AgdaPkt 2008-04-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 7 'Senate Budget Committee' Continued from Page 1... The hearing was well attended by the committee members, which is not often the case with informational hearings. The system of local government finance can be confusing for city officials and their residents. Members of the Budget Committee experience similar difficulties. During the hearing, committee members asked a number of questions on the history and particulars on local government finance. Specifically, a number of questions were asked about Proposition 1A (2004) and the protections provided for property taxes, the Vehicle License Fee (VLF)-property tax swap as well as local sales taxes. Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) stated that he has never quite understood the logic in requiring a two-thirds vote for a special tax (where the voter knows specifically what the funds will be used for) and the majority vote requirement for a general tax, which lacks the super majority requirement. Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), the Budget Committee chair, asked the local government representatives to present ideas on ways to improve the alignment between local revenues and local responsibilities. The senator, however, acknowledged that given time constraints it is unlikely that significant changes would be made in the short-term. The League and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) have been invited to address the committee in a follow-up hearing on April 4 to provide members with a local government perspective of the current status of the state-local fiscal relationship. Priority Focus will provide coverage of the April 3 hearing in the Friday, April 4 issue. Resources related to the LAO's presentation can be found on the LAO Web site (wNw,lao.ca,Qov). 'PPIC Survey' Continued from Page 1... Here is what the PPIC reported: The two initiatives on the June 3 primary election ballot would limit the government's power of eminent domain. In fact, 71 percent of likely voters believe this power needs major (38 percent) or minor (33 percent) changes. However, they are much more in favor of Prop. 99 to do that job. One reason may be that besides blocking state and local government from taking private property to transfer to another private party, Prop. 98 also prohibits rent control. And 53 percent of likely voters believe that rent control is a good thing (39 percent think it's bad). Prop. 98's rent control limit may explain why only 37 percent of likely voters would give it a yes vote (41 percent would vote no). In contrast, at least half of likely voters (53 percent) would vote yes on Prop. 99. This measure confines itself to barring government from taking any owner-occupied home to transfer the property to another private party. Republicans (45 percent) are more likely than Democrats (29 percent) and independents (36 percent) to favor Prop. 98. but they are even more likely to support Prop. 99 (Republicans, 58 percent; Democrats and independents, 50 percent each). Prop. 98 is opposed by leading California organizations like the AARP, League of Women Voters of California, the Coalition to Protect California Renters, Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League. Inc. (GSMOL), California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Chamber of Commerce and dozens of others. Prop. 99 is supported by a broad coalition including the League of California Homeowners, League of Women Voters of California, California Fire Chiefs Association, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Housing California, Coalition to Protect California Renters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Police Chiefs Association, Califomia League of ConseNation 2