We wish to rebut a recent e-mail in which Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor outlines his argument against Measure N.
Mr. Saylor argues that few cities in California have charters, and the cities that do have charters have more specific ones than what Measure N proposes.
However, the recent trend is that steadily, more and more general law cities are turning to a charter (currently, 112 cities have charters), and in the history of California, no charter city has sought to revert to general law status. Furthermore, charters naturally become more specific with time as the people of charter cities desire to exercise local control more and more fully. Measure N presents a document that asks whether or not the people of Davis wish to have the broader policy latitude that charter city status confers. If their answer is yes, we anticipate that charter will evolve to continue reflecting the community’s specific interests.
Mr. Saylor alleges that Measure N seeks to solve a problem that does not exist.
However, there are problems that exist now, and there will be unforeseen problems in the future, stemming from the state’s stifling of the city of Davis’ power to act in the public’s interest. Measure N provides options for solving current problems such as the unnecessarily excessive cost of upcoming public works projects, including the City’s wastewater treatment plan upgrade. As currently conceived, the upgrade is projected to cost taxpayers over a fifth of a billion dollars. Because the city of Davis lacks a charter, it is precluded from utilizing “design-build delivery,” a streamlined method of planning and construction where the architect and contractor work as a single team.
In the traditional “design-bid-build” model, a project is broken into phases: the city first hires an architect to draft plans, then it selects a construction contractor through the bidding process. In design-build construction, a single group of professionals handles all phases of design and construction under a single contract, potentially speeding up the process, reducing the city’s liability for planning errors and compressing the construction timeline, which in turn saves the people of Davis millions of dollars in water and sewer rates. Failing to recognize the often unnecessary costliness of delivering city services does the taxpayers of Davis a disservice.
Mr. Saylor is wrong about the charter amendment process. Under Measure N, no charter amendment would be implemented without a vote of the people.
We disagree with Mr. Saylor’s assumption that the people of Davis will abuse the charter amendment process – Davisites have historically displayed judiciousness in exercising their current powers of referendum, recall and initiative.
Mr. Saylor ascribes shifting motivations to supporters of a charter.
However, four members of the City Council made clear that in placing Measure N on the ballot, a charter would provide the people of Davis options on issues ranging from local public power financing to local elections to the protection of our local ordinances. A consistent desire to have local control over these issues does not constitute shifting motivations.
Mr. Saylor implies that the charter does not recognize the people’s right to decide on issues such as choice voting.
However, the charter recognizes the people’s purview over all issues. We recognize that the method of electing councilmembers is fundamental matter that the electors – the people of Davis – should decide on. Should they decide to implement choice voting, they may also decide to encode this in the charter.
Let it be clear that Measure N does not automatically establish choice voting. It merely permits choice voting as an option to be considered further, in keeping with the voters’ will on Measure L back in 2006.
Mr. Saylor cites the passage of Assembly Bill 811 as an example of the continued narrowing of the differences between general law cities and charter cities. He argues AB 811 would allow general law cities to implement the same sort of solar assessment district under development by the city of Berkeley. However, Mr. Saylor fails to cite another important piece of legislation in this area: AB 1709, which permits charter cities to pursue the financing of renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements for new development through the establishment of a Community Facilities District. The CFD law, AB 1709, has proven to be a more flexible financing tool than the much older AB 811 – the difference will be important as local agencies, public finance professionals and the lending community begin to explore the rapidly-changing area of renewable energy financing. AB 1709 may be less problematic with respect to existing home mortgages than AB 811, which levies the entire principal amount of the assessment at the time the contractual assessment is established. In short, there remain substantive differences between the options we have under a charter and those we have under general law.
Mr. Saylor implies that Measure N attempts to circumvent existing tax laws that otherwise supersede a charter.
This is untrue. Measure N does not propose any new taxes, nor does it lower the threshold for the passage of taxes. Measure N does not make any recommendations about future taxes. In fact, if passed, the charter can be amended to preclude the city from considering certain types of taxes which the state can allow general law cities to consider in the future.
Mr. Saylor opines that state government has no intention of encroaching on such matters as local land use, agricultural preservation and inclusionary housing.
However, history shows that the state has allowed cities to have less and less power, not more. What Mr. Saylor fails to understand that a charter provides a meaningful legal mechanism for preserving a city’s purview over municipal affairs. We agree that a general law city cannot protect itself from the state’s expansion of matters of statewide concern because, by definition, it is at the mercy of the state’s interpretation of municipal affairs. However, a charter does provide a city a more tenable legal avenue – in a court of law – to protect what the people define as municipal affairs. The city of Davis must be prepared to do all it can to preserve its jurisdiction over such matters as local growth control. Since the charter is a more durable document, codifying voter-approved measures in perpetuity in a charter would further reinforce the people’s prerogative with regards to municipal affairs.
Mr. Saylor argues further that there has been no thoughtful or inclusive process by which the city’s governance structure has been considered.
However, the 1994-6 Governance Committee and the 2004-5 Governance Task Force, composed of Davis citizens appointed by two City Councils, both deliberated in public meetings on the issue of a charter and ultimately recommended the type of charter that Measure N proposes.
Finally, Mr. Saylor implies that “Hancock, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and the rest” would have argued for something other than Measure N.
No one, not even Mr. Saylor, really knows for sure what they would say. However, they probably would agree that localities have a right and a duty to consider their relationship with higher levels of government, because doing so provides a check and balance on power at all levels. In our opinion, Measure N is a useful step in providing that check.
Thank you for considering our points. We hope this helps you understand our support for Measure N.
The proponents of Measure N assert that “Measure N does not propose any new taxes, nor does it lower the threshold for the passage of taxes.”
Measure N would allow the city to propose a tax that charter cities can pass which general law cities cannot even consider: the real property transfer tax.
In the recent League of Women Voters’ forum discussion, Councilmember Lamar Heystek contradicted my statement that only charter cities can impose a real property transfer tax (i.e., a sales tax on homes and business properties). Lamar said that general law cities can and do impose such a tax.
General law cities such as Davis cannot impose such a tax; it violates the state constitution.
Real property transfer taxes are prohibited in general law cities:
California law:
53725. (a) Except as permitted in Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the
California Constitution, no local government or district may impose
any ad valorem taxes on real property. No local government or
district may impose any transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of
real property within the city, county or district. [emphasis added]
California Constitution:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
Section 4. Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds
vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special
taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a
transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within
such City, County or special district. [emphasis added]
So how is it that charter cities can impose this tax when the wording of state law and the state constitution is so clear? The right of charter cities to impose such special taxes resulted from court decisions. Charter cities did implement them, and the right of a charter city to govern its own affairs has been upheld as taking priority over the state law in such cases.
here’s a link
In two court cases, “courts have upheld real estate transfer taxes imposed by charter cities, even though Proposition 62 explicitly prohibited such taxes. Fielder v. City of Los Angeles, (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 137; Fisher v. County of Alameda, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 120.”
The ability of charter cities to impose these and other taxes should be considered by voters as they decide how to vote on Measure N.
The proponents of Measure N assert that “Measure N does not propose any new taxes, nor does it lower the threshold for the passage of taxes.”
Measure N would allow the city to propose a tax that charter cities can pass which general law cities cannot even consider: the real property transfer tax.
In the recent League of Women Voters’ forum discussion, Councilmember Lamar Heystek contradicted my statement that only charter cities can impose a real property transfer tax (i.e., a sales tax on homes and business properties). Lamar said that general law cities can and do impose such a tax.
