Advertisement



Earthquake

Do you have confidence in local authorities' ability to respond to a major earthquake affecting Alameda? Let us know: newstips@action-alameda-news.com

Bonta Bill Unlikely to Succeed, Alameda Probably Stuck With Parcel Tax Ruling

The Alameda Unified School District is considering its next steps after an appeals court affirmed a ruling on the Measure H parcel tax lawsuit. (Action Alameda News)

The Alameda Unified School District is considering its next steps after an appeals court affirmed a ruling on the Measure H parcel tax lawsuit. (Action Alameda News)

Alameda is likely stuck with the Measure H parcel tax lawsuit ruling, putting the school district at risk of millions of dollars in tax refunds collected unlawfully, say academics at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

Action Alameda News reached out to the law school for expert comment on the lawsuit over the school district’s 2008 parcel tax, Measure H. The California Court of Appeal last week affirmed a ruling that could see the school district having to refund several million dollars back to commercial property owners for tax payments collected unlawfully.

We also asked for comment on 18th Assembly District representative Rob Bonta’s bill, AB59, which appears to try to retroactively change the law to make it lawful for the school district parcel tax to set different rates for commercial property owners.

Two professors at the Berkeley School of Law agreed to speak only on background, citing the arcane nature of tax and budget law.

One wrote to Action Alameda News, after the initial appeal court ruling, but before last week’s affirmation of that ruling, “My sense is that you cannot retroactively change the law BUT that what Bonta is trying to do is to get the Legislature to say that the Court misunderstood the law on parcel taxes and that this is setting straight what was ORIGINALLY meant. Of course, courts might take this later adopted bill with a grain of salt and reject it as unconvincing (there is a long history of litigation when later statutes are used to try to convince courts as to how to interpret earlier laws).”

Another professor spoke at length on the topic, and cited the case of McClung v. Employment Development Dept. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 467, which concerned a completely different matter, but resulted in an opinion that rested on the doctrine of the separation of the judiciary and the legislature.

In the McClung case, the California Court of Appeal wrote, “Under fundamental principles of separation of powers, the legislative branch of government enacts laws. Subject to constitutional constraints, it may change the law. But interpreting the law is a judicial function. After the judiciary definitively and finally interprets a statute, as we did in Carrisales, supra, 21 Cal.4th 1132, the Legislature may amend the statute to say something different. But if it does so, it changes the law; it does not merely state what the law always was. Any statement to the contrary is beyond the Legislature’s power. We also conclude this change in the law does not apply retroactively to impose liability for actions not subject to liability when performed.”

The professor we spoke with thinks that Mr. Bonta’s bill is closely related to the McClung case, saying, “The legislature only gets to act proactively, it doesn’t get to go back in time and change the law, and say, ‘what we meant before was…’”

This professor says that Bonta’s bill faces another hurdle, in that the legislature generally can’t change voter-passed laws, unless the voter initiative included provisions for the legislature to change it. California Propositions 13 (1978) and 62 (1986) appear to make no provisions for the legislature to change the laws approved by voters.

“Even if AB59 passes,” we were told, “it probably won’t be effective in terms of changing last week’s Court of Appeal ruling, and someone is likely to challenge the bill and succeed.”

Further, it’s unlikely that the California Supreme Court would accept an appeal from the Alameda Unified School District. The court accepts only 4 percent of petitions for review, and the fact that lasts week’s ruling was certified for publication by the court, and reviewed twice, signals that it’s very unlikely the Supreme Court would review the ruling.

“I think the citizens of Alameda are stuck with this ruling,” the professor said.

At tomorrow night’s meeting, the Alameda Unified School District Board of Trustees will review the status of the case and discuss next steps.

The district has already said that it was initiating steps to appeal the ruling.

The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court to determine remedies.

The case is VG08405316 in Alameda County Superior Court and A129295 in the appellate court.

4 comments to Bonta Bill Unlikely to Succeed, Alameda Probably Stuck With Parcel Tax Ruling

  • AUSD is paying a Sacramento lobbyist $36,000 to lobby for Bonta’s AB59…

  • Marie

    That the AUSD has a lobbyist on payroll is seriously wrong, in my opinion.
    A parcel tax should be fair for everyone.
    My complaint about the tax is that condo and small homes are taxed at the same rate as mansions. I voted for it anyway, and now I am sorry. I find the AUSD to be devoid of good judgment.

  • GCOBRE

    Commercial property owners are the ones that will be adversely affected by Bonta’s AB59. We must remember, this bill is not just for Alameda, but the whole State. Don’t think for a minute the owners of commercial properties are not going to fight this. They will have their own lobbyist in Sacramento. I am sure the Howard Jarvis people are looking at this also.
    It looks like AUSD is spending money, they say don’t have , on non essential and frivolous projects like the new offices in Marina Village and why is the old Island High property dedicated to become a park? The property is worth thousands and can be sold to a developer to build on. These are dollars AUSD already owns.
    Even now they are contemplating a new tax , a second bond to fix the schools, we are already paying for the last ten years on the first bond and will be another twenty years. This must stop.
    Alameda is not Piedmont, we have more renters than property owners in this city. Alameda is not a wealthy community, most of us are hardworking citizen , trying to make a living in these uncertain times.
    Let AUSD know that enough is enough , learn to live within your means, like the rest of us.

  • On a 4:1 vote, Spencer dissenting, the AUSD board voted to spend the $36K on the sacramento lobbyist…

    Follow the progress on AB59 – no committee hearings scheduled yet.

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB59&search_keywords=

  • Alameda Municipal Power Warns of Phony Bill Scam http://t.co/lZgnHSnMQi ,
  • RT : Do we know what really happened? Hear what she has to say LIVE 6pm #Alameda #Arson #Fire http://t.co/A1mF1Tc8wN ,
  • Arson Suspects Arraigned in Court Today http://t.co/PUaCswv4VW ,
  • #Alameda Arson Suspects Arraigned in Court Today http://t.co/RoKP3XVGvq #Alameda ,
  • Fireside owner knows Petersen, says he couldn’t have done #alameda arsons ,

Directories