California gets even crazier

[JayhawkSD]

By way of background, in the general election last year San Diego had two measures on the ballot which would have provided the San Diego Chargers with a new stadium; both requiring 66.7% affirmative votes in order to pass. One got 43% affirmative votes, and the other received 40%. The Chargers, as we all know, moved to Los Angeles.

The 66.7% vote was required by Proposition 218, passed in 1996, which specified among other things that any special purpose tax needed to be voted on by the people affected by that tax, and that it had to pass by a two-thirds majority. A California court ruled this week that the ruling applies only to taxes imposed by governments, and that any tax or tax increase resulting from a citizen initiative could pass with a simple majority.

So, if a local government wants to impose a new tax to pay for a football stadium, then 67% of the voting public must approve that new tax. But if a football team owner as a private citizen initiates a new tax to have a city or county finance a new stadium for him, that tax only needs the approval of 51% of the voting public. WTF?

[saidsimplesimon]

1. Dontcha know

Mittens Romney and his "friends" want locals to pay for their entertainment.

[still_one]

2. In this case whether it was owner initiated or through local government it would have lost.

I suspect the lower threshold for a private citizen is because they want to encourage an owner to bring a sports franchise to their city.

What voters need to consider is if a sports team will bring business to the city.

Up here in Northern California, Santa Clara won the bidding for the 49ers, partly because San Francisco didn't fight hard enough to keep the team near the city, and partly because of political wrangling, and because the locations where SF wanted to build the stadium, others thought the city could make more money using that land for another purpose

I personally feel it is unfortunate for San Francisco to have the team down in Santa Clara, but for us in the South Bay, I think it is a good thing, though definitely not trouble free

[JayhawkSD]

3. Well, I think you are missing my point.

Yes, both San Diego measures would have lost regardless, and the issue as to whether or not a sports franchise will bring money to a city is one that can be argued forever.

My point is that government has to get 67% while a millionaire citizen can win with only 51%. Get it?

The courts stack the playing field. A millionaire can do what a government cannot because he has money that can buy a court decision.

Is there any other way I can put it that might make my point for you?

[still_one]

5. Yes I got your point, and I said the reason I thought they may have done that is because

they thought it would be more of an incentive to try and get a team owner to bring their ten to the city

Either way the tax payers would be footing the bill for the stadium. I am probably missing something, but wouldn't the tax payers still need to pay for the stadium?

[Mr.Bill]

4. I think one has to look at the definition

of "citizen initiative". I would take that to mean going through the ballot initiative process in California which consists of gathering signatures on a petition to put something on the ballot. If it simply means to be "initiated" by a citizen, then any legislator could say anything was initiated by a citizen who asked him to do it.

[stuffmatters]

6. Thanks for your post. Yep, Manchester, his boy Faulconeer, & Ca Repugs are doing cartwheels.

This judicial decision is disgusting, pretty corrupt. Hope it's appealed, appealable to a less Kochy judge.