Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Will Prop 13 Be 86'd?

Is Proposition 13 sacrosanct, or are its days numbered? Here's a thought-provoking letter I received on the subject. Gazing deeply into your crystal ball, please answer the question at the end for me.

"Dear Walter,

"I was listening to KABC790 TalkRadio, your favorite station and mine and I heard something scary. Because of the tremendous illegal population in the County of Los Angeles and throughout California AND the increased value of the single family homeowners' houses, there is danger that Proposition 13 will be attacked and eventually destroyed. The illegals with their illegal children are heavy users of the public support system, from public general hospitals to LA Unified School District to WIC and General Relief. The current tax system is limited. With houses, even a simple 3-bedroom house with two bath in the Wilshire area, going for over $1,000,000, local governments are licking their chops, waiting to pounce on Proposition 13."

"What scares me is that the balance of renters vs. homeowners is off the scale. There are many more renters now than homeowners. And usually these renters are essentially the no-brainers that vote "yes" for each and every bond measures from SAC. And as you know, with each and every approved bond measures, the property tax is increased. So, if local governments want their big payday, all they got to do is line up support from the school teachers' union and the illegal immigrants' right groups to seek out and destroy Proposition 13. And since there are much more renters than homeowners. I can see it coming. Yet, the apartment owners are restricted from raising rent due to rent control."

"What is your opinion regarding the danger of Proposition 13 being destroyed in the very near future?"

Blog away, Brain Trust.


Anonymous Anonymous said:

would someone tell this numbskull to shutup he is ruining this blog with his intellectual bad breath

May 21, 2006 10:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The only talk up in Sacramento for reforming Prop. 13 is on the commercial side, not the residential. No one is going to touch the residential aspects of Prop. 13.

God...I hate Republicans...too fucking dumb for their own good.

May 21, 2006 11:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Thank you 11:29.

It SHOULD be reformed on the commercial side. I can't even deny a bit of tweaking might be in order on the residential side. By a bit, I mean a fair and tiny bit.

May 21, 2006 11:51 PM  

Blogger Westsider said:

Keep your hands off of Proposition 13! No tweaking required!

Due to the low interest rates and the hot housing market over the past four years, there has been a tremendous turnover in residential properties which has resulted in a significant increase in property tax revenues for state and local governments.

The problem in Sacramento and City Hall is not an income problem, it is a SPENDING problem. We need to go through all government programs and examine- do we still need them? Can we do it cheaper? Can we combine programs? Can we shut some programs down? There is more money out there than you think and we don't need to raise taxes.

May 22, 2006 3:15 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Corporations and real estate investment trusts and the like have gotten away with murder under Prop. 13 by changing ownerships without appearing to change ownership under state law. So while residential properties have been reassessed every time they change hands, many commercial properties are still assessed at 1978 values and the state has not received the proceeds from the increasing value of the commercial land over nearly 30 years.

That's why some people are talking about a change to Prop. 13 rules. But there is nowhere near the support needed to "86" Prop. 13 altogether because the voters overwhelmingly continue to support it (according to poll after poll). And it would take a statewide vote to change it.

Anybody who says otherwise is blowing smoke up our collective ass. But that's what Moore traffics in, so why should we expect anything different.

May 22, 2006 4:38 AM  

Blogger dgarzila said:

can someone please explain to me where the phrase blowing smoke up someones ass comes from .

I would love to learn the history of that.

May 22, 2006 5:32 AM  

Blogger Westsider said:

The Proposition 13 protection for commercial properties needs to be maintained. Why do some people always look for new ways to chase more businesses out of California? We need to focus on retaining and growing the existing businesses in the state as well as encourage individuals to start new businesses to help create more jobs. With more people working and paying taxes, there will be more tax revenue. It's just that simple!

May 22, 2006 7:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I guarantee you there will blood in the streets if ANYONE tampers with prop 13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May 22, 2006 7:39 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Disneyland, Gallo, Chevron all pay property taxes from the 70's. That's corporate welfare. They're not leaving this state.

May 22, 2006 11:54 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I think you anti-tweakers are crazy. How can anyone think it's okay for the corporations to get away with murder..

May 22, 2006 1:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"blowing smoke up my ass"

Most literally translating to "trying to get a reaction" out of somebody. Originated from a 16th century technique to determine death by literally blowing tobacco smoke into someone's anus (through a long pipe) - where a reaction indicated that the person was still alive.

Guy 1: Hey man, I think someone just stole your car!
Guy 2: Are you blowing smoke up my ass?

May 22, 2006 7:22 PM  

Blogger Westsider said:


Paying taxes from 1978 levels is "murder"? Are you going to make that point against home owners?

Mark my words, if Prop 13 protection is removed from commercial property- businesses will leave the state.

May 22, 2006 7:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Any business that would rather stay in California by ripping off the homeowners, letting the infrastructure disintegrate, short-changing the schools, and impoverishing the poor and the elderly, don't let the door hit you on your way out after we pass the split roll. Good riddance. Go to Nevada and preside over the gutting of that state just like you've done here!