General law cities such as Davis cannot impose such a tax; it violates the state constitution.
Real property transfer taxes are prohibited in general law cities:
California law:
53725. (a) Except as permitted in Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the
California Constitution, no local government or district may impose
any ad valorem taxes on real property. No local government or
district may impose any transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of
real property within the city, county or district. [emphasis added]
California Constitution:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
Section 4. Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds
vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special
taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a
transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within
such City, County or special district. [emphasis added]
So how is it that charter cities can impose this tax when the wording of state law and the state constitution is so clear? The right of charter cities to impose such special taxes resulted from court decisions. Charter cities did implement them, and the right of a charter city to govern its own affairs has been upheld as taking priority over the state law in such cases.
here’s a link
In two court cases, “courts have upheld real estate transfer taxes imposed by charter cities, even though Proposition 62 explicitly prohibited such taxes. Fielder v. City of Los Angeles, (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 137; Fisher v. County of Alameda, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 120.”
The ability of charter cities to impose these and other taxes should be considered by voters as they decide how to vote on Measure N.
The proponents of Measure N assert that “Measure N does not propose any new taxes, nor does it lower the threshold for the passage of taxes.”
Measure N would allow the city to propose a tax that charter cities can pass which general law cities cannot even consider: the real property transfer tax.
In the recent League of Women Voters’ forum discussion, Councilmember Lamar Heystek contradicted my statement that only charter cities can impose a real property transfer tax (i.e., a sales tax on homes and business properties). Lamar said that general law cities can and do impose such a tax.
General law cities such as Davis cannot impose such a tax; it violates the state constitution.
Real property transfer taxes are prohibited in general law cities:
California law:
53725. (a) Except as permitted in Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the
California Constitution, no local government or district may impose
any ad valorem taxes on real property. No local government or
district may impose any transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of
real property within the city, county or district. [emphasis added]
California Constitution:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
Section 4. Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds
vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special
taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a
transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within
such City, County or special district. [emphasis added]
So how is it that charter cities can impose this tax when the wording of state law and the state constitution is so clear? The right of charter cities to impose such special taxes resulted from court decisions. Charter cities did implement them, and the right of a charter city to govern its own affairs has been upheld as taking priority over the state law in such cases.
here’s a link
In two court cases, “courts have upheld real estate transfer taxes imposed by charter cities, even though Proposition 62 explicitly prohibited such taxes. Fielder v. City of Los Angeles, (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 137; Fisher v. County of Alameda, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 120.”
The ability of charter cities to impose these and other taxes should be considered by voters as they decide how to vote on Measure N.
The proponents of Measure N assert that “Measure N does not propose any new taxes, nor does it lower the threshold for the passage of taxes.”
Measure N would allow the city to propose a tax that charter cities can pass which general law cities cannot even consider: the real property transfer tax.
In the recent League of Women Voters’ forum discussion, Councilmember Lamar Heystek contradicted my statement that only charter cities can impose a real property transfer tax (i.e., a sales tax on homes and business properties). Lamar said that general law cities can and do impose such a tax.
General law cities such as Davis cannot impose such a tax; it violates the state constitution.
Real property transfer taxes are prohibited in general law cities:
California law:
53725. (a) Except as permitted in Section 1 of Article XIIIA of the
California Constitution, no local government or district may impose
any ad valorem taxes on real property. No local government or
district may impose any transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of
real property within the city, county or district. [emphasis added]
California Constitution:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
Section 4. Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds
vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special
taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a
transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within
such City, County or special district. [emphasis added]
So how is it that charter cities can impose this tax when the wording of state law and the state constitution is so clear? The right of charter cities to impose such special taxes resulted from court decisions. Charter cities did implement them, and the right of a charter city to govern its own affairs has been upheld as taking priority over the state law in such cases.
here’s a link
In two court cases, “courts have upheld real estate transfer taxes imposed by charter cities, even though Proposition 62 explicitly prohibited such taxes. Fielder v. City of Los Angeles, (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 137; Fisher v. County of Alameda, (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 120.”
The ability of charter cities to impose these and other taxes should be considered by voters as they decide how to vote on Measure N.
Things a charter city may do that a general law city cannot:
Government and elections
By council majority vote, and without a vote of the people:
A city council may change the form of government; e.g., strong mayor.
May establish any election rules and procedures; e.g. choice voting. district elections.
May establish criteria for office; e.g., residency requirement.
General law cities have minimum qualifications established by state law. Nothing in this charter or the present municipal code sets minimum qualifications.
May enact public financing of election campaigns.
Management
May decide how to enact ordinances.
General law cities have requirements for open reading of ordinances and a minimum of five days after they are introduced (unless they are urgency ordinances). In a charter city any ordinance can be introduced and voted on at the same meeting without prior publication.
May set council quorum. General law cities require a majority.
Council members may set their own salaries. General law cities have state limits.
Competitive bidding is not required for contracts.
Do not have to pay prevailing wage on public works projects.
Taxes and zoning
Taxation for both charter and general law cities is governed by Prop 218, but:
Charter cities may impose a tax on the transfer of property;
May impose business license taxes and fees for any purpose.
In Fremont, Mayor Bob Wasserman … “requested that Fremont once again consider becoming a charter city primarily to see if doing so would provide more options to boost revenue.” – Oakland Tribune, March 15, 2008.
Zoning changes are not required to be consistent with the general plan unless such a requirement is in the charter (it isn’t).
Source: California League of Cities
Search for:
Chart: General Law – Charter City comparison (.doc)
How many of these differences between charter cities and general law cities were you aware of?
Most of these problemmatic new powers that would be granted to city councils under charter status can be easily dealt with.
–The charter can include specific language about each one; for example, stating that a public vote is required for change to choice voting or district elections, or to raise their own pay.
–Or, to make it simpler, language could be inserted that state law shall prevail unless an issue is otherwise addressed in the charter. Then any change would require a public vote as an amendment.
Either approach would protect the public from abuse of charter city status by the city council. But Measure N contains no such language.
Charter city status is not inherently bad. A well-written charter has great potential for city governance. But there are also pitfalls, and they should have been addressed before a charter proposal was put before the voters. Send this proposal back to the drawing board.
Things a charter city may do that a general law city cannot:
Government and elections
By council majority vote, and without a vote of the people:
A city council may change the form of government; e.g., strong mayor.
May establish any election rules and procedures; e.g. choice voting. district elections.
May establish criteria for office; e.g., residency requirement.
General law cities have minimum qualifications established by state law. Nothing in this charter or the present municipal code sets minimum qualifications.
May enact public financing of election campaigns.
Management
May decide how to enact ordinances.
General law cities have requirements for open reading of ordinances and a minimum of five days after they are introduced (unless they are urgency ordinances). In a charter city any ordinance can be introduced and voted on at the same meeting without prior publication.
May set council quorum. General law cities require a majority.
Council members may set their own salaries. General law cities have state limits.
Competitive bidding is not required for contracts.
Do not have to pay prevailing wage on public works projects.
Taxes and zoning
Taxation for both charter and general law cities is governed by Prop 218, but:
Charter cities may impose a tax on the transfer of property;
May impose business license taxes and fees for any purpose.
In Fremont, Mayor Bob Wasserman … “requested that Fremont once again consider becoming a charter city primarily to see if doing so would provide more options to boost revenue.” – Oakland Tribune, March 15, 2008.
Zoning changes are not required to be consistent with the general plan unless such a requirement is in the charter (it isn’t).
