[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Prop 13: Shifting the Burden to Homeowners for 33 Years

by: Brian Leubitz

Mon Oct 31, 2011 at 09:30:00 AM PDT


Massive transition of property taxes from commercial to residential

by Brian Leubitz

First, as something of a preface, let's just posit that Prop 13 has been an overall disaster for the state. After all, this is a progressive blog.  If you want details of how that is the case, well, just use that google box to the left. We have plenty of information about that. You could argue that it did put a reasonable check on property taxes, but it also tossed the baby right out with the bathwater by making the property tax system ripe for the gaming.

And that's what has happened. As Peter Schrag outlined today, corporations now use Prop 13 as one of the great California tax loopholes, if not the King of all loopholes:

It's been just a third of a century since the passage of Proposition 13 in June, 1978. In that time few of its offspring have caused more damage than the great loopholes allowing corporations to evade hundreds of millions in local property taxes that they'd owe in any fair and economically rational revenue system.
*** **** ***
In Santa Clara County, the booming Silicon Valley center of high tech, where the proportions were roughly even in 1978, residential property owners now pay about 65 percent of property taxes; commercial property pays 35 percent.  In Los Angeles County, where residential property owners carried just over half the burden in 1975, they now pay nearly 70 percent of all property taxes. In Contra Costa County, it's gone from 48-52 in 1970 to 73-27.

To be clear, you can point to the dramatic outperformance of residential real estate as compared to commercial real estate for part of that. However, there is a lot more than that going on here.  Since 1978, the house that you are living in has probably had several owners. Sure, some people stay in a house for 50 years, but for most people, you don't stay in a home forever. According to the super scientific opinion of one realtor, housing needs change every 5 to 7 years for most families.  Meanwhile, commercial property will stay in the same hands for far longer.

Of course, there is that tricky question of ownership. As in, who owns that building if, as Schrag points out, typically more than 50% of the ownership of a publicly traded corporation turns over every three years.  If that happened in residential real estate, you would trigger a new appraisal. That is not true with a corporation. So, if a skyscraper has been held by one big corporation since 1978, its appraisal is stuck at a figure tied to its 1978 valuation which likely has very little to do with its current value.

We need to fix this issue, and unfortunately, it will likely take action at the ballot. Asm. Tom Ammiano has been focused on this issue during his three years in office, and he hopes to bring it back in January.  But a fix seems just as far now as it did years ago. If we are to really repair our state finances, we have to look at the totality of the system, not just dwell on small chunks. We can't cut our way out, our pension reform our way out, or even raise revenue enough to solve the problem.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was found of rhetorically putting everything on the table. But with his recent pension reform proposals, Gov. Brown is doing far more in terms of action than Arnold was ever willing to discuss.  If we are to really discuss pension reform, we need to also discuss how we fix the other, more badly wounded, systems of state government.

Brian Leubitz :: Prop 13: Shifting the Burden to Homeowners for 33 Years
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Populist (3.50 / 2)
You would hope this would be a REAL Populist issue on the Ballot

Unfortunately, it would take a 2/3rds majority to modify Prop 13

Reassessing commercial properties would be perfectly equitable..... but would 2/3rds of the voters agree ?

I think Hioward Jarvis was a real estate Slum Lord, owning multiple apartment buildings
Why should commercial properties be taxed the same as private properties ?

Right and Wrong don't always translate in the ballot box

How about an Oil Severence tax ?
It hasn't hurt Texas or Alaska


As for the oil severance tax (2.00 / 1)
Texas and Alaska both export a significant part of their oil which means it's basically sticking a tax on consumers in other states.
California, which consumes all the oil it produces, and THEN SOME, would merely be raising the cost at the pump for its own citizens. Outside of some whacko environmentalists, I don't know who would support that.

*Basic tax incidence theory says an oil severance tax hits the consumers.


