City of Oakland v. Digre
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LOW, P. J.
In this case, we hold that Oakland’s Neighborhood Services Retention Act of 1988, a flat-fee “parcel tax” designed to raise revenue for the support of municipal services, is a non-ad valorem general property tax prohibited by article XIII, section 1 of the California Constitution. In so doing, we only invalidate the tax ordinance before us. We do not hold that a flat-fee parcel tax must necessarily be considered a property tax.
The Neighborhood Services Retention Act was submitted for voter approval as “Measure M” in the June 7, 1988, primary election. The proposed tax was…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- County of Sacramento v. HickmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- In Re TartarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- City and County of San Francisco v. FarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- California Housing Finance Agency v. ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Neilson v. City of California CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Neecke v. City of Mill ValleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Thomas v. City of East Palo AltoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Centex Real Estate Corp. v. City of VallejoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- City & County of San Francisco v. Flying Dutchman Park, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.