We’ve mentioned Phil Ting’s quest to split the property tax rolls a bunch of times, but I wanted to draw special attention to an event in San Francisco to organize for this vital structural reform. And if this is going to get done, there has to be a real grassroots movement to grab the 1,000 volt third rail of California politics.

And this is an achievable goal, despite whatever the conventional wisdom says. Table 6 in this  Field Poll (PDF) from last year is particularly relevant. So, the good news, is that we have a great shot at fixing the split roll question no matter which way the issue is framed.  But, you can clearly see that framing matters with this question.  

When voters are asked whether they would prefer higher commercial taxes than residential taxes, 47% of voters say yes. However, when asked if they would prefer having lower residential property taxes than commercial property taxes, which describes the same situation, 61% approve.  Either way, we start with a small lead, but it becomes much bigger when the right question is asked.

The event’s going to be a quasi-focus group, quasi organizing event, quasi-brainstorming kind of session. So, bring your bright ideas, and let’s get started right now on at least one reform.

Here are the details:

Date:   Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Time:   6:30pm – 8:00pm

Location:  SF LGBT Center

Street:    1800 Market St.

City/Town: San Francisco, CA

Over the weekend the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco fired back against me for asking them to pay the city transfer tax the law says they owe to the City and County of San Francisco.

The Archdiocese called my decision to ask them to pay transfer taxes shameful, and the spokesperson for the Archdiocese insinuated that my decision was based on the city’s budget deficit, the Churches position on Proposition 8, or even on political considerations.

Here’s news for you folks – if I was taking on one of the world’s oldest and most powerful institutions for “political considerations,” I am not a very calculating politician.

What I am is Assessor-Recorder of San Francisco with a sworn duty to treat everyone equally under the law. And the law in this case is clear, despite this recent press offensive which is designed to muddy the waters. (edit by Brian, see the flip…)

Unless the transfer falls within an exemption, the San Francisco Transfer Tax Ordinance imposes a tax on any person or entity, including non-profit corporations, who transfer property within San Francisco. When the Archdiocese transfers legal ownership of property, it owes a transfer tax. There is no exemption from transfer tax for religious institutions transfers either under state law or the San Francisco ordinances, such exemption having been considered and rejected.

The Church citation of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church to support their claim that they do not owe the tax is interesting from a scholarly perspective, but completely irrelevant from a legal one. We are controlled by California laws, not by church practices.

If the Church merely wanted to “re-organize,” there is a way to do so in a fashion that does not require paying the transfer tax. But its decision to legally transfer assets to newly created separate entities to give itself legal protection from lawsuits is just one of the factors showing that this is not a mere reorganization, but a legal transfer as defined under California law.

The law is the law. It remains the law in good budget times and bad. It remains the law whether you agree or disagree with the behavior or the individuals and corporations.

The representatives of the Catholic Church can demonize me all they want. I know we are on the right side of the law.

(I want to welcome SF Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting. In addition to being pretty good at his job, he’s also an all-around good guy. Welcome to Calitics! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

It’s time to acknowledge that the “Third Rail” culture in Sacramento has sent California seriously off track.

Most of us know that Proposition 13 – specifically the vast corporate tax loopholes it contains – is the cause for much of California’s fiscal mess. As the elected Assessor-Recorder in San Francisco, I have a vantage point that allows me to see the tremendous inequity in a law that makes many struggling homeowners pay disproportionately more in property taxes than corporations with downtown office buildings.

Many of our leaders in Sacramento privately acknowledge the flaws in Proposition 13. A small few are brave enough to step forward and call for reform.

But too many others say that this “Third Rail” of politics needs to remain untouched, so instead they offer half solutions and political smokescreen as a substitute for real reforms. Edit by Brian for space, see the flip…

But now is the perfect time to demand our leaders stop ducking problems like Proposition 13 and start solving them. I’m currently working on a proposal to reform Prop. 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that capped the state's property tax rate and created vast loopholes and tax shelters for commercial property owners. You can read more about my proposal and about the crisis California faces in an op-ed piece I wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle last week.

While proponents of Prop. 13 initially touted the protections it offered California homeowners, today, the biggest beneficiaries of Prop. 13 are large companies and corporate landowners who use tax loopholes and shelters to avoid paying their fair share of property taxes.

Prop. 13 opened up loopholes for corporate landowners so their properties are often never reassessed and their property taxes remain at artificially low levels forever. This has shifted the tax burden to the backs of individuals and first-time homeowners and has dramatically reduced California's overall tax base, forcing the draconian cuts to vital services that we see today.

Here’s a staggering example: 30 years ago in San Francisco, commercial property owners contributed 59 percent of property tax revenues while residential property owners contributed 41 percent. Today, we see a virtual flip: commercial property owners contributed just 43 percent of property taxes in 2008 while residential property owners contributed 57 percent.