Source: California League of Cities
Search for:
Chart: General Law – Charter City comparison (.doc)
How many of these differences between charter cities and general law cities were you aware of?
Most of these problemmatic new powers that would be granted to city councils under charter status can be easily dealt with.
–The charter can include specific language about each one; for example, stating that a public vote is required for change to choice voting or district elections, or to raise their own pay.
–Or, to make it simpler, language could be inserted that state law shall prevail unless an issue is otherwise addressed in the charter. Then any change would require a public vote as an amendment.
Either approach would protect the public from abuse of charter city status by the city council. But Measure N contains no such language.
Charter city status is not inherently bad. A well-written charter has great potential for city governance. But there are also pitfalls, and they should have been addressed before a charter proposal was put before the voters. Send this proposal back to the drawing board.
Things a charter city may do that a general law city cannot:
Government and elections
By council majority vote, and without a vote of the people:
A city council may change the form of government; e.g., strong mayor.
May establish any election rules and procedures; e.g. choice voting. district elections.
May establish criteria for office; e.g., residency requirement.
General law cities have minimum qualifications established by state law. Nothing in this charter or the present municipal code sets minimum qualifications.
May enact public financing of election campaigns.
Management
May decide how to enact ordinances.
General law cities have requirements for open reading of ordinances and a minimum of five days after they are introduced (unless they are urgency ordinances). In a charter city any ordinance can be introduced and voted on at the same meeting without prior publication.
May set council quorum. General law cities require a majority.
Council members may set their own salaries. General law cities have state limits.
Competitive bidding is not required for contracts.
Do not have to pay prevailing wage on public works projects.
Taxes and zoning
Taxation for both charter and general law cities is governed by Prop 218, but:
Charter cities may impose a tax on the transfer of property;
May impose business license taxes and fees for any purpose.
In Fremont, Mayor Bob Wasserman … “requested that Fremont once again consider becoming a charter city primarily to see if doing so would provide more options to boost revenue.” – Oakland Tribune, March 15, 2008.
Zoning changes are not required to be consistent with the general plan unless such a requirement is in the charter (it isn’t).
Source: California League of Cities
Search for:
Chart: General Law – Charter City comparison (.doc)
How many of these differences between charter cities and general law cities were you aware of?
Most of these problemmatic new powers that would be granted to city councils under charter status can be easily dealt with.
–The charter can include specific language about each one; for example, stating that a public vote is required for change to choice voting or district elections, or to raise their own pay.
–Or, to make it simpler, language could be inserted that state law shall prevail unless an issue is otherwise addressed in the charter. Then any change would require a public vote as an amendment.
Either approach would protect the public from abuse of charter city status by the city council. But Measure N contains no such language.
Charter city status is not inherently bad. A well-written charter has great potential for city governance. But there are also pitfalls, and they should have been addressed before a charter proposal was put before the voters. Send this proposal back to the drawing board.
Things a charter city may do that a general law city cannot:
Government and elections
By council majority vote, and without a vote of the people:
A city council may change the form of government; e.g., strong mayor.
May establish any election rules and procedures; e.g. choice voting. district elections.
May establish criteria for office; e.g., residency requirement.
General law cities have minimum qualifications established by state law. Nothing in this charter or the present municipal code sets minimum qualifications.
May enact public financing of election campaigns.
Management
May decide how to enact ordinances.
General law cities have requirements for open reading of ordinances and a minimum of five days after they are introduced (unless they are urgency ordinances). In a charter city any ordinance can be introduced and voted on at the same meeting without prior publication.
May set council quorum. General law cities require a majority.
Council members may set their own salaries. General law cities have state limits.
Competitive bidding is not required for contracts.
Do not have to pay prevailing wage on public works projects.
Taxes and zoning
Taxation for both charter and general law cities is governed by Prop 218, but:
Charter cities may impose a tax on the transfer of property;
May impose business license taxes and fees for any purpose.
In Fremont, Mayor Bob Wasserman … “requested that Fremont once again consider becoming a charter city primarily to see if doing so would provide more options to boost revenue.” – Oakland Tribune, March 15, 2008.
Zoning changes are not required to be consistent with the general plan unless such a requirement is in the charter (it isn’t).
Source: California League of Cities
Search for:
Chart: General Law – Charter City comparison (.doc)
How many of these differences between charter cities and general law cities were you aware of?
Most of these problemmatic new powers that would be granted to city councils under charter status can be easily dealt with.
–The charter can include specific language about each one; for example, stating that a public vote is required for change to choice voting or district elections, or to raise their own pay.
–Or, to make it simpler, language could be inserted that state law shall prevail unless an issue is otherwise addressed in the charter. Then any change would require a public vote as an amendment.
Either approach would protect the public from abuse of charter city status by the city council. But Measure N contains no such language.
Charter city status is not inherently bad. A well-written charter has great potential for city governance. But there are also pitfalls, and they should have been addressed before a charter proposal was put before the voters. Send this proposal back to the drawing board.
As a Charter City the new powers of the City Council could only be checked by unrelenting unending citizen referendums. Back to the drawing board with this Charter City concept. Davisites are too savy to “buy a pig in a poke” and just hope for the best. Let’s have a detailed charter city proposal concerning what kind of election process we will have as well as what limits are in place to the Davis Charter City Council’s new powers.
As a Charter City the new powers of the City Council could only be checked by unrelenting unending citizen referendums. Back to the drawing board with this Charter City concept. Davisites are too savy to “buy a pig in a poke” and just hope for the best. Let’s have a detailed charter city proposal concerning what kind of election process we will have as well as what limits are in place to the Davis Charter City Council’s new powers.
As a Charter City the new powers of the City Council could only be checked by unrelenting unending citizen referendums. Back to the drawing board with this Charter City concept. Davisites are too savy to “buy a pig in a poke” and just hope for the best. Let’s have a detailed charter city proposal concerning what kind of election process we will have as well as what limits are in place to the Davis Charter City Council’s new powers.
As a Charter City the new powers of the City Council could only be checked by unrelenting unending citizen referendums. Back to the drawing board with this Charter City concept. Davisites are too savy to “buy a pig in a poke” and just hope for the best. Let’s have a detailed charter city proposal concerning what kind of election process we will have as well as what limits are in place to the Davis Charter City Council’s new powers.
…a remarkably unconvincing piece by these 2 proponents of Measure N. They challenge Saylor’s anti-N platitudes with their own platitudes while failing to challenge FACTS offered by those that are opposed to their version of the charter to be voted upon.
…a remarkably unconvincing piece by these 2 proponents of Measure N. They challenge Saylor’s anti-N platitudes with their own platitudes while failing to challenge FACTS offered by those that are opposed to their version of the charter to be voted upon.
…a remarkably unconvincing piece by these 2 proponents of Measure N. They challenge Saylor’s anti-N platitudes with their own platitudes while failing to challenge FACTS offered by those that are opposed to their version of the charter to be voted upon.
…a remarkably unconvincing piece by these 2 proponents of Measure N. They challenge Saylor’s anti-N platitudes with their own platitudes while failing to challenge FACTS offered by those that are opposed to their version of the charter to be voted upon.
Don Saylor is absolutely correct when he states that this charter does not recognize the people’s rights to decide on issues. The Charter’s only mention of power to the people is the reference to our power to resort to referendas and initiatives. We have that power as a general law city. The Charter does, however, give maximum power to the city council and would permit the council to adopt ordinances and policies, such as choice voting, without a vote of the people. It is not necessary to amend the charter for the council to be able to do these things.
