The ads have already started airing on the radio and television and there is sure to be a mail blitz. The message is that certain groups want to raise your taxes by revising Proposition 13. The big question is who is the “your” in raising your taxes? Is it you the homeowner? No. It just applies to large corporations and commercial properties. It’s called the split roll. Homeowners would continue with the same protections as originally prescribed in Proposition 13. Under the initiative, large corporations and business entities would be taxed at market value. Homeowners’ property taxes would be based on the sale value as in the original proposition. So if you have lived in your house a long time, your property taxes will be very low compared to someone who has just bought a house.

The irony is that the spin to get Proposition 13 passed in 1978 used by the Howard Jarvis apartment owners was that it would protect people — especially seniors — from being priced out of their homes by high property taxes. Seniors and other longtime homeowners did benefit and still do but the major beneficiaries continue to be corporations and large businesses and, of course, large apartment complexes. Schools and local governments suffered a big hit. The situation was so bad for schools that the state had to take over most of the funding for those, the majority of school districts in the state, which could not raise enough property taxes to support educating their students. It was a severe loss to local control.

Recommended for you

Recommended for you

(3) comments

Cindy Cornell

How about including inherited property tax on rental property? Many second- and third-generations have inherited rental properties from their parents and grandparents, and have been able to keep the original base property tax.

JME

Forecasts by the Trump administration and the Congressional Budget Office project that the deficit will top $1 trillion in the current budget year. And the CBO estimates that the deficit will stay above $1 trillion over the next decade.

Christopher Conway

if they raise taxes on commercial properties they should lower taxes in other areas. My problem is with giving the government more money than we already do. It would only go to the retirement benefits of retired public employees that we have no way to pay for the promises made.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!

Want to join the discussion?

Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.

Already a subscriber? Login Here