A ballot measure is likely in 2018 that aims to eliminate some or most of Prop. 13’s protections for commercial property — a concept known as “split roll” that has been discussed for decades. In May 2015, a coalition of unions set up a group called Make It Fair that originally talked about launching a 2016 ballot measure before pulling back over concerns it could harm chances to pass a November 2016 ballot measure extending the “temporary” income taxes on the wealthy that voters approved in 2012.

Split roll advocates say property taxes should be a much more important part of paying for government in a sprawling state with many needs. They cite evidence that economically successful mega-states Texas and Florida have much higher basic property tax rates.

Critics cite a 2012 Legislative Analyst’s Office report that challenged the assumption that Prop. 13 had starved the state of revenue. “Since 1979, revenue from the 1 percent rate has exceeded growth in the state’s economy,” the LAO noted. Other studies have found that property tax revenue has gone up by higher percentages that income and sales tax over the same span.

Record annual revenue of $60 billion looms

Now there’s fresh evidence that despite limits on property tax increases, revenue growth in the tax category can be robust. Reports this month show that homes and businesses changing hands and having assessments go up along with new construction could mean annual property tax revenue will be $3 billion higher than expected by Gov. Jerry Brown’s Department of Finance; the state could receive a record $60 billion.

The Bay Area is leading this surge.

San Francisco City/County is 8.8 percent ahead of predictions; Santa Clara County is 7.9 percent ahead, San Mateo County is 7.6 percent ahead; Napa County is 7.1 percent ahead; and Alameda County is 7 percent ahead.

Gains are more modest in Southern California, paced by Los Angeles County and San Diego County each running 5.6 percent ahead of expectations and Orange County up 5.4 percent.

Nevertheless, these gains are unlikely to head off a 2018 split roll ballot battle. That’s partly because perhaps the most powerful critic of the idea — Gov. Brown — will be in the final months of his fourth and final term.

Last October, Brown raised eyebrows — and prompted rebukes — when he likened efforts to tinker with Prop. 13 to a “tar baby.” The racially tinged term comes from 19th century folklore. Brown’s spokesman said his intent was plain: to suggest it was a bad idea and nothing more. At the same event, the governor also specifically opposed split roll.

‘Split roll’ likely focus of 2018 governor’s race

The topic is likely to be a factor in the governor’s race in 2018. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has been an intermittent critic of Prop. 13 over the years. Last year, Treasurer John Chiang has said he would consider reforms but was cool to split roll. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has long backed split roll.

Another signature-gathering campaign targeting Prop. 13 is possible in 2018 that takes a different approach. Southern California nonprofit groups that advocate for anti-poverty programs have proposed subjecting real estate properties assessed at more than $3 million to a 1 percent property tax surcharge.

It was formally floated in 2015 before being dropped early this year because of concerns about other tax measures on the crowded November 2016 ballot. The proposal was initially forecast to raise nearly $8 billion a year.

By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO — Before Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker became a recall target for his efforts to reform collective bargaining in his state, I was a guest on a Madison radio show discussing the influence of public-sector unions and the significance of the state’s unfunded pension liabilities.

Instead of “Wisconsin Nice” — a euphemism for the polite, conflict-avoiding nature of Badger State culture — I faced a torrent of angry callers who accused union critics of trying to destroy the quality of life for working people. I asked one caller: What do we do about unfunded liabilities, those debts that current pension promises place on future generations?

“I won’t answer your question,” he said, refusing to dignify this perfectly reasonable question with a response.

The radio show was a preview of what was to come in Wisconsin — a season of angry diatribes, militant union marches, not-so-nice attacks on a governor who, after all, has done nothing more than reform a debt-laden system and has actually saved union jobs and saved unions.

Rather than engage the issues, the Left has chosen to echo the approach taken by callers to that radio show – stomp their feet, yell and scream and absolutely, positively refuse to provide an alternative path.

There’s something bizarre in all this, a reminder that the once-proud movement of working people has morphed into an upper-middle-class movement of coddled public employees who do not care about debt levels and eroded public services. They have their gold-plated pensions, and no one had better touch them or else.

Progressives used to pride themselves on their desire to help the poor, but in Wisconsin these days they’d rather throw the poor under the bus — a public bus, of course, with a union driver — to protect the relatively wealthy class of workers who administer government programs. So we’ve watched the antics – legislative Democrats heading to Illinois to deny the governor a quorum for his budget vote; truckloads of union activists and boatloads of union money pouring into the state capital; attempts to portray Walker as someone who is destroying the state.

Wisconsin rebounding

But a funny thing happened on the way to the recall. Wisconsin’s economy is rebounding, its debt receding. The state is gaining jobs everywhere except in downtrodden Milwaukee, where Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett serves as mayor, and where union control has its tightest grip.

