The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lowers the boom on Sacramento’s Measure C | Opinion

On the March 5 ballot, it appears that Measure C, a proposed increase in Sacramento’s business operations taxes, has no opposition. In reality, the state’s largest taxpayer watchdog group doesn’t believe Measure C should be on the ballot at all.

In a letter to the Sacramento City Council, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association contends that when the city failed to notify the public within 10 days of voting to put Measure C on the ballot, the tax increase became subject to a legal challenge.

“It is ... a waste of taxpayer dollars to continue with the current Measure C election,” wrote Laura Dougherty, the association’s director of legal affairs, in a letter to the Sacramento City Council.

Last week, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said he “might” propose proactively going to court to confirm Measure C’s legality (if the measure were to pass) in a proceeding known as a validation.

Dougherty writes that the Jarvis group “expects the city to file a validation action in court and to suspend imposition of the tax until its legal status is determined. As The Sacramento Bee has indicated, a writ of mandate action could be expected in the alternative.”

Translation: If Measure C is passed and the city doesn’t seek validation for the measure in court, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is looming.

Measure C was approved in a Sacramento City Council vote on Nov. 14, and would increase business operations taxes by about 70% over the next several years.

Sacramento’s city clerk and city attorney — who have a recent history of transparency violations — contend that Measure C is legally on the ballot and did not require the timely public noticing as dictated in the charter, saying that “the law has been settled on this point for decades.” Sacramento City Clerk Mindy Cuppy recently wrote, “failure to publish according to that timeline does not affect the validity of the ordinance (Measure C).” Yet nothing seems settled about Measure C.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association doesn’t buy this argument.

Dougherty explains their opposition to Measure C this way: “Sacramento City Charter Section 32(d) provides that ‘ordinances shall be published in the official newspaper of the city within ten days after adoption by the council.’ ‘Shall’ is mandatory language.”

“Compliance is thus mandatory,” Dougherty’s letter states. “Accordingly, Measure C could not be effective even if it were to receive voter approval on March 4. It is further a waste of taxpayer dollars to continue with the current Measure C election.”

As a practical matter, a validation challenge could take longer to resolve than simply putting Measure C back on the ballot in November. Besides, what kind of city would want to go to court to defend its right to violate its public noticing requirements — using the public’s money to do so? Is this what every member of the Sacramento City Council stands for?

We don’t think so.

But that’s the position that top charter officers have now put the mayor and the city council in.

Vote no on Measure C. Send a message to the city that complying with some pretty minimal noticing requirements isn’t too much for the public to seek when tax measures are being placed on a ballot for voter approval.

To be continued.

This story was originally published February 17, 2024 at 5:00 AM.