HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 5, 2002 Special Election - Support of Ballot Measure CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: Ck2002-9
Council/Agency Meeting Held: o8--05-0-Z
Deferred/Continued to:
pp Aroved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied DQ'City Clerk' ignature
Council Meeting Date: August 5, 2002 Department ID Number: Ck2002-9
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
C= C
REQUEST FOR ACTION Q :*
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: Connie Brockway, City Clerk"
PREPARED BY: Connie Brockway, City Clerk 4
o >
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Noa002-75 - Sets Priorities for Written
Arguments Re: City Measure - Proposed Charter Amendment Initiated
by Mr. Scott Baugh, Proponent (To amend S. 300 and 700 and Add
S. 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, and 319 of the City Charter)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
Written Arguments —The State Elections Code provides Council the opportunity to file
an argument against the proposed the proposed Charter Amendment initiated by
Mr. Scott Baugh, the Council may vote to authorize and name up to 5 Council Members to
file an argument against the proposed measure. Should Council choose not to have priority,
written arguments shall be selected by the City Clerk pursuant to the State Elections Code.
Impartial Analysis — The State Elections Code provides that inclusion of an Impartial
Analysis in the Voter Information Pamphlet is optional. Historically the City Council has
directed the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis.
Funding Source: Not Applicable
Actions Available to Council: Motion to:
. R
G:\RCA'S\2002rca\ck2002-9 set priorities for arguments.DOT,Z 8/2/2002 3:07 PM
)
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: Ck2002-9
(b)Adopt Resolution No. 0200 ,2-79 , as amended, to only provide for the City Attorney
to prepare an impartial analysis;
-BR-
Alternative Action(s): None
Analysis: The State Elections Code provides that Council may authorize members (no
more than 5 Council Members) to file written arguments regarding city measures. This would
give priority to the Council Members' argument being selected by the City Clerk if more than
one argument is filed. The proponent of the Charter Amendment petition is given priority to
file the argument in favor.
Preparation by the City Attorney of an Impartial Analysis for the Voter Information Pamphlet
is optional. Traditionally the City Council has adopted this portion of the resolution which
directs the City Attorney to prepare an Impartial Analysis of the Measure which shows the
effect of the measure on the existing law, and the operation of the Measure.
Environmental Status: Not Applicable.
Attachment(s):
NumberCity Clerk s
Page
1. Resolution No. -�002'79 - Sets Priorities for Written Agrements
Re: City Measure— Proposed Charter Amendment Initiated by
Mr. Scott Baugh, Proponent—General Municipal Election
November 5, 2002
2. 1 Elections Code, Sections 9219, 9220, and 9280
RCA Author: C. Brockway, x 5404
G:\RCA'S\2002rca\ck2002-9 set priorities for arguments.DOT 8/2/2002 3:07 PM
02,
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. -2.6Qa1 — 7 F
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT
REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, a General Municipal Election is to be held in the City of Huntington Beach,
California, on November 5, 2002, at which there will be submitted to the voters the follo"wing
measure:
Shall the Huntington Beach City Charter be amended, effective
with the November 2004 General Municipal Election, to provide ,YES
for: (1)electing five councilmembers instead of the current
seven members; (2)dividing the city into five separately elected
council districts,instead of the current citywide vote; and (3)
imposing an eight-year(two four-year terms)lifetime limit on a/
councilmember's term of office, instead of the current limit of�:' NO
two consecutive four-year terms?
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council authorizes
(Councilmember Against)
(Councilmember Against)
(Councilmember Against)
(Councilmember Against)
(Councilmember Against)
members of that body, to file a written argument regarding the City measure as specified above,
accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person(s) submitting it, or if
submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name
and signature of at least one of its principal officers, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3,
Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the argument until and
including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City
measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.
SECTION 2. That the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the
measure to the City Attorney, unless the organization or salaries of the Office of the City
Attorney are affected. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure
showing the effect of the'measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. If the
measure affects the organization or salaries of the Office of the City Attorney, the City Clerk
shall prepare the impartial analysis. The impartial analysis shall be filed by the date set by the
City Clerk for the filing of primary arguments.
g:/election/2002/november/reso-priorities for%%Titten arguments-2002 doc
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of ) 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Q o
City Clerk -City Attorney -
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Admi ' trator City Clerk
g:/election/2002/november/reso-priorities for written arguments-2002.doc
Res. No. 2002-79
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) .
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk
of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of
said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution
was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the
members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the
5th day of August, 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: Green, Dettloff, Boardman, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
ATTACHMENT #2
9219. 9219. DIVISION 9.MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
Chapter 3.Municipal Elections
i
with the letter or number,if any,which designates the measure.At the discre-
whichever is the lesser number,the legislative body shall do one of the fol- tion of the elections official,the word"Proposition"may be substituted for
lowing: the word"Measure"in the titles.Words used in the title shall not be counted
(a) Adopt the ordinance, without alteration,at the regular meeting at when determining the length of any argument.
which the certification of the petition is presented,or within 10 days after it is (Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
presented. 9220. Rebuttal arguments.
(b)Submit the ordinance,without alteration, to the voters pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 1405, unless the ordinance petitioned for is (a)If the legislative body submits an argument against the ordinance,it
shall immediately send copies of the argument to the persons filing the initia-
required to be,or for some reason is,submitted to the voters at a special elec- tive petition.The persons filing the initiative petition may prepare and sub-
tion pursuant to subdivision(a)of Section 1405. mit a rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words.The legislative body may
(c) Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at prepare and submit a rebuttal to the argument in favor of the ordinance not
which the certification of the petition is presented.When the report is pre- exceeding 250 words.The rebuttal arguments shall be filed with the elections
sented to the legislative body,the legislative body shall either adopt the ordi- official not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments.
nance within 10 days or order an election pursuant to subdivision(b). Rebuttal arguments shall be printed in the same manner as the direct argu-
(Amended by Stats.2000,c.55,§18.) ments.Each rebuttal argument shall immediately follow the direct argument
9216. Mayor may veto. which it seeks to rebut.
In cities having a mayor,or like officer,with the veto power,when the (b)Subdivision(a)shall only apply if,not later than the day on which the
passage of an ordinance petitioned for by the voters is vetoed,the failure of legislative body calls an election, the legislative body, by a majority vote,
the legislative body to pass the ordinance over the veto shall be deemed a approves its application;in which case,subdivision(a)shall apply at the next
refusal of the legislative body to pass the ordinance within the meaning of ensuing municipal election and at each municipal election thereafter,unless
this article. later repealed by the legislative body in accord with this subdivision.
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.) (Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
9217. Valid ordinance if majority. 9221. Conflicting ordinances.
If a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its If the provisions of two or more ordinances adopted at the same election
favor,the ordinance shall become a valid and binding ordinance of the city. conflict, the ordinance receiving the highest number of affirmative votes
The ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is shall control.
declared by the legislative body,and shall go into effect 10 days after that (Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
date.No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted 9222. Legislative body may submit proposed ordinance to voters.
by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters,
or adopted.by the voters,shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the The legislative body of the city may submit the voters,.without a y
tion therefor,a proposition for the repeal,amendment,
an
or enactment of any
people,unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance. ordinance,to be voted upon at any succeeding regular or special city election,
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.) and if the proposition submitted receives a majority of the votes cast on it at
9218. More than one ordinance at same election. the election, the ordinance shall be repealed,amended, or enacted accord-
Any number of proposed ordinances may be voted upon at the same ingly.A proposition may be submitted,or a special election may be called for
election,but the same subject matter shall not be voted upon twice within any the purpose of voting on a proposition,by ordinance or resolution.
12-month period at a special election under the provisions of this article. (Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.) ' 9223. Copy of ordinance made available to voter.
9219. Arguments for and against ordinance. Whenever any ordinance or measure is required by this article to be sub-
The persons filing an initiative petition pursuant to this article may file a mitted to the voters of a city at any election,the elections official of the legisla-
written argument in favor of the ordinance, and the legislative body may tive body shall cause the ordinance or measure to be printed.A copy of the
submit an argument against the ordinance.Neither argument shall exceed ordinance or measure shall be made available to any voter upon request.
300 words in length, and both arguments shall be printed upon the same (Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
sheet of paper and mailed to each voter with the sample ballot for the elec- 9224. Enacting clause of ordinance.
tion. The enacting clause of an ordinance submitted to the voters of a city shall
The following statement shall be printed on the front cover,or if none,on be substantially in the following form:
the heading of the first page,of the printed arguments: "The people of the City of do ordain as follows:".
"Arguments in support of or in opposition to the proposed laws arc the (Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
opinions of the authors." 9226. Scope of article.
Printed arguments submitted to voters in accordance with this section,
shall be titled either"Argument In Favor Of Measure_"or"Argument This article does not apply to any statewide initiative measure.
Against Measure ." accordingly, the blank spaces being filled in only (Added kid Stats. 1994,c. 920,§2.)
253
2002 2002 254
9266. DIVISION 9.MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS
9266. Examination of petition.
After the petition has been filed,the elections official shall examine the
petition in the same manner as are county petitions in accordance with Sec-
tions 9114 and 9115,except that,for the purposes of this section,references in
those sections to the board of supervisors shall be treated as references to the
legislative body of the city or city and county.The expenses of signature veri-
fication shall be provided by the governing body receiving the petition from
the elections official.
(Added by Stats.1994,c.920,§2.)
9267. Petitions not accepted.
Petitions that do not substantially conform to the form requirements of
this article shall not be accepted for filing by the elections official.
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
9268. Conduct of election and publication requirements.
The conduct of election and publication requirements shall substantially
conform with Part 1(commencing with Section 10000)and Part 2(commenc-
ing with Section 10100)of Division 10.
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
9269. Resolution upon completion of canvass.
Upon the completion of the canvass of votes,the governing body of a city
or city and county shall pass a resolution reciting the fact of the election and
such other matters as are enumerated in Section 10264.The elections official f
of the city or city and county shall then cause the adopted measures to be sub-
mitted to the Secretary of State pursuant to Sections 34459 and 34460 of the
Government Code.
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
Article 4.Arguments Concerning City Measures
9280. City attorney to prepare impartial analysis.
Whenever any city measure qualifies for a place on the ballot,the govern-
ing body may direct the city elections official to transmit a copy of the mea-
sure to the city attorney,unless the organization or salaries of the office of the
city attorney are affected.The city attorney shall prepare an impartial analy-
sis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and
the operation of the measure.If the measure affects the organization or sala-
ries of the office of the city attorney,the governing board may direct the city
elections official to prepare the impartial analysis. The analysis shall be
printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure.The analysis
shall not exceed 500 words in length.
In the event the entire text of the measure is not printed on the ballot,nor
in the voter information portion of the sample ballot,there shall be printed
immediately below the impartial analysis,in no less than 10-point bold type,
a legend substantially as follows:
"The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or Measure
_.If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure,please call the elec-
tions official's office at(insert telephone number)and a copy will be mailed at
no cost to you."
(Added by Stats. 1994,c.920,§2.)
2002 260
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: City Clerk's Office
SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. mope? -7q- Sets Priorities for
Written Arguments Re: City Measure - Proposed Charter
Amendment Initiated by Mr. Scott Baugh, Proponent
(To amend S. 300 and 700 and Add S. 314, 315, 316,
317, 318, and 319 of the City Charter
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2002
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED
Administrative Staff
Assistant City Administrator Initial
City Administrator (Initial)
City Clerk
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM:
Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use
RCA Author: C. Brockway, x5404
Q�)#) — U-.
O�J
r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
City Council Interoffice Communication o
0
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council Members eO
From: Shirley Dettloff, Chair, Intergovernmental Relations Committee
�r
Date: February 11, 2002
Subject: H-Item Requesting Council Support for March 5th Ballot Measures 1*
GG, and HH c
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: �PPb° p 5-0-2
The City Council supported the inclusion of these measures on the March 5, 2002 ballot and
wrote arguments in favor of the three measures for the Voter Information Pamphlet. With the
election just a few weeks away, it seems timely to restate our support for these measures.
