This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Research whether there are any loopholes in the initiative's language that would exempt Measure E from the retroactive component of the initiative.
A similar initiative was defeated in the courts prior to making it to the ballot in November 2024. The City should be willing to support efforts to similarly defeat this initiative.
I also suggest that the Council declare a Support position for the ACA 13 (Ward) Voting thresholds.
(Res. Ch. 176, 2023) Assembly Constitutional Amendment, also appearing on the November ballot, to require a 2/3 voter approval threshold for Initiative #1983 and initiatives like it.
Best,
Jordan Moldow
District 3
Subject: Questions Regarding the Local Taxpayer Protection Act and Its Impact on San Jose Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed Local Taxpayer Protection Act being advanced by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and to ask several policy questions about its potential impact on San Jose.
I understand and appreciate the original rationale behind Proposition 13. One of its central purposes was to protect homeowners—particularly seniors and others on fixed incomes—from being taxed out of their homes as property values increased faster than their ability to pay. That concern remains valid today and continues to resonate with many Californians.
However, I am struggling to understand whether this new initiative is primarily addressing that homeowner concern or whether it serves a broader and different purpose.
This measure appears to extend the same protections to large commercial and corporate real estate interests without distinguishing between a retired homeowner living on a fixed income and a corporation holding highly appreciated real estate assets.
Many local transfer taxes, including San Jose’s Measure E, are imposed on high-value real estate transactions rather than on homeowners’ annual property tax bills. If these taxes are repealed, an important question arises:
Who benefits most from this proposal—ordinary homeowners, or owners of highly appreciated commercial and investment properties?
Likewise, if the stated purpose of the initiative is to protect taxpayers, why does it not distinguish between owner-occupied residential property and commercial or investment property? The public policy rationale for protecting homeowners is often based on housing stability, retirement security, and the risk of individuals being displaced by rising property taxes. Those concerns are fundamentally different from the circumstances of corporations, real estate investment entities, or large commercial property owners.
Should those categories receive identical treatment under this initiative? My concern is that a measure being marketed as “saving Proposition 13” may in fact broaden protections for commercial real estate and large real estate transactions in ways that were never central to the original homeowner focused argument that Californians were asked to support.
The practical effect may be to provide substantial benefits to large commercial property interests, whether or not that is the proponents’ intent.
I would also ask the Council to evaluate the local fiscal consequences. If measures such as San Jose’s transfer tax are ultimately repealed, what revenue sources would replace those funds? Would the result be service reductions, deferred infrastructure maintenance, or additional pressure to seek other forms of taxation in the future? These questions deserve thoughtful public discussion before residents are asked to accept the proposition’s framing as a homeowner protection measure.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
Sincerely,
Rudy Flores
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confiden
tial information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this e-mail.
6/15/26, 4:22 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2
June 15, 2026
Mayor and City Council
City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street, 18th Floor
San José, CA 95113
Sent via electronic mail
Re: Oppose Position on Ballot Measure Limiting Ability of Voters to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services – SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Mahan, Vice Mayor Foley, and City Council:
I write to you on behalf of Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits (SVCN), an alliance of community-based organizations working to advance the role, voice, and capacity of the nonprofit community in Santa Clara County so it can be a force for positive social change and support the creation of equitable, vibrant, and thriving communities.
We support the City of San José taking a stance of opposition against the upcoming November ballot measure to increase voter requirement for local revenue measures from a simple majority to two-thirds. As the joint memo from Councilmembers Kami, Cohen, Tordillos, and Campos emphasizes, the measure would inappropriately retroactively overturn the will of the voters and invalidate the Measure E Real Property Transfer Tax. The City relies heavily on this transfer tax as a source of revenue for homelessness prevention, services, interim shelter operations, and affordable housing. Especially considering the significant budget shortfalls the City is facing in the upcoming fiscal years, this passage of this ballot measure threatens the City’s already reduced services.
These impacts would be most heavily felt by low-income residents, communities of color, and other communities who face the greatest barriers to housing stability and economic stability. Already burdened households depend on homelessness prevention services such as legal assistance and rental assistance. At a time when nonprofits and local governments alike are faced with increasing need alongside revenue shortages, this measure would seriously jeopardize the stability of numerous communities and households in San Jose that not only depend on
Letter from SVCN to CSJ City Council re Item 3.9, Oppose Position on Ballot Measure Limiting Ability of Voters to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services, June 15, 2026, Page 2 Measure E-funded services, but for all who rely on City services. Communities deserve the ability to make local funding decisions that reflect their needs. We respectfully urge you to support the recommendation to oppose this ballot measure.
Sincerely,
Shannon Zhang
Policy + Advocacy Associate
About Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits
Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits (SVCN) advances the role, voice, and capacity of the nonprofit community in Santa Clara County, driving positive social change and fostering equitable, vibrant, and thriving communities. SVCN is committed to being a change agent and a model of possibility by centering racial justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion in everything we do, both internally and externally. A key strategic priority is to support the nonprofit ecosystem by serving as a trusted source and hub of information, resources, and connections for Silicon Valley nonprofits, facilitating collaboration and collective impact. We also leverage our power, position, and access to partner with, amplify, and support the community, influencing decision-makers to address the biggest challenges facing nonprofits and the communities they serve. SVCN’s nonprofit membership is 170+ strong.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. the city on record to oppose this statewide ballot measure without soliciting any input from residents. Shame on all of you who have not given the citizens of San Jose enough notice to have adequate input.
Without Save Prop 13 in place, a house that is valued at 1.4 Million (which is the average house value in San Jose) would now have roughly a $30,000 property tax bill per year in San Jose. Stop forcing citizens out of San Jose! Thank you,
Joanie Murphy
6/15/26, 4:55 PM Inbox - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/inbox/id/AAQkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAQ… 2/2
Sincerely,
Josephine Kawanami
County Central Committee member,
District 1
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
6/16/26, 9:27 AM P - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAA… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
I am a 3rd-generation Californian and single mom who is now retired and I still pay an exorbitant amount for mortgage, insurance, healthcare, taxes, utilities, gas and food expenses to live in my native state. I only had a full-time paycheck for nearly fifty y ears and did not have any huge stock or startup windfall fortune.
Please vote against this resolution because it is clear again that the Council is conducting "back room" business on their own and is not in touch with the people's interests. Le t the voters speak for themselves in the
November election. I feel there is plenty of tax revenue being collected - the real problem is unwise spending and waste at all levels of government.
Regards
Sharlene
6/16/26, 9:26 AM P - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAA… 2/2
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Cory Carlson
6/16/26, 9:26 AM P - Agendadesk - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/[email protected]/AAMkADUxOWI4ZjE3LTRkNDEtNGUzMS04MjAwLTIzNzdiYTdkMjc5NAAuAAAAAA… 2/2