Prop. 13 Circuit Breaker Halts Tax Losses

JULY 8, 2011


California’s Proposition 13 is working to halt a larger and faster erosion of the property tax base in Sacramento County and elsewhere around the state.  But that is not what is being reported in the mainstream newspaper media, which only tell a “poor me” story of how property taxes are declining in the Sacramento area.

It is not the superficial absolute percentage of decline in property taxes but the relative decline in relation to the overall decline in market values that is critical.

Property values go up and down in cycles and it is up to government to have rainy day fund reserves to handle the downturns.  Fortunately, with Prop. 13, these declines can be managed. While without Prop. 13, the pain would be much deeper and would likely dig deeper than budget reserves.

For example, the Sacramento Bee is reporting that the Sacramento County property tax base fell by $4 billion for the fiscal year from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011, resulting in a 1 percent, or $40 million, drop in property tax revenues.

But indicates that the market value of single-family homes declined by about 16.7 percent from 2010 to 2011 (as of July 7, 2011); and by about 57 percent since 2007 at the peak of the Real State Bubble.  At the market peak, the median home price in Sacramento County was about $350,000, while today it has dropped to $150,000.

Since 2010, the median price of a single family home has dropped by about 16.7 percent.  But due to Prop. 13, the latest decline in the property tax base has been held to 1 percent.

One of the unheralded benefits of Prop. 13 is that it serves as a circuit breaker to large fluctuations in market values, either upward or downward.

Prop. 8 Provides for Tax Adjustments

Proposition 8, passed in 1978, amends Prop. 13 to provide for reductions in assessed property values due to a decline in market value.  Prop. 8 re-assessments are temporary and will ratchet back upward when the market recovers.

Prop. 8 property tax re-assessments do not necessarily have to be applied for by the owner and are automatically adjusted by the tax assessor in each county.  Such re-assessments typically affect so-called “underwater” properties whose mortgages are more than the assessed value for property tax purposes. reports that the percentage of underwater mortgages in Sacramento County is 51 percent.

An “underwater” property is not the same as when the assessor at his discretion may reduce the property value assessment temporarily until the market recovers. If monetary inflation takes off, as predicted by many, there may be a flight of capital out of money markets and back into real estate, at which time assessed values would be readjusted upward by the Assessor, but only for those properties that had their assessment previously lowered under Prop. 8.

Prop 13 is good for government as well as for homeowners.  But don’t expect to read or hear that in the newspaper or broadcast media.



Write a comment
  1. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 9 July, 2011, 20:42

    If it weren’t for Proposition 13, we’d probably have a decent rainy day fund at the state and local levels and not be facing a papered-over budget deficit this year.

    There’s no reason Proposition 13 should apply to anything other than residential property, since that’s how it was sold to the electorate in the first place. Grandma still won’t lose her home and we wouldn’t have gutted the very things that once made California such a nice place to live.

    Reply this comment
    • o'moore
      o'moore 5 June, 2015, 07:01

      Since prop XIII, the sales tax has increased by about 5%, income taxes by 5% and prop 218 fees(the prop XIII loophole) by hundreds of billions, yet critics of Prop XIII want to keep that increase and still argue that prop XIII is the reason that govt. can;t afford 90% of salary annual pensions.

      Reply this comment
  2. Rex ther Wonder Dog!
    Rex ther Wonder Dog! 11 July, 2011, 16:49

    If it weren’t for Proposition 13, we’d probably have a decent rainy day fund at the state and local levels and not be facing a papered-over budget deficit this year.

    No, we would still not have a “rainy day fund”.

    What we would have is GED cops like you with $400K comp packages instead of the $200K they have today-without overtime.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*

Related Articles

Will Surfrider’s distortions block Orange County desalination plant?

“Please join us in protecting our coast and ocean by sending the Coastal Commission a message today: DENY THE HUNTINGTON

Families, Not Relief, Still Safety Net

MARCH 18, 2011 By WAYNE LUSVARDI With implications for California budget discussions, a new study shows that unemployment benefits delay

CA Already Max Taxes Crude Oil

FEB. 1, 2012 By WAYNE LUSVARDI How “crude” of them. Tax activists in California are pushing a deceptive “oil severance