Measure FF would amend the Huntington Beach Charter to establish an "Infrastructure Fund"
with all infrastructure revenues raised, and accrued interest, directed into the Fund; prohibiting
the transfer or loan of Fund monies; requiring that General Fund expenditures for infrastructure
not be reduced below 15% of General Fund revenues based on a five-year rolling average; and
requiring that City Council designate an advisory board to annually review and audit the
Infrastructure Fund.
Measure GG is an advisory measure to have the Utility Tax paid solely by an electric power
plant placed into an Infrastructure Fund to be used only for the maintenance, construction and
repair of infrastructure such as storm drains, storm water pump stations, alleys, streets,
highways, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, bridges, street trees, landscaped medians, parks,
beach facilities, playgrounds, traffic signals, street lights, block walls along arterial highways and
all public buildings and public ways.
Measure HH would repeal the Gas Tax exclusion for electric power plants from the Huntington
Beach Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to:
Formally support and urge our constituents to vote yes on measure FF on the March 5 ballot.
Formally support and urge our constituents to vote yes on measure GG on the March 5 ballot.
Formally support and urge our constituents to vote yes on measure HH on the March 5 ballot.
I�
011
AD141 / NO
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
IT'` '�Ji- ag�a1—OZ
FS CITY COUNCIL MEMO =u:,Th.cA -
1001 FEB 13 A 10: 18
02-19-02 A-TO T#Akqtq
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members (�Mvl21NO) row , 044�N
From: Connie Boardman, City Council Member (' )
Date: February 9, 2002
Subject: "H"ITEM FOR February 19, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MELTING—
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO
MEASURE EE
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Measure EE on the March 5"h ballot seeks to amend the city charter to prevent
this or any future City Council from ever enacting a rent stabilization ordinance in
the city. This measure would take away an important "watchdog" function from
future councils. The ability to protect our most vulnerable citizens, such as the
elderly living in mobile home parks, from unreasonable rent increases in the
future would be lost if EE passes. For these reasons, I request council support
for the recommended action below.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to: Adopt a resolution in opposition to measure EE which is on the March
5 ballot, and urge our constituents to oppose EE.
cc:
Ray Silver, City Administrator
Bill Workman, Assistant City Administrator
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
I
(16) February 19, 2002 -Counai/Agency Agenda - Page 16
H-1a. Submitted By Councilmember/Agency Member Connie Boardman
Request for Council Resolution in Opposition to Measure EE on March 5,2002 Special
Municipal Election Ballot (620.30)
Communication from Councilmember Connie Boardman transmitting the following
Statement of Issue: Measure EE on the March 5th ballot seeks to amend the city charter
to prevent this or any future City Council from ever enacting a rent stabilization
ordinance in the city. This measure would take away an important "watchdog" function
from future councils. The ability to protect our most vulnerable citizens, such as the
elderly living in mobile home parks, from unreasonable rent increases in the future would
be lost if EE passes. For these reasons, I request council support for the recommended
action below.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Adopt a resolution in opposition to Measure EE which is on the March 5, 2002 Special
Municipal Election ballot, and urge our constituents to oppose Measure EE.
Approved 4-1-2 (Bauer No; Green, Houchen absent)
RECEIVED FPW
.,-&lv IMPORTANT MESS._43EMED MADE AFIAR OF THE AT
CAUNct MM—TM cf
FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR 0FPXXo1: cmrcLM
CMW BVOMAY,CITY0XFW
Dear Ms Brooks,
M E-.._.k-t 0.
A YES vote on Measure EE, the Property Rights Protection Charter Amendment
on the March 5 Primary Election ballot, is so important I just had to tell my
neighbors more about it.
I have lived in Huntington Beach for twenty-eight years. Like many people here I vote in
every election. My family and work schedules keep me busy, but I still make time to
volunteer for professional and civic committees. I am a member of the City of
Huntington Beach's Infrastructure Committee and serve on my professional
association's Legislative Committee.
I am very concerned about recent events in Huntington Beach. City leaders have spent
hundreds of thousands of dollars on numerous rent control studies, boards and
committees These stu 'le s have all s own that the free mar et as serve a people
of Huntinaton Beacn weir, and tha r ur i y. a , some t y
CouncAmembers keep pushing rent control, and have sent a draft rent control
ordinance to the City Attorney.
This agenda poses a significant threat to our property rights. It takes precious tax
dollars away from efforts to find solutions to the real problems Huntington Beach faces
-- such as sewer disrepair and ocean pollution problems. That's why more than 20,000
Huntington Beach property owners signed a petition to place this charter amendment on
the ballot.
So I decided to learn more about Measure EE. And I urge you to join me and
your other Huntington Beach neighbors in voting YES on Measure EE.
Measure EE is very simple. It guarantees that Huntington Beach property owners shall
be the only people who may determine the price for which their property may be sold,
leased, rented or exchanged --just like the way it is nowl F A ,LSE
Your YES vote on Measure EE will help Huntington Beach become one of i'ha us
thousands of cities in 45 states across America which have prohibited rent A`
control. i_6
T`«v asN�o s
Additionally, I learned that by voting YES on Measure EE, you will help ensure that the
ubliC and private rnobiie home rent subsidy ro rains now uliiiLCd b maii seiiiors
p N YN- 0 � Y Y
and low-income families will remain intact.
After taking a good, hard look at Measure EE, 1 believe that it will help protect
homeowners from property rights abuses and make sure that Huntington Beach
stays on the right track. Vote YES on Measure EE.
Sincerely,
&AUA$-BV e
� a
Barbara Delgleize �r
Property Owners for Property Rights
Huntington Beach Homeowner, Businesswoman and Community Volunteer
P.S. Enclosed is our growing YES on Measure EE Endorser List.
Paid for by Property Owners For Property Rights,9121 Atlanta Avenue,Huntington Beach,CA 92646 www.propertyrightsnow.org
1392
- 0 EDITORIALS
(JR.� ivC.L CovivrY /P&F6
H.B. rent control in
offing if EE fails?
FEa , M 200z
upporters and opponents rental housing and maintain de-
of Measure EE,the Hun- cent rental housing diminishes
tington Beach property because the return on investment
rights protection measure, is limited or nonexistent.And,for
are in agreement on one thing: those renters benefitting from
Rent control may soon be on the rent control, that tends to become
table if the city's voters don't do the guiding principle in their
something to pre-empt efforts to housing choices. They stay put,
enact such laws. instead of consid-
EE,if passed, ering moving for any
would outlaw Election 2002 number of reasons-
rent-control ordi- to purchase a home,
nances in the.city. Rent Control in to go larger,to go
As supporters of Huntington Beach smaller.The bottom
EE point out in their line effects are that
ballot arguments, the flow of the over-
the Huntington Beach city at- all housing market slows,and
torney is reviewing a rent-control fewer-places open up on the en- I'I
ordinance and City Council has try rungs of the housing ladder. I
commissioned a study to analyze There's also an enormous phil-
the need for government control osophical problem with rent con-
of mobile home park rents. Oppo- trol, never mind its counterpro-
nents of EE explain that "Renters ductive practical results.It's a
throughout Orange County are policy that transfers property
appealing to their cities for relief rights from owners to govern-
from unaffordable rent."The only ment officials, offers no compen-
issue, then, is whether such ordi- sation for the value taken and un-
nances advance the public good dermines liberty and free
or not. markets. If one supports rent con-
Rent control has a long and du- trol, then why not support gov-
bious history in places like Santa ernment caps on the prices that
Monica and New York City. Ad- individuals can charge when they
vocates claim that it is the only sell their homes?It's the same
way to keep"greedy" landlords idea,but homeowners would
from gouging people who are not rightly bristle at that suggestion.
able to pay the higher prices Opponents of EE(supporters of
when the market moves up. (As rent control) argue that its pas-
we saw in Orange County in the sage places "an unconstitutional
late 1980s and early 1990s, rents restriction on the renting citizen's
can also stay static for years in a right to protection from excessive
flat market.) rents." But where in the Constitu-
In Huntington Beach in partic- tion does a "renting citizen" have
ular, rent-control advocates use the right to live at someone else's
this argument with regard to mo- expense two blocks from the
bile-home parks,where predom- ocean?
inantly elderly residents live on Huntington Beach city officials
Fixed incomes. should spend less time on du-
In every place that rent control bious rent-control ideas and more
has been tried, the amount of af- time reducing the regulations that
fordable housing has been re- make affordable housing so hard
duced. to build in their city.
When government caps the The city's voters should take
amount of rent that landlords and rent control off the table and re-
other property owners can inforce the importance of proper-
charge, the incentive to build new ty rights by voting yes on EE.
RECEIVED FROMfG�
AND MODE APART OF THE REOORD ATTHE
COUNCIL.MEETWG OF .2- -a
OFRCE OF THE CITY CLEW
CONNIE/BROC"AY,CITY MEEK
ITEM 0. /T ' 0-How Mobile Home Rent Control
Failed in Westminster
are mobile homes. are at a premium, a large percentage of
By Elden F. Gillespie This gives the City of Westminster a the value of a mobile home in Orange
population of 7,000 people living in mo- County is based on the space that mobile
obile home park rent control bile homes located in 19 mobile home home is fortunate enough to occupy.
was a sad and bitter experience parks, a sizeable constituency.
for a lot of people in the As in many urbanizing areas, but es-
Orange County, California, City of pecially in Orange County, the cost of ormally, in this nation's free en-
Westminster. land has risen sharply, so it is no longer terprise system, when demand
As mayor and long-time councilman economical to develop new mobile home for a commodity outstrips sup-
of a city which tried mobile home park parks. ply,the price goes up. And that has hap-
rent control, I am frequently asked by pened in Orange County for all types of
my colleagues in other cities and coun- housing.
ties to explain our three-year experience cc Unfortunately for mobile home resi-
Perhaps it should not have dents in Orange Count while new
with this type of ordinance — how we g Y
came to adopt it, why we decided to res- come as a surprise to us, homes and new apartments are being
cind our action,and what happened dur- but mob lehome tenants built, no new mobile home parks are
ing the life of the ordinance. being developed. As a result, there is
Perhaps our experience can best be were still very unhappy. essentially no place for the mobile home
summed up by reporting that the City of They did not want to to move.
Westminster adopted a mobile home Mobile home residents, faced with
park rent control ordinance in 1981 by negotiate and arbitrate a increases for the spaces they rent,
a vote of three to two and we rescinded rent increase. They did not therefore have three options: to pay the
that ordinance in 1984 by a vote of five increased rent set by the mobile park
to nothing. Our nerves and our treasury want any rent increase." owner, to move their mobile homes to a
are far worse off for the experience. park outside of Orange County,or to sel I
Westminster underwent the tremen- their mobile homes and move to gener-
dous growth experienced by all cities in As an obvious result, because of the ally more expensive single-family homes
western Orange County during the attractiveness of mobile home living for or apartments.
