Over the weekend, the authors of California Crackup
And here’s a final irony: Nearly every proposal to realign local-state responsibilities, with the exception of Brown’s redevelopment plan, leaves the central pillars of this system in place.
Real realignment requires a total unwinding of this system – and a return to the pre-Prop. 13 rule that local governments should themselves decide on the taxes for the programs they fund.
Ask yourself: Would county boards grant lavish retirement benefits to public workers if they had to raise the tax rate to pay for them – and then defend it to voters? Would city councils approve lavish redevelopment subsidies if they had to justify the tax increase to pay for them?
In the jargon of computer programmers, the Prop. 13 operating system is an endless loop. We are all living in the crash.(SacBee)
I suggest a read of the entire piece, but don’t worry, there are plenty of folks to stand up for the status quo. Joel Fox responds by remembering how awful property taxes were, though he doesn’t seem to have quite as sharp of a memory for the budgetary stability back before Prop 13.
Prop 13 made the business of government just ridiculously hard. It made representative democracy useless, and left us to the wolves of direct democracy in an era of a changing media landscape. Great for FoxNews, not so great for good governance.
If Brown is successful in getting the budget passed, he might bring a temporary reprieve. However, it is on the backs of those who can least afford it. Meanwhile Prop 13 and its progenitors don’t even allow localities to decide for themselves how to run their communities. If we are to experience another California renaissance, we must do something about Prop 13.
…neither Fox nor anyone else can explain why Prop 13 needs to be the way it is if property taxes are/were the problem. Keeping the limit on ad valorem taxes is not the same as requiring a 2/3d vote for any new taxes.
Among the 1,000 other problems.
Crackup is a great book. I wish they just put what they propose on the ballot. I’d go for it – at least give it a shot.
Overall prop 13 was a worthy experiment – but like all things it must come to an end. Back when it passed people hated being reassessed for property taxes but apparently they loved that their values were skyrocketing. The stability of knowing what you’ll pay for the duration ownership makes sense, people need that stability. But really the govt should of acted to prevent the property bubble that was going on.
A fair system for both commercial and realestate property taxes could be an assessment every 10 years and take the average property value over that period. That way it accounts for the ups and downs over the decade.
The other thought i had was that if you become unemployed/retired (non-working) then you’re property taxes lock in to the last rate. That could address the old lady case.
But I’ve really come to favor counties setting their own tax rates. Driving through the high desert convenced me of that. There as huge wealth gap between the bay area and the high desert. We have terrain not much different than Nevada, Arizona, or Texas but because so much is decided in Sacramento we miss the opportunity to improve our own deserts.
Maybe Prop 13 could be repealed if it were coupled with something like a major increase in the homestead exemption. California currently exempts from property taxes the first $7,000 in value of a homestead, and protects specific amounts from seizure in forced sale of a homestead ($75,000 for single person; $100,000 for married couples; $175,000 for people over 65 or disabled), according to Wikipedia. For comparison, Florida exempts the first $50,000 of property value from taxation, and has a very broad protection against forced sale of a person’s primary residence. I wonder if increasing California’s protections would be attractive enough to take down Prop 13. Of course there’s the single-subject rule, also.
from being taxed out of their homes (as if property taxes were or are anything close to the most debilitating rising costs for old people) would be to set the property tax rates in a progressive manner tied to income or non-property wealth.
so someone with a house in a pricey area because they’ve lived through the gentrification, but with no income and little wealth, would have a very low tax rate, but a zillionaire with huge wealth would pay a rate commensurate with their ability to afford it.
another way to go would be to add on higher property tax rate brackets for every residence after one’s primary one.
Really some very good, thoughtful, and innovative ideas. If any of you ever decide to run for office, please let me know!