July 4, 2025 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Sacto Dems Dump Prop. 13 Reforms

By Tom Elias, Columnist

For more than 40 years, Democrats in Sacramento have talked fervently about reforming the 1978 Proposition 13 and some of its landmark limits on property taxes, but time and again they’ve done nothing when presented with real opportunities for positive change.

What would be a positive change in this context? Anything that breaks up the destructive fantasies preserved by the reluctance of most in the state Legislature to change anything at all about Prop. 13. This recalcitrance extends even to administrative rules adopted not in the ballot initiative, but rather by lawmakers in the year or two after it passed.

The mass of voters has similar reluctance to alter Prop. 13, hence rejection of last year’s Prop. 15, which would have created a “split roll” taxing commercial and industrial property at higher rates than residences.

Right now, Prop. 13 limits property tax on any sort of real estate to 1 percent of the 1975 assessed value or 1 percent of the most recent purchase price if the property has changed hands. This levy can subsequently increase by no more than 2 percent each year.

It’s easy to gloss over the words “change hands” in that description, as it seems obvious that changing hands means a shift in who controls a property.

But that’s not how Prop. 13 works. Rules set by the Legislature less than a year after the measure passed define a new owner as a person or entity that owns more than 50 percent interest in a property. This means, for example, that a married couple can each buy a 40 percent interest in a house, but still pay the same tax bill as if they’d owned the place for many years. It’s the same for partnerships and corporations.

Changing this rule would not be a change in Prop. 13 itself. But Jon Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. (named for Prop. 13’s prime author), has always opposed it.

Yet, as long ago as 2004, former Democratic state Sen. Martha Escutia of eastern Los Angeles County asserted the change would produce between $1.5 billion and $12 billion for schools and city and county governments. That cost has only risen since then.

Coupal asserted when this dispute began that “Prop. 13 opponents can only point to a handful of alleged abuses of the law.” But some of those are major, including shopping malls, a winery, large luxury hotels and myriad houses now used as rental properties.

The notion of treating actual changes of control like full changes in formal ownership for tax purposes had another chance this year, but Democrats in the Legislature voted it down.

While previous efforts to make this obviously-needed revision in the definition of ownership all were carried by Democrats, this time the idea was sponsored by Orange County Republican state Sen. Patricia Bates. Her bill, known as SB 706, would have altered the definition of “change of control” of a corporate entity owning property to include situations where 90 percent or more of ownership changes hands within a three-year period.

That’s a lot easier on new property owners than Escutia’s original plan where change of control was defined as a new party acquiring decision-making power or a similar 2010 plan by then Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco.

Escutia cited one hotel in Santa Monica where 100 percent of ownership changed, but there was no reassessment of the property because no one new individual or entity owned more than a 50 percent interest. In that case alone, Bates said, Los Angeles County loses over $1 million in tax revenue every year.

She added that the state plainly needs to “close a loophole that allows businesses to game the system and avoid being taxed on the full value of the property they buy.”

The existing law does nothing but help the rich get richer, yet even the mild reform Bates proposed got no traction among Democrats who control Sacramento. It was quickly rejected by the state Senate’s Governance and Finance Committee.

Which is too bad, because small as this proposed change would have been, it represented a step toward fairness, a concept that seems of little interest to the current Legislature.

Tom Elias is author of the current book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It,” now available in an updated third edition. His email address is tdelias@aol.com

<>Related Posts

SM.a.r.t.Column: Happy Fourth of July 

July 2, 2025

July 2, 2025

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) hopes you are enjoying a great 3-day weekend as part of your...

Pentagon Orders Troop Drawdown in LA: 150 National Guard Members Reassigned to Wildfire Duty

July 2, 2025

July 2, 2025

Federal Forces Begin Partial Withdrawal From Protest Response as California Leaders Push Back U.S. Northern Command announced Tuesday that 150 National Guard...

Letter to the Editor: Santa Monica’s Great Park: It’s Time to Deliver on 100 Years of Promise

June 30, 2025

June 30, 2025

Santa Monica stands at the edge of history. For nearly a century, residents have consistently supported turning the airport land...

Three-Bed Palisades Highlands Townhouse Hits Market for $1.7M

June 30, 2025

June 30, 2025

The Mediterranean-style property, located at 1529 Michael Lane, is part of a 71-unit community A remodeled 1,919-square-foot townhouse in the...

Six-Bed Mar Vista Hilltop Home Under Construction Lists for $5.3M

June 30, 2025

June 30, 2025

The private backyard is complete with a pool, spa, fire pit, built-in BBQ, and areas for outdoor dining A stunning...

SM.a.r.t Column: Cities That Never Shut Up – The Roaring Cost of Urban Noise

June 26, 2025

June 26, 2025

In today’s cities, silence isn’t golden—it’s extinct. From sunrise to insomnia, we’re trapped in a nonstop symphony of shrieking car...

Planning Commission Approves 18-Story Residential Tower on 6th Street, Rejects Environmental Appeal

June 23, 2025

June 23, 2025

The 194-foot-tall building exceeds local height limits by 109 feet under California’s Density Bonus Law The Santa Monica Planning Commission...

Downtown Santa Monica Landmark Faces Uncertainty as Loan Misses Maturity Deadline

June 23, 2025

June 23, 2025

$26.7M Santa Monica Office Loan Moves to Special Servicing Amid Cash Flow Shortfall Morningstar Credit reported that the loan tied...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Needs to See the Light

June 19, 2025

June 19, 2025

How Santa Monica’s Growing Light Pollution Is Eroding Human Health, Safety, and Sanity There was a time when our coastal...

Renovated Riviera Estate Hits Market for $25M

June 16, 2025

June 16, 2025

Inside, floor-to-ceiling windows flood the home with natural light, with nearly every room opening to a private deck or patio...

California Offers Mortgage Relief to Homeowners Displaced by Wildfires, Floods

June 15, 2025

June 15, 2025

CalAssist Mortgage Fund Provides up to $20,000 in Grants for Mortgage Payments California has opened applications for the CalAssist Mortgage...

SM.a.r.t Column: California’s Transit Death Spiral: How Housing Mandates Are Backfiring

June 15, 2025

June 15, 2025

California’s ambitious housing mandates were supposed to solve the affordability crisis. Instead, they’re creating a vicious cycle that’s killing public...

ICE Detentions Confirmed in Culver City and Westchester Car Washes Amid Federal Raids

June 11, 2025

June 11, 2025

Families Say Loved Ones Taken Without Warning; Viral Video Shows Teen Screaming  While the focus has been on cities such...

Opinion: The Great Park of Santa Monica—And How We Can Afford It

June 10, 2025

June 10, 2025

By Alan Levenson In 2014, Santa Monica voters overwhelmingly passed Measure LC to close the airport and build a park....

Charlie Chaplin and Sam Francis’ Former Santa Monica Retreat Hits Market for $12.5M

June 9, 2025

June 9, 2025

The home’s entrance, framed by 500-year-old repurposed monastery gates, opens to lush landscaping designed by JohnstonVidal A luxurious Santa Monica...