1960s and into the 1970s—from a pop- those who choose to live in mobile home Or they have one other option: they
ulation of 10,700 when the city was in- parks, demand for spaces far outstrips can attempt to influence the free market
corporated in 1957 to today's population their supply. Moreover, because spaces system by joining together as a special
of 73,000. interest group and lobbying for rent con-
During that period of growth,ten per- trol— asking the government jurisdic-
cent of our dwelling units went into mo- tion to step into the free market system
bile home parks, making Westminster (Elden F. Gillespie has been a member and place restrictions of some type on
the largest mobile home park city in the of the Westminster City Council since rent increases.
county. Of our current 25,000 dwelling 1973, and has served as mayor three Mobile home dwellers took this
units, 65 percent are single-family, 25 times — in 1980 and 81, in 1983 and fourth option in the City of Westminster
percent are apartments and-the other ten currently since 1986.) in 1981.
percent—approximately 2,500 units— (continued on next page)
Western City/December 1987 9
Rent Control than half with dual incomes, plus early Our city council's three to two resolve
(continued) retirees with fairly good assets, Most against instituting rent control changed
seemed to enjoy relatively frequent when one of our colleagues on the city
The plight— and it is most assuredly travel and acquisition of consumer council passed away.With this opening,
a plight—of the mobile home residents goods. the mobile home residents joined forces
was understood by all of us, but it was Moreover, we realized that use of to elect a new council member who was
especially we)I understood by the mayor valuable acreage in Westminster for mo- partial to their interest in controlling
of Westminster in 1981 in that he, him bile home parks is an interim use. Once mobile home park rents.
self, was a mobile home resident. But, the park owners no longer can make a The council meeting on June 9, 1981,
while one other council member sided at which the rent control ordinance was
with the mayor on his concept of estab- "In addition to the direct considered, was exceedingly well at-
lishing mobile home rent control in tended.The auditorium was packed with
Westminster, the three other council costs, our city council's 650 mobile home residents. The 90 per-
members opposed rent control as the time was being consumed cent of the citizens of Westminster who
wrong way to address the problem. I was do not live in mobile home parks showed
one of the three in opposition. by the ordinance. Added no interest in, nor awareness of, the is-
It seemed to us that to impose rent to our full involvement sue, and, therefore, did not attend the
control was to ask the mobile home park meeting.
owners to subsidize the residents of their in litigation and By a vote of three to two, Ordinance
mobile home parks. Considering the de- administration, three Number 1928, "An ordinance of the
mographics of the people who lived in City of Westminster . . . to provide for
the mobile homes, including the mayor, highly technical amending mobile home mutual fair rental accord"
we did not see many people who re- ordinances had to be was passed.
quired a subsidy, either by government considered debated and As its name implies, the ordinance
or by private individuals at the direction J did not set an arbitrary percentage by
of government, finally approved." which rent could be increased. Instead,
Yes, we saw some elderly people on it established a negotiation and arbitra-
relatively fixed incomes with relatively tion system.
smal I assets. But we knew there are fed- market-level return on their land from The ordinance required the establish-
eral subsidy programs for true hardship rental to mobile home residents, they ment of a Park Committee in each mo-
cases. For the most part, we saw young will want to convert their parks for other bile home park consisting of two mobile
and middle-aged working people, more uses. home residents, two representatives of
the park owner and a fifth person to be In addition to the direct costs,our city bers who voted for the ordinance—the
appointed by the unanimous vote of the council's time was being consumed by other two were off the council by then
other four. the ordinance. Added to our full in- —joining in the vote to rescind.
Not less than 60 days before a rent volvement in litigation and administra- Mobile home residents were naturally
increase was proposed by a park owner, tion, three highly technical amending concerned that rents immediately would
the amount of that increase was to be put ordinances had to be considered, de- escalate. There were cries that park
to a vote of all park residents. If a ma- bated and finally approved. owners would gouge their renters. But
jority accepted the increase, the raise In March 1982, we passed an ordi- this did not happen. There was no ca-
would become effective. If a majority nance ". . . to expedite the arbitration lamity and not even any complaints.
were to reject the increase, the matter process . . .and to provide sanctions for Since the ordinance was rescinded, mo-
would go to the Park Committee for failure.to bargain in good faith." In Au- bile home park owners have taken it easy
negotiation. gust 1982, we considered and passed an on the residents, mostly staying within
When and if the Park Committee ne- ordinance ". . , to clarify impasse pro- the CPI. In many cases,park owners of-
gotiated an increase, the agreed-upon cedures." And, in March 1983, we ap- fered five-year leases to residents so fu-
increase went back to the residents for a proved an ordinance to provide park ture increases are spelled out, giving
vote.Again, if the majority accepted the owners with a "fair return" on their both the tenant and the owner assurance
Park Committee's recommendation, it property, specifically 60 percent of the of what the future holds.
went into effect. But, if a majority re- Consumer Price Index (CPI) after cer- The mobile home residents, still con-
jected the recommended increase, the tain allowable costs. cerned,gathered sufficient signatures to
matter went into binding arbitration. Meanwhile, the park owners took the place an initiative for mobile home rent
As everyone involved in government ordinance to court on the basis that it control on the November, 1986, ballot.
knows, the first order of business after was unconstitutional, and the city once The vote on the initiative was 9,686
the passage of the ordinance was to set again had to incur legal fees for its yes and 10,822 no. This time, the citi-
up a municipal commission to adminis- defense. zens of Westminster understood the
ter the ordinance. In this case,we estab- In 1984, the ordinance was declared consequences.
lished a Mobile Home Park Commission unconstitutional by the Fourth District Mobile home park rent control in the
with seven commissioners and a staff Court of Appeals,and a sizeable portion City of Westminster was less than a no-
person to handle day-to-day administra- of our city heaved a sigh of relief. ble experiment. In my opinion, every-
tion. And so mobile home rent control Shortly thereafter, the city council re- one lost—the tenants, the park owners
came to Westminster. scinded the mobile home park rent con- and the city. If would be my hope that
trol ordinance by a vote of five to our city never again become involved
perhaps it should not have come as nothing, with one of the original mem- with rent control of any kind. ■
a surprise to us,but mobile home
tenants were still very unhappy.
They did not want to negotiate and ar-
bitrate a rent increase.They did not want
any increase. They felt they were paying
enough rent. So they went to court.
The park owners,obviously,were just
as unhappy. They did not want rent con-
trol. They wanted to increase their rents
without government regulation. They,
too, went to court.
And the 25 percent of Westminster's
citizens who live in apartments also
were unhappy. They did not like the
seeming preference given to mobile
home residents. So they began pressur-
ing for a rent control ordinance of their
own. Fortunately for our city's already
overburdened treasury, they did not go
to court. i
In addition to paying to administer the I
ordinance — a full-time person with
office space and supplies, from 1981
through 1985, the city also had to pay
$98,359 in legal fees to defend the or-
dinance,$25,701 in arbitration fees and
$2,260 in court costs, for a total of
$126,320. For cities with significant
revenues, this might be easy. But for
Westminster, this experiment was cost-
ing us a lot of money. And no one was
happy.
Impartial Analysis]
Creation of Infrastructure Fund
YES
"Shall the Huntington Beach Charter be amended to
establish an"Infrastructure Fund" with all infrastructure
revenues raised, and accrued interest, directed into
the Fund; prohibiting the transfer or loan of Fund NO
monies; requiring that General Fund expenditures for
infrastructure not be reduced below 15% of General
Fund revenues based on a five-year rolling average; and
requiring that City Council designate an advisory board
to annually review and audit the Infrastructure Fund?"
1
FOECITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk g
0
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
Cr -
DATE: November 16, 2001
SUBJECT: RLS 2001-0817. City Council Resolution No. 2001-82 Adopted-en -"
October 15, 2001. March 5, 2002 Election. Proposed Charter y
Amendment Creating the Infrastructure Fund.
City Attorney's Elections Code§ 9280 Impartial Analysis.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
MEASURE �P
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTRODUCTION
California Elections Code § 9280 requires that the City Attorney, when directed to do so by the
City Council, prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. On October 15,
2001, by its adoption of Resolution No. 2001-82, the City Council directed that the City Attorney
prepare an impartial analysis of this measure.
ANALYSIS
This measure, if approved by the voters, would add a new Section 617 to the Charter of the City of
Huntington Beach, to create what is called and defined as the "Infrastructure Fund."
This measure:
• States that all revenue raised by vote of the electors or imposed by vote of
the City Council on or after March 5, 2002, by a measure which states that
the revenue to be raised is for the purpose of infrastructure, shall be placed
in a separate fund entitled "Infrastructure Fund."
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Vote11/16/01
• Defines the term "Infrastructure"to mean long-lived capital assets that
normally are stationary in nature and normally can be preserved for
significantly greater number of years, such as and including storm drains,
storm water pump stations, alleys, streets, highways, curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, bridges, street trees, landscaped medians, parks, beach
facilities, playgrounds, traffic signals, street lights, block walls along
arterial highways, and all public buildings and public ways.
• Provides that all interest earned on monies in the Infrastructure Fund shall
accrue to that account.
• States that monies in the Infrastructure Fund shall be utilized only for
direct costs relating to infrastructure improvements or maintenance,
including construction, design, engineering, project management,
inspection, contract administration and property acquisition.
• States that monies in the Infrastructure Fund shall not be transferred,
loaned or otherwise encumbered for any other purpose.
• States that revenues placed in the Infrastructure Fund shall not supplant
existing infrastructure funding.
• States that the average percentage of general fund revenues utilized for
infrastructure improvements and maintenance, for the five-(5) year period
of 1996 to 2001, is and was 14.9%; and then further states that
expenditures for infrastructure improvements and maintenance,
subsequent to 2001, shall not be reduced below 15% of general fund
revenues based on a five-(5) year rolling average.
• Directs the City Council to, by ordinance, establish a Citizens
Infrastructure Advisory Board to conduct an annual review and
performance audit of the Infrastructure Fund and to report its findings to
the City Council prior to adoption of the following fiscal-year budget.
CONCLUSION
This measure, if approved by the voters, would change existing law by adding a new section to
the City's Charter creating the Infrastructure Fund.
//—A. o/
GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Vote11/16/01
v
Impartiai Analysis
Advisory Vote Only. Infrastructure Fund. �^
Power Plant Utility Tax YES is
"Should the Utility Tax paid solely by an electric power
plant be placed into an Infrastructure Fund to be used
only for the maintenance, construction and repair of NO
infrastructure such as storm drains, storm water pump
stations, alleys, streets, highways, curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, bridges, street trees, landscaped medians,
parks, beach facilities, playgrounds, traffic signals, street
lights, block walls along arterial highways and all public
buildings and public ways?"
l
6-6-
L�1_11
•
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
DATE: November 16, 2001
SUBJECT: RLS 2001-0817. City Council Resolution No. 2001-83 Adopted on
October 15, 2001. March 5, 2002 Election. Infrastructure Fund.
Power Plant Utility Tax. Advisory Vote Only.
City Attorney's Elections Code 9280 Impartial Analysis.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
MEASURE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTRODUCTION --
r.a C
Cs
California Elections Code § 9280 requires that the City Attorney, when directed to do so_y the
City Council, prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, she ing=thq-- .
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. On October ,
2001,by its adoption of Resolution No. 2001-83, the City Council directed that the City Attofr
prepare an impartial analysis of this measure. >
ANALYSIS
This measure is an advisory measure only. The City Council is not bound by the results of the
vote whether such vote is either for or against the measure.
This measure poses the question of whether the utility tax paid solely by an electric power plant should
be placed into an Infrastructure Fund to be used only for the maintenance, construction and repair of
infrastructure such as storm drains, storm water pump stations, alleys, streets, highways, curbs and
gutters, sidewalks, bridges, street trees, landscaped medians, parks, beach facilities, playgrounds, traffic
signals, street lights, block walls along arterial highways and all public buildings and public ways.
CONCLUSION
This measure/would have no effect on existing law and would operate as an advisory vote only.
il- ir:-ot
GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Vote ll/16/01
imparflai Analy
Amendment of Gas Tax by Removing Electric Power
Plant Exclusion YES
"Shall the ordinance repealing the Gas Tax exclusion for
electric power plants be adopted?" NO
R
10
Ji
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
DATE: November 16, 2001
SUBJECT: RLS 2001-0817. City Council Resolution No. 2001-84 Adopted on
October 15, 2001. March 5, 2002 Election. Amendment of Utility Tax
by Removing the Electric Power Plant Exemption.
City Attorney's Elections Code § 9280 Impartial Analysis.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
MEASURE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH `—
INTRODUCTION ::
CJ��
California Elections Code § 9280 requires that the City Attorney, when directed to do spa bypp
City Council, prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, s�owiq the-
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. On Octobe�l5,�,
2001, by its adoption of Resolution No. 2001-84, the City Council directed that the City Add? mey
prepare an impartial analysis of this measure.