The more our property tax roll is limited by Prop. 13, the more we rely on regressive taxes and fees, like sales taxes, and we find our state in a perpetual budget crisis. California is losing billions of dollars on corporate property tax loopholes.

My proposal for a split roll system would eliminate corporate tax loopholes. It would rework Prop. 13 to literally split the property tax rolls – assigning appropriate tax levels to corporations while continuing to protect homeowners.

I am organizing a grassroots, netroots community around closing the corporate property tax loopholes in Prop. 13 and creating a split roll system. You can learn more about our campaign and join our cause on our Facebook page or by signing the petition on our website at www.CloseTheLoophole.com.

Most politicians in Sacramento still won’t touch Prop. 13. That’s why we need to take on this issue from the grassroots and build the support necessary to require reform. I hope you will join me on Facebook and at www.CloseTheLoophole.com.

Phil Ting is the Assessor-Recorder of San Francisco.

As Assessor-Recorder in San Francisco neither my religion nor my politics has anything to do with my job.  

As Assessor-Recorder in San Francisco neither my religion nor my politics has anything to do with my job.

But in the last few months, my Google Alerts has been buzzing with repeated mentions in various religious and ultra-conservative blogs about my decision to levy a transfer tax on the Catholic Church in San Francisco – a tax that could ultimately total between $3 and $15 million. The Archdiocese of San Francisco has made the decision to transfer ownership of virtually all the property they hold to another entity. The law is clear – if you transfer ownership of a property, you owe a transfer tax.

A certain strain of conspiracy theorists seem to think my faith or strong opposition to Proposition 8 had something to do with my decision. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Since the day I took office – I’ve taken a “call it as I see it” approach.  Even though I have a background in progressive politics and civil rights, as Assessor I leave politics out when it comes to doing my job.  I certainly know my religious heritage has nothing at all to do with my work. My job is to enforce the law fairly – and that’s what I do.

The Archdiocese continues to claim that the transactions are a mere  “re-organization,” and accordingly, that there is no substantial organizational change (i.e. beneficial interests remain the same).  That is not correct.  In fact, the church transferred multiple parcels from one legal entity to two separate legal entities, each one with a different corporate internal management structure.  This type of transaction is a taxable event under local law.  I have explained this to representatives of the Archdiocese many times.

According to some legal opinions, one of the effects of such a transfer of Church property in the fashion they seek will be that Church assets would be shielded from potential future legal judgments.  True or not, that is not within my power to stop.

What is in my power is the ability to enforce the law completely and fairly. And in San Francisco, if you transfer property, you owe property transfer tax, whether you’re an individual or an organization. It’s important to note that the Archdiocese remains exempted from annual property tax, as well as federal income tax related to their 501(c)(3) status.

The political pressure to reverse my decision is already building. And as I mentioned above, certain folks are already trying to spin my decision to be about politics or religion.

It is about neither. It is about enforcing the law fairly. And in San Francisco we have the same law for individuals as we do for powerful institutions.  

This is a premature, possibly morbid diary, but should we start thing about a future without Nancy Pelosi? Sooner or later, we Democrats will have a bad election. That is just a fact of American history. We also know that speakers who lose their gavels due to scandal or election losses do not last much longer in Congress, the risk of holding such a lofty post. When that day comes (hopefully no time soon), San Francisco will have a Congressional vacancy for the first time since 1987. The City’s Central Democratic Committee has a very strong “wait your turn” attitude and the Burton Machine still lives, BUT no one is going to want to wait another 20+ for the seat to be open again, so the question is: Who will run when Madame Speaker retires? Here is my short list of possibilities.

1. District Attorney Kamala Harris is young, popular, dynamic and well connected to the Willie Brown machine (get you minds out of the gutter). She has done a good job of keeping her name in the press and face in front of the camera and she is everywhere a group of Democrats are meeting. She would also carry on the tradition of having a female represent the district.

2. Mayor Gavin Newsom may prefer to represent more than 500,000 people at a time, but he has not put enough distance between himself and Tourkgate to run for statewide office. He is still very young and a few effective terms in Congress would allow him to build more national contacts and let memories fade. California has term limits for governor so he can afford to wait it out or even succeed Barbara Boxer in 2016.

3. Assemblyman Mark Leno is a popular figure in San Francisco, likely going to the State Senate next year and a good bet to become the first openly gay Congressman from San Francisco. He’s been effective in Sacramento and there is no reason to believe he would not be effective in Washington.

4. Supervisor Tom Ammiano will likely be elected to the Assembly next year, but his personality rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

5. Board President Aaron Peskin and Supervisor are ambitious, but can they appeal to the city at large?

6. Assemblywoman Fiona Ma is strongly connected to the Burton Machine. Could she become the City’s first Asian-American Rep.? Leland Yee? My gut tells me Phil Ting has a better shot.

Any names you want to share?