Revving Up Higher Property Taxes

MARCH 20, 2012


Every year the Legislature attempts to rewrite Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that successfully returned property value assessments to 1975 levels, limited property taxes to 1 percent of assessed valuation and capped annual property tax increases to 2 percent.

The 2012 attack of Proposition 13 was launched last week at an Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee hearing. The hearing was ostensibly about defining what a change in ownership constitutes, and whether it was time to reassess that definition, but quickly turned into an all-out onslaught on the measure.

Warned Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-San Juan Capistrano, committee vice chairwoman, “Proposition 13 is one of the few business incentives that California has left.”

‘Nuke Prop 13’

The latest anti-Proposition 13 party line is that the proposition has fallen prey to “unintended consequences.” This theme was parroted several times throughout the hearing, with Democrats claiming that school funding cuts are the “unintended consequences.”

The law states clearly that a change in ownership occurs and reassessment takes place after a property sale, formal ownership transfer or new construction is completed. The Legislative Analyst’s Office confirmed this: “Most properties are reassessed to market value when (1) a change-in-ownership occurs or (2) new construction takes place. Only the improved portion of the property is reassessed to market value following new construction.”

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has long been an advocate for “nuking” Proposition 13, and has complained that the law has allowed business and commercial land owners to benefit from “tax loopholes,” while residential homeowners are responsible for the largest burden of property taxes. Ammiano’s solution is to tax commercial property owners more, instead of reducing property taxes all around.

Ammiano comes from the school where government is entitled to more money from taxpayers, and should have unrestricted access to it when needed.  Prop. 13 has a 2 percent limit on annual property taxes increases. And, as an additional check, the Legislature is required to have a two-thirds vote of both to raise state taxes — an issue also under attack by Democrats.

Howard Jarvis Lives

The champion of Proposition 13 was taxpayer crusader, Howard Jarvis (pictured above), who capitalized on the bad mood taxpayers were in, after 10 years of dramatic increases in property tax bills.

Jarvis passed away in 1986, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association still fights for taxpayers through defending Prop. 13.

However, despite the entire hearing surrounding Prop. 13, the association was not invited to participate in the hearing.

Split Rolls and Higher Taxes

Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Association, a pro-tax group, has been a vocal proponent of assessing commercial property to at higher rates than homes. Goldberg said that because so many commercial properties are held in limited-liability partnerships and trusts, ownership is a fuzzy concept. Sometimes partners sell off interest, eventually bringing in all new partners. According to Goldberg, because the legal partnership or family trust continues, many big businesses avoid property reassessments.

Goldberg advocated a split-roll property tax system.

But as California Taxpayers Association Consultant David Doerr reminded committee members, at the same time Prop. 13 was on the ballot, there was also a measure to split the tax roll, which voters did not approve.

“A split-roll system comes in two versions,” explained CalTax. “One attempts to reassess non-homeowner property to reflect fair market value when no change in ownership has occurred. The other seeks to apply a higher rate to the current acquisitions value of non-owner occupied property.”

CalTax and the HJTA have insisted for many years that a split roll will only result in a massive increase in the cost of doing business in California.

“The shirkers are freeloaders,” said Jennifer Bestor, former treasurer of the Oak Knoll Parent-Teacher Association in Menlo Park. “All that noise is a smokescreen for greed.”

Bestor said she did her own research into county tax records and concluded that those who benefit the most from Prop. 13 are freeloaders whose neighbors subsidize the government services used by everyone. “We’ve created individual entitlements,” Bestor said.

Bestor made it sound as if owners of commercial properties and homes prior to Prop. 13’s passage have been stealing something from the more recent property owners. Bestor’s solution was to impose higher taxes on longtime property owners, instead of reducing property taxes tax for new buyers.

“If you think the way I do, property taxes are not evil,” Bestor said. “They are not a sin tax.”

The Problem Isn’t Prop. 13

After the hearing, Harkey said that the problem is not with Prop. 13, but how the Legislature distributes school funding. “If we increase property taxes, it just means that less money will come from the general fund,” Harkey said, explaining the motivation of Legislative Democrats.

The end of the hearing brought spontaneous testimony from David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Wolfe spoke for only a few minutes during the public comments, but had important details to add to the hearing.

Wolfe reminded the committee that prior to the passage of Prop. 13, homeowners who had paid off their mortgages were getting taxed out of their homes and ending up in foreclosure because of such rapidly increasing property taxes. Wolfe told the committee that in 1992, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that California’s assessment value system, and Prop. 13, were “inherently fair.”

“You know 30 years down the road what you will be paying,” Wolfe said.  And equally important, “local governments know what they will receive in property taxes every year,” Wolfe added. “Without Prop. 13, property tax revenue would have decreased by half.”

I asked Wolfe why the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association was not asked by the committee to participate in the hearing when the subject was about dramatically altering the law. “A legislative hearing on change in ownership automatically assumes that a topic of discussion will be an alteration in Prop. 13’s 1 percent cap for residential and commercial property,” Wolfe said. “As the chief protector of this landmark ballot proposition, we would hope HJTA would be formally invited to participate in such hearings in the future, instead of being limited to rushed comments in public testimony.”

CalTax and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association warn that if the Legislature splits the tax roles and commercial property is taxed at whatever rate politicians claim they need, large employers will flee the state, while small employers and businesses, which can’t afford to move, will be burdened with unsustainable tax increases.

“Prop. 13 does not shift the property tax burden to homeowners. The assessed value on non-homeowner property subject to Prop. 13 has grown an average of 8.5 percent per year, while homeowners’ property tax has grown an average of 8.3 percent,” reports CalTax. “Thus, the Prop. 13 property taxes paid by non-homeowners have outpaced homeowners’ property tax burden. In fact, Prop. 13 has prevented a property tax shift to homeowners.”


