City of San Diego v. Shapiro
175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 670
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- City created a Convention Center Facilities District (CCFD) in 2011 and adopted a Division of the San Diego Municipal Code to finance a hotel-tax via the CCFD.
- The Division non-residentially defined the electorate as hotel landowners (owners or lessees of government-owned parcels) and provided one vote per dollar of expected tax, i.e., weighted landowner voting.
- A mailed-ballot election in March–April 2012 sought approval of the special tax and bonded indebtedness, with results certified showing overwhelming landowner support.
- City filed a May 2012 validation action seeking judicial validation of the special tax; trial court ruled in City’s favor, validating the tax.
- SDOG and Shapiro appealed, arguing the election violated constitutional provisions (Prop. 13/Prop. 218) and City Charter requirements by excluding registered voters from voting.
- Court reversed, holding the special tax election invalid because the electorate/qualified electors were not registered voters, and the City Charter required a two-thirds vote by registered voters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tax election violated Prop. 13/218 two-thirds vote | Shapiro/SDOG: qualified electors must be registered voters; landowners are improper. | City: qualified electors may be landowners under the Mello-Roos framework; electorate may be landowner-based. | Election invalid; qualified electors must be registered voters. |
| Whether the City Charter required a two-thirds vote by registered voters | Charter §6/§76.1 require two-thirds of registered voters to approve special taxes. | City contends charter provisions permit landowner voting or local flexibility. | Election invalid; Charter requires registered voter approval. |
| Whether allowing landowner voting undermines Prop. 13/218 intent | Prop. 13/218 intended two-thirds support by the standard electorate (registered voters). | Legislature authorized landowner voting in some CFDs to reflect tax burdens. | Constitutional intent favors registered voters; landowner scheme invalid. |
| Whether Legislature's §53326(c) can override constitutional definitions of qualified electors | Legislature-defined landowner electorate cannot override constitutional text. | Legislature's definition should be given weight. | Statute cannot trump the Constitution; landowner voting invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neilson v. City of California City, 133 Cal.App.4th 1296 (2005) (qualified electors mean registered voters; two-thirds of those who vote)
- Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dist., 49 Cal.4th 277 (2010) (elections on special taxes do not permit property qualifications)
- Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, 44 Cal.4th 431 (2008) (constitutional interpretation to effectuate voters' intent; harmonize provisions)
- Rider v. County of San Diego, 1 Cal.4th 1 (1991) (Prop. 13 intent to restrict local taxing power; two-thirds voting requirement)
- California Bldg. Industry Assn. v. Governing Bd., 206 Cal.App.3d 212 (1988) (Legislative history can illuminate constitutional interpretation of Prop. 13/13A)