Former mayor Pam O’Connor is threatening to sue the City of Santa Monica over her petition to revise taxes on high-end property sales saying the City is imposing an unfair and inappropriate threshold for the number of signatures required to put the proposal before voters.
The threats center on Measure GS, a voter approved initiative that passed in 2022 after being proposed by then Mayor Sue Himmelrich. While Himmelrich was a member of the Council at the time, GS was proposed and funded by Himmelrich as a private citizen, not a representative of the local government.
GS imposes a $56 per $1,000 charge on real property sales or transfers exceeding $8 million to support homelessness prevention, housing projects and schools. It was projected to raise about $50 million per year but according to the City it only brought in about $28 million over its first year.
The measure survived a previous lawsuit that argued it violated the “single-subject” rule in the California Constitution. The City prevailed in that case with a judge ruling the tax is consistent with the law, but O’Connor mounted an effort this year to exempt apartment buildings from the law claiming the higher rate is an impediment to housing construction.
O’Connor’s proposal would amend the law via another voter approved initiative and in a press release sent out early in May, she said she had gathered 4,156 signatures. However, City Hall claims she actually needs 6,784 signatures, or 10% of registered voters, to qualify for the ballot.
O’Connor claims the lower threshold is allowed under state law.
“According to the California Constitution, a ballot measure seeking to reduce a local tax need only submit valid signatures equal to 5% of the number of voters who voted in the last Gubernatorial election. In Santa Monica, this means that this amendment to amend Measure GS only requires 1,978 valid signatures from Santa Monica voters to qualify for the November 2024 ballot,” said her press release.
However, the city contends the section cited by O’Connor governs a tax imposed by a local government and that as Measure GS was not a government-sponsored (but rather imposed by the voters upon themselves), the state threshold does not apply and local election code prevails.
In a letter sent to the City on May 8, attorney Matthew Alvarez, representing O’Connor, said they will pursue legal action to force the city to accept the signatures unless City Hall voluntarily complies by May 15.
“We were distressed to learn that the City persists in its refusal to accept that Ms. O’Connor has secured a sufficient number of signatures, and thus has refused to forward the signatures to the County’s Registrar of Voters for verification. It is apparent that the City is doubling-down on its intent to deprive Ms. O’Connor—and the four thousand other Santa Monica voters who join her—of the right to have the initiative placed on the November 2024 ballot,” said the letter.
“Accordingly, please understand this letter as constituting formal notice of anticipated litigation against the City by Ms. O’Connor and an offer to settle such litigation. We once again demand that the City reverse course and honor its constitutional duties by forwarding the signatures gathered by Ms. O’Connor to the County’s Registrar of Voters, as they are of sufficient quantity per California’s constitutional requirements.”
Santa Monica’s City Attorney’s office has defended the decision to seek the 10% threshold saying the language is clear.
“Taking into account relevant case law interpreting the ordinary meaning of ‘local government,’ as well as related provisions of Proposition 218, the term ‘local government’ does not include voter initiatives,” said the City in a statement. “Because Measure GS was adopted by voter initiative, it is not a ‘local tax’ ‘imposed by a local government’ for purposes of Proposition 218. Thus, the proposed measure is not reducing or repealing a ‘local tax,’ and the appropriate signature threshold is 10% of registered voters, per Election Code 9215.”
The threat says the lawsuit will be filed on the morning of May 16 and will include a demand for legal fees.
Council will take up the issue on May 14 during the closed session of the special 4:30pm meeting.
