FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA

State, national columnists

Proposition 13 changes stymied by Democrats’ loss of supermajority

By From page A9 | May 18, 2014

Next month marks the 36th anniversary of Proposition 13, California’s iconic property tax limit, and time has not healed its political wounds.

Conservatives still love it, liberals still hate it and it’s perpetual fodder for academic, journalistic and political cogitating.

Decades of polling tell us that voter support for Proposition 13’s property tax limits and high vote thresholds for other taxes remains strong – too strong, evidently, for a frontal assault by its critics, such as a ballot measure to repeal it.

Consistently, polling by the Public Policy Institute of California confirms, those who see Proposition 13 positively outnumber foes by roughly a 2-1 margin.

It’s fair to assume, however, that most legislators, who are overwhelmingly Democratic and allied with anti-Proposition 13 groups such as unions, would favor repeal or at least some major modifications. They have been trying, therefore, to chip away at its tax restrictions.

Several measures are floating around the Capitol this year to do exactly that, but most would require two-thirds legislative votes because they are either constitutional amendments or would raise taxes (the latter is one of Proposition 13’s barriers) and therefore are moribund.

Democrats won two-thirds supermajorities in both legislative houses in the 2012 elections, but by very narrow margins, and the Senate supermajority has since been erased. Democrats lost one seat in a special election last year and three Democratic senators who face criminal charges have been suspended.

Therefore, with Republicans firmly opposed to new taxes, moving any tax measure that requires a two-thirds vote is now impossible. That leaves Senate Bill 1021, which would expand use of “parcel taxes” by school districts, the only big tax bill still alive.

Unlike other property taxes limited by Proposition 13, which are based on value, parcel taxes are, under current law, fixed amounts on property regardless of size or value.

Two years ago, a state appellate court ruled that Alameda Unified School District illegally imposed nonuniform parcel taxes – higher levies on some commercial property than on residential parcels.

SB 1021, carried by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would overturn the decision and allow differential parcel taxes with two-thirds local voter approval.

Business groups oppose the measure, which requires only a simple-majority legislative vote, contending it could void income tax deductibility of parcel taxes.

The Senate approved the bill – barely – on a party-line vote last week, with several Democrats shunning it.

It’s far from a frontal assault but symbolically moves toward a “split roll,” long sought by Proposition 13 foes to remove its limits from commercial property.

Interestingly, polls indicate that a split roll is the one major change voters would support.

Dan Walters is a columnist for the Sacramento Bee. Reach him as [email protected]

Dan Walters

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 5 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • JagMay 18, 2014 - 9:34 am

    Are the Democrats trying to run business out of California or does it just some naturally

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • patrickMay 18, 2014 - 12:57 pm

    JAG I believe the democrats intend to run everyone out of the state. Let's run them out. Be sure too vote

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. PracticalMay 18, 2014 - 1:13 pm

    Yep. SB1021 is a huge job and small business killer. Quit growing government and start growing businesses.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Mr. PracticalJune 26, 2014 - 7:53 am

    SB 1021 died yesterday in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee. A huge victory for California's small businesses.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • rlw895June 26, 2014 - 8:03 am

    Mr.P: I can't tell from Walters column or the comments whether Alameda schools tried to have higher or lower parcel taxes on nonresidential parcels or whether SB1021 was for one or the other. What objection would there be to a measure that allowed LOWER parcel taxes on nonresidential parcels?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2015 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.