Beverly Hills Liaisons Oppose Higher Vote Bar for Special Taxes

Beverly Hills' legislative liaisons recommended opposing Proposition 43 on October 6, arguing that a higher approval threshold for citizen-proposed special taxes would allow a minority of voters to block measures supported by a majority.

Councilmembers Friedman and Pynoos expressed the same position during the City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee meeting. The recommendation was directed to the full City Council under the procedure outlined in the agenda packet.

Proposition 43 would change the approval requirement for local special taxes proposed through voter initiatives. Special taxes direct revenue toward a particular purpose, rather than general government spending.

The official voter guide's Legislative Analyst analysis explains that government-proposed special taxes already require two-thirds voter approval. Court decisions have allowed voter-proposed special taxes to pass with a majority. Proposition 43 would require two-thirds approval for new, increased or extended voter-proposed special taxes beginning January 1, 2027.

At the meeting, lobbyist Dylan Hoffman explained the difference between measures placed on the ballot by a governing body and those initiated by citizens. He said the proposed amendment would raise the threshold for the latter.

During public comment, a League of California Cities representative urged the committee to oppose the measure. He cited Los Angeles County's Measure A as an example of a citizen-led funding measure approved with less than two-thirds support, and argued that cities should retain tools for funding housing, emergency response and other local needs.

The city's staff memorandum similarly identified public safety, housing, schools and health services as examples of purposes supported by local special taxes. It connected the measure to the city's existing legislative priorities opposing restrictions on local tax authority.

Friedman questioned the relationship between majority rule and a two-thirds requirement. He also acknowledged concerns about Los Angeles' ULA tax and its effects on the real estate market, making clear that his opposition recommendation did not amount to support for every tax approved through an initiative.

Pynoos recommended opposing Proposition 43 after the presentation and discussion. Friedman then expressed the same recommendation.

The measure's supporters present the higher threshold as a taxpayer protection. In the official ballot arguments, supporters argue that voter-proposed special taxes should face the same two-thirds requirement as government-proposed special taxes and that the change would make earmarked tax increases harder to enact.

The Legislative Analyst says the measure could lead to lower local government tax revenue than would otherwise be collected. The amount is unknown and would depend on future choices by governments and voters.

The committee did not approve a new tax or identify a specific Beverly Hills tax proposal during the discussion. Its action was a recommendation on the statewide amendment. The meeting packet calls for recommended positions to return to the City Council for concurrence.