This charter is so vague and ill-written, it must be defeated. There has been NO substantive public debate as to whether we want a charter or what it should address. What some committee did more than 10 years ago or even 4 years ago, has no bearing on what is happening now. If we were to take those committee’s recommendations, we would first have a thorough public dialogue about such an important issue as changing the fundamental way we are governed.
And I concur with a prior comment, that this response give nothing but platitudes and does not address any actual facts that have been brought forward numberous times in this blog, in letters to the editor, in the op eds and in the League forum.
Vote No on N.
Don Saylor is absolutely correct when he states that this charter does not recognize the people’s rights to decide on issues. The Charter’s only mention of power to the people is the reference to our power to resort to referendas and initiatives. We have that power as a general law city. The Charter does, however, give maximum power to the city council and would permit the council to adopt ordinances and policies, such as choice voting, without a vote of the people. It is not necessary to amend the charter for the council to be able to do these things.
This charter is so vague and ill-written, it must be defeated. There has been NO substantive public debate as to whether we want a charter or what it should address. What some committee did more than 10 years ago or even 4 years ago, has no bearing on what is happening now. If we were to take those committee’s recommendations, we would first have a thorough public dialogue about such an important issue as changing the fundamental way we are governed.
And I concur with a prior comment, that this response give nothing but platitudes and does not address any actual facts that have been brought forward numberous times in this blog, in letters to the editor, in the op eds and in the League forum.
Vote No on N.
Don Saylor is absolutely correct when he states that this charter does not recognize the people’s rights to decide on issues. The Charter’s only mention of power to the people is the reference to our power to resort to referendas and initiatives. We have that power as a general law city. The Charter does, however, give maximum power to the city council and would permit the council to adopt ordinances and policies, such as choice voting, without a vote of the people. It is not necessary to amend the charter for the council to be able to do these things.
This charter is so vague and ill-written, it must be defeated. There has been NO substantive public debate as to whether we want a charter or what it should address. What some committee did more than 10 years ago or even 4 years ago, has no bearing on what is happening now. If we were to take those committee’s recommendations, we would first have a thorough public dialogue about such an important issue as changing the fundamental way we are governed.
And I concur with a prior comment, that this response give nothing but platitudes and does not address any actual facts that have been brought forward numberous times in this blog, in letters to the editor, in the op eds and in the League forum.
Vote No on N.
Don Saylor is absolutely correct when he states that this charter does not recognize the people’s rights to decide on issues. The Charter’s only mention of power to the people is the reference to our power to resort to referendas and initiatives. We have that power as a general law city. The Charter does, however, give maximum power to the city council and would permit the council to adopt ordinances and policies, such as choice voting, without a vote of the people. It is not necessary to amend the charter for the council to be able to do these things.
This charter is so vague and ill-written, it must be defeated. There has been NO substantive public debate as to whether we want a charter or what it should address. What some committee did more than 10 years ago or even 4 years ago, has no bearing on what is happening now. If we were to take those committee’s recommendations, we would first have a thorough public dialogue about such an important issue as changing the fundamental way we are governed.
And I concur with a prior comment, that this response give nothing but platitudes and does not address any actual facts that have been brought forward numberous times in this blog, in letters to the editor, in the op eds and in the League forum.
Vote No on N.
Don Shor,
Could you still provide us with that website address that you had mentioned in the presentation at the Davis LWV forum last Thursday that had a chart outlining the differences between charter and general law cities in their powers of governance on this message board.
The differences regarding Tax law are important in this regard an the “No on N” campaign should highlight them in its campaign material.
If there is a “No on N” campaign website that should be linked here in a response as well asd on the Davis Political Arena and DCN Voter Information webpages as well.
Don Shor,
Could you still provide us with that website address that you had mentioned in the presentation at the Davis LWV forum last Thursday that had a chart outlining the differences between charter and general law cities in their powers of governance on this message board.
The differences regarding Tax law are important in this regard an the “No on N” campaign should highlight them in its campaign material.
If there is a “No on N” campaign website that should be linked here in a response as well asd on the Davis Political Arena and DCN Voter Information webpages as well.
Don Shor,
Could you still provide us with that website address that you had mentioned in the presentation at the Davis LWV forum last Thursday that had a chart outlining the differences between charter and general law cities in their powers of governance on this message board.
The differences regarding Tax law are important in this regard an the “No on N” campaign should highlight them in its campaign material.
If there is a “No on N” campaign website that should be linked here in a response as well asd on the Davis Political Arena and DCN Voter Information webpages as well.
Don Shor,
Could you still provide us with that website address that you had mentioned in the presentation at the Davis LWV forum last Thursday that had a chart outlining the differences between charter and general law cities in their powers of governance on this message board.
The differences regarding Tax law are important in this regard an the “No on N” campaign should highlight them in its campaign material.
If there is a “No on N” campaign website that should be linked here in a response as well asd on the Davis Political Arena and DCN Voter Information webpages as well.
Hi Thomas,
I didn’t make the link correctly in my post above. Fortunately, Don Saylor has put the correct link at this web site:
http://www.donsaylor.org
Go to the “Information about charter cities on the League of California Cities website” link at the bottom of the page. That will take you to the site I was trying to link. Look for
“Chart: General Law Cities v. Charter Cities”
It is a document link, so it will download when you click on it.
Don
Hi Thomas,
I didn’t make the link correctly in my post above. Fortunately, Don Saylor has put the correct link at this web site:
http://www.donsaylor.org
Go to the “Information about charter cities on the League of California Cities website” link at the bottom of the page. That will take you to the site I was trying to link. Look for
“Chart: General Law Cities v. Charter Cities”
It is a document link, so it will download when you click on it.
Don
Hi Thomas,
I didn’t make the link correctly in my post above. Fortunately, Don Saylor has put the correct link at this web site:
http://www.donsaylor.org
Go to the “Information about charter cities on the League of California Cities website” link at the bottom of the page. That will take you to the site I was trying to link. Look for
“Chart: General Law Cities v. Charter Cities”
It is a document link, so it will download when you click on it.
Don
Hi Thomas,
I didn’t make the link correctly in my post above. Fortunately, Don Saylor has put the correct link at this web site:
http://www.donsaylor.org
Go to the “Information about charter cities on the League of California Cities website” link at the bottom of the page. That will take you to the site I was trying to link. Look for
“Chart: General Law Cities v. Charter Cities”
It is a document link, so it will download when you click on it.
Don
Souza has stated in a public meeting at City Hall that among other reasons, he wanted Charter City so the City Council could raise taxes by simple majority vote.
Too bad choice voting has been lost in the process debacle caused by the way this charter city thing was handled.
Vote NO on Measure N.
Souza has stated in a public meeting at City Hall that among other reasons, he wanted Charter City so the City Council could raise taxes by simple majority vote.
Too bad choice voting has been lost in the process debacle caused by the way this charter city thing was handled.
Vote NO on Measure N.
Souza has stated in a public meeting at City Hall that among other reasons, he wanted Charter City so the City Council could raise taxes by simple majority vote.
Too bad choice voting has been lost in the process debacle caused by the way this charter city thing was handled.
Vote NO on Measure N.
Souza has stated in a public meeting at City Hall that among other reasons, he wanted Charter City so the City Council could raise taxes by simple majority vote.
Too bad choice voting has been lost in the process debacle caused by the way this charter city thing was handled.
Vote NO on Measure N.
