as it is. They're not likely to vote in a similar tax because they simply can't afford it. So the gaps will go unfilled and their children will suffer disproportionately when the state and/or federal government makes cuts.

Considering the dramatic rise in economic inequality we're already experiencing, and the damage it has already done to our society and our economy, anything that will exacerbate it seems like a bad thing to me.

So, while I take your point that we have to deal with the situation we have, I think the price might be higher than we anticipate. And last longer.  


Wow cfinnie you crossed over (0.00 / 0)
They're not likely to vote in a similar tax because they simply can't afford it.

now you are starting to see why people vote against taxes in california ;p


[ Parent ]
CaliCon misses the point. (5.00 / 1)
Poor communities aren't able to fund public facilities and services because they just don't have the same tax base.

A community with property values like Compton's can't raise the same property tax revenue as Palos Verdes. A city with corner liquor stores instead of supermarkets isn't going to get as much from sales tax as a city with auto dealers, a Costco, and a Nordstroms.

Nobody votes against a $92/year parcel tax or a 1/4% sale tax increase "because they can't afford it". They vote down local taxes because of political ideology driven by relentless Jarvisite propaganda.

State level funding isn't intended to provide Compton with every amenity the residents of Beverly Hills enjoy. The state "shares the wealth" just to maintain minimum levels of health, education, and public safety.

Either we'll stand together as citizens of one state or we'll withdraw into our social enclaves - and end up looking like Tijuana, a low-tax paradise of mansions and slums.


IE: Compton (0.00 / 0)
Compton shouldn't need to raise the property tax revenue of Palos Verdes as the cost of providing said services is lower.  The issue comes down to poor people reproducing more poor people.  The result of the increasing social services/welfare state is a permanent underclass that can never sustain itself.

And your Tijuana analogy is inaccurate.  Mexico is an oligarchical society that is as far removed from market forces as any of it's 3rd world neighbors it looks down upon.  There is nothing to stop the low income residents of LA County from changing their station by moving to cheaper areas or better yet gentrifying their own communities to their own betterment.

However this is NEVER going to happen as long ass other people's money is the reliable crutch for an entire community.  To say that this goal is somehow out of reach of these people (at least in absence of the welfare state that perpetuates the poverty) is/should be insulting to that group.

And I can't help but point out that if the desired public services we're provided at market rates and not those set by unions, the tax base of Compton would more than suffice...

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!


[ Parent ]
Devolution | 6 comments
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox