Revenues from taxes are insufficient to cover the costs of running cities (and counties?). Prop. 13 did much good to correct problems with tax codes, but b/c it was essentially written by special interests (anti-tax nazis w/ zero desire to consider long-term consequences for running government), it is too inflexible for today's world. That's at least my understanding. I am not an expert in this field.
This is not an easy issue to discuss, even for experts in economics, and it's not the type of issues where you can easily take a side. It's hard to just say prop 13 is good or bad. There are lots of subtleties involved. And unfortunately many people -even top economists- look at it largely from an ideological standpoint, instead of trying to focus on the real practical problems involved. One problem with prop 13 is that it's basically a tax subsidy, and as subsidies tend to do it distorts the market, in this case the housing market. It could be argued by some that the results are positive, in terms of encouraging people not to sell their property, which promotes stability and slows down gentrification. We can say it's kept communities from completely falling apart. In the Bay Area there's no doubt it's kept many of the less wealthy from being forced out of certain areas. Are these good things? Or, is the fact that many people are stuck with their property -because if they move then their property tax bill will go up to a level they can't afford- a bad thing? The challenge is with property taxes themselves. They are inherently problematic, and more so during times of economic instability. We saw during the great depression how so many people who were out of work ended up homeless because they -or in many cases their landlords- couldn't afford anymore the property taxes on housing they owned free and clear. In California the housing market became so unstable that we most likely would have seen more of that without the passage of prop 13. At the time prop 13 passed, local governments were taking advantage of the the instability of the market to overtax and overspend in ridiculous ways. People were in fact losing their homes over arbitrary property tax increases. Prop 13 really was a bandage, but a much needed bandage at the time. The real challenge is how to reduce property taxes and keep them stable so that they don't distort the housing market, in a state where for a number of reasons the housing market is extremely volatile and where it has become very expensive to live. In some areas it's almost impossible for many people who are essential to the local economy to even live there, and prop 13 somewhat mitigates this by at least stabilizing the taxes you or your landlord pay on housing. So, how do we control and reduce property taxes in a more equitable manner than the way it's set up by prop 13? In California, finding a better way to reduce and stabilize property taxes is only one part of the equation. The bigger issue is whether we can (and whether we even should) find reasonable ways to mitigate the volatility of the housing market itself, without messing with the significant but unstable growth that fuels the state's economy, attracts people from all over the world, and is to a large extent responsible for the housing market volatility.
The real problem with Prop 13 is that commercial properties change hands way less often than residential properties. When residential properties are sold to someone outside the family, the basis for their taxed value is reset, and presumably the new owner can afford the stepped up taxes. However, commercial properties are usually owned by corporations that exist solely to own that property, and when the owners of that corporation want to sell the property, they sell the corporation. The new buyer gets the property but since the owner of the property didn't change - it's the same corporation - the tax value is not reset. So right now, a bunch of rich corporation owners are paying 1978 level plus some minimal percent increase property taxes on their commercial property. As usual, it's a massive tax giveaway to the rich, subsidized by people who move to a new area and buy homes.
Sounds like rent controls with taxes. Aren't Republicans supposed to be against and Democrats in favor of rent control? I guess the difference is who gets the mone, private sector for rents vs. The government for property taxes. That does make me wonder if you own rental property that is rent controlled are your property taxes also controlled?