At this late stage in the race, it’s purely a numbers game as both sides bring out the ground troops to get their voters to the polls.

Democrats will surely resurrect dead voters in Milwaukee, so I’m hoping that Walker’s margin of victory — poll late last week showed his lead at 5 to 7 points — is strong enough to exceed the expected margin of voter fraud.

Both sides are being careful, avoiding anything that might backfire.

For the pro-recall movement, that means desperately avoiding the central issue. For instance, the Barrett campaign website features a story on Walker’s supposed attack on hunting – yes, hunting – because of a privatization effort he is spearheading. Walker’s website isn’t too much better, as it focuses on crime problems in Milwaukee.

Many national pundits are focusing on the implications for the national presidential race, and on President Barack Obama’s chances of being re-elected. There are some clues in it, as national Democrats steadfastly avoid the state. But we all know that the Walker recall is a referendum on public-sector union reform.

One of the nation’s biggest problems involves public employees, their compensation levels and the degree to which their special privileges and demands are destroying public services and bankrupting cities, especially in California. Wisconsin is arguably an even more progressive state than California. It was the first state to allow public-sector workers to evolve into the equivalent of Teamsters.

But California has taken the matter much further than anywhere else in the nation.

California used to be the model for the nation in terms of public services. But without political competition, there has been no push-back as the unions grab more and more. No wonder the Golden State’s roads are crumbling, and our services are tarnished. The only answer from the union movement and their Democratic patrons, including Gov. Jerry Brown: higher taxes. The real question is whether Wisconsin voters want their state to turn into California but without the warm winters.

Collective bargaining

In particular, the Wisconsin governor recognized that collective bargaining is the core problem, in that it remains the key obstacle to improving public services through competition and truly progressive reform.

“The collective-bargaining component of Walker’s plan has yielded especially large financial dividends for school districts,” Christian Schneider of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute wrote in City Journal magazine. Individual districts have saved millions of dollars because they can send their plans out to bid rather than buying from the union-monopoly health trust. That’s money they used to save teaching jobs.

Progressives should applaud; instead, they march on Madison. What phonies.

While California’s government is hopeless, we are seeing serious reforms at the municipal level, often spearheaded by progressive Democrats. San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed is promoting a pension reform initiative on Tuesday’s ballot, and he’s doing so with support from progressives in his city. Reed says there’s a big difference between union Democrats and progressive Democrats. The former are protecting one special interest group, and the latter have the public good in mind. It’s a compelling argument as we head into the final days of the Wisconsin recall.

If Walker wins, reform will spread across the country. If he loses, Wisconsin will head down the path of California or maybe even Greece, where rising debt, soaring taxes, a surly union movement and crumbling public services will be the order of the day. No wonder the recall movement wants to play on emotion rather than answer serious questions.

In his Sunday column, L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez praises unions — but doesn’t distinguish between private and public unions. He writes:

Neither of my parents went to college, but we always did just fine because my dad had union jobs that paid a living wage. He drove trucks for milk and bread companies, and later worked as a candy and tobacco salesman.

…when I went to San Jose State, my parents paid my tuition and the bulk of my room and board.

For a couple of reasons, I’ve been thinking lately about the union job that paid for my college degree. First, because attacking unions has become a national sport. And second, because I’ve been notified by San Jose State that the school wants to give me an honorary doctorate degree.

But the attacks today area on public employee unions, as in Wisconsin, not private ones. Driving and selling for private companies involved private unions, not public unions. And when Dr. Lopez was growing up and enjoying California’s Golden Age, there was no Dills Act, which Gov. Brown signed in 1978, and which gave collective bargaining to government union employees.

If his father had gone on strike, people could have avoided tobacco or baked their own bread, or have driven to the store to get those things themselves. But with public unions, the government forces a monopoly on us. We don’t have any choice. We’re stuck with them.

Moreover, the public worker unions use their power to “elect our own bosses,” as one union boss put it. They sit on both sides of the bargaining table. They are “labor” and, by electing compliant politicians, they’re also “management.”

Did Dr. Lopez’s father get to elect his own bosses?

That’s why government is broke: Government unions got their bought-and-paid-for politicians to spike pay and pensions.

And the unions help pass wild spending, such as the $5.7 billion in community college bonds that, his own L.A. Times newspaper reported this very day, has turned into a cesspool of “poor planning, frivolous spending and shoddy workmanship.”

Any private company that wasteful and incompetent — such as the private companies his private-union father worked for — would have gone bankrupt long ago.

Now it’s government’s turn to go bankrupt. The day of reckoning, pushed on us by powerful and wasteful government unions, is here.

Dr. Lopez misdiagnosed the state’s fiscal malady.

Feb. 27, 2011