Lodian part of lawsuit over Bay Area bridge tolls
SAN FRANCISCO — A taxpayers association, on behalf of three plaintiffs from Vallejo, Vacaville and Lodi, is challenging a recently approved $3 bridge toll increase in state court — a move that could potentially delay or eliminate the measure.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed the suit Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court against the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA). It challenges the notion that Regional Measure 3, which voters approved last month, is a “fee” requiring only a simple majority to pass, rather than a “tax,” which requires two-thirds voter approval.
The suit asks that the toll be invalidated. The measure passed with 55 percent of the vote across all nine Bay Area counties, according to the most recent election results. It would increase bridge tolls by $1 on Jan. 1, followed by subsequent $1 increases in 2022 and 2025, raising an estimated $5.4 billion over the next decade to pay for nearly three-dozen transportation projects in the Bay Area.
That’s not a fair increase for the drivers who will be footing the bill for public transit or bicycle and pedestrian projects, which together account for roughly two-thirds of the planned projects, said Timothy Bittle, a lawyer for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. There’s no evidence those projects will result in fewer car trips, he said. Randy Rentschler, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which oversees the toll authority, did not respond Monday to questions about how transit would improve traffic flow on the bridge.
“I don’t think all that money can be quantified as a traffic reduction expense,” Bittle said.
Prop 26, which voters approved in 2010, broadened the definition of a tax to include many payments previously considered to be fees, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Fees that benefit the public broadly — rather than providing services directly to the fee payer, such as garbage fees or state park entrance fees — would be considered a tax under Prop 26, the analyst’s office said.
So, while previous toll increases might have counted as a fee prior to Prop 26, Regional Measure 3 is a tax under the new law, Bittle argued. And, previous toll increases may have been more directly connected to bridge improvements and the highways connected to them than the most recent measure, he said.
“We didn’t have Prop 26 before,” he said. “And, this measure is almost entirely going to be spent on public transit that the toll payers aren’t using.”
Regional Measure 3 was written with guidance from the state’s Office of Legislative Counsel, as well as the commission’s outside law firm, Orrick, Rentschler said. He noted that the taxpayers association also supports the repeal of SB1, the gas tax and registration fee increases the legislature approved last year.
“We oppose their path of obstruction as our highways and transit systems must be maintained and improved in order to support the Bay Area’s high wage economy that benefits Bay Area families,” Rentschler said. “We have every intention to follow through with the direction the legislature and the voters have provided to gain congestion relief so badly needed to maintain the quality of life so valued by residents.”