SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – Former South Lake Tahoe councilmember and mayor, Tom Davis, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the El Dorado Superior Court, seeking intervention to correct what he claims is a false and misleading statement provided by vacancy tax proponents.

The vacancy tax initiative, labeled Measure N, is likely well known by now. It’s a tax of $3,000 the first year and a $6,000 tax consecutive years on homeowners in the City of South Lake Tahoe whose home is vacant for more than half the year.

Proponents, including Amelia Richmond, Nick Speal, C.T. Rowe, Kira Richardson, and Alicia Halpern provided the alleged false statement in their Argument in Favor of Measure N. This is a document that will get printed and be provided in a voter information guide along with the full text of the measure, as well as a submitted argument against it from opponents and a rebuttal to both arguments.

---

---

The statement under scrutiny completes a list of yeses for why to vote for the measure, coming in as the last, reading, “YES on N: Can ONLY be spent on HOUSING, ROADS & TRANSIT.”

According to Davis’s petition, the measure’s own language disputes this statement in allowing measure funds to go towards reimbursing the city for administrative costs of establishing, maintaining, enforcing and legally defending the tax.

---

---

The petition calls this a broad fourth category. “Therefore, to state that Measure N’s proceeds will “ONLY” be spent on housing, roads, and transit is false, misleading,” the petition reads, “and cannot be allowed to be printed in the official voter information guide because it will substantially mislead voters.”

The legal document contends the stylistic emphasis of the word “ONLY” as emboldened and capitalized is particularly misleading.

The petition is filed against South Lake Tahoe City Clerk Susan Blankenship as the city’s elections officer and El Dorado County Registrar of Voters, Bill O’Niell, as required by elections code. It also lists the argument’s authors, provided above, as real parties in interest.

Blankenship did not wish to make a statement on the matter.

El Dorado County Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Carla Hass, did. “The County’s only concern regarding the petition itself is that it be resolved in a manner so as not to interfere with the timeliness of the November elections.” 

According to Elections Code 13314, the petition takes priority over all other civil matters. The petition urges the court that time is of the essence in order to not interfere with the printing and distribution of the voter information guide. City Clerk Blankenship did say the deadline for print, as provided by El Dorado County, is Aug. 12.

It’s unclear whether the court will issue a decision by the Aug. 12 print deadline. It appears unlikely as according to the court’s docket, a trial setting conference is scheduled for Aug. 5.

The petition calls for the deletion or amendment of the statement in question prior to its print.

“We just want them to be honest,” Tom Davis told the Tribune, “that’s all.”

Although Davis is the only petitioner listed on the petition, the former mayor says he represents groups of others who feel the same, those associated with lodging, real estate, chambers, and individuals with second homes.

Davis says he saw his share of affordable housing projects in his days as a councilmember from 1992-2004, and 2011-2018, including Sierra Vista apartments, as well as housing for those with disabilities and seniors. He served as mayor in 1997, 2002 and again in 2013.

Amelia Richmond, named real party in interest and measure proponent, provided the following statement regarding Davis’ petition:

“This frivolous lawsuit is the opposition’s latest attempt to use their deep pockets to sap resources and intimidate supporters on behalf of special interest groups. The ballot argument is accurate and correct. Proceeds can only be spent on housing, roads and transit. Measure N funds its own administration, which the City estimated would cost less than 3% of total revenue.”

While Richmond recites a 3% cost of the tax’s total revenue, opponents in their filed Argument Against Measure N say the cost of compliance could exceed the revenue from the tax.

The city provided an impact report for the tax, analyzing its impacts on a variety of subjects, including estimations of its revenue and cost. According to that report, using city staff for tax implementation, as opposed to a third party vendor, the first year would cost an estimated $986,380, and $608,174 for ongoing years.

These expense costs can be evaluated against the report’s multiple revenue estimates based on first year revenues with the $3,000 tax and second year revenue estimates with the higher $6,000 tax applicable. Each year is broken down into different potential revenue totals based whether 30%, 60% or 100% of potentially vacant homes happen to actually be vacant and then further calculated those numbers with a 60% discovery response rate.

The range of first and second year expense to revenue percentages utilizing these values are 3%-24%.

The Tribune will provide updates as court proceedings evolve.