[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

Dan Walters & Prop 13: A Confusing Duo

by: Brian Leubitz

Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 08:12:15 AM PDT


Dan Walters has an apology piece for Prop 13 this morning. Apology piece is being a bit generous, as it is more of a "LEAVE PROP 13 ALONE" kind of thing. He notes that its critics demand piece-meal reform because a complete repeal won't pass.  Well, yes, Dan, we DFHs are pretty crazy that way, we aren't into tilting at windmills and have a strange compulsion to go where victories are easiest. Shocking!

By the way, I don't think you will find many liberals who would say that a complete repeal of Prop 13 would be a bad thing. I support a full repeal myself, anyway.

But once you get beyond tactics, Dan has fun with numbers, citing the large increase of property taxes since 1978. He notes that:

Since then, property taxes have risen 800 percent to more than $50 billion, according to data from the state Board of Equalization - far faster than other revenues, thanks to new construction and transfers.

Of course, he doesn't note whether this is in inflation adjusted dollars or not, so I'll assume it isn't.  So, knock off a big chunk right there.  Further than that, this is a more meaningless statistic. Yes, property taxes have gone up a lot, because there is a lot more valuable property in California today than there was 30 years ago. THere are more homes, more office buildings, lots more strip malls, and even a few more gas stations. So, yes the property taxes have gone up substantially because there are many new properties.  In other words, this is a completely irrelevant statistic.

A more useful statistic would be the share of the income tax of state revenue. It's way up (PDF). But instead of useful statistics, we get talking points from the California Taxpayers' Association. The fact is that if we split the rolls for commercial properties and merely taxed them at their current assessment, the state would get an additional $7 Billion in revenue for the next fiscal year. Not raising the tax rate, nothing that new properties do not face, just taxing properties based upon what they are actually worth today. It is a move that would actually increase fairness and the business climate for new businesses.

But guess what, you know what has really risen in the past 30 years in California? Well, that would be people. People in California who need schools, who need police, who need firefighters, who need streets and who need all sorts of services the state provides. With many properties taxed like it's 1978, they do not provide for their fair share of services.

While Mr. Walters really enjoys the status quo and pinning blame on the "Capitol political culture that's utterly incapable of acting responsibly", he ignores the facts that the system does not allow for anybody to behave responsibly. Let the majority govern, and see if the public supports it. Instead, the supermajority binds the hands of the legislators.

There are other columnists, though, who see Prop 13 for what it is. Like David Lazarus, who said we cannot afford Prop 13 Capitol political culture that's utterly incapable of acting responsibly. Lazarus said back in 2008, referring to Lenny Goldberg:

What he means is that Proposition 13 allows the state to reach deep into the pockets of people and businesses that buy property at market value. But it does precious little to get a piece of the action from those with long-held properties that have soared in value over the years.

Prop 13 is not only a bad governing principle, it is a bad economic rule.  Whether or not Mr. Walters chooses to ignore reality, the fact is that Prop 13 needs to go.

Brian Leubitz :: Dan Walters & Prop 13: A Confusing Duo
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

prop 13 (0.00 / 0)
Ask the homeowners in all the states that don't have prop. 13 what it's like to have THE STATE dipping into their pockets a little deeper every year. As someone on fixed income I thank god there is a limit on the amount the scoundrels in Sacramento can grab from my wallet. I've found that the folks genrally in favor of prop. 13's repeal are usally people wh don't own property.

Or maybe (0.00 / 0)
those in favor of revisions or repeal are people who want to buy a home but are dissuaded because they would be paying high property taxes to compensate for others who are paying taxes based on their home's value 25 years ago.

[ Parent ]
Precisely (0.00 / 0)
Prop 13 has led to a housing crisis on the coast and pushed affordable housing inland, where sprawl and long commutes made such housing unaffordable once the price of oil rose about $3/gal. The system is totally unsustainable, yet we maintain it in order to benefit a small but powerful homeowner aristocracy at the expense of everyone else.

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

[ Parent ]
To hear you tell it (0.00 / 0)
The other 49 states must be experiencing horrific levels of poverty and homelessness, since the state takes so much of their money in the form of property tax. I'm amazed anyone in New England, for example, has a roof over their head any longer, given the high property taxes there.

But wait a minute. They have a lower unemployment rate than California. They didn't have the same insane real estate bubble. Fewer people are losing their homes, and their budget deficits are not as large and crippling.

You treat Prop 13 as dogma and therefore aren't able to bring a single shred of evidence to the discussion.

It is possible to provide relief to those on fixed incomes without excusing the wealthy or corporations from their tax obligations.

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


[ Parent ]
I own a home in CA (0.00 / 0)
I pay more in taxes on it than most of my homeowner friends in other states.  And I want to repeal Prop 13.


[ Parent ]
Recent home buyers get screwed too (0.00 / 0)
another part of the joy that is Prop. 13.  Recent buyers subsidize people who bought a generation ago, and everybody subsidizes the big landlords and the corporations who own lots of real estate.

And the working poor subsidizes everybody.


[ Parent ]
I'm glad you have yours. Here's mine. (0.00 / 0)
Republican Icon

That's not actually me; I just took the first appropriate picture of a Jewish guy I could find.


[ Parent ]
Increase *fairness!?* WHAT are you smoking? (0.00 / 0)
I nearly fell out of my chair after reading the repeal of prop 13 described as "fair."

Does increasing taxes on an elderly person on a fixed income strike you as "fair?"

I have NO children, yet I'm expected to pay for public schools with my property taxes. Please explain how this is "fair?" Perhaps I should pay for the governor's limousine service too since I don't get to use that either.

As a landlord, I will have to pass any tax increase on to my tenants or go bankrupt myself. Wow, I guess that's only "fair" too. I'm sure they'll all be grateful for the improved public services that feed them under their new home, sometimes known as "under the bridge."

Oh yes, by all means, repeal prop 13. Let the fairness trickle down to all. We've seen how well that works.



Did you attend public school? (0.00 / 0)
If so, and if you want to not have to pay for schools yourself, then you need to total up the cost of your education, adjust for inflation, and write a check to the state of California for that amount. Otherwise, STFU.

If you have a better idea of what young people are going to do all day, and if you have a better idea of how we're going to have an educated workforce to provide the economic growth required to keep you employed, I'm all ears.

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


[ Parent ]
You've swallowed the Kool Aid (0.00 / 0)
You do realize how absurd your "poor old people on fixed income" argument is, right?  

Prop 13 isn't about protecting poor or elderly people who are on fixed incomes.  It's about protecting large, multi-national corporations and wealthy property owners.

There are plenty of ways to protect elderly people and other people who don't have the means to pay their property taxes.  For example, California already reduces or eliminates entirely property taxes for elderly and disabled families based on their income level.  Most plans to eliminate Prop 13 would strengthen these already-existing programs to protect less-wealthy people while, at the same time, making the corporations and wealthy property owners pay their fair share.

Hiding behind the "old people on a fixed income" argument just shows that you've swallowed a great big gulp of the Kool Aid being handed out by the corporate interests.  


[ Parent ]
A couple things (0.00 / 0)
"I have NO children, yet I'm expected to pay for public schools with my property taxes. Please explain how this is "fair?" Perhaps I should pay for the governor's limousine service too since I don't get to use that either."

1.  I have no children either, but I sure as hell want that sheet metal worker putting the new building up to do so properly and safely, need an education for that.  Public benefit.   Thousands of other examples.

2.  You are paying for the Gov's limo service.  He's entitled to protection and you pay for it through your tax $.  Lot's of tax $ spent on things you might find sill, stupid or frivolous.  Doesn't make it true.


[ Parent ]
liberal for split role (0.00 / 0)
the complete repeal of prop 13 would be a bad thing.

there, I said it. Get a bigger circle of liberals, Brian.

the split role is the way to do it. Homeowners have not gamed the system. Commercial and industrial owners have.
that is the target.


How so? (0.00 / 0)
I'm all for an open discussion of the subject, but don't just assume that we all agree with you. Show us how the complete repeal of Prop 13 would be bad.

Last week I explained my position - that Prop 13 created a raft of unintended consequences, most of them quite negative, and that a full repeal would probably be less onerous than the present situation.

I think we can design a property tax system that provides fairness - meaning the poor and those on fixed incomes aren't taxed out of their homes, but also that someone in a $2 million home in Carmel who has the income to pay a higher rate is paying a 2009 rate and not a 1979 rate.

The assumption you're making here is that it's either Prop 13 or nothing. Prop 13 was a radical right-wing solution to the inflation problem of the late 1970s. Surely we can craft a more sensible and fairer solution that is more appropriate to a very different set of economic circumstances.

That is, assuming we actually want fair and sensible solutions. As many of the comments in this thread show, there are Californians who just want theirs, and don't give a shit about anyone else around them.

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


[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
I would say I know my fair share of liberals. I didn't say there is unanimity, there rarely is in politics. I simply said "many." And I stand by that.

Now, that being said, Prop 13 was never about homeowners. It was completely financed by apartment and other commercial property owners.

In 1991, the Senate Resolution 42 Study Commission looked at the tax system and property taxes. It eventually recommended a split roll, which failed last in 1992 I believe. That being said, it pointed out that you could create a fair system of taxation, not based upon purchase date, but upon factors that are actually relevant to the owner's ability to pay.

If you are concerned about senior's losing their homes, then have a system that addresses that. If you are concerned about families with unpredictable property tax bills, then fix that. You don't need an axe where a scalpel would do just fine.

I think?


[ Parent ]
I don't have a problem with a split-role, but... (0.00 / 0)
How do people really not understand that because our property tax system is the way it is, is the reason why we have an 8.25% sales tax, it is the reason we have a higher income tax rate?

And as for homeowners being run out, there is a misunderstanding of simple economics there too...

When someone qualifies for a loan to buy a home, property taxes are factored in. If there was the prospect of rising tax burden on the horizon then it would certainly reflect in your offer price for the home. If not, you would be a fool.

And as for the fixed income folks, do we not think we are capable of devising a system to address that?


Prop 13 (0.00 / 0)
The problems w/ prop 13 are numerous and need to be fixed but
lets not think that pre 13 CA was paradise. My Grandparents bought their Wilshire Center(LA)house in the 30's for less than $10K yet it was assessed @ 70K in 1978 and their tax bill was $5600 or about 8%. A lot of this money was used to build infastructure to fuel the building boom in LA County that started in the 50's. Prior to Prop 13 the idea that Developers had to pay for improvements necessitated by their
projects were dismissed out of hand. The public even paid for the streets inside subdivisions and the sewer hookups. The runaway Nixon inflation was increasing costs which were just passed on to property taxpayers. The runaway inflation also caused property values to rise with no gain in real value.

WE need to reform prop 13 but not return to the bad old days. A sensible redefinition would limit the 1%/2% to owner occupants - who also claim CA as their tax home - and most rental housing. Commercial property rented to small businesses and AG land that can't be developed should also be covered.  


The problem here is (0.00 / 0)
You're assuming that the conditions of the late 1970s are constant. They're not. We need a fair property tax system, but yes, even owner occupants need to pay a fair rate, not one that is arbitrarily low. There were other solutions to the inflation/property tax issue being worked on in Sacramento in 1977 and 1978 before Prop 13 imposed a radical right-wing solution on the state.

In short, it's not the case that it's either Prop 13 or mass homelessness.

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


[ Parent ]
Dan Walters' apology for Prop 13 ... (0.00 / 0)
... is kind of like the "Apology" by Socrates.  It's as much of an apology that doesn't apologize for anything ...

Not so unless Walters drinks the hemlock tea (0.00 / 0)
Well, actually he should live and be healthy.  But my granddad's old advice should apply to him:  Don't go away mad.  Just go away.

[ Parent ]
Dan Walters and the BEE (4.00 / 1)
love the Bay Area Council.  He and the BEE have run maybe 10 columns and articles in the past month saying we must have a rewrite of the state constitution with these people guiding the system.  The BEE never mentions that the Bay Area Council are multinational CEO's who have a vested interest in keeping commercial property under the Prop. 13 system (like Howard Jarvis and his commercial property).  When people comment that while they favor looking at the state constitution, they want Proposition 13 included in the process, that goes against the Bay Area Council.  Dan probably wrote this column about Prop. 13 with info he got from the Bay Area Council.  Or put simply, they are trying to rig the system to favor the corporate world.  

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