The weak argument that a YES on Measure N will allow “fast-tracking” of the waste-water facility upgrade, read less time for citizen input and oversight, is a good argument for a NO vote.
The weak argument that a YES on Measure N will allow “fast-tracking” of the waste-water facility upgrade, read less time for citizen input and oversight, is a good argument for a NO vote.
The weak argument that a YES on Measure N will allow “fast-tracking” of the waste-water facility upgrade, read less time for citizen input and oversight, is a good argument for a NO vote.
The weak argument that a YES on Measure N will allow “fast-tracking” of the waste-water facility upgrade, read less time for citizen input and oversight, is a good argument for a NO vote.
“Politics makes strange bedfellows”
There is a fundamental difference between Don Saylor’s rejection of the IDEA of Davis becoming a Charter City and those who support the charter city concept but believe that Measure N is flawed and potentially dangerous to advancing the interests of the citizens of Davis. One is protecting the status-quo of the Davis Establishment power structure and the other looking for ways for our local politics to better represent OUR interests.
“Politics makes strange bedfellows”
There is a fundamental difference between Don Saylor’s rejection of the IDEA of Davis becoming a Charter City and those who support the charter city concept but believe that Measure N is flawed and potentially dangerous to advancing the interests of the citizens of Davis. One is protecting the status-quo of the Davis Establishment power structure and the other looking for ways for our local politics to better represent OUR interests.
“Politics makes strange bedfellows”
There is a fundamental difference between Don Saylor’s rejection of the IDEA of Davis becoming a Charter City and those who support the charter city concept but believe that Measure N is flawed and potentially dangerous to advancing the interests of the citizens of Davis. One is protecting the status-quo of the Davis Establishment power structure and the other looking for ways for our local politics to better represent OUR interests.
“Politics makes strange bedfellows”
There is a fundamental difference between Don Saylor’s rejection of the IDEA of Davis becoming a Charter City and those who support the charter city concept but believe that Measure N is flawed and potentially dangerous to advancing the interests of the citizens of Davis. One is protecting the status-quo of the Davis Establishment power structure and the other looking for ways for our local politics to better represent OUR interests.
Did any of you watch the League of Women Voters' forum last week?
Don Shor, speaking for "No on N," provided text,quotes,charts and websites to back up his opinions and statements.
And after Don Shor presented his cogent, well-documented arguments, Lamar's only rebuttal was to call Don a liar, on television.
That was the final straw for me. Heystek is unfit to be a councilmember and we need to replace him ASAP.
Meanwhile, I was ashamed and embarrassed by the horrible words that Lamar & Souza aimed @ Don Shor & Don Saylor.
Don Shor is an icon of our community; a really nice guy, who has lived here for over 35 years, has established a solid local business, and who rarely ventures into the arena of local politics.
But on this rare occasion when Don expressed his opinion, Lamar viciously ripped him and called him a liar on television.
And who is Heystek? A total loser, who has contributed nothing to our community. I can agree to disagree on issues, but draw the line when someone as worthless as Heystek attacks solid citizens such as Don Shor & Don Saylor (with whom I disagree on many issues.
So, back to Meausre N. What is so important about Measure N that would cause Heystek to join forces with Asmundson, Adler and Souza, all of whom supported Covell Center and opposed Measure J, and mercilessly attack Don Shor & Don Saylor?
The "No on N" effort is led by Don Saylor, Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor & Rick Entrikin: strange bedfellows, but all of whom have studied the charter issue and agree it's bad for Davis citizens.
Again, it's ok to disagree; I can accept that. I cannnot accept blatant, unfounded attacks by Souza & Heystek on such dedicated. respected members of our community as Don Shor and Don Saylor.
There is something really wrong about the proposed Charter (Measure N) if Heystek & Souza have to resort to calling such solid citizens as Shor & Saylor "liars," to win votes.
Please, join me in saying no to Heystek & Souza's smear campaign against Don Shor & Don Saylor.
Vote "NO on N."
Did any of you watch the League of Women Voters' forum last week?
Don Shor, speaking for "No on N," provided text,quotes,charts and websites to back up his opinions and statements.
And after Don Shor presented his cogent, well-documented arguments, Lamar's only rebuttal was to call Don a liar, on television.
That was the final straw for me. Heystek is unfit to be a councilmember and we need to replace him ASAP.
Meanwhile, I was ashamed and embarrassed by the horrible words that Lamar & Souza aimed @ Don Shor & Don Saylor.
Don Shor is an icon of our community; a really nice guy, who has lived here for over 35 years, has established a solid local business, and who rarely ventures into the arena of local politics.
But on this rare occasion when Don expressed his opinion, Lamar viciously ripped him and called him a liar on television.
And who is Heystek? A total loser, who has contributed nothing to our community. I can agree to disagree on issues, but draw the line when someone as worthless as Heystek attacks solid citizens such as Don Shor & Don Saylor (with whom I disagree on many issues.
So, back to Meausre N. What is so important about Measure N that would cause Heystek to join forces with Asmundson, Adler and Souza, all of whom supported Covell Center and opposed Measure J, and mercilessly attack Don Shor & Don Saylor?
The "No on N" effort is led by Don Saylor, Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor & Rick Entrikin: strange bedfellows, but all of whom have studied the charter issue and agree it's bad for Davis citizens.
Again, it's ok to disagree; I can accept that. I cannnot accept blatant, unfounded attacks by Souza & Heystek on such dedicated. respected members of our community as Don Shor and Don Saylor.
There is something really wrong about the proposed Charter (Measure N) if Heystek & Souza have to resort to calling such solid citizens as Shor & Saylor "liars," to win votes.
Please, join me in saying no to Heystek & Souza's smear campaign against Don Shor & Don Saylor.
Vote "NO on N."
Did any of you watch the League of Women Voters' forum last week?
Don Shor, speaking for "No on N," provided text,quotes,charts and websites to back up his opinions and statements.
And after Don Shor presented his cogent, well-documented arguments, Lamar's only rebuttal was to call Don a liar, on television.
That was the final straw for me. Heystek is unfit to be a councilmember and we need to replace him ASAP.
Meanwhile, I was ashamed and embarrassed by the horrible words that Lamar & Souza aimed @ Don Shor & Don Saylor.
Don Shor is an icon of our community; a really nice guy, who has lived here for over 35 years, has established a solid local business, and who rarely ventures into the arena of local politics.
But on this rare occasion when Don expressed his opinion, Lamar viciously ripped him and called him a liar on television.
And who is Heystek? A total loser, who has contributed nothing to our community. I can agree to disagree on issues, but draw the line when someone as worthless as Heystek attacks solid citizens such as Don Shor & Don Saylor (with whom I disagree on many issues.
So, back to Meausre N. What is so important about Measure N that would cause Heystek to join forces with Asmundson, Adler and Souza, all of whom supported Covell Center and opposed Measure J, and mercilessly attack Don Shor & Don Saylor?
The "No on N" effort is led by Don Saylor, Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor & Rick Entrikin: strange bedfellows, but all of whom have studied the charter issue and agree it's bad for Davis citizens.
Again, it's ok to disagree; I can accept that. I cannnot accept blatant, unfounded attacks by Souza & Heystek on such dedicated. respected members of our community as Don Shor and Don Saylor.
There is something really wrong about the proposed Charter (Measure N) if Heystek & Souza have to resort to calling such solid citizens as Shor & Saylor "liars," to win votes.
Please, join me in saying no to Heystek & Souza's smear campaign against Don Shor & Don Saylor.
Vote "NO on N."
