Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers: Assembly Member Quirk-Silva votes for ACA 8 — a direct assault on Prop. 13
Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 20, 2013
Our friends at the Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers put out this post earlier this week regarding the party-line vote on ACA 8 (OC’s Tom Daly and Sharon Quirk-Silva voted for ACA 8 while Travis Allen, Curt Hagman, Diane Harkey, Allan Mansoor, and Don Wagner voted against it):
Assembly Member Quirk-Silva votes for ACA 8 — a direct assault on Prop. 13
In an unusual Saturday session, Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) joined other Assembly Democrats in approving and sending to the state Senate a proposed state constitutional amendment ballot measure that — if approved by voters statewide — would let local governments incur bonded indebtedness (which shows up on property tax bills) for “public improvements and facilities” that those local governments may specify and for “buildings used primarily to provide sheriff, police or fire protection services.” Under ACA 8, only a 55% local voter approval would be required instead of the current two-thirds voter approval required under Proposition 13.
Read the background in this story by CalWatchdog investigative reporter Katy Grimes, and read the analysis of ACA 8 in this commentary published today by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
To see how all members of the Assembly voted, click here.
OC Political 
Highland said
Blame Chris Norby. His incompetent campaign and arrogance lost to her.
OC Insider #29 (aka Greg Diamond) said
When I read words like “a direct assault on Prop. 13” in the headline, I think “yikes, did Sharon vote to strip seniors of protection from property tax hikes?” That is the meat of Prop 13 (and what the discussion was about at the time that it was enacted.)
And of course, she did nothing of the kind.
From the description, she has voted to stop allowing 33.334% of the electorate from blocking needed public safety facilities. (Oh, don’t worry — 45.001% can still block them.) This is not a “direct assault on Prop 13”; it’s not letting a stark minority of the electorate hold public safety hostage out of some fervent ideological desire to see social order crumble rather than see taxpayers take steps that would be expected to save them money in the long term, such as providing needed public safety facilities.
This isn’t about unions, about pensions, or anything else that y’all normal complain about regarding public safety. It’s about buildings. This breathless appeal is about trying to confuse the public about what is and is not the core of Prop 13 — in the hope that such confusion may be used for political advantage. It’s shabby and it’s insulting to the electorate. But if that’s the best you got, I guess that you have to go with it.