San Jose City Council’s Stealth 2024 Tax Hike Agenda

If a city council or mayoral candidate knocks on your door next year campaigning on a platform to gut Proposition 13, advocate for new state and local taxes, and expand the size and scope of city government, will you consider voting for that person?

If not, there is some good news and some bad news. The good news is most candidates are not likely to campaign on that platform. The bad news is the mayor and city council have already taken concrete steps in pursuit of those goals and they have no intention of letting up. They’re just not talking about it and they’re letting city bureaucrats do the dirty work.

City of San Jose Intergovernmental Relations

Many voters are probably unaware of an obscure city department called the Office of Policy, Administration, and Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) within the City Manager’s office. The IGR team monitors federal, state, and regional legislative activities and at least three times a year and presents a report to the council containing recommendations to formally sponsor, support, or oppose specific proposals. The council reviews the recommendation report and votes to accept, change, or reject the full set of IGR recommendations.

At the direction of the council, IGR staff and professional lobbyists are tasked with pursuing the council-approved legislative agenda. On August 8, the council unanimously approved a 137 page document containing recommendations on dozens of pending pieces of regional, state, and federal legislation. The presentation and council discussion can be viewed by the public here.

Council approval of this agenda put the City of San Jose, and by extension all its residents, on record in support of the IGR positions. As of July, the department has reportedly spent $579,000 on professional lobbyists.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the existence of the IGR or the city’s use of lobbyists. It is common practice for mid-to-large size cities and counties to devote staff and resources to advocacy of policies that might help them deliver core services better, faster, and cheaper. Indeed, the vast majority of policy positions the council adopted are intended to help improve local infrastructure, promote public safety, and streamline government processes. As the third largest city in California, San Jose’s positions on policy matters have significant influence on legislators and policy makers at every level of government.

Agenda guts Prop 13, promotes new taxes

While most of the policies in the city’s updated legislative agenda are mundane, reasonable, and non-controversial, there are a handful of major policy positions the city has embraced that many residents might find shocking. Among them:

• Support for a proposed statewide measure (ACA 1, Aguilar-Curry) that abolishes the 2/3 voter approval threshold for tax hikes. In addition to supporting this legislation that would undercut a core component of Proposition 13, the council passed a resolution earlier this year to oppose a citizen’s initiative that protects and bolsters Prop 13. It’s called the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) and will be on the statewide ballot in 2024. By supporting ACA 1 and opposing the TPA, the mayor and council are attempting to make it substantially easier to raise taxes and impose new taxes.
• * Support for a $10 billion statewide affordable housing bond measure (AB 1657, Wicks)
• * Support for a new 11% tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition (AB 28, Gabriel)
• * Sponsorship of statewide legislation (SB 8, Blakespear) that replicates San Jose’s unenforceable gun liability insurance mandate ordinance. The city is currently embroiled in lawsuits challenging the ordinance.
• * Support for increasing bridge tolls by $1.50 to fund mass transit (SB 532, Weiner). Shortly after the council approved its support, the bill was withdrawn from this legislative session by its sponsor after facing significant opposition. It may be re-introduced in the future.

It’s worth calling attention to a very important state legislative proposal that IGR and the city council are completely ignoring. An organization called Our Neighborhood Voices is currently collecting signatures to place an initiative on the 2024 statewide ballot that would restore local control over planning and zoning decisions. As Sacramento continues to grab power from local governments and impose sweeping, one size fits all mandates, San Jose city officials are passively allowing it to happen.

Surprised?

Despite the huge impact these and other legislative IGR priorities have on taxpayers, most elected representatives rarely mention their tacit support for the IGR agenda in their newsletters and town hall meetings. Some of their most significant actions happen when no one’s looking. It doesn’t help that local media outlets, taxpayer advocacy groups, neighborhood organizations, and candidate forum moderators are not paying attention.

Three questions candidates don’t want you to ask

The 2024 city election cycle is underway. Candidates will be canvassing neighborhoods, participating in candidate forums, advertising on social media, and bombarding residents with direct mail. Many will portray themselves as “fiscal conservatives” who stand for “common sense.” Bring some sunshine to their campaigns.

Here are three questions that will help voters understand if each candidate’s campaign messaging aligns with their actual agenda.

1. Is it appropriate for city government to officially take positions on behalf of San Jose residents on highly controversial statewide and national issues? Do the personal opinions of city council members reflect the will of the all SJ residents on lighting rod issues such as Prop 13, gun control, and social equity?
2. 2. Do you agree or disagree with the city spending taxpayer dollars to eviscerate Prop 13 protections by supporting ACA 1 and opposing the Taxpayer Protection Act?
3. 3. Will you submit a proposal to the council to have the City of San Jose formally endorse the Our Neighborhood Voices (local control) ballot initiative?

Focus on core city services or divisive macroeconomic and social policies?

It’s a safe bet that most residents have no objections to the city weighing in on state and federal legislation that directly impacts city services. Few residents oppose laws that expedite construction permits or improve things like city roadways, water quality, and flood control. But when the city formally takes positions on divisive state and national issues such as climate change, equity, and gun control that are far beyond the realm of core city services, it’s impossible for city officials to represent solid majorities of San Jose residents.

For example, in 2020 the City of San Jose endorsed a state ballot initiative that would have re-introduced affirmative action in government and public institutions. When the ballots were cast, Santa Clara County voters overwhelmingly rejected the measure (and the opinion of the SJ city council) by a whopping 57% to 43% margin.

Key 2024 races

Elections will be held for the office of the mayor and council seats in D2, D4, D6, D8, and D10. Candidates are already filing and by mid-November, the field will be defined in each of these races. Voters would be well advised to probe them on IGR legislative positions. Here is the full set of council-approved recommendations.