ANALYSIS
d This measure, if approved by the voters, would have the effect of requiring an electric power
plant to pay the same utility tax as do residents and businesses of the City of Huntington Beach.
This measure, if approved by the voters, would operate in the following two respects:
1. It would amend Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 3.36.010,
by deleting the definition of"electrical corporation" from the list of
definitions contained in subsection (g) of Section 3.36.010.
2. It would amend Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 3.36.080,
by deleting subsection (b), renumbering subsection (c) to subsection (b), and
renumbering subsection (d) to subsection (c).
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Vote11/16/01
d
The most important change would be the deletion of subsection (b) from Section
3.36.080. Subsection (b) of Section 3.36.080, as it presently exists, excludes, from the
utility tax, ". . . (c)harges made for gas to be used in the generation of electrical energy by
an electrical corporation."
CONCLUSION
This measure, if approved by the voters, would change existing law by deleting the exclusion
presently enjoyed by an electric power plant from paying the same utility tax as do residents and
businesses of the City of Huntington Beach.
4'GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
R.IW/jn:2001 Memos:RLSO I-0817Advisory Vote11/16/01
.tD i 1m' a r .J
yexIn favor
A�
Amendment of Gas Tax by Removing Electric Power ,
Plant Exclusion
YES
"Shall the ordinance repealing the Gas Tax exclusion for
y electric power plants be adopted?" NO
Y
C"
r
41
'S
ti f=.
.�.ti �' �� �� •�����:'I '�'Q�. •: �1//,''���y�1�'��rt ryn/, l/i�'f/.r - t, . it � r .�y �, ��k Y,'A
r,�•*"'3ag N a,�i rv' t'. ,r r ,� '1���'�4��Fi �} °�,°,
w V
-
r
"` ` �'^ ,' , ,.x•'•',.y�,y4+ ea.. ,.,..Ya 'p °.-., �.•-t, ,,,' r; ,a': ", ,�'. ��,. � �` ..E
s �
.:�"x r3�a>�;� -�, �"z - un����4'��zs; '�`'t� t T, ? .•�' ; k�, ��",.w.° x ;*�'�`'r,�„ - - , T,� `i
MR
- K
,fir ar,,-� 'S �?,r" - w' x. ,�• �, a� 5' 'I
f 7
1
Vf h"
-h"
t
� •Av
Argument IN FAVOR of a Measure -
Amendment of Utility Tax by Removing Electric Power Plant
Exemption
Vote yes on Measure because it will keep your taxes down. By voting yes,
you are voting to require the AES Corporation to pay the same utility tax paid by
all residents and businesses in Huntington Beach. Currently, AES is the only
business in Huntington Beach that does not pay this tax. The AES plant is ugly,
pollutes our air, and our ocean. AES refused to sign a contract for use of
electricity solely in California; thus, any cost to AES will be passed on primarily to
people outside of Huntington Beach and California.
A yes vote for this Measure will make AES pay their fair share of city costs that
occur by virtue of their presence. The AES plant has been a blight on Huntington
Beach for over 40 years. Isn't it about time it contributes to our city?
In the last election on this measure, AES spent nearly $300,000 to defeat it.
Don't be fooled again. Vote yes on Measure
Pam Julien Houchen, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
Debbie Cook, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Huntington Beach
Ralph H. Bauer, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
Connie Boardman, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
Peter Green, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
N
Cr
O
O
'<C
x
tV � '
00 D
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR OF MEASURE
(AMENDMENT OF UTILITY TAX BY REMOVING
ELECTRIC POWER PLANT EXEMPTION)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
Tlie undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of ballot
measure PROPOSED ORDINANCE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington
Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the
best of their knowledge and belief.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Name of Organization
Sign Name Print Name .... II � ee__ Date
Mayor ` &VI J�-C! �.n 4ucJm � ��J "
Mayor Pro Tem /f�� ( /�i�fC ld o� o/
Council �)�-
Member
Council
Member
Council _ . �I^^^ n �0 M�� ��Ma
� (�
Member / 1�� d
g:election/2002/march/utility tax/form of statement—in favor.doc
Rebuttal Argument to
Primary Against
Amendment of Utility Tax by Removing Electric Power
Plant Exemption YES
"Shall the ordinance requiring an electric power plant to
pay the same Utility Tax as do residents and businesses NO
of the City of Huntington Beach by amending the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code to remove Section
3.36.080(b) and make corresponding changes to Section
3.36.010(g), be adopted?"
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT OPPOSING MEASURE
Amendment of Utility Tax by Removing Electric Power Plant
Exemption
The Argument against Measure is just plain poppycock. The residents of
Huntington Beach will not be taxed twice for electricity since most, if not all, of the
electricity will be sold outside of Huntington Beach. And while the power is sold
elsewhere, we, the residents, are left with the all the aggravation. Let the people
outside of Huntington Beach pay for your roads, flood control channels, parks,
libraries, beaches, curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
A vote for Measure will keep your taxes and fees down since Measure
will generate over $2 million annually directly to Huntington Beach from the
unsightly AES Plant, thus requiring less in fees and taxes from Huntington Beach
residents for other city services.
When you dial 911, you want police, firefighters, and paramedics to be there
within five minutes. When you send your child to school, you want to make sure
they get there safely. When you go to the beach, you want a trained lifeguard
watching over you. When you venture into the community to visit your parks and
libraries, you want them to be open. Measure will help do this. Measure
is good for Huntington Beach, but what is more important--it is good for you.
Vote yes on Measure and keep your fees and taxes down.
Pam Julien Houchen, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach o
Debbie Cook, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Huntington Beach o ,-
Ralph H. Bauer, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach �?-
p Y 9 � µ,���..
Peter Green, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
-`_
cn
a�
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR
OF ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL TO
PRIMARY ARGUMENT AGAINST
(AMENDMENT OF UTILITY TAX BY REMOVING
ELECTRIC POWER PLANT EXEMPTION)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the rebuttal argument to primary
argument against ballot measure PROPOSED ORDINANCE at the Special Municipal Election
for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is
true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Name of Organization
Sign Name Print Name Date
Council
Member
Mayor
Council (7� rf �� 2� s✓ t a6 d 1
Member
Mayor /1,,,
Pro Tem � be13&6 eq L2&LO/
g:election/2002/march/utility tax/form of statement—utility tax-rebuttals.doc
tj
&
Lek-1) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
DATE: November 16, 2001
SUBJECT: RLS 2001-0817. City Council Resolution No. 2001-83 Adopted on
October 15, 2001. March 5, 2002 Election. Infrastructure Fund.
Power Plant Utility Tax. Advisory Vote Only.
City Attorney's Elections Code & 9280 Impartial Analysis.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
MEASURE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTRODUCTION -T
o
c
California Elections Code § 9280 requires that the City Attorney; when directed to do soy the C-,
City Council, prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, sho` inglre
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. On October , C.r
2001,by its adoption of Resolution No. 2001-83, the City Council directed that the City Attofi q
prepare an impartial analysis of this measure. D D c.
c-�
.c s
ANALYSIS
This measure is an advisory measure only. The City Council is not bound by the results of the
vote whether such vote is either for or against the measure.
This measure poses the question of whether the utility tax paid solely by an electric power plant should
be placed into an Infrastructure Fund to be used only for the maintenance, construction and repair of
infrastructure such as storm drains, storm water pump stations, alleys, streets,highways, curbs and
gutters, sidewalks,bridges, street trees, landscaped medians, parks, beach facilities,playgrounds,traffic
signals, street lights, block walls along arterial highways and all public buildings and public ways.
CONCLUSION
Thus measure would have no effect on existing law and would operate as an advisory vote only.
Rj_-a
GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Votel 1/16/01
,s4 I n favor of
Advisory Vote Only. Infrastructure Fund.
Power Plant Utility Tax YES
"Should the Utility Tax paid solely by an electric power
plant be placed into an Infrastructure Fund to be used
only for the maintenance, construction and repair of NO '
•. ". infrastructure such as storm drains, storm water pump
stations, alleys, streets, highways, curbs and gutters,
sidewalks,bridges, street trees, landscaped medians,
parks, beach facilities, playgrounds, traffic signals, street
lights, block walls along arterial highways and all public
buildings and public ways?"
' '` .A0
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE — INFRASTRUCTURE FUND -
POWER PLANT UTILITY TAX
(ADVISORY VOTE ONLY)
A yes vote on this advisory measure will send a message to the City Council that the
citizens want the proceeds from the utility tax on the AES Plant to be spent toward
meeting the city's infrastructure improvements needs.
A 60-person citizen committee recently completed a 27-month study on how Huntington
Beach can address our infrastructure needs. Infrastructure includes local sewer and
drainage systems, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parks, beaches, and public alleys.
Huntington Beach is one of the few cities in the United States to address this problem in
a comprehensive manner. The citizen report shows that the financial need for
infrastructure improvements and maintenance is real. This need for new revenue is
due, in part, to the past actions of our State Government, beginning in 1993, and
continuing to the present day, of annually diverting $7,000,000 of City property taxes to
fulfill State Government responsibilities.
Let's all pull together to ensure that our infrastructure system (the heartbeat of
Huntington Beach), which we all rely on in our daily lives, is adequately funded to meet
the community's present and future needs. Together, we can build a healthy
community! Vote yes on this advisory measure.
Pam Julien Houchen, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
Debbie Cook, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Huntington Beach
Ralph H. Bauer, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
Shirley Dettloff, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
Peter Green, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
iv G
o
7.
C
C= f� ;7.
Cr
G7Qr
rn-ri M
T; D c
c-) y'
N n
�p D
l
coo'
STATEMENT TO BE FILEDZMEASURE
AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR
�� ci � � Lr� TeC/�� 45 � � � 6 � � x
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
�ai11S0il� The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of ballot
/11j�5`'' measures at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington
Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the
best of their knowledge and belief.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Name of Organization
Sign Name Print Name Date
Council
Member . _ C_
Mayor L�—g4�
le. ir) � '�1 ��-II � 1 �✓ J/
Mayor Pro Tem 1 e cv0�
Council U � !
Member
Council Q� r
Member ,/�' t �� r�,r J It [(3
(�
g:election/2002/marchAnfrastructure fund/form of statement-in favor.doc
L�j sej)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk o
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney CD v J
Cc;
DATE: November 16, 2001
D�T�.
5) _.
SUBJECT: RLS 2001-0817. City Council Resolution No. 2001-82 Adopted xrin =
October 15, 2001. March 5, 2002 Election. Proposed Charter v
Amendment Creating the Infrastructure Fund.
City Attorney's Elections Attorney's Elections Code . 9280 Impartial Analysis.
Analysis.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
MEASURE�T
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTRODUCTION
California Elections Code § 9280 requires that the City Attorney, when directed to do so by the
City Council, prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. On October 15,
2001,by its adoption of'Resolution No. 2001-82, the City Council directed that the City Attorney
prepare an impartial analysis of this measure.
ANALYSIS
This measure, if approved by the voters, would add a new Section 617 to the Charter of the City of
Huntington Beach, to create what is called and defined as the "Infrastructure Fund."
This measure:
• States that all revenue raised by vote of the electors or imposed by vote of
the City Council on or after March 5, 2002, by'a measure which states that
the revenue to be raised is for the purpose of infrastructure, shall be placed
in a separate fund entitled"Infrastructure Fund."
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Votel1/16/01
• Defines the term "Infrastructure"to mean long-lived capital assets that
normally are stationary in nature and normally can be preserved for
significantly greater number of years, such as and including storm drains,
storm water pump stations, alleys, streets, highways, curbs and gutters,
sidewalks, bridges, street trees, landscaped medians,parks, beach
facilities, playgrounds, traffic signals, street lights, block walls along
arterial highways, and all public buildings and public ways.
• Provides that all interest earned on monies in the Infrastructure Fund shall
accrue to that account.
• States that monies in the Infrastructure Fund shall be utilized only for
direct costs relating to infrastructure improvements or maintenance,
including construction, design, engineering, project management,
inspection, contract administration and property acquisition.
