PETALUMA, Calif. — A California Supreme Court ruling will allow Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit to resume construction of a 3-mile extension north to a station in Windsor, Calif., the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat reports.
Last week’s 7-0 ruling by the court ended a long-running court fight by the Howard Jarvis Tax Association seeking to overturn a 2018 ballot measure passed by 55% of San Francisco Bay Area voters allowing for toll increases to pay for transportation projects. The tax group argued the tolls constituted a tax that should have required approval by two-thirds of voters.
The tolls have been collected since 2019 but have remained in escrow. The decision will allow some $4.45 billion in funding of various projects to begin, including $40 million for the SMART extension north of Santa Rosa. The transit agency halted its construction in 2020 while the case was working its way through the courts.
Current estimates are that the extension to Windsor will cost about $70 million, with about $35 million funded from sources other than the toll funds.
The politicians and judges in California have been finding all kinds of creative ways to get around Prop 13. The biggest is having development fees to pay for infrastructure like schools, paved roads, storm water systems, fresh water lines and sewerage lines. It used to be to fund these municipalities would float a bond measure to be paid with property taxes.
Proposition took away the ability of politicians to fund development costs with property taxes. The result was initially a 20% increase in in the upfront cost of new housing. It created situations were the many of the largest office buildings in cities pay the same amount in property tax as they did in 1980, inspite of 4 or 5 fold increase in values of the property.
Prop 13 did wonders for residential property taxes, but the effect on commercial property taxes was catestrophic to San Francisco and Los Angeles as those city governments counted on reassessments to increase tax revenues.
Mr Blaubach, used rail, worn out ties(many of the ties date to the 1920’s when the line was converted from 3ft to standard gauge).
Instead build to last early, then save on maintence down the road. SMART was built on existing ROW with Continuous Welded Rail. TRAC’s suggestion is a way to have a line you have to keep maintaining. Tighten the bolts on joints, constant replacement of ties. Constant rail replacement from broken rails. 5 mph speed limit.
Another words a crummy bike path.
Good points.
To Gerald McFarlane, what is outdated about Prop 13? It has helped prevent people from being forced out of their homes by unaffordable property taxes. If Prop 13 was eliminated my property taxes would increase by 250% making them essentially unaffordable.
How much LESS might the extension have cost had it not been delayed by this court battle?
Good question.
Trouble is the extension, per TRAC commentary, last year, is “gold plated”. They claim it could be built on the cheaper with used rail, and limit tie replacement, instead rip up the entire R/W, and lay new rail and concrete ties. Their Justification: projected limited ridership on the north end.
Mr Blaubach, used rail, worn out ties(many of the ties date to the 1920’s when the line was converted from 3ft to standard gauge).
Instead build to last early, then save on maintence down the road. SMART was built on existing ROW with Continuous Welded Rail. TRAC’s suggestion is a way to have a line you have to keep maintaining. Tighten the bolts on joints, constant replacement of ties. Constant rail replacement from broken rails. 5 mph speed limit.
Another words a crummy bike path.
In an economic sense, what is the value of a 3 mile extension? It seems like a total waste of money. Incidentally a Harvard economist said that when it comes to comparing busses to trains, busses always win on economics.
In fact the other 49.9 % (as in Illinois and New York) are moving out of state, and they are taking their taxable income with them (when Ken Griffith of Citadel left Illinois for Florida he personally reduced state tax receipts by over $ 100 million plus millions more from his employees who went with him to Florida). California’s other tax problem is that 1 % of the taxpayers pay a large percentage of the income tax and their income is far more variable. In good years (lots of capital gains) the legislature spends all the money, in following bad years (like now) there’s a big shortfall.
Correct. CA’s fiscal health is overly dependent upon a minority of salaried employees of hi-tech companies, who are largely compensated with incentive stock options. When the stock soars, they exercise, and the state has a surplus (w/o regard to unfunded public pensions); when it’s flat, they don’t, and it has a deficit. Since CA treats capital gains as ordinary income at rates up to 13.3%, the state’s budget is either feast, or famine, many middle class workers have voted with their feet and no, or low , income tax states…even before the pandemic. Remove the Silicone Valley, and CA would be the fiscal equivalent of Detroit.
Ahem….cough, cough…..Citadel is one of the larger firms “squeezing” railroads by forcing the OR down and demanding more share buybacks. With the market tanking now, they made it on the way up and optioned it out on the way down.
The Howard Jarvis Tax Association either needs to go completely away or get new leadership, this isn’t the 1980’s anymore, it’s the 2020’s, people are more willing in this state to spend money on transit projects. Prop 13 was good for the time, but it’s outdated and needs to be updated to the current world we live, eliminate some loopholes for commercial ownership and change the threshhold for taxes to 60% instead of 66%(which I always thought was a stupid number anyways, we’re majority rules in California, so even if 50.1% vote for something, the other 49.9% either have to live with it or move out of state).
Whether outdated or not, needed or not, or whether or not people like it, Prop 13 is the law in California. The 7-0 court ruling should have gone the other way, 0-7.
Trouble is politicians are creative with finding ways to ask for more of the people’s money without calling it a tax increase. The tax increases that do pass are usually ones that are specifically earmarked for a specific need. Whereas “general expenses: do not fare as well at the ballot box. While I believe Prop 13 was far from perfect (e.g. it has rewarded people, who never move and therefore punishes new home buyers), I would not be in favor of repealing, or amending it until other laws mandating how money is spent are amended to make better use of it. E.g. streamline the environmental review process to prevent NIMBYs, et.al. from stalling projects for years.