Opinion ID: 2631172
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special Benefit Lacking Here

Text: VGV contends that, under the circumstances of this case, the linkage between special assessments and special benefits should be reconsidered. The line between special assessments and special taxes articulated by the courts [citation] becomes blurred when considering assessments levied by a local port district which was created to bestow a benefit on all property within its boundaries. A port district formed under Harbors and Navigation Code section 6200 et seq. can only include, within its boundaries, 'land which will be benefitted by the creation and operation of the district' (Italics added.) (See Harb. & Nav.Code, § 6217.) The local voters themselves declared in 1952, when the District was formed, that all real property within the District's taxing boundaries would be benefitted by the `creation and operation' of the Ventura Harbor. In light of this indisputable fact, the Legislature was completely justified in concluding that all lands within a port district would be benefitted by the continued operation of a public improvement of this nature. VGVs argument proves too much. If everything is special, then nothing is special. That is, the presumption that every project undertaken by a port district is equally beneficial to all of the properties within the district would effectively nullify the requirement that an assessment valuation be fixed per acre for each parcel which is in proportion to the benefits to be derived from the project. (Wat.Code, § 51323; see Harb. & Nav.Code, § 6365, subd. (d)(2).) Moreover, because of the failure of the commercial marina project, there is no means of fixing an assessment valuation per acre for each parcel in proportion to the benefits to be derived from the continuance in operation of the project as required by Water Code section 51323. Finally, VGV repudiates a bedrock requirement of article XIII Dthat the owners of property upon which an agency proposes to levy an assessment be given a right to vote on it. (Art. XIII D, § 4.) The reason VGV cannot concede the voter approval requirement is not far to seek. One thing on which the District, the County and VGV agree is that if Proposition 13 and Proposition 218 are interpreted to require [voter approval] before taxes or assessments can be levied to pay the judgment, it will not be paid. As VGV acknowledged in petitioner's brief on the merits ...: `All those entitled to vote on whether the judgment will be paid will benefit by lower taxes if they vote to deprive the judgment creditor of recovery on his judgment.' VGV argues that, by providing in Harbors and Navigations Code section 6365, subdivision (d)(2) that assessments may be levied for the satisfaction of liabilities arising from projects, the Legislature must have thought that prompt payment of debts does in fact confer a special benefit on the lands within the district. VGVs argument misses the point. Under article XIII D, that a proposed improvement would confer special benefits upon the landowners within a district is a necessary condition for the levying of a special assessment, but it is not a sufficient one. That is, even if the payment of the district's debt would confer special benefits on the properties within the district, the property owners would still have the right to vote on the question whether they wished to obtain the special benefits by paying the debt. Proposition 218 was quite clear about the fact that its provisions were to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent. (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996) text of Prop. 218, § 5, p. 109, italics added, and reprinted in Historical Notes, 2A West's Ann. Cal. Const. (2001 supp.) foll. art. XIII C, p. 33.) In conclusion, we answer the second of the questions certified by the Ninth Circuit as follows: A port district created pursuant to Harbors and Navigation Code section 6210 does have independent authority to impose assessments under Harbors and Navigation Code section 6365, subdivision (d)(2) in order to raise the funds needed to satisfy a judgment obtained against it, so long as the assessments satisfy the applicable statutory and constitutional requirements. However, this port district may not impose an assessment to raise the funds to satisfy the judgment in question here because the assessment would not specially benefit the parcels upon which it would be imposed. GEORGE, C.J., MOSK, J., KENNARD, J., BAXTER, J., WERDEGAR, J., and CHIN, J., concur.