Harbor Village Apts v City of Mukilteo :: 139 Wn2d 604
Category: Land Use and Property Rights
The City of Mukilteo had imposed a fee for every residential rental unit, whether rented, leased or vacant, in addition to the license fee assessed all landlords for operating a business. The apartment owners sought a declaration that the dwelling fee was invalid, an injunction barring enforcement and a refund of previously collected fees.
The Superior Court of Snohomish County sided with Mukilteo. The Supreme Court held that the residential unit dwelling fee (RDU fee) was an unconstitutional property tax. Justice Sanders wrote the majority opinion. He claimed the issue was whether the RDU fee was a constitutional excise tax or an unconstitutional property tax.
The Court determined the fee was a tax because its central purpose was to raise revenue. The measure of the tax was the ownership of property. However, this tax was incident only against rental residential property. Because it centers only on rental property, it violates the constitutional prohibitions against nonuniform taxation of real property (WA Const., art VII, §1). Because it is based on the number of units and not value, it violates the ad valoreum requirement of the Constitution (ibid. §2). Furthermore, because it is a nonstatutorily authorized tax on property (not authorized by the Legislature), it is in excess of the constitutional taxing authority of the city (ibid. §5). [at 608].
As usual, Justice Talmadge comes to the defense of the tax. (And, as usual, he uses three times the paper and ink as Sanders). He accuses the majority of ignoring recent cases differentiating between excise and property taxes. However, all the cases he cites, except one which was a street improvement tax, account for State excises and have nothing to do with an unauthorized municipal excise fee. Talmadge claims the majority opinion is “driven by the willingness of some on this Court to torture the law to confer special privileges on the ownership of property. . .” [at 622].
I don’t know about you, but I get tired of those who think rolling back a tax, whether the tax is legal or not, is conveying a “special privilege” on the “beneficiaries.” Does a man deserve to be rewarded for his hard work, or is his labor the property of the state?
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Bruns, Norman | |
| pass | Groen, John M | |
| pass | Ireland, Faith | |
| pass | Johnson, Charles | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Rivett, Robin | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Severson, William C | |
| pass | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Cameron, William L | |
| fail | Cofer, Donald | |
| fail | Comfort, Cameron G | |
| fail | Gregoire, Christine | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Haney, James Edward | |
| fail | Kennedy, Faye | |
| fail | McGill, Robert James | |
| fail | McKeeman, Larry | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil |