Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Squee! Like a hog at the trough
Lawsuit says SDG&E has been collecting an illegal undergrounding tax
As ratepayers face harder times, SDG&E is recognized as a fee-grabbing company given license by local politicos.
Call it a tax, a surcharge, or "utility user taxes," it doesn't matter: the 3 percent electricity tax and .03 percent gas tax that San Diego Gas and Electric collects from customers and later remits to San Diego's general fund is illegal, says a new class action lawsuit filed in federal court on Monday, May 4.
The extra fees, according to the complaint filed on behalf of San Diego resident Jesse Mahon Jr., first appeared on San Diego Gas and Electric's bills in 2003. A portion of the 3.88 percent electric tax is set aside for utility undergrounding projects. The remainder is deposited into the general fund. The class-action suit claims that the extra tax violates Proposition 218, which requires that taxes be approved by a majority of voters before being enacted.
“The City did not conduct an election because the undergrounding program to be funded by the 3.53 [percent] electricity surcharge is a program that...is not estimated to be completed until the year 2065. Because of the term of the program, many payers of the electricity surcharge may never receive any direct benefit from these taxes, and, therefore, most voters were unlikely to vote in favor of the tax. Neither SDG&E nor the City had legal authority, as part of their contracting, or entry into the [memo of understanding], to waive utility users' Propositions 62 or 218 rights."
As reported by the Reader on May 4, attorneys for the City of San Diego took preemptive action on behalf of special fees, or other surcharges that are deposited into the general fund and not for specific purposes. Earlier last month, attorneys requested that the state supreme court review a lawsuit that the City of Santa Barbara lost over similar "franchise fees" collected by the region's utility company and later remitted to the general fund.
"As regard to the law for the issues raised herein, in Jacks v City of Santa Barbara, the Court of Appeal applied Proposition 218 to confirm that "franchise surcharges" imposed by a city to pay for undergrounding overhead utilities or general fund programs, without voter approval, violate the state constitution and cannot be masqueraded by a city as non-Proposition 218 charges to avoid a City's Constitutional duties to obtain voter approval."
Here's something you might be interested in.
Squee! Like a hog at the trough
Lawsuit says SDG&E has been collecting an illegal undergrounding tax
Squee! Like a hog at the trough
Lawsuit says SDG&E has been collecting an illegal undergrounding tax
As ratepayers face harder times, SDG&E is recognized as a fee-grabbing company given license by local politicos.
Call it a tax, a surcharge, or "utility user taxes," it doesn't matter: the 3 percent electricity tax and .03 percent gas tax that San Diego Gas and Electric collects from customers and later remits to San Diego's general fund is illegal, says a new class action lawsuit filed in federal court on Monday, May 4.
The extra fees, according to the complaint filed on behalf of San Diego resident Jesse Mahon Jr., first appeared on San Diego Gas and Electric's bills in 2003. A portion of the 3.88 percent electric tax is set aside for utility undergrounding projects. The remainder is deposited into the general fund. The class-action suit claims that the extra tax violates Proposition 218, which requires that taxes be approved by a majority of voters before being enacted.
“The City did not conduct an election because the undergrounding program to be funded by the 3.53 [percent] electricity surcharge is a program that...is not estimated to be completed until the year 2065. Because of the term of the program, many payers of the electricity surcharge may never receive any direct benefit from these taxes, and, therefore, most voters were unlikely to vote in favor of the tax. Neither SDG&E nor the City had legal authority, as part of their contracting, or entry into the [memo of understanding], to waive utility users' Propositions 62 or 218 rights."
As reported by the Reader on May 4, attorneys for the City of San Diego took preemptive action on behalf of special fees, or other surcharges that are deposited into the general fund and not for specific purposes. Earlier last month, attorneys requested that the state supreme court review a lawsuit that the City of Santa Barbara lost over similar "franchise fees" collected by the region's utility company and later remitted to the general fund.
"As regard to the law for the issues raised herein, in Jacks v City of Santa Barbara, the Court of Appeal applied Proposition 218 to confirm that "franchise surcharges" imposed by a city to pay for undergrounding overhead utilities or general fund programs, without voter approval, violate the state constitution and cannot be masqueraded by a city as non-Proposition 218 charges to avoid a City's Constitutional duties to obtain voter approval."
Comments