The Santa Clarita Open Space Preservation District Property Tax Assessment is actually an ILLEGAL TAX. Here are the facts:
In July 2007 the City of Santa Clarita imposed a property tax assessment on its citizens to pay for the purchase of vacant land with the intent to establish a “greenbelt” around the city. Jim Farley and Sterling King led the grassroots opposition to this assessment. While our group of concerned citizens is not opposed to “Open Space”, we are vehemently opposed to unfair taxation to finance it’s purchase.
We ask the question – How can it be fair for one group of citizens (property owners) to be singled out to carry the burden of paying for something that benefits all, especially those that live outside the city where the land will be bought?
The city through a mail in ballot campaign was able to convince enough property owners to vote for this assessment. The campaign was financed by thousands of dollars from unknown sources and was filled with outrageous lies and claims. On the kick-off day of the campaign Laurene Weste and Rick Gould stated in an interview in The Signal that the money can only be used to purchase vacant land. We knew from the beginning this was not true based on the engineer’s report for the district. The city’s own legal counsel later confirmed it was a lie by stating that the money could be used for any purpose within the Parks and Recreation Department. This lie made the difference in the voters approving this measure that was essentially the same as one they voted down in 2005. When I questioned City Manager Ken Pulskamp about this he stated it is the city's "intent" to spend the money for vacant land. Now that we are in hard times and matching funds for open space purchases are drying up, how long will it be before the "intent" changes and the fund is raided to pay for general services? The city has appointed a 5 member Financial Accountability an Audit Panel to provide oversight as to how the money is spent. While the current panel is doing an excellent job it must be noted that the panel has no authority over spending. Their authority is limited to reporting.
We have always believed this tax to be unfair. Now we have confirmation that it is actually illegal as well. The California Supreme Court in July of 2008 ruled in favor of property taxpayers in Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assoc. vs. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority. The ruling found these types of assessments to be illegal under Proposition 218 and for other reasons as well. For an assessment to be allowed under proposition 218 it must provide a "special benefit" to the property. The court ruled that Open Space confers a "general benefit" to all in the community and it is wrong to apply a property tax to pay for it. Through legal counsel we have learned that the Courts decision also applies to the Santa Clarita Open Space Preservation District.
In September 2008, forty three claims were filed by citizens asking the city to overturn this illegal assessment for all property owners. The city manager and council have ignored our claims and are continuing the imposition of this illegal tax. Since the claims were filed they have continued to approve property for purchase. They are showing a complete disregard for their citizens by their inaction. This should not be overlooked at election time.
We must insist the city stop this illegal tax. Please contact our city manager and council and let them know how you feel.
HISTORY of the OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION DISTRICT PROPERTY ASSESSMENT In the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Summer/Fall 2005 Property tax assessment ballot initiative introduced by the City of Santa Clarita to collect a property assessment for the purchase of “open space” around the city. The voters defeated the measure.
August 2006 The city announced that it was looking to re-introduce the measure and was seeking members for a citizens committee.
March 27, 2007 City council approves re-introduction of measure.
April 1, 2007 Jim Farley organized a grassroots opposition to the measure. An opposition plan was formulated at a meeting two weeks prior to the start of balloting. The group of 20 citizens had a clear uphill battle against the thousands of dollars being spent by the proponents.
Sterling King joined as a leader of the opposition. He was instrumental in the planning of the low-budget, grassroots campaign.
May 25, 2007 Ballots sent to homeowners with a deadline of July 10, 2007 (45 days) for return.
May 25 – July 10 Campaign summary: - Lobbyist Scott Wilke leads the “for” campaign. - Proponents of the measure spend thousands of dollars on mailers promoting a yes vote. Some mailers make outrageous claims on how the measure will lower crime. - Opposition, with little funding, uses a signing campaign at major intersections to promote a no vote. - Sterling King introduces YouTube to the Santa Clarita Valley as a campaign tool. (Laurene Weste on the pro side adds her own YouTube video just before the campaign ends). - Major selling point for the measure is a false claim that it is different than the 2005 measure in that the money generated can only be used to purchase vacant land. Council member Laurene Weste and Parks Commissioner Rick Gould made this claim in an interview printed in The Signal on May 27, 2008. This claim was a major factor in the passing of this measure. The falsehood of this claim was later confirmed in a memorandum from Maryann Goodkind, special counsel to the city, on November 27, 2007. The memorandum was in response to an inquiry from then Council member TimBen Boydston.
July 10, 2007 Balloting deadline. Ballots are counted over the next several days. The measure passes 69% to 31%. This “landslide victory” turned out to be not such a big landslide after all. Seven developers through a weighted ballot system controlled a very large percentage of the election. The developers were essentially allowed (apparently legally) to vote for all of the potential developed lots in their developments. Although the measure would have passed without the developer vote, it would have required a 2/3 no vote on the part of the opposition to overcome the developers yes votes.
July 17, 2007 City council adopts resolution No 07-60 to implement the Open Space Preservation District and the assessment tax.
September 12, 2007 City announces a request for residents to apply for vacancies on the Financial Accountability and Audit Panel for the Open space Preservation District. The deadline for applications was set as October 26, 2007. Jim Farley who opposed the measure and others who were on the citizens committee to promote it apply for the position. During the last week of the application process there were five legitimate candidates, including Jim Farley, for the five positions. In a blatant attempt to avoid being forced to seat Farley the city extended the deadline for applications to December 28, 2007. The bogus reason given for the extension was that there were wildfires in the city in the final week of the process. None of the additional applications received were from people affected by the wildfires. Farley was ultimately not selected.
July 14, 2008 The California Supreme Court decides in favor of the property taxpayers in an appeal of SILICON VALLEY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION vs. SANTA CLARA COUNTY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY. This case declared that assessments such as the Santa Clarita Open Space Assessment were illegal under proposition 218, and for other reasons.
August 26, 2008 Jim Farley addresses city council asking them to end the Open Space Preservation District assessment based on the CA Supreme Court decision. City Manager Ken Pulskamp responded that the two districts Engineer’s Reports are “dramatically different”. In reality they are strikingly the same legally.
September 23, 2008 34 property owners filed 43 claims to the City of Santa Clarita to have their assessment reversed based on the Supreme Court ruling. For over 90 days the city ignored the claims, effectively rejecting them.
January 13, 2009 City council approves the expenditure of $886,135 from the Open Space Reserve Fund to match a $750,000 grant from the State of California. The money would be used to purchase land in Soledad Canyon near Hwy 14 and Agua Dulce Cyn Rd.
January 16, 2009 The Signal reports that due to the States financial crisis the $750k grant for the Soledad land purchase has been put on hold indefinitely.
