This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Government
Ballot Initiatives
Property Tax

George J. Borikas, Trustee of the George J. Borikas 1999 Revocable Trust, et al. v. Alameda Unified School District, et al.

Published: Dec. 11, 2010 | Result Date: May 28, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: VC08405316 consolidated with RG08405987 Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David Brilliant

John R. Messenger


Defendant

David Nied
(Ad Astra Law Group)


Facts

Two-thirds of Alameda voters approved Measure H, which was a special parcel tax adopted by the Alameda Unified School District. The tax created a differential tax rate for commercial properties, under which commercial property owners with property between 2,000 and 63,333 square feet would pay $0.15 per square foot annually, and the tax's maximum was $9,500. Also, property owners with a 1,900 square foot parcel would pay a minimum of $120 annually. The purpose of the tax was to counterbalance harsh statewide budget cuts, reduce school closures, and maintain the value of education in the District. Commercial property owners and other taxpayers, who were affected by the tax, filed an action against the District in 2008.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs lodged constitutional and statutory arguments, challenging Measure H. Plaintiffs argued that the tax was unjustified and failed to tax property in a uniform manner as required by California Government Code Section 50079. Additionally, plaintiffs contended that special taxes may not be connected to wealth or worth, which Measure H facilitated.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The District contended that Measure H met the statutory and constitutional requirements "uniformity" and was therefore a valid tax.

Result

The court found in favor of defendant, ruling that the District's tax was valid.


#102218

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390