May 22, 2006 9:18 PM  

Blogger Full Disclosure Network said:

Proposition 13 has been effectively undermined by the use of Certificates of Pariticipation, aka COPs. Government agencies, school boards, water boards, mosquito abatement boards etc. have the authority to issue bonded indebtedness without voter approval and since the 1980's have been doing so to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars.

When you hear about the total of state debt, you never read or hear about COPs or NON VOTER APPROVED DEBT.

Full Disclosure Network has covered this issue extensively on LAUSD and in Orange County on the CUSD and in Newport Beach on the proposed new City Hall.

To date the Howard Jarvis Tax Payers Association and the Paul Gann Taxpayer Advocate group have not filed legal challenges to the use of COP to issue non voter approved bonded indebtedness, even though Prop. 14 guaranteed the voters the right to approve such debt. Jon Coupal tells us they may look into the possibility of a legal challenge someday.

Who knows how much of this COP indebtedness exists?

The LAUSD for instance has never revealed how much interest they are paying on $92 million of COPs that they issued for the Belmont Learning Center back in 1997, but we do know the COPS have never been paid off but re-issued (refinanced) for this half Billion dollar boondoggle.

Supposedly the COPs are reported to the State, but the media never reports NON VOTER APPROVED DEBT here in the State of California.

So kiss Proposition 13 goodbye, it has been gone for a long, long time. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Leslie Dutton
Full Disclosure Network

May 22, 2006 9:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Fuck all of you! Prop 13 will never go down!!!!

Fuck all of you!!!!

Fuck all of you!!!

May 22, 2006 9:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Honey, YOU need to wake up and smell the coffee. Rising costs are in large part due to the ridiculous demands of unions and the increased unionization of LA. Lay off the conspiracy theory and COPS. Your ignorance of modern financing is appalling.

May 22, 2006 9:55 PM  

Blogger Westsider said:

It's not just the Certificates of Participation- it is the Redevelopment Agencies that suck up property tax dollars and then use that money to buy property and then sell or give it away to developers. It is the biggest government scam going and the only people who profit from it are developers, land use consultants, lawyers and bond salesmen.

May 23, 2006 7:29 AM  

Anonymous 1:44 said:

You bet Westsider. I do believe the corporations are getting away with murder.

I can't be swayed. Prop 13 needs to be reformed on the commercial side and tweaked on the residential side.

I can't even think of a business that we could lose that would hurt us. They've all left already.

May 23, 2006 9:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is the most corrupt regime north of the border. And now they want to erase Prop 13? It will NEVER HAPPEN.

Here's the solution:

Declare blight on all of South Central, Van Nuys, East LA, and every
illegal colony. Get them out of our country.

Millions of illegals are the ONLY reason this city is the cesspool of the country. And they are costing us 50B a year just in CA.

And get rid of the illegal-lover sitting in the mayor's office. He is contaminating this city every minute of the day...

Today we vote....tomorrow they march....all the way back to Mexico!

May 23, 2006 12:32 PM  

Blogger dgarzila said:

All these people commplaining about the ilegals. If deman wasn't so high for housing , mnay fo you folks who have homes and sold themwouldn't be billionaires right now.

Wake up and smell the coffee

May 23, 2006 1:33 PM  

Blogger dgarzila said:

oops I mean millionaires . sorry.

I was thinking of my own billions.

May 23, 2006 1:35 PM  

Anonymous Larry Kaplan said:

Let's ignore the politically assinity of the original commentary and just focus on his complete lack of understanding how the system works:

1. The state bonds that have been passed by the voters are general obligation bonds. Their passage does not increase taxes, but obligates the state to repay them from the existing general fund. Now, it does put more pressure on the state's annual budget and impact other spending programs, but that is a policy decision for the governor and legislators and a topic for another day.

2. Rent control does not completely prevent landlords from passing on any increase in their expenses, such as additional taxes. First of all, most areas of CA don't have rent control, so landlords can raise rents anytime. Second, even in those cities with rent control, state law mandates vacancy decontrol, which allows landlords to raise the rents as much as they want when a new tenant moves in.

3. Finally, the writer is factually wrong when he says there are many more renters than homeowners. In fact, in CA the number of homeowners and renters is about equal; and amongst registered voters, homeowners outnumber renters (and vastly outnumber them amongst frequent voters). The only places where renters outnumber homeowners in the pool of frequent voters are in a few communities that are not typical of the state at large, such as WeHo and SF.

May 25, 2006 2:49 PM  

Anonymous Lifelong Renter said:

Renters + recent homeowners are more likely to vote in favor of abolishing prop 13. especially those who spent their millions and bought in the last couple of years will undoubtedly be willing to consider this to make up for the revenue shortfall.

Doesn't make sense when you are paying 10 times as much as your neighbour for the same local services.

July 20, 2006 12:28 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home