January 24, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Making The Most Constructive Tax Changes:

From the moment it passed in 1978, there has been little doubt that Proposition 13 is unfair. On any given block, residents who bought their homes on or before the magic 1975 assessment date contained in the landmark tax-limitation initiative pay far less property tax than neighbors in similar homes who bought later.

These differences can run as high as $10,000 per year in coastal counties where houses that sold for about $50,000 in 1975 now bring upwards of $1 million.

Just as unfair are parcel taxes. In almost all cases, these levies assess an identical amount on each piece of property in a given city, county or school district. So a 1,000 square foot house pays the same tax as a 500,000 square foot resort hotel.

That’s patently unfair, and the only reason parcel taxes are so popular today – mostly among school districts – is that when voters okay ordinary property tax increases for schools, only a small part of the new money stays with the local district. Parcel tax money, however, all stays home, the reason why – inequitable as that levy may be – more than 55 percent of such proposals in recent years have passed and almost all have won more than 50 percent of the vote.

The simple reality that both Proposition 13 and parcel taxes are unfair, though, is no reason for state legislators either to make things even more inequitable or to do something more stupid.

For sure, trying to force a change to a “split roll” in Proposition 13 would not be a smart move today. Some California businesses already feel beleaguered by state taxes. A split roll would exacerbate this sense. It would leave property assessment methods unchanged for residential property while taxing commercial real estate on the basis of current market values rather than basing them on the most recent sales price of any property.

It’s understandable that some businesses feel burdened, with California’s sales tax the nation’s highest and its gasoline, income and corporate levies among the highest.

Plus, there’s a better way to reform Proposition 13 than split roll, which could not take effect without passage of another ballot measure. That would be to change some of the assessment rules and definitions adopted by legislators in 1979, just after Proposition 13’s passage. This would take only a simple majority in each house of the Legislature, not a popular vote or the two-thirds needed for lawmakers to place a proposition on the ballot.

The rules now allow some commercial and industrial properties and apartment buildings to evade reassessment when they’re sold, so long as no one individual controls more than a 50 percent stake in the new ownership.

Estimates of how much this could raise vary between $5 billion and $12 billion additional each year, not as much as a split roll might bring in, but still a boost to state coffers about equal to what last year’s Proposition 30 tax hikes accomplished.

This change would also be eminently fair: Residential properties are always reassessed when they change hands, the new tax amounting to 1 percent of the sale price, with increases in the tax limited to 2 percent yearly. Why should other types of property get better treatment?

But instead of looking seriously at this reform, the huge Democratic majorities in the Legislature instead have talked up the notion of helping schools by dropping the margin needed for passing a parcel tax from the current two-thirds majority to 55 percent.

That would be the same margin needed now to pass school construction bonds, a major difference being that school bond repayments are not assessed as a flat fee, all properties paying the same amount, as with most parcel taxes.

What’s more, if legislators fixed the Proposition 13 reassessment loopholes created in 1979, the money raised could obviate much of the need for local parcel taxes.

Sure, there would be resistance to fixing the assessment rules, but not nearly as much as the blowback from trying to impose a split roll.

The bottom line: If legislators want to provide more money for schools and other services, there is a way to do it fairly and without making life harder for homeowners, renters or most California businesses.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Santa Monica’s Future: Will Developers or Residents Rule? – Part 3 Our Boulevards

January 21, 2022

January 21, 2022

This is the 3rd of a 5 part article outlining serious issues that Santa Monica residents and the City Council...

Letter to the Editor: A Solution for Drivers and Mountain Lions Alike

January 21, 2022

January 21, 2022

The recent story, Local Mountain Lions Show First Reproductive Effects of Inbreeding, highlights a study that found mountain lions in...

Opinion: Housing Battle Heats up in Signature Season

January 21, 2022

January 21, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Even before a proposed homeowner-inspired measure aiming to restore full zoning powers to local governments hit...

Santa Monica’s Future: Will Developers or Residents Rule? – Part 2 Our Downtown

January 14, 2022

January 14, 2022

This is the 2nd of five weekly articles looking at the history and current condition of Santa Monica’s beachfront environment...

Column: Let’s talk About the Soil

January 12, 2022

January 12, 2022

Everyone knows that we are undergoing a climate change not seen on the earth before. We all understand what is...

A New Years Glimpse Into Santa Monica’s Future: Will Developers or Residents Rule?

January 7, 2022

January 7, 2022

It’s a New Year, a make-or-break year for Santa Monica!! How much do you care about your city and it’s...

Opinion: Attorney General Spurs on Big 2022 Housing Battle

January 7, 2022

January 7, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist There will be plenty of political battles next year, starting with likely reelection challenges to Gov....

Should California Have a Formal Right to Shelter?

January 3, 2022

January 3, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist On a de facto basis, Californians have had a right to shelter for many years. But...

SM.a.r.t Wishes for 2022

January 3, 2022

January 3, 2022

We wish for: All California residents to gain back the control of their Cities from Sacramento’s draconian power grab by...

SMa.r.t. 2021 Christmas Card

December 22, 2021

December 22, 2021

Dear Readers, SM.a.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) wish you all a joyous Holiday Season and a Wonderful...

Seismic Water Resiliency

December 16, 2021

December 16, 2021

This is the 2nd part of two-part article  (see smmirror.com/2021/12/sma-r-t-column-its-not-your-fault/ for the first part) Last week we wrote about the...

SMa.r.t. Column: It’s Not Your Fault

December 13, 2021

December 13, 2021

This is a two-part article Two large tectonic plates are engaged in a titanic multi-million year battle to slip past...

One of LA’s Best Omakase Counters is Tucked Away in a Santa Monica Hotel Lobby

December 8, 2021

December 8, 2021

Sushi Chef Masa Shimakawa’s Soko restaurant offers an extraordinary culinary experience By Sam Catanzaro Tucked into the lobby of a...

Building Conversion in Today’s Market Environment

December 3, 2021

December 3, 2021

Adaptive reuse, repurposing, and up-cycling of industrial and commercial buildings (“Conversion”) for greater in-demand uses are rapidly becoming the direction...

Opinion: Shore Hotel and Unite Here Local 11

December 3, 2021

December 3, 2021

By David G. Brown  While reading one of the mass text messages recently sent by Unite Here Local 11 in...