The Santa Clara County Open Space Authority is sitting on $56 million, paralyzed since 2001 by a lawsuit that prevents the authority from spending it on trails and other stuff we like. Tomorrow, the state Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments on the suit, filed filed by anti-tax crusaders who say the initiative that funded the authority for all these millions violated tax provisions of a previous initiative (one thing about us Californians, we love our initiatives. Our legislators can barely find a butt cheek with either hand, though, so maybe it’s for the best.). From this morning’s Mercury News:
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in a challenge to the county’s Open Space Authority, which created a special assessment on property owners in 2001 to pay for open space from Milpitas to Morgan Hill. The Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association sued to block the fee hike, arguing that it violates a 1996 ballot initiative designed to limit ways the government can raise revenue.
Two lower courts have rejected the lawsuit, but the state’s highest court agreed to review the case, which offers an unprecedented test of Proposition 218, the so-called “Right to Vote on Taxes Act” approved by voters 12 years ago.
For Santa Clara County, the legal battle has tied up $56 million raised during the past seven years to preserve open space. If the Open Space Authority loses, that money most likely will be refunded to property owners instead of being used to carry out a long-stalled plan to use it to stave off development across the valley by acquiring parks, trails, ranches and other land.
The Supreme Court has 90 days to make up its mind.
The Santa Clara County’s Open Space Authority has an almost laughably small array of land holdings that people can actually hike in, compared to, say, Midpeninsula OSA, which runs all those great parks along Skyline Boulevard. Just two, actually: Boccardo Trail near Alum Rock Park and Rancho Canada del Oro OSP next to Calero County Park. It has all these other properties — maybe if the lawsuit gets settled, the agency can actually do something with them (or successfully leave them be, which wouldn’t be all bad).
I do have to say hats off to the anti-taxers for keeping this tied up in court long enough for the cost of real estate to double, guaranteeing the OSA will be able to buy only half as much land as it would’ve been able to, leaving the rest open to marketplace, which will carefully assess the land’s true merit and start placing calls to strip-mall developers.
(All this reminds me that the first-ever Bay Area hiking blog meet-up happened when I bumped into Dan Mitchell at the grand opening of Rancho Canada del Oro in December 2005. Dan’s account here. I hiked to the top of Boccardo Trail in April 2005; link here.)
Tom, I wonder how, if at all, this “right to vote” issue might be related to a case that just held up the use of bond funds by the Foothill-De Anza Community College District. In that case, some “taxpayers” – at least as I understand it – essentially challenged the successful bond vote on the basis that some who would be taxed (those who live outside the area but own property in the tax area?) were not “represented” in the vote that authorized the property value based levy.
In the end, earlier this year, the district prevailed all the way through the legal system to the state supreme court, which affirmed that the District had properly conducted the election – and the funds were made available.
Sounds like a similar angle on a the part of those bringing the challenge, at least based on the little bit of info I have about the two cases.
There are some reports – which, again, I cannot verify – that certain “taxpayers” might be tempted to bring suits like this a) to get around the fact that they lost the vote, and b) perhaps get the parties being sued to settle out of court for some significant sum, which c) they could then apply to the next law suit, thus perpetuating their efforts.
Perhaps the county felt that taking a stand on this was a better option in the long term than caving early – a positive precedent for taxpayer supported public funding. (And who the heck are these “taxpayer” groups trying to defeat the vote of the “taxpayers?”)
Dan
I don’t know who these “taxpayer” groups are, though I’m sure I could venture a good guess. At any rate, I view the taxes I pay as the price of admission to a civilized society where the infrastructure and services I depend on are paid for. And by the way, that includes open space and parks and maintenance and staffing and protection for them as well. It’s not free but it’s valuable and worthwhile to me. I gladly pay my fair share of taxes for it!