March 4, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

The Dodger Deal And A Big Prop. 13 Loophole:

Amid the euphoria that erupted in much of California when a group led by former basketball great Earvin “Magic” Johnson and financier Mark Walter spent more than $2 billion to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team and its stadium last month, one question led to some consternation.

Why should Frank McCourt, the notoriously wasteful outgoing owner, remain associated with the team, holding a 50 percent interest in the 200-plus acres of asphalt parking around Dodger Stadium?

After all, Dodger fans stayed away from games in droves last year to protest the personal use to which McCourt and his ex-wife Jamie put the team and its money. Fans wanted McCourt gone, even if that let him make off with hundreds of millions of dollars in profits after selling the ballclub.

The answer may have a lot to do with a loophole in Proposition 13, the landmark property tax limitation law passed as a 1978 initiative. That law sets the tax on any property, commercial or residential, at 1 percent of the latest sales price and allows for tax increases of no more than 2 percent per year.

So Dodger Stadium, which changes hands in the franchise purchase, will likely be reassessed. The precise amount of the sale attributable to the ballpark – its new assessed value – probably won’t be known until after a bankruptcy judge puts the final stamp of approval on this deal, the biggest-money purchase in the worldwide history of sports.

But any attempt to avoid reassessing the stadium (the tax will rise further with the value of expected renovations) would be so egregious an act of tax avoidance that it would quickly blast away all goodwill brought to the team by the entrance of Johnson and the impending departure of the hyper-unpopular McCourt.

The parking lots have a far lower profile. All through the negotiation, McCourt kept insisting he would keep control of them even while selling the team and ballpark. But the deal as publicly reported saw the Johnson/Walter team pay McCourt $150 million for half-ownership of the striped pavement. The new owners will control parking prices and policy and pocket all the proceeds. That essentially means the new people will be the actual owners. And yet, McCourt remains a de jure half-owner.

This saves money for everyone involved because of an aspect of Proposition 13 that passed months after the original proposition. It’s part of the regulations and definitions adopted by legislators in 1979. Essentially, property won’t be reassessed unless there’s a new owner with more than a 50 percent interest.

Here, the new owners stopped just shy of that. It will cost the state unless Los Angeles County Assessor John Noguez challenges the legitimacy of the arrangement. If the lots are worth $300 million today (double what Johnson/Walter paid for a one-half interest), the new property tax on them would be $3 million per year if reassessed.

That would be about 4.5 times the current tax on the lots. So keeping McCourt around but inactive saves the new owners more than $2 million per year. That’s money not going to schools, parks, in-home care for invalid senior citizens and many other programs.

Opponents of fixing this loophole call any change in this regulation a “job-killer.” But how many jobs would it cost if the many-times-multi-millionaire Johnson and his billionaire partner paid the tax clearly intended under Proposition 13? The Dodgers would employ not one less parking payment clerk nor any fewer lot cleanup workers. Not if they want to provide the level of “fan experience” the new owners loudly promise.

When former state Sen. Martha Escutia, an East Los Angeles Democrat, first proposed closing the post-Proposition 13 loophole, the state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst estimated the change could produce between $3 billion and $8 billion in new revenues. That’s about as much as the projected take from the tax increase initiative now being pushed by Gov. Jerry Brown.

No one is actively trying to make this change today, even though it’s not an actual tax increase, but would legally amount to no more than an updating of regulations. That could be done by a simple majority of the Legislature, controlled by Democrats.

If anything should put the need for changing the 1979 regulations in bas relief, it should be the scene in the Dodgers’ parking lot. And if there’s no move to make the fix, focus the blame on the Democrats who have almost absolute control of Sacramento and can do it anytime they like.

in Opinion
Related Posts

S.M.a.r.t Column: Five Saving Historic Santa Monica

March 3, 2024

March 3, 2024

Our beloved City is surrounded by many threats, from sea level rise to homelessness, to housing affordability, to cancerous overdevelopment,...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Gelson’s Looms Large

February 22, 2024

February 22, 2024

Our guest column this week is by SMCLC (the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City). SMCLC is a well-established...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Top Toady Town

February 18, 2024

February 18, 2024

Throughout history, from the ancient Romans and Assyrians to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, siege warfare has served as an...

S.M.a.r.t Column: The Sunset of Home Ownership

February 11, 2024

February 11, 2024

We are watching the sunset of our historical and cultural American dream of home ownership as we now are crossing...

SMa.r.t. Column: B(U)Y RIGHT

February 4, 2024

February 4, 2024

“By Right” state housing laws that give developers, in certain projects, the ability to ignore codes ‘by right.’ Well, that...

S.M.a.r.t  Column: Serf City

January 28, 2024

January 28, 2024

Homelessness is a problem in California, and nowhere is this more evident than in our fair city, where the unhoused...

S.M.a.r.t  Column: Bond Fatigue

January 22, 2024

January 22, 2024

Last week’s SMart article,  described two critical problems faced by our Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD): the declining...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Peace on Earth

December 27, 2023

December 27, 2023

We are all, by now, saturated with jingles, holiday cards, “ho ho ho’s,” countless commercial advertisements, and exhortations to feel...

S.M.a.r.t Column: On the Clock with Mayor Brock

December 17, 2023

December 17, 2023

I became Santa Monica’s Mayor on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, following a simple “switch of the chairs” transition with outgoing...

S.M.a.r.t Column: SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL 2024

December 10, 2023

December 10, 2023

Position:Seeking Santa Monica City Council Candidate(s) Introduction:Exciting opportunity for the right candidate(s) to work with like-minded Council members committed to...

S.M.a.r.t Column: ARB (NOT Ready to Build!)

December 3, 2023

December 3, 2023

Santa Monica City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB), established in 1974, acts “…to preserve existing areas of natural beauty, cultural importance...

SMa.r.t. Column: We are thankful for….

November 27, 2023

November 27, 2023

SMa.r.t. would like to wish you all a great Thanksgiving with friends and family and also to thank its readers...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Make the City New Again

November 19, 2023

November 19, 2023

When the COVID crisis struck, it cut the city’s income in half, demolishing many businesses and causing widespread layoffs and...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Four Futures

October 29, 2023

October 29, 2023

As well described by Paul Krugman, all cities have a core competency: things they do well or better regionally or...

SMa.r.t column: Beautiful Quartz Countertops Are Hurting Workers and Should Be Banned

October 9, 2023

October 9, 2023

Quartz countertops are super popular because they’re tough and can handle stains, scratches, and heat. But there’s a big problem:...