Court Defeat Spun as ‘Clarification’

A Sacramento Superior Court judge’s ruling last week delivered a clear rebuke to the City of Long Beach for unlawfully accelerating a voter-approved sales tax increase. Yet in a press release issued Saturday, City Hall portrayed the decision as a mere “clarification” that will “allow planning for 2027.” The contrast between the court’s findings and the city’s spin has drawn sharp criticism from civic watchdogs, who say transparency and accountability – not wordplay – should guide local governance.

Court Finds City Acted Outside Voter Authority

As first reported online by the Beachcomber, the ruling invalidated the City Council’s December 2024 emergency ordinance that sought to impose a 1% sales tax nearly two years earlier than the October 2027 start date explicitly approved by voters under Measure A.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Acquisto found the early hike unconstitutional under Proposition 218, which prohibits local governments from imposing or increasing taxes without explicit voter consent. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) had already warned the city before the ordinance vote that the rate could not legally rise before the voter-approved date.

“The court didn’t find ambiguity – it found a violation,” said Ian Patton, executive director of the Long Beach Reform Coalition. “Calling this ruling a ‘clarification’ is a flat out lie, and it's a lie heaped on the lies already perpetrated by the city manager, city attorney, and city finance director in open council session to ram this through during an extraordinary holiday season on a Thursday afternoon, sly, at a special meeting of the City Council, with a bare quorum present last December.”

City’s Response Reframes Ruling

In its official statement, the city described “legal ambiguity” over whether the Measure A increase should take effect immediately after the county’s Measure H tax expired or wait until 2027. The statement claims the city “worked collaboratively with the state” and pursued court review “to best represent the interests of the majority of voters.”

But records show the state’s tax agency had already declined to process the increase, citing clear statutory language – and the judge sided with the state.

“The city didn’t ‘collaborate’ with the state,” Patton said. “It defied a state warning and a basic understanding of the public right to approve or disapprove of taxation in California, spent public money on a losing lawsuit, and is now trying to rebrand that as ‘teamwork’.

“I can assure you that counsel for the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), speaking during the trial hearing, which I observed in person, expressed no such sense of teamwork with the City of Long Beach, which first ignored the CDTFA's warning regarding the voter-approved level of taxation in our city and then sued them.”

Fiscal Stakes and Framing

The city’s press release emphasizes the $60 million in public safety and infrastructure funds “at stake.” But taxpayer advocates point out that the ruling prevented the city from collecting an unlawful tax and potentially owing refunds.

Patton said the bigger issue is credibility: “Long Beach voters were promised transparency and respect for the law. When the city reframes a legal defeat as a planning milestone, it damages public trust far more than it protects any budget line [item].

“To those who bemoan any loss of municipal revenue, I would say they should ask elected officials the following: Why does our city have such extreme levels of local taxation – beyond almost any other city in the region – and yet it cannot pave enough streets or field enough public safety personnel or sufficiently care for our parks? Where is all the money going? The solution to one highway robbery is not another.”

Lessons for the Future

The Long Beach Reform Coalition, which has called for stronger fiscal oversight and plain-language ballot measures, said the case should prompt reforms in how the city interprets voter mandates.

“This isn’t about one tax rate – it’s about the integrity of the vote,” Patton said. “The court just reaffirmed something every public official should already know: the words on the ballot matter. Respect the voters. Respect the taxpayers. Respect the law.”

The Beachcomber notes that its inquiries to all City Council members, City Manager Tom Modica, and City Attorney Dawn McIntosh were sent prior to the city’s Nov. 8 press release. As of this publication, no responses to specifics have been received from any of the officials addressed, except Mayor Rex Richardson, whose representative said the city press release represents his response.

The city’s official statement did not address the specific Beachcomber questions posed regarding the court’s findings or the CDTFA warnings cited in the ruling.

This is a developing story.

Stephen Downing is a Long Beach resident and retired LAPD deputy chief.