[ Parent ]
Probably true for The People's Republic of Alaska (0.00 / 0)
But a 1997 study determined that Texas was, even then, was a net importer when measured by the heating value of the petroleum products. It was a net exporter by dollar value - because they have a lot of refineries.

It's hard to untangle the local consumption of gasoline from the exports, but Texas is the nation's leader in per-capita consumption of gas. California is 28th. I would say that the Texas oil severance tax constitutes a hidden sales tax paid by local consumers.

Texas has no income tax, but their property taxes are pretty high... and controlled by local counties and districts rather than the state.

California has a different formula. We like low property taxes and high income & sales taxes. Despite our reputation for being a state of commuters, we consume less than folks in the big empty states like Wyoming. An oil tax at the wellhead just might be acceptable here.


[ Parent ]
Texas tax code (0.00 / 0)
I wonder if anyone did a study of the Texas tax code and applied to California to see if it would hurt or help us in tax revenue.

[ Parent ]
Tax Study (0.00 / 0)
In answer to your question, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy listed Texas as the fifth most regressively taxed state in the nation -- so applying Texas's policies would increase taxes on the poorest 20% and lower taxes on the top 1%.  The bottom quintile in Texas pays 12.2% of their income to the state, as opposed to 10.2% in California.  The top 1% in Texas plays 3.0%, in California they pay 7.4%.

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays...


[ Parent ]
Oil severence tax (0.00 / 0)
An oil severence tax might raise prices for gas in California

If it did, wouldn't THAT mean less auto commuting in the state (ergo cleaner air)

An oil severence tax will most Probably mean LOWER PROFITS for Oil Compaanies

Boo Hoo !!


[ Parent ]
spoken like a san francisco liberal (1.00 / 1)
a severance tax hits consumers, not corporations, but beyond that, it's unamerican to advocate for higher expenses for middle and lower class people who would be hit hardest by this

[ Parent ]
point taken (0.00 / 0)
but I think from a numbers perspective it would be valuable to see if it would bring in more or less money.  This would be all foms of taxation in Texas and a what if applied to California.

If it brings in less than that should end the debate. if it brigs in more it could be a start point to tax reform in California.  


[ Parent ]
Reform ? (0.00 / 0)

Making California taxes regressive like Texas would NOT be Reform

It's a moot point
We're NOT gonna model our taxes on the Texas model

We're more likely to elect George Bush Governor of California than to emulate Texas taxes

Q: Why did the Chicke cross the road ?
A: To join the Texas Air National Guard


[ Parent ]
study (0.00 / 0)
I was talking about a study. surely we have the data we just need to apply their code and see what it generates.

[ Parent ]
Your theory only makes sense... (0.00 / 0)
if you think the oil producers are selling it at a discount to Californians because we're so nice to them. Of course, they're not-- the price of oil is determined by a market which includes not just California or even the US but the whole world. If we passed an oil severance tax of 30c per gallon-equivalent, would the price of gas go up 30c? No, of course not, because if they tried it we'd just import it from somewhere else, like, say, Alaska.

[ Parent ]
...and (0.00 / 0)
you're not wrong to say that "an oil severance tax hits the consumers". But since oil is a commodity, it will hit all consumers around the world with a tiny increase instead of hitting only Californians with a major increase.

Now, what it will do is make drilling in CA a significantly less profitable, which might slow the rate of exploration and exploitation. But that's ok by me-- I think we should leave some of that oil in the ground. We might need it later.


[ Parent ]
Apparently you think (2.00 / 1)
transport is free.

[ Parent ]
You get one thing very correct. (1.80 / 5)
To be clear, you can point to the dramatic outperformance of residential real estate as compared to commercial real estate for part of that. - Brian

This is the much bigger issue.  The housing bubble, which those lovely big government agencies Fannie and Freddie gleefully inflated, has caused this imbalance more than anything.  However as properties continue to be revalued over the coming years that ratio will drop.  Commercial real estate, even that which is corporate owned, is not far off from it's proper valuations even taking some of the issues with Prop 13 into account.

