Lawyers, lobbyists, politicians scramble to determine impact of Prop. 26
Former Institute Director Mary Nichols is quoted in an LA Times article about the passing of Proposition 26, which requires that certain state and local fees be approved by two-thirds vote, including those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment caused by the fee-payer's business.
The 'sleeper' initiative on November's ballot could make it nearly impossible for state or local governments to pass oil severance fees, cigarette and alcohol surcharges, toxic waste cleanup levies, and more. Now, from the Capitol in Sacramento to the boardrooms of county supervisors and city councils, lawmakers and lobbyists are scrambling to assess the fiscal and political effects of the measure, one of the most sweeping ballot-box initiatives in decades. Proposition 26 reclassifies most regulatory fees on industry as "taxes" requiring a two-thirds vote in government bodies or in public referendums, rather than a simple majority.
"Undoubtedly there will be issues raised as a result of this passing, but the legal advice we're receiving is that our program is in good shape and we should proceed," stated Mary Nichols, Chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board.
To read the full article in the LA Times by Margot Roosevelt click here.
Published: Monday, November 15, 2010