Bay Area Council Initiative Langauge Holds Back on Prop 13

How? (3.00 / 1)

It's good to know that the BAC isn't to be trusted. Not surprising either, since I would guess that they have members who will "suffer" if prop 13 is changed.

But how does the "grassroots" compete?  These business organizations have the capacity to raise money and hire lawyers to write their proposals out so they can be evaluated and voted on by the group.  

But as I have watched, and participated in, the pitchfork rasing of the grassroots in the blogosphere, I see a totally disjointed, disorganized and non-funded effort to just to be heard.  Meanwhile all the groups that do exist and have organization, Moveon, Courage Campaign, Healthcare not Warfare, DFA, OFA, and so on and so on. They all are raising money for different issues - maybe they are all realated, but they not are coordinated, and a thousand voices crying out for 100 different things is just movie walla compared the trumpet blare of a single, large, well funded group calling out for one thing.

How do WE write drafts of proposals to reform CA government?  How does the grassroots coordinate it's various interest groups to align to one purpose (granted a constitutional convention might fulfill all their needs at once.) How do we raise the money and decide how it gets spent?

---

by: David in Burbank @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 15:34:56 PM UTC

Prop 13 (4.00 / 1)

I do not think that prop 13 can be taken away.  Yes, it is arbitrary, but for real, property values, for whatever reason, in some metro areas in L.A. are so high that there is simply no way to afford a 1.25% annual tax on them.  

I think someone from the left has to say that personal residences are off limits.  Then, prop 13 will be reformed for commercial properties.  That is the bargain that may work .

---

by: moderation @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 16:37:31 PM UTC

Really, no way to afford them? (3.00 / 1)

So you're saying that the people who bought homes in the last 5 years and are subsidizing everyone else's property taxes by paying at current values don't really exist?

---

by: jsw @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 16:50:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are many ways to handle that issue (0.00 / 0)

That don't rely on 1978 property values. You can target tax reductions for property owners that really need them, rather than granting across the board reductions that make us more vulnerable to the peaks and valleys of the income tax.  

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 17:08:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this should be opposed as written (3.00 / 1)

I'm a huge supporter of a Constitutional Convention, but this is junk.

We need a real convention -- everything on the table -- and a huge number of delegates.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 16:46:56 PM UTC

I hate to be the Negative Nellie here but... (0.00 / 0)

... if 'everything is on the table' that includes marriage definition, medicinal marijuana, and water use.

I agree that Prop. 13 should be considered, and I wholeheartedly agree that if a progressive advocate segregates residential from commercial property it could be done.

But please remember than Constitutional reform is a two-way street...

---

by: Packherd @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 16:54:15 PM UTC

indeed (4.00 / 1)

Rights should be on the table as laying out rights is the first thing a constitutional convention does (and Montana, the last state to hold a convention, added right to a clean environment).

Putting everything on the table is probably the easiest way to get rid of the crazy laws outlawing pot.

And water needs reform, if if the state weren't broken water would be reason in and of itself to hold a convention.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 17:06:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

I can't recall anybody on the Left ever mistaking the Bay Area Council or California Forward for anything other than what they are: the Voice of the California Establishment.

They are also very well organized, very well funded, and very far ahead of the game when it comes to the question of "what to do" about California's governance nightmare and collapse.

They've been working on this for a long time, they see their opportunity, you bet they're gonna pounce.

More than likely, they -- and the Parsky Commission -- are going to get just about everything they want, within a fairly limited timeframe, too.

The Grassroots Progressives are still at the starting block arguing over something they think is critically important RIGHT NOW but which probably won't matter in a few minutes....

So it goes.

This Crisis is nothing new. It's been around quite a long time now, heading into its second year as an Absolute Crisis, but with a whole lot of precursors and foreshadowing. We've known for ages that the way our Constitution is set up doesn't work, that the intiative process has long been corrupted and co-opted by a bunch of well-funded crackpots and conmen, that the rickety construct of government and its Byzantine labyrinth of agencies and funding mechanisms is on the verge of collapse and is in desperate need of Reform -- if not Revolution.

Seems to me that the Bay Area Council and California Forward are so far ahead of this game that it's essentially too late for a Grassroots Progressive Movement to have more than a marginal effect -- if any at all -- on the Reform that is coming.

One way or another, we will get a New Constitution, and it will be written by and will serve the California Establishment first and foremost; it will serve to put everyone else on notice... toe the line or get the hell out.

Taxation will be more broadly based, falling far more heavily on the poor, the working class and the middle professional classes. Corporations and the rich will come very close to getting their dream come true: an end to their taxation.

Property taxes will not be significantly adjusted, and commercial properties will continue to receive extraordinary taxation benefits.

California's social services and public education will be "reformed" dramatically. Some will say "destroyed."

And so forth.

All this and more is going to happen in part because Progressives once again are not prepared and have little more than an outline of a Reform Program of their own.

 

---

by: Che Pasa @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 17:04:22 PM UTC

California Backward is ahead? (0.00 / 0)

Um, what exactly are the successes of California Forward?  Well, they kind of got on Prop 11 after everybody else, so that's something.  But, in reality, they've had very little actual impact on state government. Now that Panetta left, that's really only gone down.