Commercial properties, even if revalued under current metrics, would not increase that exponentially.  Most commercial properties are reassessed when major additions/renovations are done which is very common.  Even if the same corporation has owned a mall since 1980, it's unlikely there paying the 1980 assessment (plus the percentage increases that Prop 13 allows).  Properties are developed and re-developed at a rather high rate.  There is know windfall of tax revenue to be gained.

Beyond that it's a political loser.  You are never going to get a 2/3rds vote to change Prop 13.  This is analogous to the Republicans thinking they could privatize Social Security.  Reality and history strongly suggest it is a fool's errand.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!


Marked as a troll for this reason (4.00 / 1)
The housing bubble, which those lovely big government agencies Fannie and Freddie gleefully inflated

If you honestly believe this is the reason why there was a housing bubble, then I have a bridge to sell you.


[ Parent ]
I was one of the reasons... (3.00 / 4)
...among many.  In all my posts here I have never cursed anyone or presented anything other than thoughtful (if contrarian) opinion.  Is something outside your intellectual comfort zone so terrifying???  Without the GSEs the banking industry would not have had the liquidity to enable the housing bubble as they did.  Their is plenty of blame to go around in regards to the financial bubble of course.  And it spreads over all the parties and ideologies.

Now if you want to further discuss the role Bush and his "ownership society" agenda and the FED's propping up of a failed administration, please do so.  And to the original point of the post, please explain how rejiggering Prop 13 will solve all our ills.  Especially when there are so many commercial properties sitting dormant and the most profitable have more than likely been reassesed do to improvements within recent years.

Who's trolling who Mr. Condor ;-)  

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!


[ Parent ]
Two Notes (2.50 / 2)
Your original post was phrased in such a fashion as it attributed the bubble solely to the government agencies.  This is a frequently disproven right-wing talking point, and therefore trolling.

Fixing prop-13 does not solve all the problems.  But it will help.


[ Parent ]
Agreed, Condor (1.00 / 2)
....The housing bubble, which those lovely big government agencies Fannie and Freddie gleefully inflated, has caused this imbalance more than anything...

...has caused this imbalance more than anything...

REALLY ?
MORE THAN THE BIG BANKS ?
MORE than Real Estate Sepculators??

Fanny Mae caused the Housing Bubble?

Not the Gramm-Leach-Blibley reopeal of the Glass-Stegal Act>

You're Right Condor, Homeless Charley is a TROLL
A Foolish Troll
He was probably better off 'homeless'

Working in a coal mine
Goin down, down, down

Workin in a coal mine
Ooop
About to slip down


[ Parent ]
"The housing bubble, which those lovely big government agencies Fannie and Freddie gleefully inflated, has caused this imbalance more than anything." (3.00 / 2)
Read the sentence phonetically...

The housing bubble, which those lovely big government agencies Fannie and Freddie gleefully inflated, has caused this imbalance more than anything.

I said the housing bubble was responsible for the skewed ratio.  And in fun I took a crack at Fannie and Freddie for what they are big government programs that have exacerbated the problem (hosing affordability) they were created to solve.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!


[ Parent ]
Hm (0.00 / 0)
Wouldn't those renovation reassessments be limited to the value of the construction, and not take into account any increase in the value of the land?

As I understand it, there are still many corps paying low taxes. Railroads, for instance, own lots (and lots) of land. I've read this is one of the reasons some of them oppose CA HSR so strongly-- they'd lose their tax advantage.


[ Parent ]
RE (0.00 / 0)
The construction on the most viable commercial properties is always worth more than the land itself.  That's my point the increase in tax revenue would be minimal under split roles and above all else it's a political loser.  I'm not a progressive so if the left wants to throw red meat to the right which will help them on election day I have no problem with that ideologically.

I was just making the observation that it's a fools errand for progressives.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!


[ Parent ]
What I see in my area (4.00 / 1)
is that a store owner or restaurant owner retires, and sells the property and business lock, stock, and barrel.