Did any of you watch the League of Women Voters' forum last week?
Don Shor, speaking for "No on N," provided text,quotes,charts and websites to back up his opinions and statements.
And after Don Shor presented his cogent, well-documented arguments, Lamar's only rebuttal was to call Don a liar, on television.
That was the final straw for me. Heystek is unfit to be a councilmember and we need to replace him ASAP.
Meanwhile, I was ashamed and embarrassed by the horrible words that Lamar & Souza aimed @ Don Shor & Don Saylor.
Don Shor is an icon of our community; a really nice guy, who has lived here for over 35 years, has established a solid local business, and who rarely ventures into the arena of local politics.
But on this rare occasion when Don expressed his opinion, Lamar viciously ripped him and called him a liar on television.
And who is Heystek? A total loser, who has contributed nothing to our community. I can agree to disagree on issues, but draw the line when someone as worthless as Heystek attacks solid citizens such as Don Shor & Don Saylor (with whom I disagree on many issues.
So, back to Meausre N. What is so important about Measure N that would cause Heystek to join forces with Asmundson, Adler and Souza, all of whom supported Covell Center and opposed Measure J, and mercilessly attack Don Shor & Don Saylor?
The "No on N" effort is led by Don Saylor, Pam Nieberg, Nancy Price, Don Shor & Rick Entrikin: strange bedfellows, but all of whom have studied the charter issue and agree it's bad for Davis citizens.
Again, it's ok to disagree; I can accept that. I cannnot accept blatant, unfounded attacks by Souza & Heystek on such dedicated. respected members of our community as Don Shor and Don Saylor.
There is something really wrong about the proposed Charter (Measure N) if Heystek & Souza have to resort to calling such solid citizens as Shor & Saylor "liars," to win votes.
Please, join me in saying no to Heystek & Souza's smear campaign against Don Shor & Don Saylor.
Vote "NO on N."
Documentary Transfer Tax or Real Property Transfer Tax
Documentary Transfer Tax Act (R&T Code 11902-11934)
"R & T Code 11911. (a) The board of supervisors of any county or city and county, by an ordinance adopted pursuant to this part, may impose, on each deed, instrument, or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the county shall be granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his or their direction, when consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) exceeds one hundred dollars ($100.00) a tax at the rate of fifty-five cents ($0.55) for each five hundred dollars ($500.00) or fractional part thereof."
Measure N if passed would have to be amended to permit a real property transfer tax to exceed $1.10 per $1,000 sales price of all residential and commercial property that is already being charged by our general law city.
Regardless of what type of city we are an ordinance proposing any tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the governing body and if it is for general purposes ($0.25 sales tax override) , the tax must be approved a majority vote of the voters in the city and if it for specific purposes (Park Tax), the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the voters in the city.
Documentary Transfer Tax or Real Property Transfer Tax
Documentary Transfer Tax Act (R&T Code 11902-11934)
"R & T Code 11911. (a) The board of supervisors of any county or city and county, by an ordinance adopted pursuant to this part, may impose, on each deed, instrument, or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the county shall be granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his or their direction, when consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) exceeds one hundred dollars ($100.00) a tax at the rate of fifty-five cents ($0.55) for each five hundred dollars ($500.00) or fractional part thereof."
Measure N if passed would have to be amended to permit a real property transfer tax to exceed $1.10 per $1,000 sales price of all residential and commercial property that is already being charged by our general law city.
Regardless of what type of city we are an ordinance proposing any tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the governing body and if it is for general purposes ($0.25 sales tax override) , the tax must be approved a majority vote of the voters in the city and if it for specific purposes (Park Tax), the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the voters in the city.
Documentary Transfer Tax or Real Property Transfer Tax
Documentary Transfer Tax Act (R&T Code 11902-11934)
"R & T Code 11911. (a) The board of supervisors of any county or city and county, by an ordinance adopted pursuant to this part, may impose, on each deed, instrument, or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the county shall be granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his or their direction, when consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) exceeds one hundred dollars ($100.00) a tax at the rate of fifty-five cents ($0.55) for each five hundred dollars ($500.00) or fractional part thereof."
Measure N if passed would have to be amended to permit a real property transfer tax to exceed $1.10 per $1,000 sales price of all residential and commercial property that is already being charged by our general law city.
Regardless of what type of city we are an ordinance proposing any tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the governing body and if it is for general purposes ($0.25 sales tax override) , the tax must be approved a majority vote of the voters in the city and if it for specific purposes (Park Tax), the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the voters in the city.
Documentary Transfer Tax or Real Property Transfer Tax
Documentary Transfer Tax Act (R&T Code 11902-11934)
"R & T Code 11911. (a) The board of supervisors of any county or city and county, by an ordinance adopted pursuant to this part, may impose, on each deed, instrument, or writing by which any lands, tenements, or other realty sold within the county shall be granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his or their direction, when consideration or value of the interest or property conveyed (exclusive of the value of any lien or encumbrance remaining thereon at the time of sale) exceeds one hundred dollars ($100.00) a tax at the rate of fifty-five cents ($0.55) for each five hundred dollars ($500.00) or fractional part thereof."
Measure N if passed would have to be amended to permit a real property transfer tax to exceed $1.10 per $1,000 sales price of all residential and commercial property that is already being charged by our general law city.
Regardless of what type of city we are an ordinance proposing any tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of the governing body and if it is for general purposes ($0.25 sales tax override) , the tax must be approved a majority vote of the voters in the city and if it for specific purposes (Park Tax), the tax must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the voters in the city.
The Documentary Transfer Tax or Real Property Transfer Tax revenue for Davis in fiscal years: 2002-03 was $239,465; 2003-04 was $270,800; and 2004-05 $334,523. The source for this info is California State Controller Cities Annual Report. http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PTT05PUB.xls
The Documentary Transfer Tax or Real Property Transfer Tax revenue for Davis in fiscal years: 2002-03 was $239,465; 2003-04 was $270,800; and 2004-05 $334,523. The source for this info is California State Controller Cities Annual Report. http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PTT05PUB.xls
The Documentary Transfer Tax or Real Property Transfer Tax revenue for Davis in fiscal years: 2002-03 was $239,465; 2003-04 was $270,800; and 2004-05 $334,523. The source for this info is California State Controller Cities Annual Report. http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PTT05PUB.xls
The Documentary Transfer Tax or Real Property Transfer Tax revenue for Davis in fiscal years: 2002-03 was $239,465; 2003-04 was $270,800; and 2004-05 $334,523. The source for this info is California State Controller Cities Annual Report. http://www.californiacityfinance.com/PTT05PUB.xls
At the July 15, 2008 Council meeting the motion to place the charter question before the voters passed 4 to 1, Asmundson, Greenwald, Heystek, and Souza yes, Saylor no
At the July 15, 2008 Council meeting the motion to place the charter question before the voters passed 4 to 1, Asmundson, Greenwald, Heystek, and Souza yes, Saylor no
At the July 15, 2008 Council meeting the motion to place the charter question before the voters passed 4 to 1, Asmundson, Greenwald, Heystek, and Souza yes, Saylor no
At the July 15, 2008 Council meeting the motion to place the charter question before the voters passed 4 to 1, Asmundson, Greenwald, Heystek, and Souza yes, Saylor no
Very interesting legalese:
The cited taxes already collected are “document” transfer fees; NOT the new “real property transfer tax” that could be added on to the selling price of real property by a new ordinance passed by a simple city council majority if Measure N passes.