• States that monies in the Infrastructure Fund shall not be transferred,
loaned or otherwise encumbered for any other purpose.
• States that revenues placed in the Infrastructure Fund shall not supplant
existing infrastructure funding.
• States that the average percentage of general fund revenues utilized for
infrastructure improvements and maintenance, for the five-(5) year period
of 1996 to 2001, is and was 14.9%; and then further states that
expenditures for infrastructure improvements and maintenance,
subsequent to 2001, shall not be reduced below 15% of general fund
revenues based on a five-(5) year rolling average.
0 Directs the City Council to, by ordinance, establish a Citizens
Infrastructure Advisory Board to conduct an annual review and
performance audit of the Infrastructure Fund and to report its findings to
the City Council prior to adoption of the following fiscal-year budget.
CONCLUSION
This measure, if approved by the voters, would change existing law by adding a new section to
the City's Charter creating the Infrastructure Fund.
//—A. o
GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Votel1/16/01
..---- -----
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE FF IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEASURE FF
m i Section 617 of the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby added j ANALYSIS
� to read as follows: 1 This measure,if approved by the voters,would add a new Section 617 to the
Section 617_ INFRASTRUCTURE FUND Charter of the City of Huntington Beach,to create what is called and defined
c (a)All revenue raised by vote of the electors or imposed by vote of the City as the "Infrastructure Fund."
� ' Council on or after March 5, 2002, by a measure which states that the This measure: i
revenue to be raised is for the purpose of infrastructure, as said term is States that all revenue raised by vote of the electors orimposed by vote
defined in this paragraph, shall be placed in a separate fund entitled
"Infrastructure Fund." The term "Infrastructure" shall mean long-lived of the City Council on or afterMarch 5,2002,by a measure which states
capital assets that normally are stationary in nature and normally can be that the revenue to be raised is for the purpose of infrastructure, shall be
placed in a separate fund entitled "Infrastructure Fund,"
preserved for significantly greater number of years. They include storm
drains, storm water pump stations, alleys, streets, highways, curbs and Defines the term"Infrastructure' to mean long-lived capital assets that
gutters, sidewalks, bridges,street trees,landscaped medians,parks, beach normally are stationary in nature and normally can be preserved for
facilities, playgrounds, traffic-signals, streetlights, block walls along arterial significantly greater number of years, such as and including storm
highways, and all public buildings and public ways. Interest earned on drains, storm waster pump stations, alleys,streets, highways, curbs and
monies in the Infrastructure Fund shall accrue to that account_ Monies in gutters, sidewalks, bridges, street trees, landscaped medians, parks,
said Fund shall be utilized only for direct costs relating to infrastructure beach facilities, playgrounds, traffic signals, street lights, block walls .i
improvements or maintenance,including construction,design,engineering, along arterial highways, and all public buildings and public ways.
project management, inspection, contract administration and property
I acquisition. Monies in said Fund shall not be transferred, loaned or Provides that all interest earned on monies in the Infrastructure Fund
otherwise encumbered for any other purpose. shall accrue to that account.
(b) Revenues placed in the Infrastructure Fund shall not supplant existing States that monies in the Infrastructure Fund shall be utilized only for
infrastructure funding. The average percentage of general fund revenues direct costs relating to infrastructure improvements or maintenance, 1.
outilized for infrastructure improvements and maintenance, for the five- (5) including construction, design, engineering, project management,
year period of 1996 to 2001, is and was 14.95%, Expenditures for inspection, contract administration and property acquisition.
o infrastructure improvements and maintenance, subsequent to 2001, shall • States that monles in the Infrastructure Fund shall not be transferred,
ry not be reduced below 15% of general fund revenues based on a five- (5) loaned or otherwise encumbered for any other purpose.
year rolling average, • States that revenues placed in the Infrastructure Fund shall not
�2 (c) The City Council shall by ordinance establish a Citizens Infrastructure supplant existing infrastructure funding.
w Advisory Board to conduct an annual review and performance audit of the
3 • States that the average percentage of general fund revenues utilized
Infrastructure Fund and report its findings to the City Council prior to I for infrastructure improvements and maintenance, for the five-(5) year
adoption of the following fiscal-year budget.
period of 1996 to 2001, is and was 14.9%; and then further states that
ARGUMEN/te
FAVOR OF MEASURE expenditures for infrastructure improvements and maintenance, l
subsequent to 2001, shall not be reduced below 15% of general fund '
This Measure guarantees 5% of all general nd revenues will be revenues based on a five-(5)year rolling average.
M spent on infrastructure impents. This Me ure also provides that a Directs the City Council to, by ordinance, establish a Citizens
citizens committee will conn annual revi and performance audit of i Infrastructure Advisory Board to conduct an annual review and
m the fund, thereby further gteeing lha ese funds will be spent on performance audit of the Infrastructure Fund and to report its findings to
m , infrastructure and nothingA yes to will cost you nothing. It will I the City Council prior to adoption of the following fiscal-year budget.
m however guarantee an alloof o oing income to infrastructure. i
CONCLUSION
u Few cities in the United Stv addressed their infrastructure issues,
QHuntington Beach has sed ibis issue through a 6Q-citizenThis measure, if approved by the voters, would change existing law by
infrastructure committee. the recommendation of that citizens adding a new section to the City's Charter creating the Infrastructure Fund.
committee that this Measu passed so we will adequately fund our s/ GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
________
~ r ' ' -
P
Argument IN FAVOR of Measure —
Creation of Infrastructure Fund
This Measure guarantees that 15% of all general fund revenues will be spent on
infrastructure improvements. This Measure also provides that a citizens
committee will conduct an annual review and performance audit of the fund,
thereby further guaranteeing that these funds will be spent on infrastructure and
nothing else. A yes vote will cost you nothing. It will however guarantee an
allocation of ongoing income to infrastructure.
Few cities in the United States have addressed their infrastructure issues.
Huntington Beach has addressed this issue through a 60-citizen infrastructure
committee. It is the recommendation of that citizens committee that this Measure
be passed so we will adequately fund our future infrastructure needs. A yes vote
on this Measure will help fund streets, curbs, sidewalks, gutters, and storm
drains. Vote yes on Measure
Pam Julien Houchen, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
Debbie Cook, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Huntington Beach
Connie Boardman, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
Shirley Dettloff, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
Peter Green, Council Member, City of Huntington Beach
ry C
0
o
CD
C� �`•
� a
N n
CO
ti
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR OF MEASURE
(CREATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE FUND)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of ballot
measure'CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington
Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the
best of their knowledge and belief.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Name of Organization
Sign Name Print Name_ Date
Council lJ
Member Aljc/Z2. i - �¢/ { %. /O
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council. m Member � �x4 �,J l 0 �I
I�
Council ' j�
Member �` _ _.QG1Cn1-(�i 130ar",
g:election/2002/marchMfrastructure fund/form of statement—in favor.doc
Rebuttal Argument to
Primary In Favor of
Amendment of Gas Tax by Removing Electric Power
Plant Exclusion YES
"Shall the ordinance repealing the Gas Tax exclusion for
electric power plants be adopted?" NO
�~ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT SUPPORTING MEASURE [LETTER] 3
` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
We've spent our entire carreers opposing new and higher taxes right here in
t? Orange County. Take our word for it— Measure [letter] is a double tax that will
increase utility bills for Huntington Beach residents.
The City Council wants you to believe Measure [letter] isn't a tax increase.
That's ridiculous. It's just another attempt by the city to collect more taxes from
residents. In fact, the city was recently sued for collecting illegal taxes.
When Huntington Beach's utility tax was adopted, AES was exempted to avoid
double-taxing local businesses and residents. The threat of double taxation is as
t true today as it was then. And that's why you should oppose Measure [letter].
If this irresponsible measure passes, Huntington Beach residents and
businesses will be taxed twice for their'electricity — first on their utility bills and
again when the added taxes are passed on to consumers.
C Huntington Beach doesn't need another hidden tax increase. Instead, it needs a
city council that spends tax dollars more efficiently with greater accountability to
citizens for how local tax dollars are spent.
Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected an identical proposal put on
the ballot by the city council — Measure Q. Now, the council is hoping voters will
5 believe Measure [LETTER] is different. It isn't. Measure [LETTER] is an unfair
s; double tax on Huntington Beach residents.
With California's energy crisis, now is not the time to raise electricity rateq,W44
-higher taxes. We need lower electricity rates, not higher ones.
Please join the National Taxpayers Alliance and us and vote no on Measure
[LETTER].
,Pleasevote "NO" on Measure [LETTER] — a hidden "double tax" that will raise Q
o
your local utility bills.
o r.) - r
C
7C
i r]
Z
(,n n
rn D
11/26/2001 14:19 FAX 949 250 7010 McNALLY TEMPLE 1aj005
Deed Royalty Dana Rohrabacher
President - Member of Congress
OC Taxpayers Assoclabon
Scott Baugh
Former Assemblyman, Munbngton Beach
96b-d 900/900 d 818-1 l SdIjjIgd'85dlaud '11ELICH-woad md19:Z0 10-9d-^ON
iv 1Yt.Y.71.Li 11 l L
71 c-3741557 C17Y CLERK r GEU�04
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR
OF ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL TO PRIMARY
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF
(AMENDMENT OF UTILITY TAX BY REMOVING
ELECTRIC POWER PLANT EXEMPTION)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by ine following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of time argument-
The undersigned proponents) or authors(s) of the rebuttal argument to primary
argument in favor of ballot treasure PROPOSED ORDINANCE at the Speciat Municipal
Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby siate that the
argument is true and oarrect to the best of their knowledge and belief,
C— J-F1 �z T6 f-fO"C@ e r.,�, CAES 1�, .,-h.�1�... crtC C.L.,
Vn s .4—
Name of Organization
gn Name Print Name Dare
W aiactow2002/marc-,vtzn ty[axrrorm of sta[ament—ut i;y tax-T004015.00c
t
ilial
':' �_�.
Amendment of Gas Tax by Removing Electric Power
Plant Exclusion YES
"Shall the ordinance repealing the Gas Tax exclusion for
electric power plants be adopted?" NO
012
62
C CU - C; 5-6 ILI-in cC� 41,,L�
'1%16/200f 15:13'FAX 949 250 7010 McNALLY TEMPLE 0 002
ARGUMENT OPPOSING MEASURE j�-
[LETTER]
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Don't be fooled. Measure [LETTER] is an unfair "double tax"that will raise your
utility rates.
If this irresponsible measure passes, Huntington Beach residents will be taxed
twice for your electricity—first on your utility bills and again when the added
taxes are passed on to consumers.
Measure [LETTER] is not only a "double tax," it's a "hidden tax" proposed by the
city council.
The National Taxpayers Union reports that each year, every man, woman and
child in America already pays $60 in hidden utility taxes —$240 for the average
family.
Huntington Beach doesn't need another hidden tax increase. But that's what the
city council is doing with Measure [LETTER] — and it isn't the first time.
Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected the identical proposal —
Measure Q. But the city council is hoping voters will believe Measure [LETTER]
is better. It isn't, Measure [LETTER] is an unfair tax on Huntington Beach
residents.
Olease join the National Taxpayers Alliance and us and vote no on Measure
[LETTER].
We need to lower our utility rates, not raise them. Please join us in opposing
Measure [LETTER] — a hidden "double tax" that will raise local utility bills.
Reed Royalty Dana Rohrabacher
President Member of Congress
OC Taxpayers Association o c
o �
Scott Baugh G=
Former Assemblyman, Huntington Beach a' G,CD :.
n
w y
W �
Ul 3D
i%%2C01 15:14 FAY 949 250 7010 McNALLY TEMPLE 004
?;ov-'o-01 OP:Oipm From-Manatt, Phelps&Phillips 1 T-781 P.001/001 F-414
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
AGAINST WASURF
(AMENOWNT OF UTIL17Y TAX BY REMOVING
ELECTRIC POWER PLANT EXEMMON)
�83 argunwo ccnceming meast= filed pursuarn to Wsicv S. thapWr 3 (ba9tnnI4
§02001 of the Slectlons ode shan be ancamppanled by the follwft form s Wmant to be
,qagned by each pn7ponant and by earn ara hm If 4ltfw0t; oft w asjwerrc
The undersigried om�pPonot(e) ar auftm(a of the primary amument aeoput balm
rnsasure PROPOSED 4RDIUM=at the Spacial Municipal PleWan for the Chy of Huntington
faach, to be held on March S, 2002, hereby stacbe that the argument is tm and correct to tha
best of their knowledge ams bellef.