The new owner faces dramatically higher costs - both due to the note and due to the higher property taxes - and frequently is reselling/quitting within 2-3 years.

I'd be interested in a study showing valuations of commercial property versus assessed value. I'm not willing to take someone's assertion that the assessed values are pretty much the same.  

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!


[ Parent ]
RE: above (5.00 / 1)
Looking at the above comments, I could have sworn that while prop 13 makes it a 2/3 vote to raise taxes it could still be gotten rid of with a simple majority vote. Is there something I missed?

WOW !! (3.00 / 2)
Great Point !!
I wonder if this is so

Still, I doubt that th California electorate would repeal Prop 13
But, maybe the parts that deal with commercial property

Let's sww what happens during/after the 2012 election
Will the unions push this agenda ??
Let's hope


[ Parent ]
This is correct (4.33 / 3)
Ballot measures, even constitutional amendments, still need only a 50%+1 majority. Prop 13 did not change that. The 2/3 requirement is only for the legislature.

I think?

[ Parent ]
Calfiornia does not have a revenue problem (1.00 / 2)
California has a spending problem, not a taxing problem.

The beast that is California's government has as much as money as it did pre-prop . 13. Sure, the source of revenue has changed, but that's besides the point.

If you want to shift the source of revenue in a revenue-neutral manner that would be acceptable, but not to give more money to feed the leviathan.


Actually (3.00 / 5)
Actually, it probably has BOTH problems
Revenues and Spending

I don't think corporations are paying their fair share of taxes

And I don't think schools are getting enough revenue


[ Parent ]
There has been no net decline (1.00 / 3)
in revenue coming to the government of California pre to post prop 13.

[ Parent ]
A Very Clever Way to Dissemble (4.00 / 2)
Since the state doesn't collect property taxes, of course the government of California had no revenue decline.  It was the local governments that had the decline in revenue.

This transfered the costs of various services from local governments to the state government.  So the state government's revenue didn't decrease, but their obligations increased.


[ Parent ]
I am talking (1.00 / 2)
about the combined state/local revenue, so incorrect.

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 1)
Actually, you're talking hot air !!
Look no further than THIS YEAR
Funding is DOWN for K-12 schools
Funding is DOWN for UC
Funding is DOWN for the Cal State Universities
Funding is DOWN for Community Colleges

Care to disagree, MC ??

On top of that, taxation has shifter from Corporations to Consumers

Explain it to me, please !!


[ Parent ]
you may have missed it (1.00 / 1)
but the economy collapsed , and since california has anti-growth and anti-freedom policies, we are hit harder than most .

but looking at the long view net state local revenue hasn' gone down because of Prop.13.


[ Parent ]
Inance (0.00 / 0)
...There has been no net decline (1.00 / 2)
in revenue coming to the government of Californi...

I'm quoting YOUR INANITIES

...There has been no net decline in revenue....

YES, there has been a decline in education revenues
I guess you didn't notice

(or can't count)


[ Parent ]
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION] (0.00 / 0)

SECTION 3. (a) Any change in state statute which results in any taxpayer paying a higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed.

SECTION 4.  Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district.

Prop-13 was challenged in court several times in several ways. It was finally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. I don't know if the inequity of a simple majority imposing its will on future super-majorities was ever questioned in court. Prop-13 itself did not achieve the 2/3 threshold, passing in 1978 with only 64.8% of the vote.

I think voters would warm to the idea of revising Section 4. People in this state do vote for local taxes for specific expenditures... and the Jarvis Jihad is screaming too loudly. But it's heartbreaking to see a $90/year, term-limited, classroom-spending-only school parcel tax go down with 65% support.