OK, so my wife and I finally had time to go over all the propositions. There were two folks who provided their opinions on all these measures -- come on down, @Knave and @argentine soccer fan -- so I'm going to go ahead and include their stated choices along with my own choices. Prop 51, school bonds. Knave: YES asf: NO Smurfquake: YES - taxes are the price we pay for civilization, and we should pony up to pay for good stuff that we can't afford due to Prop 13. Prop 52, hosptial fees. Knave: YES asf: NO Smurfquake: YES, see above. Prop 53, voter approval of bonds. Knave: NO asf: NO Smurfquake: NO - putting any bond measure up for a statewide vote when it doesn't affect the whole state is a bad idea. Prop 54, publish bills for 72 hours before voting Knave: YES asf: NO Smurfquake: NO - it sounds like a good idea to expose how the sausage is made, but making the sausage sit for three days just spoils it. How's that for a tortured metaphor? Prop 55, continue income taxes on rich folks Knave: YES asf: NO Smurfquake: YES - soak the rich. Let them leave the state. Most of them will stay because it's just not as awesome anywhere else. Prop 56, cigarette tax increase: Knave: YES asf: NO Smurfquake: YES - do you really have to ask? Prop 57, early parole for nonviolent offenders Knave: YES asf: UNDECIDED Smurfquake: YES - based on who's arguing in favor of it and who's arguing against it. The argument against is all hysterical OMG rapists will come and murderize your family kind of stuff. Prop 58, repeal of prop 227 from 1998, English-only school instruction Knave: YES asf: YES Smurfquake: YES - leaving this up to the local communities is better than enforcing a statewide system. Prop 59, advise the legislature to oppose Citizens United Knave: YES asf: NO Smurfquake: YES - it has no authority but it "sends a message", and what is voting for but to send a useless message? Prop 60, enforce condoms in porn Knave: NO asf: NO Smurfquake: NO - it's not a bad idea but it's a bad implementation as it allows anyone to sue porn producers - a lawyer's dream but not good policy. Prop 61, prescription drug price regulation Knave: NO asf: NO Smurfquake: YES - this is what happens when an industry gouges for years or decades, the people determine if they can keep gouging. If they didn't want us to vote on this, they shouldn't have been gouging for the last couple of decades. Prop 62, repeal the death penalty Knave: YES asf: YES Smurfquake: YES - it costs more to keep it than to end it. Prop 63, ammo control Knave: YES asf: LEANING YES Smurfquake: YES - if we can't have gun control, let's try ammo control. Prop 64, legalize mary jane Knave: YES asf: YES Smurfquake: YES - I'm not a big fan of smoking in general, but since tobacco is legal and heavily taxed, why not also legalize and heavily tax the pot? Prop 65, plastic bag environmental fund Knave: NO asf: NO Smurfquake: NO - clearly this one is intended to cause FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about prop 67 Prop 66, death penalty appeal process Knave: NO asf: NO Smurfquake: NO - prop 62 is a much better option for handling the death penalty by ending it, instead of smoothing out the process to make it faster. Prop 67, plastic bag ban Knave: YES asf: YES Smurfquake: YES - we've had this ban here in San Mateo County for a couple of years, and it has improved the litter situation tremendously. Whenever I visit family in San Diego or LA, you can see the bags everywhere. Time for us to impose our superior knowledge on our less enlightened citizens.
I'm voting yes on the bonds and taxes, yes on banning plastic bags, and yes on banning the death penalty. Voting no on condoms, although I don't care much as I only watch lesbian porn. Voting yes on pot so the big tobacco corporations can take over production and drop prices so much that they stop trying to grow it on public lands wrecking the watershed. It sucks for the legal small farmers, though.
My thought on the pot prop is that while it's anything but perfect, legalizing in California should bring us that much closer to intelligent legalization at the national level.
I voted exactly as the majority of the state voted on every single ballot measure except two. On the death penalty measures, I voted opposite the majority of the state. Meanwhile, here in our blue sanctuary, we can now legally smoke marijuana while making condom-free porn. I guess that's a thing.
Well...just got back from Albertson's with my 1st new sturdy paper bag with glued on handles. I guess I should be content that the handles stayed attached until I reached home when everything crashed to the floor. A few bruised tomatoes but the bottle of Prosecco was still drinkable! Salute....
That's a pile of bolshoi! You gotta wash them after every use else you get cooties!! Very unsanitary!!
Hey...how do the religions deal with this? A pork chop nestled next to a kosher Reuben sandwich. Better bring it up at Temple on Saturday!
I bought a great grocery bag at the Albertson's in SLO a few years ago -- I had not choice, they outlawed plastic bags a years ago. I still have it and use it all the time -- maybe they're getting cheap, but the one I have is really sturdy -- and it's got a great graphic of palm trees and a Woody with surfboards sticking out the back.
So, do you think they'll get the signatures they need for a #CalExit ballot proposition in 2018? Seems it's in the works.
I don't think it's possible. And it isn't necessary. Trump may get rid of Roe v Wade and everything that derives from a strong interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause and the concept that the Freedom of Religion admentment applies to the states as well as the Federal Government, but California can (easily) pass laws that counter all of them for itself. And it's not like we can separate ourselves from the rest of the nation economically (power distribution? water rights? pipelines?) But I'll vote yes anyway because it sounds cool.
I'm along these lines too. Hell, I'd sign the petition to put it on the ballot, and I never sign petitions for anything.