:=s ��cr►P a r.Iry, S 1ur+t'h s�.�+a,n► R�C+Ra,ct "-C l j 1�r/1 •�---
Sign Mama Print Name Aa{e
- Lim 11 -Ib �otl
� ;��1'�r�cn�n nfa3a�tamont—aga'v�st-plc
11/16/2001 15:14 FAX 949 250 7010 MCNALLY TEMPLE 2003
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
AGAINST AIRY MEASURE
(INFRASTRUCTURE FUND . POWER PLANT UTILITY TA)O
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument against ballot
measure ADVISORY MEASURE at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington
Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the
best of their knowledge and belief.
71)
Name ofOrganizati n �ar'� 4i,5rte2 67)Z.17y 7;,4,(&,f
Sign me Print Name Date
9:elecUon120021march/advisory/form of statement—adviscry—2gainst,doc
Property Rights Protection Measure
YES
"Shall the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach be
amended by adding a new section thereto providing that
only a property owner can establish the price or terms
regarding that property's sale, lease, rental, exchange or NO
transfer; and prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach
from legislating or regulating the price or terms
concerning the sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer of
property(for example, by the adoption of a rent control 1
ordinance)?"
T
�r
41.
HUNTINGTON BEACH RENTERS TO OPPOSE
PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE
18601 Newland Street, Space 36 - Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Telephone: (714) 965-1010
November 16, 2001
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE
ON MARCH 5T" 2002 BALLOT
This measure is proposed and financed by wealthy owners of Huntington Beach mobile
home parks and other outside special interest groups. It is a mean spirited attack on
mobile home residents, the majority of whom are senior citizens who live on fixed
retirement incomes. This is the same ploy that failed in 1996 when mobile home park
owners tried to pass a statewide measure to prohibit all cities in the state from protecting
citizens from unreasonable rent increases.
The city currently has no rent control ordinance. The proponents of this measure are
trying to scare you by implying that without this measure, the city will interfere with the sale
of your property. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What this measure will do is remove the city's ability to stop rent gouging, if necessary, by
the mobile home park owners. If the measure passes, and the city loses its ability to
protect our senior citizens from excessive rents, our seniors who own their mobile homes
will lose them, as space rents spiral out of control.
VOTE NO ON THIS MEASURE! c
o
o �
Sincerely, - -«�.
rnG�
s
James P. Barker, Co-chairman
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN OPPOSITION OF MEASURE
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in opposition of
ballot measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special Municipal Election for the City of
Huntington Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and
correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
NaKhe of Organization
Sign Name Print Name Date
.✓ate ��a� J,gM4s e )549kE-R
g:election/2002/march/property rights/form of statement—in opposition.doc
Impamal A
Property Rights Protection Measure
YES
"Shall the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach be
amended by adding a new section thereto providing that
only a property owner can establish the price or terms
regarding that property's sale, lease, rental, exchange or NO
transfer; and prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach
from legislating or regulating the price or terms
concerning the sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer of
property (for example, by the adoption of a rent control
ordinance)?"
1
LAW
VIA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk
o
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
DATE: November 16, 2001 — o -
C3-
SUBJECT: RLS 2001-0817. City Council Resolution No. 2001-81 Adopted 6h
October 15, 2001. March 5, 2002 Election. The Property Rights-
Protection Measure.
City Attorney's Elections Code � 9280 Impartial Analysis.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
MEASURE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTRODUCTION
California Elections Code § 9280 requires that the City Attorney, when directed to do so by the
City Council, prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. On October 15,
2001, by its adoption of Resolution No. 2001-81, the City Council directed that the City Attorney
prepare an impartial analysis of this measure.
ANALYSIS
— This measure, if adopted by the voters, would add a new Section 803 to the Charter of the City of
Huntington Beach (sometimes "City"), entitled the "Property Rights Protection Measure."
This measure states, in Section 803, subsection (a), that the City shall not enact or enforce any
measure which mandates the price or other consideration payable to the owner in connection
with the sale, lease, rent, exchange or other transfer by the owner of real property. Section 803,
subsection (a) further states that any such measure is hereby repealed.
This measure, in Section 803, subsection (b), defines the terms "mandates" and "real property"
as used in Section 803, subsection (a).
This measure, in Section 803, subsection(c), provides that if adopted by the voters, this Section
803 would not apply to property cited by the City for various code violations; or to property
owned by public agencies; or to property where the owner has agreed by contract with a public
entity to accept certain financial assistance; or to any planning or zoning power of the City
R.IW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Vote11/16/01 1
related to the use, occupancy or improvement of real property; or to any real property acquired
by the City or its related agencies by eminent domain, purchase, grant or donation; or to any
power of the City to require a business license for the sale or rental of real property; or to any
dwelling unit or accommodation in any hotel, motel or other facility subject to the transient
occupancy tax; or to impair the obligation of any contract entered into prior to its enactment or
otherwise required by state law.
CONCLUSION
This measure, if adopted, would clearly impact the City's ability to enact price and rent controls
on many privately owned real properties in the City,with certain exceptions as stated above.
This measure may also have a currently unknown effect on existing laws and programs.
GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
R.1W/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Vote11/16/01 2
_
Vf P% vo
Property Rights Protection Measure
YES
{ � •
"Shall the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach be
• ', `� amended by adding a new section thereto providing that ;.•
' : , : . . only a property owner can establish the price or terms
regarding that property's sale, lease, rental; exchange or NO
transfer; andprohibiting h B h n � the City of Huntington Beach
from legislating or regulating h
s g g g the price or terms
concerning the sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer of
property for example, b the adoption of a rent control
�'. i .. p p Y � p Y p
ordinance)?„
r�4 . �--- _�_--- - -
�r ,
t.
JA sej)
LA
VkJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter-Department Communication
TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk
y
_N
FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney o =+
DATE: November 16, 2001
Cy_
CO-Gr
SUBJECT: RLS 2001-0817. City Council Resolution No. 2001-81 Adopted do
October 15, 2001. March 5, 2002 Election. The Property Rights-
Protection Measure. w c-)
Citv Attorney's Elections Code 9280 Impartial Analysis. — n
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
MEASURE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTRODUCTION
California Elections Code § 9280 requires that the City Attorney, when directed to do so by the
City Council,prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words, showing the
effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. On October 15,
2001,by its adoption of Resolution No. 2001-81, the City Council directed that the City Attorney
prepare an impartial analysis of this measure.
ANALYSIS
This measure, if adopted by the voters, would add a new Section 803 to the Charter of the City of
Huntington Beach(sometimes "City"), entitled the"Property Rights Protection Measure."
This measure states, in Section 803, subsection(a),that the City shall not enact or enforce any
measure which mandates the price or other consideration payable to the owner in connection
with the sale, lease, rent, exchange or other transfer by the owner of real property. Section 803,
subsection (a) further states that any such measure is hereby repealed.
This measure, in Section 803, subsection (b), defines the terms "mandates"and "real property"
as used in Section 803, subsection(a).
This measure, in Section 803, subsection(c),provides that if adopted by the voters, this Section
803 would not apply to property cited by the City for various code violations; or to property
owned by public agencies; or to property where the owner has agreed by contract with a public
entity to accept certain financial assistance; or to any planning or zoning power of the City
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLS01-0817Advisory Votel l/16/01 1
related to the use, occupancy or improvement of real property; or to any real property acquired
by the City or its related agencies by eminent domain, purchase, grant or donation; or to any
power of the City to require a business license for the sale or rental of real property; or to any
dwelling unit or accommodation in any hotel, motel or other facility subject to the transient
occupancy tax; or to impair the obligation of any contract entered into prior to its enactment or
otherwise required by state law.
CONCLUSION
This measure, if adopted, would clearly impact the City's ability to enact price and rent controls
on many privately owned real properties in the City, with certain exceptions as stated above.
This measure may also have a currently unknown effect on existing laws and programs.
GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
RJW/jn:2001 Memos:RLSOI-0817Advisory Vote]1/16/01 2
7Z)
PROPERTY OwNERs FOR
PROPERTY Rxiws
CD
Cr
CD
9121 ATLANTA AVENUE,#124
HUNTINGTON BEACH l >
CALIFORNIA 92646
(714)741-3015
ID#1224106 >
Property Rights Protection Measure
YES Ballot Argument
To ensure that Huntington Beach homeowners -- not politicians -- are the only
persons who may determine the price for which their home is rented, leased or
sold, vote YES on Measure
Your YES vote on Measure is needed because rent control is just around the
corner. Consider:
• A proposed strict rent control ordinance is being reviewed by our City Attorney.
• City leaders recently commissioned a $50,000 study to determine if mobile
home rent control was needed.
• Rent control advocates have mailed letters to every Orange County city urging
lawmakers to adopt rent control measures.
• Irvine recently approved a "longevity discount" program -- a plan that controls
rents.
Your Yes Vote Keeps Your Property Values From Declining
• Numerous economic studies confirm that rent control destroys local housing
markets and reduces property values.
• Rent control makes it difficult for property owners in rent control cities to acquire
emergency loans. After California's catastrophic earthquake in 1994, Santa
Monica property owners were denied loans from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA officials claimed that the city's rent
control restrictions would prevent property owners from making enough rental
income to pay back emergency loans.
Your Yes Vote Brings Huntington Beach Into Compliance With Thousands of
Cities
• In 45 states the people preempted local governments from enacting anyform of
rent control.
• Rent control was preempted in most of these states because existing properties
in rent control cities fall into disrepair. They do not generate sufficient income
to cover minimal maintenance costs.
But Measure can keep that from happening here. That's why Measure is
supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Huntington Beach
Chamber of Commerce, Property Owners For Property Rights, the Orange County
Register. Vote YES on
Scott Baugh
Property Owners for Property Rights and Former Huntington Beach Assemblyman
Dana Rohrabacher
Huntington Beach Congressman
Donna L. Cross
Huntington Beach Community Activist
Jon Coupal
President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Don MacAllister
Former Huntington Beach Mayor
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR OF MEASURE
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of b
measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special.Municipal Election for the City of Huntirn
Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct tc
best of their knowledge and belief.
2 2 6wNF-9,5 R)P- PKoP�97r"'f
Name of Organization As.5Ei 150 �7 PtLL
TORN, �A u ti� ����
Sign Name // Print Name Date
g:election/2002/marchlproperty rights/form of statement—in favor—laird.doc
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR OF MEASURE
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of ballot
measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntington
Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the
best of their knowledge and belief.
(6N (�FZSSMhN%
Name of Organization
Sign Name Print Name f- Lj�Dorct ®D
LA '0 na t-p- CL-N -1 J'V%
g:election/2002/march/property rights/form of statement—in favor—laird.doc
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR OF MEASURE
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of b
measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special.Municipal Election for the City of Huntin'.
Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct tc
best of their knowledge and belief.
Name of Organization
Si Name Print Name Date
L , C iO sS iw4- ovi
0
g:election/2002/march/property rights/form of statement—in favor—laird.doc
949 380 3310
FROM FAX NO. 949 380 3310 Nov. 1G 2001 02:21PM P1
CI ;-Y CLEU
CITY OF
HUNTIF,GTOiI BEACH, CA
2001 NOV 2b P G: 53
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR OF MEASURE
(PROPERTY FIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, If different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument In favor of b
measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special Municipal Election for the City of Huntin-
Seach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument Is true and correct tc
best of their knowledge and bellef.
va Jctr���
Name of Organization
Sign Narrle Print Name Date
a r.4 Gov
T
g:electi0nl2oo2jmamhlpropery tight orrn of statement-.,n favor-:alyd.doc
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR OF MEASURE
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the primary argument in favor of b
measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special.Municipal Election for the City of Huntin,
Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct tc
best of their knowledge and belief.