There was some sense behind Prop 13 (3.00 / 2)
Prop 13 did have a purpose; before it was passed, every homeowner was taxed based on the sale price of their house as determined by an assessor whose interests were in ranking it as high as possible. If you lived in a modest old house and the most recent thing to sell in your neighborhood was an upscale property, your taxes soared. And if you were forced out and had to sell your property for the real market  value, which was much less, tough luck, no refund. You were essentially taxed based on the highest recent sale in a wide radius, regardless of what was relevant. Fashion came into play too; my parents bought a house in a then-unfashionable beach town precisely because it was what a pipefitter could afford - out away from the prosperous communities. What that community became a hip town and prices soared, they were faced with taxes as though they had moved to a rich neighborhood. They hadn't, a rich neighborhood had come to them. They were faced with being thrown out of a place they had lived in for decades because of a demographic change that did not boost their income by a dime.
Commercial property does earn income that increases with property value and should be taxed at market rate, and I am all for enacting laws to make that happen. Retirees or people on moderate incomes should not be penalized for demographic shifts they could not foresee, be uprooted from neighborhoods they have helped build because someone with more money than sense moves in down the street. I will work to gather signatures and enact a law that taxes commercial property, but I will fight  a law that throws more homeowners out due to capricious and unpredictable taxes.  

 


Baby, Bathwater. (4.00 / 2)
Prop 13 is a perfect example of a solution that created more problems than the original problem.

[ Parent ]
The problem started ten years before Prop-13 (0.00 / 0)
Prior to 1966, Assessors had a lot of leeway in making valuations, and they tended to over-tax commercial parcels and under-tax voter-rich residential property. There were a series of local scandals that resulted in passage of AB80 in 1966. That law removed much of the Assessor's discretion, and essentially forced equal treatment of commercial and residential property. It took a few years for the reassessments to kick in and they really started to be felt in the mid-seventies.

In some sense, the current calls for reform are an attempt to restore the pre-1966 "imbalance" between commercial vs. residential assessments.

Folks were certainly hurting during the inflationary Seventies. But it's been asserted elsewhere that the stories of retirees being forced from their homes by rising taxes were entirely anecdotal, and highly exaggerated by Jarvis & Co.

Prop-13 resulted from a perfect storm of post-Vietnam inflation, rising home prices, loss of the pre-1966 "subsidy" that commercial gave to residential, voter resentment toward government over desegregation, and vigorous lobbying by commercial interests.


[ Parent ]
How is this true? (1.00 / 2)
Commercial property does earn income that increases with property value and should be taxed at market rat

I can think of two specific industries that own a lot of property, but do not neccesarily have a lot of income.
Industrial parks and auto dealers with large lots.

Furthermore, the price/rent ratio has been out of whack in California for a while in the sense that increases in the market value have not lead to corresponding increases in rental income.
Repeat after me. California does not have a taxing problem, it has a spending problem.


A better example is probably cattle ranches (0.00 / 0)
though those are largely protected by the Williamson Act today.

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

[ Parent ]
Real Estate, Sales Taxes, All Asset (wealth) taxes. (8.00 / 1)
The GOP is again banging the drum for funding government via regressive measures such as a flat tax on income or sales taxes.  These are just gimmicks.  We need to reframe the debate and introduce and then push the idea of an all property tax, or a wealth tax which would include not just real estate, but all gross assets, not just net assets, ie. investments, cars, jewelry etc.  It would not only be a great counterpoint to the the sales tax BS but it could be an effective way of funding government that the middle class could broadly support.  It could be developed as an adjunct to the property tax and if necessary, leave 13 intact.  

then all the wealth (1.00 / 2)
will move to other states

[ Parent ]
RIGHT !! (5.00 / 1)

EVERYBODY LOVES ALABAMA !!

Let's move there, TODAY !!!

I was in Texas in July (silly me)
EVERY DAY OVER 100 !!

You can HAVE the 'SunBelt' !!!


[ Parent ]
That kind of taxation (0.00 / 0)
will cut the recently unemployed off at the knees.

It is also, other than cars and real estate, very hard to enforce.

Income tax is far kinder, because it taxes liquid assets.

Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox