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.
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.
…the proceeds of which get channeled away from the intended programs (education or roads, anyone?)
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.
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.