Name of Organization
Sign Name rint Name)�� / Date
' / j
g:election/2002/marchlproperty rights/form of statement—in favor—laird.dor
Against - Property Rights y
?y^ Rebuttal Argument to
Primary Against
,•wN K.,;c=5'ti` `°/,may,,' °�/
Property Rights Protection Measure
"Shall the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach be YES
amended by adding a new section thereto providing that only
a property owner can establish the price or terms regarding NO
that property's sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer; and
prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach from legislating or
regulating the price or terms concerning the sale, lease, rental,
exchange or transfer of property (for example, by the adoption
of a rent control ordinance)?"
`` 1
PROPERTY Owrim FOR _
PROPERTY RiGHTS C:;.r Y 0
1Cf:i BEAC[1, CA
1001 NOV 2 b ' 4 F
0
9121 ATLANTA AVENUE,#124
HUNTINGTON BEACH
CALIFORNIA 92646
(714)741-3015
ID#1224106
Property Rights Protection Measure
YES Ballot Argument - Rebuttal
The lone opponent of Measure _ is right about one thing -- there is no rent control
ordinance in Huntington Beach. And your YES vote on Measure _will keep it that
way!
Measure _ is not a "mean-spirited attack" on seniors living in mobile home parks.
Consider:
• Steve Gullage, a senior citizen and president of the Huntington Beach
Mobilehome Owners Association chose not to sign the ballot argument
against Measure _. A taxpayer-funded city study found that three out of four
mobile home park residents believe that their space rent is fair.
• The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- an organization which kept
millions of seniors from losing their homes because they could not afford
to pay their skyrocketing property taxes -- urges your YES vote on
Measure _ .
• A Cal State Fullerton study commissioned by the City Council in 2001 found
that the average mobile home space rent in Huntington Beach is $145
below the Orange County average.
• The public and private sectors have established rent subsidy programs for the
few seniors who need assistance with their space rent.
Measure _ does NOT "remove the city's ability to stop rent gouging." Your YES
vote on Measure_enables the city council to stabilize rents in natural disaster
emergencies.
Page Two • Yes Argument Rebuttal - Property Owners for Property Rights
The free market is serving Huntington Beach property owners well -- especially seniors
living in mobile home parks. Your YES vote on Measure _ensures that the free
market will continue to operate free from government interference.
Scott Baugh
Property Owners for Property Rights and Former Huntington Beach Assemblyman
Donna L. Cross
Huntington Beach Community Activist
Jon Coupal
President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Don MacAllister
Former Huntington Beach Mayor
1111Lb11bb1 17*23 7143741557 CITY CLERK PAGE 03
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR
OF ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL TO PRIMARY
ARGUMENT AGAINST
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following firm statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different,of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the rebuttal argument to primary
argument against ballot measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special Municipal Etection
for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is
true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
rz FJZ,6-
Name of Organization
G�L 9
Sign / Print Name Date
glelecttorv2002hn2rch/property rightsPform of stalemertt—property rights-rebuttals.doc
liiznizeel 17:23 7143741557 CITY CLERK PAGE 03
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR
OF ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL TO PRIMARY
ARGUMENT AGAINST
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200)of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the rebuttal argument to primary
argument against ballot measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special Municipal Election
for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is
true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
HUNT iN&16N ��FALH (-0NNMUM1Ty CT- Tvrs'r
Name of Organization
tam Print Name Date
Dn 0 A L , C Ross 11- 2tF-- no 1
g*/efoctto V2002hnarch1property rightsttorm of statement—property rights-rebuttals,doc
Nov 21 01 08: 49a Peter Herzog 949-830-6232 p• 3
• .11/20/2001 17:23 7143741557 CITY CLERK PAGE 03
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR
OF ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL TO PRIMARY
ARGUMENT AGAINST
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the rebuttal argument to primary
argument against ballot measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special Municipal Election
for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is
true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
36 Eowar� 54f,,4*.3 T;gPuY ej.� 4j) 0C*
Name of Organization —�
Sign Nam Print Name Date
/V/ 'Yon 6,0 1-4�
Pre>, deAt
gl%loctlon/20021m2rch/property rightstform of statement—property rights-rebuttals.doc
11/Lb/Zt7t71 1/:Z3 7143741557 CITY CLERK PAGE 03
STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR
OF ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL TO PRIMARY
ARGUMENT AGAINST
(PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE)
All arguments concerning measure filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3 (beginning
with § 9200)of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by the following form statement to be
signed by each proponent and by each author,if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or authors(s) of the rebuttal argument to primary
argument against ballot measure CHARTER AMENDMENT at the Special Municipal Election
for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 5,2002, hereby state that the argument is
true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
tC?,��R, H Q WTI t,�Gjt N EC-Ac-ff HAYD[-�,
Name of Organization
S' ame �jrint Name Date
2
gl%tacttorv2002hn2rch/property rightsltorm of statement—property rights-rebuttats.doc
Rebuttal Argument to
yh Primary in Favor of
Property Rights Protection Measure
"Shall the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach be YES
amended by adding a new section thereto providing that only
a property owner can establish the price or terms regarding NO
that property's sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer; and
prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach from legislating or
regulating the price or terms concerning the sale, lease, rental,
exchange or transfer of property (for example, by the adoption
of a rent control ordinance)?"
o
HUNTINGTON BEACH RENTERS TO OPPOSE
PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE
18601 Newland Street, Space 36 - Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Telephone: (714) 965-1010
November 26, 2001
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: REBUTTAL ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION
MEASURE ON MARCH 5T" 2002 BALLOT
• Passage of measure_could cause 80,000 Huntington Beach renters to face eviction
and over 3500 mobile home owners to lose their homes due to planned, excessive rent
increases.
• Renters throughout Orange County are appealing to their cities for relief from
unaffordable rents.
• A NO vote will protect the elderly on fixed incomes, and low or moderate-income renters
from the high rents this measure will allow.
• Lower rents allow young families to work and reside in Huntington Beach.
• Irvine's "longevity discount" program is proof that excessive rents destroy a city's
economic health.
• Affordable rents attract and maintain business growth, which increases property values.
•The hypocritical pro-measure group is.begging government help, via Prop. 13, and
FEMA, yet they are against renters receiving help.
• A NO vote will allow Huntington Beach to comply with 100 other Califomia cities in
preventing excessive rents, and will aid in Huntington Beach's financial, polifical, and
social growth.
Leading citizens and groups, including Mayor Pro-tern Debbie Cook,, Council member Connie
Boardman, GSMOL President Steve Gullage, Huntington Beach Tomorrow,HBMOA Board
member Al Caraccia,and AARP local representative Bill Bernard, are joining us to help Huntington
Beach renters.
VOTE NO ON THIS MEASURE. U --
o -
N CD-i
James P. Barker, Co-chairman r-
Huntington Beach Renters to Oppose Property Rights Protection Measure }
FORM OF STATEMENT TO BE FILED BY AUTHOR OF
ARGUMENT IN REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT
All arguments concerning measures filed pursuant to Division 9, Chapter 3
(beginning with § 9200) of the Elections Code shall be accompanied by
the following form statement to be signed by each proponent, and by each
author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent or author of the rebuttal to the argument in
favor of ballot proposition Property Rights Protection Measure, at the special
Municipal Election for the City of Huntington Beach, to be held on March 5cn
2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the best of his
knowledge and belief.
Sign Name Print Name Date
i
GOLDEN STATE MOBILHOME OWNERS LEAGUE, INC.
G 11021 MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD,GARDEN GROVE,CALIFORNIA
S P.O, BOX 876,GARDEN GROVE,CALIFORNIA 92842
M (714)826-4071 1 (800)888-1727
November 19, 2001
L
"OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT"
To whom it may concern:
Permission is hereby given to Jim Barker to use my name in his argument against
the Property Rights Protection Measure.
&d"Al
Steve Gullage,Pres.
GSMOL
(no subject)
Subject: (no subject)
Date:Mon,26 Nov 2001 15:37:30 EST
From:Wpbernard5@cs.com
To:gsmol@earthlink.net
To whom it may concern:
I give Jim Barker permission to use my name in his argument against the Property Rights Protection Measure.
William P.Bernard
AARP Member
1 of 1 11/26/01 12:43 PM
Property Rights Protection
Subject: Property Rights Protection
Date: Mon,26 Nov 2001 12:04:53 -0800
From:Dave Sullivan<dsullivan@socal.rr.com>
To: gsmol@earthlink.com
Jim Barker has my permission to use Huntington Beach Tomorrow's name in
the argument against the property rights protection measure.
Dave Sullivan
1 of 1 11/26/01 12:41 PM
To whom it may concern i give permission to jim barker to use my name in his
Argument against the PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION MEASURE.
Al caraccia
H.b.m.o.a[board member]
moo
/
/.2 -a�- o� '✓t0C4,t> o,e CQ eux 3
PETITION FOR SUBMISSION TO VOTERS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
The City Attorney of Huntington Beach has prepared the following title and summary of the chief
purpose and points of the proposed charter amendment:
BALLOT TITLE
A ballot measure to amend the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach to provide.that only a property
owner can establish the price or terms.regarding that property's sale, lease, rental,_exchange or transfer;
lL and prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach from legislating or regulating the price or terms concerning
o the sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer of property (for example, by the adoption of a rent control
ordinance).
BALLOT SUMMARY
The proposed measure,called the"Property Rights Protection Measure,"and citing social problems alleg-
edly caused by rent control in Santa Monica, would add.Section 803 to the Charter of the City of Hunting-
ton Beach to provide that the City shall not enact or enforce any measure that would mandate the price or
other consideration payable to a property owner in connection with the sale,lease, rent,exchange,or trans-
fer of that property.The purpose of the proposed ballot measure is to prohibit the City from adopting any
b� regulation that would impose price or rent controls on residential properties, such as single family homes,
apartments, or mobile home parks.
The proposed ballot measure permits the establishment of price or rent controls.in six circumstances, in-
cluding: properties which contain serious health, safety, fire or building code violations which remain un-
abated for six months or longer; and.properties owned by public agencies.
At the present time,the City has several ordinances that deal with the general subjects of mobile homes and:
mobile home parks.It is not known what affect,if any,that passage of the proposed balloVineasure will haVe
on these ordinances.The City has an ordinance allowing owners of mobile homes in mobile home parks to
temporarily rent their mobile homes for reasons of personal hardship.And.the City, as part of-its zoning
ordinance,has provisions concerning mobile park conversions;that is,when land is changed from a mobile
home park use to some other type of use.If passed,the proposed ballot measure may affect one or more of
these ordinances.
To the Honorable City Council of the City of Huntington Beach: ,
We,the undersigned,registered and qualified voters of the State of California and residents of the City of Huntington Beach,
pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution,Article 3(commencing with Section 9255)of Chapter 3 of
Division 9 of the Elections Code and Section 34450 of the Government Code,present to the city council of the city this petition
and request that the following proposed amendment to the charter of the city be submitted to the registered and qualified
voters of the city for their adoption or rejection at an election on a date to be determined by the city council in accordance with
law.