Write a comment
  1. David H
    David H 20 March, 2012, 08:47

    Interesting that Ms. Bestor wants to increase the tax liability on homeowners while she increases pay and perks for her own occupation to insulate herself from “want” and grinding poverty in the future.

    I personally believe we should have a $250k property tax exemption for each primary residence to keep the Bestors from indenturing us as servants of the kingly(government) class.

    Reply this comment
  2. jskdn
    jskdn 20 March, 2012, 12:55

    Jennifer Bestor’s motivation seems to be more money for schools. That put’s her in the camp where the goal to get more money for government is couched in terms of reform of Prop 13. Reform of Prop 13 ought to be done in a manner that is revenue neutral with fairness between taxpayers being the fundamental principle.

    Reply this comment
  3. David H
    David H 20 March, 2012, 14:55

    There is nothing wrong with prop 13, the problem is government spending hijacked by public unions. The baby boomers are already flush with real estate they can not afford and realize they have no need of since the return on investment is negative and will be for some time.

    Reply this comment
  4. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 20 March, 2012, 15:51

    The State got itself into this mess through continuous deficit spending and irresponsible fiscal management. One quid pro quo give-away program after another. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and the Sactown boys got their gonads in a vice grip. Whoever they try to steal more money from will not come without severe political and economic consequences. Mess with Prop 13 in an already declining RE marker with hundreds of thousands of distressed and foreclosed properties on the balance sheets and you are asking for financial armaggedeon. Right now anybody who bought a home in California in 2004 in underwater. 8 years ownership and screwed. Wow.

    But I agree that many commercial businesses are scamming the system by not paying their fair share in property taxes. Corporate lawyers are able to scam the system with legaleze to ensure that even when property ownership changes hands that the property tax rates never readjust like it would with a residential property. That’s plain wrong. There should be one set of rules that everyone plays by.

    Reply this comment
  5. queeg
    queeg 20 March, 2012, 17:37

    He who looks for fairness in business or government is a social justice advocate….that leads to misery for everyone…

    Reply this comment
  6. Gary H.
    Gary H. 20 March, 2012, 19:01

    I lived in Simi Valley before Prop. 13 was enacted and knew people who lost their homes due the the ever increasing property tax burden’s.
    We have lived in our 1000 sq. foot home for over 50 years now and yes, our taxes are lower then most. We are in our mid 70’s and would say not all that many original’s are still in the same home.
    We live within our means and have never taken a hand out from the government unless you count medicare which we worked for.
    There is no way we ever made or make the kind of money government types get today. So, live within your means Mr. Government and those of you on generational welfare, how about you pay something too!!!

    Reply this comment
  7. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 21 March, 2012, 00:15

    “We live within our means and have never taken a hand out from the government unless you count medicare which we worked for”

    Congratulations on living frugally, Gary H. That is the only way you can beat these bastards. I bet you pay next to nothing in property tax. I would guess you pay $250 a year max. Good for you. Beat ’em at their own game, old boy! And if you can figure out a way to do it – die broke. That way they can’t take anything from you after you’re gone.

    Medicare is a broken system, Gary H. People say that they deserve it because they paid into it. What they don’t tell you is that they took 100’s of thousands of dollars more out of the Medicare system than what they paid in. Therein lies the problem. As long as people continue to get free hip transplants and free heart bypasses and free prescription drugs on the taxpayer’s dime the Medicare system is sure to collapse. It is completely unsustainable. And Obamacare does not make it better. His plan actually makes it worse and will guarantee a total fiscal failure within 10 years. The entire US healthcare system needs to be completely revamped. Right now we spend 18% of GDP on healthcare. It will rise to 25% by 2020. Personally, I don’t think we’ll get there. Humpty will fall off the wall before we get to 2020. Good luck to you, old timer!

    Reply this comment
  8. Escovado
    Escovado 21 March, 2012, 05:34

    The government of California won’t be happy until every last employer is driven out of the state. Yeesh!

    Reply this comment
  9. jskdn
    jskdn 21 March, 2012, 07:00

    “queeg says:

    He who looks for fairness in business or government is a social justice advocate….that leads to misery for everyone…”

    Believing that government ought to be fair, to treat citizens equally, doesn’t make one some sort of wild-eyed leftist advocating some self-serving notion of social justice.

    Reply this comment
  10. Tom in SoCal
    Tom in SoCal 21 March, 2012, 09:11

    If Sacramento is able to split the rolls so that commercial property is either assessed more often or taxed at a greater rate, they will unleash the same problems on commercial real estate that residential real estate has suffered these past few years.

    Commercial real estate values will drop dramatically and quickly and soon many owners of commercial real estate will find themselves underwater and unable to refinance. They will default rather than throw more money into a losing proposition and banks will have more bad loans on their balance sheets.

    Will any of this help Sacramento? No, No, No.

    They keep avoiding the real problem. The politicians have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

    Reply this comment
  11. queeg
    queeg 21 March, 2012, 14:58

    Government extracts taxes on wealth generators using a PROGRESSIVE scale of reaming….government is never fair!

    And do you have the same benefits and pay as government slackers?

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Ex-CA Senate Dem candidate tees off on immigration ‘reform’

April 17, 2013 By Chris Reed Mickey Kaus, the Los Angeles journalist and author who ran against Sen. Barbara Boxer

Arnold's greed

Arnold can’t leave office soon enough. Today he blasted as “greedy” oil companies Valero and Tesoro, which are funding the

AB 32 Cap-And-Trade Auction Tax

An auction tax is one of the proposed methods for allocating permits to California companies and public agencies subject to the