The BAC has been around for a while, and they have an interesting role as a kind of more moderate Chamber.

Now, Parsky is a different story. He has been quite successful, but if those plans coming out of the Tax Commission are what he has in mind, he'll have to get used to losing once in a while.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 17:12:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

We're always going to be sniping and snarking at the Big Wigs and Establishment; that goes with the territory and I usually don't have a problem with it.

Except in this case the Establishment has a nearly complete reform package in process that will remake California in the desired image of California's pretty much right wing -- when it's not completely fascist -- Establishment.

Once again, Progressives are left in the lurch. What do you think -- honestly -- will be Progressive about the New California that will emerge from this Crisis and Reform?

What are the real chances of repealing Prop 13 or even making any serious inroads into correcting its most egregious aspects? I say they are essentially none, not if the Establishment say "No," and they have a bazillion dollars to propagandize it (which they do.)

There might be an opportunity to do something about it if a year or more ago Progressives had begun a public campaign including advertising for repeal/correction. As long as Granny isn't thrown out on the street, and residential property taxes are kept within reasonable bounds, people will likely go along with adjustments to Prop 13, but here you're arguing that it was "never about Granny."

Well, to the people who saw their elders forced to sell their homes because of rising property taxes and the failure of the state to intervene in any productive way, it absolutely WAS about Granny, whatever the unearned benefits to landlords and commercial property owners from passage of Prop 13.

So if you really want to have a positive effect on the mess in the wake of Prop 13, wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that Granny was an issue, Granny is an issue, and this time Granny is gonna be OK?  Or doesn't it matter?

---

by: Che Pasa @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 19:34:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, then we should actually fix those issues (0.00 / 0)

We could prevent every "granny" from losing their house due to rising property values at a tiny fraction of the cost.  However, then-Governor Jerry Brown did too little too late back in 1978. He passed a Senior property tax assistance as well as renter assistance, but by that time the train had left the station.

There are a number of policy solutions that will completely eliminate the problem when pieced together effectively, but we have to make the case for that and stop ignoring the issue like it's toxic.

In the short term, we'll have to stick with splitting the corporate property tax rolls from the residential rolls.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 20:31:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Everyone chill the f out (0.00 / 0)

Reread the article: they said this "Delegates to the convention shall be prohibited from considering and propose revisions to the Constitution that would affect a. Property taxes associated with Proposition 13. b. Any other direct increases in taxes." This is a "get the thing passed" provision. This is not a plan to remake california into a libertarian paradise.

I'm not sure that it will be enough, but I honestly (and sadly) believe they are probably right, they need to be able to say that the convention will not be able to raise taxes. I think this concession might be worth it. I would suspect that this convention would end up significantly restrict the ability of the people to directly increase spending throw proposition-based mandates, make it easier for the legislature to change spending (cuts and increases) and also make it easier to raise revenues. Prop 13 can be left in place and worked around. Its a huge problem, but turning the convention from a "lets fix this thing" non-partisan issue into "OMG they are going to raise taxes" will attract money from the Jarvis folks to fight it.

---

by: saw @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 21:48:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It´s more than just the BAC (0.00 / 0)

The Courage Campaign (where I work as Public Policy Director) has been part of the Constitutional Convention movement since September 2008, and we have worked with the BAC but also a number of other organizations, such as California Common Cause, the New America Foundation, the William C. Velasquez Voter Institute, and others to promote the concept. We see a lot of progressive opportunity in a convention.

However, it must be stated that the proposed language is the Bay Area Council´s. It´s not ours, and I cannot speak for the other groups that have been supportive of a convention. Suffice it to say that I doubt this to be the last word on the matter.

I will say this: I don´t think BAC is being dishonest. They´re just wrong. They are a group of business moderates, so it should surprise no one that they would propose language like this. I would add that they aren´t likely to be able to do this initiative all on their own, and that if the rest of the coalition refuses to go along, then we can see a different outcome.

You are also right about the Parsky Commission - that is a ticking time bomb, and progressives need to start spreading the word about it so that people know what is happening and know to oppose it. We´ve been all over it at Calitics, but the word must spread beyond this site.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 21:54:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the unanswered question remains: (0.00 / 0)

"What do you think -- honestly -- will be Progressive about the New California that will emerge from this Crisis and Reform?"

I'm not asking for a wish list of what "should be". What do you think will actually happen?

Knowing how easy it has been for California's plutocracy to manipulate our democracy, and knowing how prepared they are to ram through their own vision of California's Future (Third World though it may be), I wonder what the realistic chances are for real Progressive reform.

Right now, I don't see it at all. What I see is the plutocrats banding together to 1)prevent any sort of decent outcome from the ongoing budget catastrophe; and 2) to formulate, present and enact their vision of a New California -- primarily in their own interests.

There may be some Progressive elements in their vision. Or at least some elements that Progressives can get behind. But overall, I think we are honestly looking at "reforms" that serve to preserve, protect and defend the plutocracy -- against the interests of most Californians.

---

by: Che Pasa @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 23:01:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]