August 16, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Will 2012 Be The Year To Restore Prop. 13’s Original Intent?:

Jon Coupal likes to say his hard-fighting organization, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, exists to beat back constant attacks on Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 initiative that limits property taxes in California.

But in reality, it’s the Jarvis group – named for the longtime Los Angeles anti-tax gadfly who co-authored the measure – that’s constantly fighting to keep Proposition 13 in a warped state very different from what was pitched to voters.

One big question as the state heads into an election year is whether Californians are at last ready to restore Proposition 13’s intent. Count on Coupal and his group to fight fiercely against any such change, as they have so effectively in the past. And yet, restoring Proposition 13 to what most voters thought they were getting would obviate any need for the proposed tax increase initiatives now multiplying like rabbits.

Any time traveler revisiting the California of 1978 would see a land where residential property taxes were skyrocketing, based as they then were on the latest market value of each property. Not the latest sale price, but a market value assigned to every piece of property by county assessors who based their numbers largely on “comparables,” the prices of similar homes in the same or nearby neighborhoods.

Many senior citizens and others on fixed incomes lived in dread of the annual assessment letter informing them of their home’s purported new value. Plenty (no one knows the exact number) felt compelled to sell as property taxes rose steadily.

Along came Jarvis and his Sacramento-based pal, Paul Gann, with Proposition 13, which they sold as a measure designed to give homeowners financial predictability by setting their tax at 1 percent of any property’s most recent sale price or its 1975 assessed value. The tax could rise no more than 2 percent each year after that. No one made much – if any – mention of apartments or commercial and industrial property.

Two of the results: California has had systematic tax inequality for the last 33-plus years, with neighbors in similar houses paying radically different taxes, mostly based on when they bought and not on the current value of their homes. There was originally some question whether this would violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, but the state Supreme Court quickly said it was okay, and that ruling stands unchallenged.

Another significant result has been that homeowners pay a far larger share of the property tax bill than businesses in many places, a big change from 1978.

In Santa Clara County, where the proportions were about equal in 1978, commercial property owners lately have paid only about 35 percent of the bill, compared with 65 percent for homeowners.

In Los Angeles County, homeowners then paid about 52 percent of the freight; now they pay almost 70 percent. The change has been similar in many other places.

This comes partly because of a loophole adopted by the Legislature in 1979, just months after Proposition 13 passed, which lets some partnerships and merger deals evade reassessment when properties change hands. It’s also because apartments and commercial and industrial property are not usually sold as frequently as houses and condominiums.

That’s one reason the so-called “split roll” concept where non-residential property would be taxed at a different rate from homes and condos has refused to go away since it was originally proposed in 1979.

Split roll has never come close to adoption, but it has been proposed repeatedly, with Gov. Jerry Brown raising the issue in a tentative way last summer, when he tried unsuccessfully to jawbone Republicans in the Legislature into extending some temporary taxes adopted in 2009 as a budget-balancing tactic.

Brown has not spoken of the split roll since, but he has also not recanted.

Neither Brown nor anyone else backing the split roll has ever suggested changing residential property taxes even one iota. So contrary to what Coupal often suggests in newspaper columns and direct mail pieces, there is not and never has been a threat to the original home-saving intent of Proposition 13.

But the time may have arrived for serious consideration of both closing the partnership/merger loopholes and adopting a split roll.

For sure, business lobbyists and others will argue these changes are “job killers.” But with Proposition 13’s huge tax breaks for business in effect, California has fallen into some of the highest unemployment in the nation. So have these breaks been anything more than a gift to business, mostly big businesses like the CVS drugstore chain, Macy’s department stores, Wells Fargo Bank and a Gallo family winery in Napa County?

The evidence suggests the current rules amount to welfare for business, not a job creator, with little benefit for most Californians. Just another reason why it’s high time for some changes in the way Proposition 13 is administered.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Column: Time to Crack Down on Vacant Homes’ Owners

August 12, 2022

August 12, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist ​​There is no doubt California has a housing shortage. That’s fact even in the wake of...

OpED: Santa Monica Police Officers Association on Downtown Presence

August 12, 2022

August 12, 2022

By The Santa Monica Police Officers Association Recently, there has been increased public dialogue around the topic of crime and...

Review: A Santa Monica Restaurant’s New Happy Hour is Top-Notch

August 10, 2022

August 10, 2022

By Dolores Quintana Birdie G’s in Santa Monica has a new Happy Hour and it is something special. For one...

SMa.r.t. Column: Ode to the Future of My City

August 8, 2022

August 8, 2022

How sad it is to journey to Santa Monica and I can’t find it.The open blue sky hides behind canyon...

SMa.r.t. Column: Why Native Gardens?

July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

Voltaire said it best at the end of his 1759 novel  Candide: “We must cultivate our own garden”. This simple...

SMa.r.t. Column: We’re All Wet – Not!

July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Don’t you think that if you heard, or read, statements from controlling government agencies that said you were threatened by...

Affordability Answer: A New Tax on Housing Speculators?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The TV commercials and online ads are fast becoming ubiquitous: “We’ll buy your house as is,”...

SMar.t. Column: Has the Promenade Turned a Corner?

July 8, 2022

July 8, 2022

In large complex systems with dynamically balanced forces, it’s paradoxically often hard to tell when something has actually happened, For...

Column: Groundwater Law Has Not Stopped Subsidence

July 1, 2022

July 1, 2022

By Tom Elias Drive almost any road in the vast San Joaquin Valley and you’ll see irrigation pipes standing up...

SMa.r.t. Column: It’s Time to Look at the Facts of Santa Monica’s Housing History

June 30, 2022

June 30, 2022

The Narrative: Santa Monica’s decades-long housing construction “shortage”  The Narrative endlessly repeats the refrain that for decades Santa Monica has...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Mansionization of Santa Monica

June 17, 2022

June 17, 2022

Editor’s note: This column originally appeared in print in 2016.  In the 1980s, Santa Monica’s single family zoning code was...

OP-Ed Response to DTSM Board Chair Barry Snell and Plea to City Council Regarding Safety Ambassadors and Ambassador Program

June 14, 2022

June 14, 2022

I am responding to the OP-ED (dated June 7, 2022, Santa Monica Mirror) by City-appointed DTSM Board Member and now...

SMa.r.t. Column: Wheeling Electrically

June 9, 2022

June 9, 2022

A recent weekend visit to Dana Point, on the Orange County coastline, revealed a curious scene: dozens, if not hundreds...

Population Loss: New Era or Pandemic Glitch?

June 3, 2022

June 3, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist The numbers suggest a major change is underway in California. It would take a Nostradamus to...