§Why CasetextPricing

JACKS v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

Amicus Curiae Brief of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Taxpayers Association

9 Cited authorities

  1. Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority

    44 Cal.4th 431 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 119 times
    Concluding assessment was invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Proposition 218 but not addressing the validity of the assessment district

  2. Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization

    15 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 87 times   6 Legal Analyses
    In Sinclair Paint, supra, 15 Cal.4th 866, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 447, 937 P.2d 1350, this court addressed the distinction between taxes, which require two-thirds approval, and regulatory fees, which do not.

  3. Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

    24 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 77 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Cal.4th 830, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 719, 14 P.3d 930 (Apartment Association), our Supreme Court considered whether an inspection fee imposed on owners of residential rental properties violated article XIII D. The fee, measured at $12 per unit per year, was imposed by the City of Los Angeles on " ‘[o]wners of all buildings subject to inspection,’ " which in turn included " ‘all residential rental properties with two or more dwelling units on the same lot’ " with certain exceptions.

  4. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of Roseville

    97 Cal.App.4th 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 42 times
    Finding violation of section 6 subdivision (b) where revenue from utility ratepayers' fee would be placed in city's general fund to pay for general governmental services without nexus to cost of the service

  5. City of San Diego v. Shapiro

    228 Cal.App.4th 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 22 times
    In Shapiro, only the landowners (of hotel properties), who could pass the tax on to their hotel guests, were allowed to vote for the tax.

  6. Brooktrails Twp. Cmty. Servs. Dist. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Mendocino Cnty.

    218 Cal.App.4th 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Discussing Prop. 26

  7. Town of Tiburon v. Bonander

    180 Cal.App.4th 1057 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 12 times
    In Tiburon, the court concluded the undergrounding of utility lines provided only special benefits, stating, "[T]here is little reason to believe the undergrounding project will confer derivative and indirect benefits upon property owners or others outside the [assessment district]."

  8. Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara

    234 Cal.App.4th 925 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   1 Legal Analyses

    2d Civil No. B253474 02-26-2015 Rolland JACKS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, Defendant and Respondent. Huskinson, Brown & Heidenreich, David W.T. Brown, and Paul E. Heidenreich, Redondo Beach, for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Ariel Pierre Calonne, City Attorney, Tom R. Shapiro, Assistant City Attorney; Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, Oakland, Benjamin P. Fay, Rick W. Jarvis and Andrea Saltzman, Berkeley, for Defendant and Respondent. Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, Los

  9. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. XIIIA § 1   Cited 115 times
    Requiring that proposition include " list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded"