CA people, help me out here re prop 13

[tabbycat31]

NJ is proposing a similar issue to cap annual property tax rates, and I need to know firsthand the negative effects of Prop 13 for a blog post

[still_one]

1. Proposition 13 came about in California because people were losing their homes because

they could not afford the rising property taxes

[dana_b]

3. yes, and because of that we underfunded schools and now

look at the state of our schools.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Actually it forced school funding to the state level, and equalized disparities between districts

Unfortunately, the state no longer has the resources to cover the tab. Check out the history of Prop 98/111 which promised the schools a certain level of funding. Its an interesting read

[donco6]

14. But didn't California re-raise the cap on school funding disparity?

It used to be you could appeal to local voters for up to 20% more school funding, but I thought they raised that to 25%? We did here. Which just makes the rich districts richer, of course.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Props 98 and 111 did address equity issues and guaranteed school a minimum level of state funding

IIRC that has not always been met

[OffWithTheirHeads]

10. No, the reason the schools are underfunded is because

our bought and paid for politicians refuse to make the top 20% pay their fair share in the upkeep of the commons.

Prop 13 passed because, as usual, the state was trying to balance the budget on the backs of working people rather than asking the dividend collecting people to pay.

Same exact problem we have now. Lots of talk about cutting funding to schools and food stamp recipients and ABSOLUTELY NO TALK about taxing the rich.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Prop 4 limits CA government including schools...more taxes would not help

[OffWithTheirHeads]

17. Maybe, but the question was about prop 13, not prop 4

And I can't seem to find any info on this prop 4 of which you speak other than a failed initiative that concerns abortion. Am I missing something?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. CA recycles its initiative numbers...here is a good summary link

http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/July2000/jul00-9.htm

[dana_b]

4. dupe

[donco6]

2. Here's how it worked in Colorado,

which passed a similary measure. There were two parts: First, all tax increases must be approved by voters. So no city, county, school district, fire district, water district can raise the mill levy without a vote. And it's usually restricted to General Election day, so no special elections.

What's happened with schools is that it's frozen the property tax mill levies in place. The state general fund then has to come in and make up any difference in cost increases (yes, prices do go up for schools, just like everything else.) Eventually, the state can't fund it anymore and the big axe starts to fall.

In Colorado, this was coupled with another measure that restricted any government budget growth to the rate of inflation plus growth. So even if the state had the money, they had to send it back if it exceeded that amount. So now, even if the state could raise the budget shortfall, they wouldn't be allowed to keep it, because inflation has dropped to zero and we're seeing very low growth.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Colorado did do its own version of prop 4, and the results are similar

[donco6]

12. We also have the Gallagher amendment -

which sets commercial property tax valuations at 29% of the total assessment. So home AV continues to drop (7.96% today).

[Hawkeye-X]

22. We're still trying to deBrucify that damn law.

TABOR is nothing but a disaster, and I recommend to everyone to vote FUCK NO on the law that NJ is trying to propose.

[Mz Pip]

5. I remember when the initiatve

was on the ballot in the late 70s. One of the issues that was argued successfully by the people that put it together was that ever rising property taxes put a burden on retired and fixed income home owners. Probably true, but there could have been more equitable ways of dealing with that issue.

So when the initiative passed the taxes went back to pre-prop 13 rates - as long as you never moved. As soon as you moved you were screwed.

Now who moves more - families or businesses? That was the real agenda behind prop 13, IMHO. It lowered property taxes on businesses that rarely move and penalize families that do. Our property taxes were really low after prop 13. Then we moved across town. Up they went, a lot.

No, over 30 years later, we are stuck with this. It will never get repealed. Those who opposed it have taken the fight all the way to SCOTUS and lost. Meanwhile, the state can barely function. the deficit is huge and cuts to education and other services are hardly making a dent.

On edit: The same time it was mandated that 2/3 majority was needed to pass a budget. So even though CA has a substantial Democratic majority in its legislature, it's not 2/3 so every year the budget is held hostage by the Republicans.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. You might want to check the studies on split roll taxation

IIRC they do not support your business vs homeowner position. Then again, its been a while since I looked at it.

[Mz Pip]

11. Maybe it has evened out

but I do remember back then one of the huge beneficiaries of Prop 13 was Southern Pacific, which was a huge propery owner back then. Businesses were big supporters of Prop 13 and it's hard for me to imagine they were doing this out of the goodness and concern for the average homeowner.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. The real issue in CA is not Prop 13, its Prop 4

13 limited property taxes and required super majorities for bonds etc. Prop 4 limited the top line budgets for all levels of CA government.

That said, Prop 13 has been blamed for just about everything in CA and nationally. Other will claim racial intent. Not a whole lot of rationality on it. Regardless, no pol in California will touch it or Prop 4.

[demosincebirth]

16. The problem with Prop 13 was that they also included commercial

property. that's the problem...40% of commercial property in the cities is still protected by Prop 13.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

18. +1 In addition or maybe in conformance with my earlier post.

[mitchtv]

19. +2

yes the main problem is inclusion of comm'l properties

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Prop 4 makes that irrelevant, if the government had revenue in excess of those limits it can not

spend it. Read up on it...

[tabbycat31]

23. ok another question

I've heard before that Prop 13 destroyed California's public schools (k-12 schools). Does anyone here have a link that I can use to back up my research?

[slackmaster]

25. The problem with California schools isn't lack of money

Only nine states spend more per student on elementary and secondary education.

http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/educationspending.htm

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Not really true

School funding was moved mostly to the state, and in the process some funding inequities were eliminated. What got to CA was Prop 4 which limited government spending at all levels.

Those that fixate on Prop 13 really do not understand the full breadth of the initiatives that were passed over a 10 year span and the relevant court decisions. Its a good soundbite but reality is much more complex. Prop 13 could go away tomorrow and California would still be in dire straits.

While I do not agree with everything on this site, this is a good summary: http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/July2000/jul00-9.htm

[slackmaster]

24. It stopped the counties from taxing people on fixed incomes out of house and home

It makes housing expenses a whole lot more predictable than they were before it passed.

It prevents the legislature from raising taxes without thoughtful negotiation.