Can taxpayers be trusted Not according to a growing number of Ontario municipal politicians. This week the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) attacked a Conservative campaign promise to expand the province's Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA) to cover local governments. Premier Ernie Eves has promised that if his party is re-elected he will forbid municipalities from introducing a new tax or raising an existing tax without the permission of voters in a referendum - as the TPA mandates the province to do.

Including towns and cities under the TPA would give taxpayers relief from rising property taxes as well as make local government more responsive by giving voters a say in their tax rates. AMO predicts municipal government will collapse if voters are given a veto.

That AMO is opposed to giving voters the last word on tax hikes is predictable. Politicians never like taxpayers meddling in their affairs and AMO is working overtime to scuttle expanding the TPA. AMO President Ken Boshcoff stated, "Experience … indicates that tax referenda often paralyze a community's ability to fund basic services such as policing, fire protection, water treatment, social services, public health and libraries." Others say it is impossible to get voters to approve new taxes. Yet referenda results show voters are willing to approve a tax increase when they believe tax dollars are being well spent and higher spending is necessary.

But the biggest AMO whopper was the warning that giving taxpayers a voice would result in a California-style economic decline. In short, the group is trying to pin California's fiscal train-wreck on Proposition 13.

In fact, Prop. 13 is a perfect illustration of how this is all nonsense. Twenty-five years ago Californians voted to adopt Prop. 13, a constitutional amendment capping property tax rates and assessments, and requiring public votes on other tax increases. Rising taxes and assessments fuelled tax rage on the West Coast, as homeowners could no longer afford their tax bills.

At first, Prop. 13 was largely ignored. Yet when opinion polls showed it might pass, state lawmakers panicked. As in Ontario today, horrible outcomes were predicted if taxpayers were involved in the budget process. Voters were warned that police, fire fighters and teachers would be laid off, and local governments would collapse. The mayor of L.A. said the tax change would "hit the city like a neutron bomb, leaving some city facilities standing virtually empty and human services devastated."

Voters knew this was bunk and approved the measure by a two-to-one majority. Predictions of doom were bogus. A 1979 New York Times headline read: "Little Impact Seen in Coast Tax Slash." Another Times story, "Dire Predictions on Proposition 13 Have Not Materialized," stated "Fire and police protection have been virtually unaffected by the proposition … Schools are spending about as much money as they did last year."

Prop. 13 has been blamed for many government shortcomings. But California is not starving for more tax money. The state and local govern-ments collect $120-billion annually. Even adjusting for population and inflation, this amount is far more than what they raised in 1978. Voters understand that poor leadership, not Prop. 13, is responsible for the state's fiscal and electoral crisis. When lawmakers tinkered with Prop. 13 in 1991 voters overwhelmingly rejected the change. The law has been wildly popular among California's taxpayers and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.

If Ontario voters have a reason to worry about Mr. Eves' proposal it is not because a local tax referendum is unworkable. Rather, it is because the premier recently appeared to backtrack on his proposal. It remains unclear whether the premier was simply clarifying his position or flip-flopping when he said an election would suffice as a referendum. This could mean the ballot on election day includes a tax question or that a vague statement during a municipal campaign is sufficient to hike taxes.

Mr. Eves must clarity his position. And when he does so, he should remember there are more votes to be gained from property taxpayers looking for protection than there are to be won from politicians who claim to represent voters yet refuse to give them a voice on tax matters.