The proposed charter amendment reads as set forth below and on the subsequent page hereof:
The People of the City of Huntington Beach do adopt (c) This Section 803 shall not apply to:
as follows:
(1) any real property which contains
A PROPOSAL TO ADD SECTION 803 TO THE serious health, safety, fire or building
CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF code violations,"exc lu ding those
HUNTINGTON BEACH caused by disasters, for which a civil
SECTION 1. Property Rights Protection Measure: or criminal citation has been issued by
the City and remains unabated for six
The City Charter of the City of Huntington Beach months or longer;
is hereby amended to add a new Section 803 to read
as follows: (2) any real property owned by a pub-
"Section 803. PROPERTY RIGHTS PRO- lic entity, and real property where the
owner has agreed by contract with the
TECTION MEASURE. public entity, including the City and
(a) The City shall not enact or enforce any any of its related agencies, to accept a
measure which mandates the price or other consider- financial contribution or other tangible
ation payable to the owner in connection with the sale, benefit including without limitation,
lease, rent, exchange or other transfer by the owner assistance under the Community Re-
of real property.Any such measure is hereby repealed. development Law;
(b) The word "mandates" as used in sub- (3) any planning or zopjng=power of
section (a)includes any measure taken by ordinance, the City as relates to fe use, occu-
resolution, administrative regulation or other action pancy or improvement gfrealbroperty
of the City to establish, continue, implement or en- and to any real property 5Nch'thie C*i"ty
force any control or system of controls on the price or or any of its related agencies:inay,ac-
other terms on which real property in the City may be quire by eminent dom� n, ptirclise,
offered, sold, leased,rented,exchanged or otherwise gTant or donation;
transferred by its owner. The words "real property"
as used in subsection(a)refer to any parcel of land or (4) ."any power of the City fo require
site,either improved or unimproved,on which a dwell-
of real property, whether for regula-
1 =' b 'siness license for the sale or rental
ing unit or residential accommodation is or may be
tion or general revenue purposes;
situated for use as a home,residence or sleeping place. `�
PETITION FOR SUBMISSION TO VOTERS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
The City Attorney of Huntington Beach has prepared the following title and summary of the chief
purpose and points of the proposed charter amendment:
BALLOT TITLE .
A ballot measure to amend the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach to provide that only a property
owner can establish the price or terms regarding that property's sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer;
and prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach from legislating or regulating the price or terms concerning
the sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer of property (for example, by the adoption of a rent control
ordinance).
BALLOT SUMMARY
The proposed measure,called the "Property Rights Protection Measure,"and citing social problems alleg-
edly caused by rent control in Santa Monica, would add Section 803 to the Charter of the City of Hunting-
ton Beach to provide that the City shall not enact or enforce any measure that would mandate the price or
other consideration payable to a property owner in connection with the sale,lease,rent,exchange or trans-
fer of that property.The purpose of the proposed ballot measure is to prohibit the City from adopting any
regulation that would impose price or rent controls on residential properties, such as single family homes,
apartments, or mobile home parks.
The proposed ballot measure permits the establishment of price or rent controls in six circumstances, in-
cluding: properties which contain serious health, safety, fire or building code violations which remain un-
abated for six months or longer; and properties owned by public agencies.
At the present time,the City has several ordinances that deal with the general subjects of mobile homes and
mobile home parks.It is not known what affect,if any,that passage of the proposed ballot measure will have
on these ordinances.The City has an ordinance allowing owners of mobile homes in mobile home parks to
temporarily rent their mobile homes for reasons of personal hardship.And the City, as part of its zoning
ordinance,has provisions concerning mobile park conversions;that is,when land is changed from a mobile
home park use to some other type of use.If passed,the proposed ballot measure may affect one or more of
these ordinances.
(text continued) whereas the elderly population of Los Angeles County
(5) any dwelling unit or accommo- rose by more than 15% over the same decade. The
dation in any hotel, motel or other fa- elderly population increased over this period in every
cility when the transient occupancy of comparable city without rent control in Southern Cali-
that dwelling unit or accommodation fornia.
is subject to a transient occupancy tax; The result of social'experimentation with rent
or control in Southern California produces the follow-
(6) to impair the obligation of any ing conclusion:
contract entered into prior to the en- rent control does not provide more or better af-
actment of this Section 803 or other- fordable housing for anyone—especially the eld-
wise required by State law."
erly and young families.
SECTION 2. Title of Proposal to Amend the The imposition of rent control forces some prop-
City Charter: erty owners to change the use of their property and
The proposal to amend the City Charter of the this change of use often can result in more develop-
City of Huntington Beach to add a new Section 803 ment and pressures which cause the destruction of
shall be known as the "Property Rights Protection existing neighborhoods.Unnecessary and complicated
Measure". government interference in private property transac-
tions and homeownerships and rental decisions pro-
SECTION 3. Findings and Statement of Pur- duces wasteful lawsuits and imposes needless costs
nose of Property Rights Protection Measure: on all taxpayers.
There is strong and convincing practical evidence We the people find that the best means to assure that our
which shows that price controls on the sale or rental community and neighborhoods are preserved is to pro-
of any residential accommodation does nothing to tect property rights and to allow owners to make their
preserve or maintain affordable housing. In fact the own decisions about the price and other terms on which
evidence in Southern California appears to show that they can sell or lease their residential property.
rent control destroys affordable housing and acceler-
ates development pressures to turn older properties SECTION 4. Severability:
into new and higher density commercial and so-called
"up-scale" housing. To pick just one of many ex- If any provision of Section 803 of the City Charter of
amples—in the City of Santa Monica with its rent the City of Huntington Beach, or the application to
control regulations Santa Monica has seen a decline any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court
in the number of family households with children of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not
which is larger than any other comparable city in affect other provisions or applications of Section 803
Southern California without rent control. Under rent which can be given effect without the invalid provi-
control,Santa Monica's elderly population(age 65 or sion or application, and to this end, the provisions of
over)declined by 1.7 percent between 1980 and 1990, Section 803 are declared to be severable.
2
PETITION FOR SUBMISSION TO VOTERS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON..BEACH
The City Attorney of Huntington Beach has*prepared the following title and summary of the chief
purpose and points of the proposed charter amendment:
BALLOT TITLE
A ballot'measure to amerid the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach to provide that only a property
owner can establish the price or terms regarding that property's sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer;
and prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach from legislating,or regulating the price or terms concerning
the sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer of property (for example, by the adoption of a rent control
ordinance).
BALLOT SUMMARY
The proposed measure,called the"Property Rights Protection Measure,"and citing social problems alleg-
edly caused by rent control in Santa Monica,would add Section 803 to the Charter of the City of Hunting-
ton Beach to provide that the City shall not enact or enforce any measure that would mandate the price or
other consideration payable to a property owner in connection with the sale,lease,rent,exchange or trans-
fer of that property.The purpose of the proposed ballot measure is to prohibit the City from adopting any
regulation that would impose price or rent controls on residential properties, such as single family homes,
apartments, or mobile home parks.
The proposed ballot measure permits the establishment of price or rent controls in six circumstances; in-
cluding:`properties which contain serious health, safety, fire or building code violations which remain un-
abated for six months or longer; and properties owned by public agencies.
At-the`present time,the City has several ordinances that deal with the general subjects of mobile homes and
mobile home parks.It is not known what affect,if any,that passage of the proposed ballot measure will have
on these ordinances.The City has an ordinance allowing owners of mobile homes in mobile home parks to
temporarily rent their mobile homes for reasons of personal hardship. And the City, as part of its zoning
ordinance,has provisions concerning mobile park conversions; that is,when land is changed from a mobile
home park use to some other type of use. If passed, the proposed ballot measure may affect one or more of
these ordinances.
!� NOTICE OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE PETITION
Notice is hereby given by the person whose name appears hereon of his/her intention to circulate the petition within the City
of Huntington Beach for the purpose of qualifying the Property Rights Protection Measure.A statement of the reasons of the
proposed'action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
There is strong and convincing practical evidence which shows that price controls on the sale or rental of any residential
accommodation does nothing to preserve or maintain affordable housing.In fact the evidence in Southern California appears
to show that rent control destroys affordable housing and accelerates development pressures to turn older properties into new
and higher density commercial and so-called"up-scale"housing.To pick just one of many examples—in the City of Santa
Monica with its rent control regulations Santa Monica has seen a decline in the number of family households with children
which is larger than any other comparable city in Southern California without rent control.Under rent control,Santa Monica's
elderly population (age 65 or over)declined by 1.7 percent between 1980 and 1990, whereas the elderly population of Los
Angeles County rose by more than 15% over the same decade. The elderly population increased over this period in every
comparable city without rent control in Southern California.
The result of social experimentation with rent control in Southern California produces the following conclusion:
Rent control does not provide more or better affordable housing for anyone—especially the elderly and young families.The
imposition of rent control forces some property owners to change the use of their property and this change of use often can
result in more development and pressures which cause the destruction of existing neighborhoods.Unnecessary,and compli-
cated government interference in private property transactions and homeownerships and rental decisions produces wasteful
lawsuits and imposes needless costs on all taxpayers.
We the people find that the best means to assure that our community and neighborhoods are preserved is to protect property
rights and to allow owners to make their own decisions about the price and other terms on which they can sell or lease their
residential property.
Proponent of Measure
Is/ 'Ed Laird
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID
SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER.YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK.
This column for
ALL SIGNERS AND CIRCULATORS OF THIS PETITION MUST BE REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. official use only.
/�. ...
O
N
W M
N ' �
o M
44
o O
im I m.
IW I y
H O
Re Z
W _ P
__. TU"— viiy Zip
3
PETITION FOR.SUBMISSION TO VOTERS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT _
TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
The City Attorney of Huntington Beach has prepared the following title and summary of the chief
purpose and points of the proposed charter amendment:
BALLOT TITLE
A ballot measure to amend the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach to provide that only a property
owner can establish the price or terms regarding that property's sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer;
and prohibiting the City of Huntington Beach from legislating or regulating,the price or terms concerning
the sale, lease, rental, exchange or transfer of property (for example, by the adoption of a rent control
ordinance).
BALLOT SUMMARY
The proposed measure,called the"Property Rights Protection Measure,"and citing social problems alleg-
edly caused by rent control in Santa Monica,would add Section 803 to the Charter of the City of Hunting-
ton Beach to provide that the City shall not enact or enforce any measure that would mandate the price or
other consideration payable to a property owner in connection with the sale,lease,rent,exchange or trans-
fer of that property.The purpose of the proposed ballot measure is to prohibit the City from adopting any
regulation that would impose price or rent controls on residential properties, such as single family homes,
apartments,or mobile home parks.
The proposed ballot measure permits the establishment of price or rent controls in six circumstances, in-
cluding: properties which contain serious health, safety, fire or building code violations which remain un-
abated for six months or longer; and properties owned by public agencies.
At the present time,the City has several ordinances that deal with the general subjects of mobile homes and
mobile home parks.It is not known what affect,if any,that passage of the proposed ballot measure wilt have
on these ordinances.The City has.an ordinance allowing owners of mobile homes in mobile home parks to
temporarily rent their mobile homes for reasons of personal hardship.And the City, as part of its zoning.
ordinance,has provisions concerning mobile park conversions; that is,when land is changed from a mobile
home park use to some other type of use.If passed, the proposed ballot measure may affect one or more of
these ordinances.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID
SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER.YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK.
This column for
ALL SIGNERS AND CIRCULATORS OF THIS PETITION MUST BE REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. official use only.
I
m
i m
� m
v
i
� O
R1
to
O
t Z
t
DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR(To be completed after above signatures have been obtained.)
I circulated this petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures on this petition being written.Each
signature of this petition is,to We best of my info ati n and belief,the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be.All signatures on this document
were obtained between f G(11 N declare under penalty of pe under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
month, ay,year month,day,year
'Executed at �l 'tp( !f��- CA on 4 1 (Y) �rZ
City Deta Sign Full Name,Including MiddleNarne or Initial
.� ��—` S c JJ � '�-coy l'�1'•+c.V'. -�c, f /4 � ' (' I
Print Name Residence Address City Zlp
For Processing Use Only CIRCULATOR INSTRUCTIONS Our Number
1.Use blue or black Ink pen.
r r r , 2.All signers must be registered In the City of Huntington Beach.
L L _ J 3.Declaration of Circulator mUg be signed AM signatures obtained. L 1_L 1_J—L J
4