My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2004-07-12
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2004
>
AgdaPkt 2004-07-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:48:23 PM
Creation date
7/8/2004 2:50:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
7/12/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
248
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> QA,4 <br /> SB 1212 fron1 f)8ge 1... ...... ....... ... ... ... ... .. . .. . .... ... . . . .. . . <br /> In its amended version the bill would retain the past several years, who argues that the key to <br /> govemor's proposal to swap VLF revenues for incentivizing local governments to approve more <br /> property tax on a dollar-for-dollar basis, but the housing is to ensure that they have more property <br /> growth on the new property tax revenues would be tax. <br /> distributed within each county as follows: <br /> . The county would receive a percentage of Eleventh-Hour Solutions Dangerous for local <br /> the growth on the property tax equal to the Governments <br /> county's percentage of the initial swap. It is clear from the argurnents put forward in <br /> . The remainder of the growth would be <br /> distributed to cities in the county on a per capita support of the S8 1212 amendments that while <br /> basis. legislators are concerned about how to create <br /> incentives to encourage local approval of more <br /> The Ducheny measure would also be contin- housing, there are serious differences of opinion <br /> gent upon the voters approving a constitutional about how best to do that. These differences <br /> amendment on the November 2004 ballot to highlight a core concern for local officials: state <br /> protect local government revenues, but there is no legislators are willing to consider a range of un- <br /> indication from the author if the Governor's pro- tested theoretical approaches that manipulate <br /> posed constitutional protection will suffice or if revenues needed to pay for local services, but these <br /> there is another proposal that is intended. approaches are not well understood - even by the <br /> people advocating for them. Further, legislators are <br /> Why Per Capita Distribution? willing to making sweeping changes in local financ- <br /> ing that could seriously impact communities' abilities <br /> to provide local services, but are not willing to put <br /> A fact sheet from the senator's office ex- state money on the table to achieve their goal of <br /> presses opposition to the VLF for property tax building more housing. <br /> swap in the govemor's proposal because the loss <br /> of VLF "actually reduces incentives local govern- All of the theories put forward thus far by differ- <br /> ments have to approve new housing develop- ent parties are interesting and worth consideration - <br /> menr. at a later time. All of the LOCAL-sponsoring asso- <br /> ciations have said that they are willing to engage in <br /> What would cities gain under the S8 1212 reform discussions - after constitutional protection <br /> approach, in which they would give up one per for current local revenues has been achieved. <br /> capita revenue source (current VLF) for what is <br /> essentially another per capita revenue source The opportunity legislators have today is to pass <br /> (property tax)? The answer from the author. the reform that local officials themselves have <br /> nothing, because 'he bill in essence preserves researched, discussed and carefully analyzed <br /> the status quo rather than exacerbates the among many stakeholders over weeks, months and <br /> fiscalization of land use.. This is a direct compari- even years. Eleventh-hour amendments of a <br /> son to the swap of VLF revenue for property tax sweeping nature run the serious risk of unintended <br /> contained in the Governor's package. consequences. <br /> SB 1212 Contradicts Other Legislative That's why we urge city officials to contact their <br /> Theories About Housing Incentives Assembly Members to reject last minute proposals. <br /> S8 1212 and other proposals that have surfaced <br /> The underlying assumption of S8 1212, during the tail end of budget deliberations represent <br /> the best example of why all city officials should <br /> therefore, is that what motivates local govern- redouble their efforts to support the governor's <br /> ments to build more housing is not the revenue proposal, creating the predictability and stability for <br /> source, but the way that revenue is allocated. local government finance that can provide the <br /> This approach conflicts with the theory put forward foundation for future reform discussions. <br /> by Assembly Member Darrell Steinberg for the <br /> PAGE 4/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Off"lCial Web Site--www.cacities.org <br /> . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.