Suit Seeks to Rescind Beach Benefit Levy : Port Hueneme: Homeowner groups call the new tax illegal. Officials say nearby residents should bear maintenance costs.

The leaders of eight homeowner associations sued the city of Port Hueneme Thursday, claiming that the city’s new “view tax” on property near the beach is illegal.

“We believe this tax cannot stand,” said Joel Fox, a Port Hueneme property owner and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a statewide anti-tax group. “If it does, we can see taxes all over the country on things like sunshine, the air you breathe--anything that can conceivably be taxed.”

The suit seeks to overturn a novel revenue-boosting measure approved last month by the Port Hueneme City Council. The panel decided that owners of property near the beach should pay a special assessment ranging from $66 to $184 per year, depending on the view from the property and its proximity to the ocean.

City officials said that people who live nearest the beach derive the greatest benefit from its maintenance and that they should take over the $150,000 annual cost.

But many of the 1,250 property owners in the area, which lies between Hueneme Road and the beach, say the entire city reaps the benefits of the beach. They cite a survey by one of the residents, which found that on a recent Sunday only 6% of beach visitors lived in the assessment district.

“It’s not the money, it’s the principle,” said Dorothy Blake, president of the Surfside One homeowners group. “This is a public beach used by the public generally. In fact, it’s a regional beach.”

A Port Hueneme spokeswoman said city officials have not seen the suit and had no comment.

The suit challenges the assessment district on several legal grounds. It alleges that:

* The city violated the state law governing assessment districts, which requires that district residents be assessed in proportion to the benefit that they receive. The beach assessment district “provides no special benefit that does not benefit the entire city,” said Herbert A. Selwyn, one of the attorneys who filed the suit. “If a child is hurt because the beach is neglected, the entire city is sued,” he said.

* The assessments are really a tax, and that Proposition 13, the 1978 anti-tax initiative led by the late Howard Jarvis, requires that such taxes be approved by two-thirds of the voters. When the City Council was considering the beach assessment district, more than 50% of the property owners filed written objections, Selwyn said, but the council passed it anyway.

* The value of the property, as set for tax purposes, already reflects the desirability of being near the beach. The suit claims that the new assessment represents double taxation.

* The four council members who voted for the assessment district had a conflict of interest. Three of them live outside the district, the suit says, and they in effect lowered their own property taxes by requiring the beach residents to pay more. The fourth council member lives in the district but in the area that pays the smallest assessment, according to the suit.

Selwyn and Fox said the council could legally have created a citywide assessment district to pay for beach maintenance but chose the smaller district for political reasons. Since only 25% of the properties in the beach district are owner-occupied, most of the property owners do not vote in Port Hueneme elections, they said.

The suit does not seek a temporary restraining order because that would have required the plaintiffs to post a bond, Selwyn said. As a result, it will probably be several months before a hearing is held on the suit, and property owners can expect to see the new assessment on property-tax bills due in November, he said.

If the suit succeeds in overturning the assessment district, the taxes would be refunded, he said.