That is a BIG difference. If Measure N passes, the City council would be able to attach such an additional tax on the sale of any real property by Ordinance, and NOT require a vote of the citizens.
Wake up, folks: this is exactly the type of tax Souza has been trying to impose on homeowners and sellers for years, and the only way such a tax can be imposed by the City council (with or without a citizens’ vote) is by being a charter city. Such a tax is expressly prohibited under our current status as a general law city.
Very interesting legalese:
The cited taxes already collected are “document” transfer fees; NOT the new “real property transfer tax” that could be added on to the selling price of real property by a new ordinance passed by a simple city council majority if Measure N passes.
That is a BIG difference. If Measure N passes, the City council would be able to attach such an additional tax on the sale of any real property by Ordinance, and NOT require a vote of the citizens.
Wake up, folks: this is exactly the type of tax Souza has been trying to impose on homeowners and sellers for years, and the only way such a tax can be imposed by the City council (with or without a citizens’ vote) is by being a charter city. Such a tax is expressly prohibited under our current status as a general law city.
Very interesting legalese:
The cited taxes already collected are “document” transfer fees; NOT the new “real property transfer tax” that could be added on to the selling price of real property by a new ordinance passed by a simple city council majority if Measure N passes.
That is a BIG difference. If Measure N passes, the City council would be able to attach such an additional tax on the sale of any real property by Ordinance, and NOT require a vote of the citizens.
Wake up, folks: this is exactly the type of tax Souza has been trying to impose on homeowners and sellers for years, and the only way such a tax can be imposed by the City council (with or without a citizens’ vote) is by being a charter city. Such a tax is expressly prohibited under our current status as a general law city.
Very interesting legalese:
The cited taxes already collected are “document” transfer fees; NOT the new “real property transfer tax” that could be added on to the selling price of real property by a new ordinance passed by a simple city council majority if Measure N passes.
That is a BIG difference. If Measure N passes, the City council would be able to attach such an additional tax on the sale of any real property by Ordinance, and NOT require a vote of the citizens.
Wake up, folks: this is exactly the type of tax Souza has been trying to impose on homeowners and sellers for years, and the only way such a tax can be imposed by the City council (with or without a citizens’ vote) is by being a charter city. Such a tax is expressly prohibited under our current status as a general law city.
Lamar’s point of correction was indeed correct: the comments by anonymous 2:06 PM and anonymous 2:44 PM discuss out what Lamar was referring to: the Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax.
Wherever you stand, warped characterizations of Lamar as a “vicious” attacker and a “total loser who has contributed nothing to our community” are totally inconscionable. These epithets need to be withdrawn immediately.
Lamar’s point of correction was indeed correct: the comments by anonymous 2:06 PM and anonymous 2:44 PM discuss out what Lamar was referring to: the Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax.
Wherever you stand, warped characterizations of Lamar as a “vicious” attacker and a “total loser who has contributed nothing to our community” are totally inconscionable. These epithets need to be withdrawn immediately.
Lamar’s point of correction was indeed correct: the comments by anonymous 2:06 PM and anonymous 2:44 PM discuss out what Lamar was referring to: the Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax.
Wherever you stand, warped characterizations of Lamar as a “vicious” attacker and a “total loser who has contributed nothing to our community” are totally inconscionable. These epithets need to be withdrawn immediately.
Lamar’s point of correction was indeed correct: the comments by anonymous 2:06 PM and anonymous 2:44 PM discuss out what Lamar was referring to: the Real Property Documentary Transfer Tax.
Wherever you stand, warped characterizations of Lamar as a “vicious” attacker and a “total loser who has contributed nothing to our community” are totally inconscionable. These epithets need to be withdrawn immediately.
“If Measure N passes, the City council would be able to attach such an additional tax on the sale of any real property by Ordinance, and NOT require a vote of the citizens.”
This part seems less clear, there are laws on the books that would seem to preclude a tax increase without a vote.
“If Measure N passes, the City council would be able to attach such an additional tax on the sale of any real property by Ordinance, and NOT require a vote of the citizens.”
This part seems less clear, there are laws on the books that would seem to preclude a tax increase without a vote.
“If Measure N passes, the City council would be able to attach such an additional tax on the sale of any real property by Ordinance, and NOT require a vote of the citizens.”
This part seems less clear, there are laws on the books that would seem to preclude a tax increase without a vote.
“If Measure N passes, the City council would be able to attach such an additional tax on the sale of any real property by Ordinance, and NOT require a vote of the citizens.”
This part seems less clear, there are laws on the books that would seem to preclude a tax increase without a vote.
The above poster is correct: taxes must go to a vote of the people.
The above poster is correct: taxes must go to a vote of the people.
The above poster is correct: taxes must go to a vote of the people.
The above poster is correct: taxes must go to a vote of the people.
There is some truth to both of our statements. I should have said “general law cities cannot levy a non-conforming real property transfer tax.”
Counties levy a tax of 0.11% on property sales, and share half of that (0.055%) with those cities that have levied their own 0.055% tax.
Some charter cities have levied a “non-conforming” tax, at a rate above 0.055%. In such cases, there is no credit against the county tax collection. The county receives the full 0.11%, and the property seller pays the additional rate levied by the city. The ability of a charter city to levy its own real property sale or transfer tax was challenged and has been confirmed by the State Supreme Court. General law cities cannot levy a non-conforming tax.
Some examples of real property transfer taxes levied by charter cities:
Los Angeles 4.5%
Oakland 15%
Sacramento 2.75%
San Francisco 6.8%
San Jose 3.3%
Bear in mind that the seller will still pay the full 0.11% on top of this tax.
So here’s a comparison for a $500,000 home.
Current tax: $550, half to the county, half to the city.
At the San Francisco rate of 6.8%:
$550 to the county, $3400 to the city.
Feel free to check my math.
There is some truth to both of our statements. I should have said “general law cities cannot levy a non-conforming real property transfer tax.”
Counties levy a tax of 0.11% on property sales, and share half of that (0.055%) with those cities that have levied their own 0.055% tax.
Some charter cities have levied a “non-conforming” tax, at a rate above 0.055%. In such cases, there is no credit against the county tax collection. The county receives the full 0.11%, and the property seller pays the additional rate levied by the city. The ability of a charter city to levy its own real property sale or transfer tax was challenged and has been confirmed by the State Supreme Court. General law cities cannot levy a non-conforming tax.
Some examples of real property transfer taxes levied by charter cities:
Los Angeles 4.5%
Oakland 15%
Sacramento 2.75%
San Francisco 6.8%
San Jose 3.3%
Bear in mind that the seller will still pay the full 0.11% on top of this tax.
So here’s a comparison for a $500,000 home.
Current tax: $550, half to the county, half to the city.
At the San Francisco rate of 6.8%:
$550 to the county, $3400 to the city.
Feel free to check my math.
There is some truth to both of our statements. I should have said “general law cities cannot levy a non-conforming real property transfer tax.”
Counties levy a tax of 0.11% on property sales, and share half of that (0.055%) with those cities that have levied their own 0.055% tax.
Some charter cities have levied a “non-conforming” tax, at a rate above 0.055%. In such cases, there is no credit against the county tax collection. The county receives the full 0.11%, and the property seller pays the additional rate levied by the city. The ability of a charter city to levy its own real property sale or transfer tax was challenged and has been confirmed by the State Supreme Court. General law cities cannot levy a non-conforming tax.
