Having spent my career in high-tech management (before, it would appear, becoming a sock puppet!), I haven’t had a lot of experience with unions, but it makes sense that Prop 13 has strengthened California’s unions by providing a long-term credible external threat. Pushing public employees to stick together (hence to the union) is crucial to union strength.

And, of course, there is the near-impossibility of local control of the flow of property tax revenues among local services (even, for example, allocating more funds to elementary school district, then shifting them to the high school district, as a baby boomlet moves through). The gush and sputter of California property tax revenue absolutely rewards any special interest with a long-term perspective. During the gush years, it’s crucial to be first in line for immediate cash, e.g., salary increases. During the sputter years, it’s critical to loudly agree to no raises, while negotiating other contract terms without immediate cash costs, e.g., pensions, working hours, etc.

And, of course, this seems to be what the California public employee unions have managed rather well — to their credit, considering their function, which is benefiting the public employees.

However, it seems to have been to the detriment of the kids, in the case of teachers, since the counterbalance to relatively high salaries is that California has among the largest class sizes in the nation (per the NEA’s annual report, available on their website).

But, overall, this does illustrate why I am always puzzled when commentators and lobbyists state that Prop 13 capped taxes or curtailed government spending. As illustrated in my earlier posting, a different approach may very well have controlled overall CA property tax better. I’m not sure it would have sunk teachers’ salaries (California’s public instruction salaries tend to run in a pack with the other high-cost-of-living states — New York, Massachusetts, etc.), but it would have given residents a decision in how much to fund schools vs. parks vs. libraries vs. police vs. fire vs. other city and county services — and therefore an incentive for each of those entities to provide value for money.

OK, I’ve got to run to enjoy what some summer sock-puppet fun! (Moth hunting? Hole darning? No, kayaking. Go figure.)

So how much to you think we ought to pay our teachers little buddy?

So said the teacher union sock puppet.

CA teachers comp, is on AVERAGE, $108K per year in CA, except it is a “school” year, or 37 weeks, and that is a “school” week, which is only 36 hours. That is about $80 an hour JB.

BTW some district teacher salaries average $150K in yearly comp. Or $120 an HOUR, in a job where you cannot be fired for incompetence, or laid off after 5 years.

It is even better for cops and firewhiners, who average $200K per year in comp, more then medical doctors, yet they only need a GED to be hired.

One quote from your article was fascinating — and sent me off researching back in March. You quoted David Wolfe, of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, as testifying: “Without Prop. 13, property tax revenue would have decreased by half.”

Was he right, I wondered? Had we not passed Prop 13 in haste, but something closer to Massachusetts’ Prop 2-1/2 (which they passed two years later), would property tax revenues have been restrained to half of what they are today?

Prop 2-1/2, if you recall, capped the growth in total property taxes for a whole county to 2-1/2% a year — rather than creating individual entitlements. This forced residents to remain active in setting spending priorities between schools, fire, police, city and county activities, compared with the Prop 13-triggered set-in-stone allocations of tax to different local services. It also kept a focus on public employee salaries and benefits.

It’s a tough question to research, given the paucity of comparable data. I did find an analysis by Josh Barro suggesting that Massachusetts’ property tax had grown an inflation-adjusted 22% between 1980 and 2007.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_62.htm

Total property tax in California in 1978 appears to have been $10.3B, which inflation adjustments would grow to $32.8B by 2007. Instead total California property tax appears to have been $47B in 2007, for a growth-over-inflation of 44%. Or about twice the inflation-adjusted growth rate of Massachusetts’ property taxes. Had California’s taxes grown at the Massachuetts rate, they would have been $40B, rather than $47B, in 2007. (But hardly half of what they were. Could you possibly have misquoted David, as you did me?)

I certainly enjoyed doing the analysis — and found it interesting that Prop 13 may have cost Californians $7B in comparison to an alternative property tax cap methodology — especially since Massachusetts schools have stayed at the top of the charts. I only wish I had the time to really research the numbers and get them right — being unwilling to just grab a couple that support personal suspicions.

Let’s invite readers to go to the legislative hearing video to hear what I actually said AND read my handouts!

http://arev.assembly.ca.gov/informationalhearings

Scroll down to March 12th. Enjoy!

And see if readers don’t agree with me that **individuals and businesses who have evaded Prop 13’s change of ownership rules** are shirkers and freeloaders.

Honestly, it amazes me when people pretend to be “defenders” of Prop 13 when, in fact, they simply want to twist and bend it to avoid contributing to the local services that they, their tenants, their employees, and their customers rely on every day of their lives.

Do Medicare recipients laud Medicare frauds? Social Security recipients champion Social Security cheats?

As someone who believes in understanding facts, rather than searching for those that conveniently support a previously held point of view, I have come to wonder what is going on here.

Still waiting to hear who is circulating this petition. Hmmm …

Of course, if you truly believe California property taxes are $4B total, you may want to inform the Legislative Analyst’s Office, since (as recently as February 17th this year) they seemed to think that Redevelopment alone collected over $5B last year, and total taxes are in the $45B range.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/general_govt/unwinding-redevelopment-021712.aspx

Northern Californians have a love affair with command economies ala vintage communist Hungary…..20 years waiting list to buy a four hundred sq. ft. condo in a 100 year old building…someone in the building buys a refrigerator….neighbors throw a frugal party of joy!!

Be discerning…..you lose your property rights or your taxes are painfully confiscatory…you kneel at the socialist’s table groveling for scraps!

And guess who sits at the table….crony nonprofit bosses, public housing czarinas, the usual Sacramento bundlers, lobbyists and media propagandists!

Good Luck!