Some examples of real property transfer taxes levied by charter cities:
Los Angeles 4.5%
Oakland 15%
Sacramento 2.75%
San Francisco 6.8%
San Jose 3.3%
Bear in mind that the seller will still pay the full 0.11% on top of this tax.
So here’s a comparison for a $500,000 home.
Current tax: $550, half to the county, half to the city.
At the San Francisco rate of 6.8%:
$550 to the county, $3400 to the city.
Feel free to check my math.
There is some truth to both of our statements. I should have said “general law cities cannot levy a non-conforming real property transfer tax.”
Counties levy a tax of 0.11% on property sales, and share half of that (0.055%) with those cities that have levied their own 0.055% tax.
Some charter cities have levied a “non-conforming” tax, at a rate above 0.055%. In such cases, there is no credit against the county tax collection. The county receives the full 0.11%, and the property seller pays the additional rate levied by the city. The ability of a charter city to levy its own real property sale or transfer tax was challenged and has been confirmed by the State Supreme Court. General law cities cannot levy a non-conforming tax.
Some examples of real property transfer taxes levied by charter cities:
Los Angeles 4.5%
Oakland 15%
Sacramento 2.75%
San Francisco 6.8%
San Jose 3.3%
Bear in mind that the seller will still pay the full 0.11% on top of this tax.
So here’s a comparison for a $500,000 home.
Current tax: $550, half to the county, half to the city.
At the San Francisco rate of 6.8%:
$550 to the county, $3400 to the city.
Feel free to check my math.
Just for the record, Lamar didn’t call me a liar during the LWV forum. He said he wanted to ‘correct’ my comment about the taxes. Unfortunately, IMO his ‘correction’ was less accurate than my statement (which was also imprecise), but it was all perfectly civil.
Lamar was scribbling away during the debate, trying to formulate his followup. The format of the forum had changed. First we were going to have two minutes for ‘rebuttal’, then when we got there we were told we would have audience questions instead; then we had enough time for the rebuttals after all. Had he been less rattled, he might have chosen to ‘disagree with’ me rather than ‘correct’ me.
I like and respect all of our council members, even when I disagree with them. Lamar is a hard-working councilman and usually does his homework well. On the city charter issue, I wish that Stephen and Lamar had developed their proposal by a more open public process, and considered some of the possible abuses that charter status can lead to. But I don’t question their motives or character. It would be preferable if we could all focus on issues instead of personalities.
Just for the record, Lamar didn’t call me a liar during the LWV forum. He said he wanted to ‘correct’ my comment about the taxes. Unfortunately, IMO his ‘correction’ was less accurate than my statement (which was also imprecise), but it was all perfectly civil.
Lamar was scribbling away during the debate, trying to formulate his followup. The format of the forum had changed. First we were going to have two minutes for ‘rebuttal’, then when we got there we were told we would have audience questions instead; then we had enough time for the rebuttals after all. Had he been less rattled, he might have chosen to ‘disagree with’ me rather than ‘correct’ me.
I like and respect all of our council members, even when I disagree with them. Lamar is a hard-working councilman and usually does his homework well. On the city charter issue, I wish that Stephen and Lamar had developed their proposal by a more open public process, and considered some of the possible abuses that charter status can lead to. But I don’t question their motives or character. It would be preferable if we could all focus on issues instead of personalities.
Just for the record, Lamar didn’t call me a liar during the LWV forum. He said he wanted to ‘correct’ my comment about the taxes. Unfortunately, IMO his ‘correction’ was less accurate than my statement (which was also imprecise), but it was all perfectly civil.
Lamar was scribbling away during the debate, trying to formulate his followup. The format of the forum had changed. First we were going to have two minutes for ‘rebuttal’, then when we got there we were told we would have audience questions instead; then we had enough time for the rebuttals after all. Had he been less rattled, he might have chosen to ‘disagree with’ me rather than ‘correct’ me.
I like and respect all of our council members, even when I disagree with them. Lamar is a hard-working councilman and usually does his homework well. On the city charter issue, I wish that Stephen and Lamar had developed their proposal by a more open public process, and considered some of the possible abuses that charter status can lead to. But I don’t question their motives or character. It would be preferable if we could all focus on issues instead of personalities.
Just for the record, Lamar didn’t call me a liar during the LWV forum. He said he wanted to ‘correct’ my comment about the taxes. Unfortunately, IMO his ‘correction’ was less accurate than my statement (which was also imprecise), but it was all perfectly civil.
Lamar was scribbling away during the debate, trying to formulate his followup. The format of the forum had changed. First we were going to have two minutes for ‘rebuttal’, then when we got there we were told we would have audience questions instead; then we had enough time for the rebuttals after all. Had he been less rattled, he might have chosen to ‘disagree with’ me rather than ‘correct’ me.
I like and respect all of our council members, even when I disagree with them. Lamar is a hard-working councilman and usually does his homework well. On the city charter issue, I wish that Stephen and Lamar had developed their proposal by a more open public process, and considered some of the possible abuses that charter status can lead to. But I don’t question their motives or character. It would be preferable if we could all focus on issues instead of personalities.
“like and respect all of our council members, even when I disagree with them. Lamar is a hard-working councilman and usually does his homework well. On the city charter issue, I wish that Stephen and Lamar had developed their proposal by a more open public process, and considered some of the possible abuses that charter status can lead to. But I don’t question their motives or character. It would be preferable if we could all focus on issues instead of personalities.”
I agree with Don here – there should have been a more public process. I do question their motives and character, but I keep those sorts of assessments to myself as not useful to the discussion at hand. Focusing on the actual issue is more helpful.
BTW, I prefer this new format DPD. It allows copying from both the comment section or article. It just doesn’t always go thru on the first go ’round.
“like and respect all of our council members, even when I disagree with them. Lamar is a hard-working councilman and usually does his homework well. On the city charter issue, I wish that Stephen and Lamar had developed their proposal by a more open public process, and considered some of the possible abuses that charter status can lead to. But I don’t question their motives or character. It would be preferable if we could all focus on issues instead of personalities.”
I agree with Don here – there should have been a more public process. I do question their motives and character, but I keep those sorts of assessments to myself as not useful to the discussion at hand. Focusing on the actual issue is more helpful.
BTW, I prefer this new format DPD. It allows copying from both the comment section or article. It just doesn’t always go thru on the first go ’round.
“like and respect all of our council members, even when I disagree with them. Lamar is a hard-working councilman and usually does his homework well. On the city charter issue, I wish that Stephen and Lamar had developed their proposal by a more open public process, and considered some of the possible abuses that charter status can lead to. But I don’t question their motives or character. It would be preferable if we could all focus on issues instead of personalities.”
I agree with Don here – there should have been a more public process. I do question their motives and character, but I keep those sorts of assessments to myself as not useful to the discussion at hand. Focusing on the actual issue is more helpful.
BTW, I prefer this new format DPD. It allows copying from both the comment section or article. It just doesn’t always go thru on the first go ’round.
“like and respect all of our council members, even when I disagree with them. Lamar is a hard-working councilman and usually does his homework well. On the city charter issue, I wish that Stephen and Lamar had developed their proposal by a more open public process, and considered some of the possible abuses that charter status can lead to. But I don’t question their motives or character. It would be preferable if we could all focus on issues instead of personalities.”
I agree with Don here – there should have been a more public process. I do question their motives and character, but I keep those sorts of assessments to myself as not useful to the discussion at hand. Focusing on the actual issue is more helpful.
BTW, I prefer this new format DPD. It allows copying from both the comment section or article. It just doesn’t always go thru on the first go ’round.