You see nothing wrong with a home owner’s or a land owner’s property taxes going up 200 to 400% a year? My great grand father in 1893 purchased 120 arcers of land to feed and raise his family. In 1971 my dad deeded me 20 acres of undeveloped land. My taxes increased one year 300% the next 400% and would have raised 400% the year prop 13 passed. I would have lost that land to taxes with out prop 13.
Yes it is a bad law but what we had was wearse. Now my property taxes on my home is around $1,700 my neighbors is around $4500 a year. Would it be better if our taxes were equal but around $30,000 or more per year becaused we invested in property. I think my neighbor would gladly pay more taxes then what they would be with out prop 13.
In my recollection, the California energy crisis ended on May 24, 2001 – when Sen. Jim Jeffords, (R - VT) switched to Independent, giving control of the senate, and accompanying oversight responsibility, to the Democrats.
All that shows is that Enron profited from California’s screw up. They new they didn’t have enough electricity for the following year and they did nothing. It was a simple short-term fix. It is the same fix that they used following the blackouts.
But if Prop 13 hadn’t been enacted, then many people would have been forced out of their homes. Wouldn’t that have increased the homes on the market and kept prices down? This in turn would keep taxes from going up percipitously like they did.
Also, I think it encourages people not to sell even when they would otherwise like to move, decreasing the number of houses on the market even more.
I’d say the whole system of property taxes is pretty stupid. If I invest in any other expenditure that makes only paper gains, I don’t pay any tax on it until I sell it and actually realize a gain. But property? If the whims of the market suddenly decide that my neighborhood is suddenly worth 2, 4 or 10 times what I paid for it, I do not agree that I need to be forced off land I purchased in order to pay tax on an altogether unrealized gain. Tax me when I sell it, sure, but this system where not only do I pay tax on it every year, but I also pay a tax when I make the gain, that’s just assenine.
In Michigan, we have Prop A, which caps the tax increase to inflation or 5%, whichever is lower, unless the house is sold. If you can’t run your schools and support local government functions on the inlfationary increase every year supplemented by all the new houses being built and all the people buying and selling homes in the area, then your governing skills are lacking.
And you seem to be implying such increases would have continued without Prop 13. My my math you would have paid $7.2 billion dollars in property taxes today for every $100 in taxes you paid in 1971. You really think this would have been the case?
didn’t you understand. Does that sound like simply profiting from deregulation to you? Not to mention their push for the very deregulation that helped them rip off every Californian.
Is business property covered by your law also? It is with Prop 13. They didn’t want that little grey-haired Fortune 500 company pushed out of its skyscraper due to rising taxes, after all.
We don’t know the level of taxes either. I own some land in New Mexico (corner of Cactus and Cactus) on which I pay about $20 a year in taxes. If this goes up 200% this year I’m not going to cry about it. If a piece of undeveloped property is worth millions all of a sudden, because of nearby development, having the owner pay a bit more in taxes doesn’t sound too unreasonable.
So you like the idea of the majority of people being renters rather than home owners? With out prop 13 probably 50% of the home owners in 1978 would have lost there homes. The only ones who could aford the taxes would be the upper class,
What don’t you understand about the fact that the PUCO knew a year in advance they would have power outages do you not understand? Seriously, it was national news.
Cite? And don’t quite Howard Jarvis, please. It is odd that all the states without Prop 13 have managed to not kick people out of their homes. When I left New Jersey the tax rate was higher, but there were waivers of property tax for senior citizens, which dealt with that very real problem. And the schools were a lot better.
Cite? This report matches my recollection - the power companies didn’t want to build new plants, they weren’t prevented from doing so by either environmentalists or the government. (Warning, pdf and written by Democrats.)
I was here, remember. Luckily not affected, since my house is on the same circuit as an air traffic control center.
But the real point was your claim that Enron just took advantage of an existing situation - which is provably incorrect.
I didn’t say I liked anything. I simply pointed out that Prop 13 provided an economic pressure towards higher home prices by reducing the number of houses on the market. Without that pressure, taxes and home prices may well have remained reasonable.
This is totally inaccurate. While there were pockets of the state where the rapidly rising valuations of property were causing exorbitant increases in property tax, this was not true of the vast majority of the state. My parents, for example, living in the Mojave desert, suffered little or no increase. The same was true of properties in most of the Central Valley. Even in the Southland, there were areas that were not experiencing rapid valuation increases.
And the fact that property tax levels were rising, potentially pushing homeowners (especially those on fixed incomes) out of their homes does not explain why the proposition was written to apply to business properties, which certainly were not in the same boat.
Proposition 13 has been an unmitigated (in the truest sense of the word) disaster for California. Follow-up propositions, which have tightened the requirements for tax increases, and have limited the flexibility of the Legislature in spending revenues, have not helped. The whole system needs to be tossed out and restructured, in a way that insulates a home owner from rapid property valuation fluctuations, without so limiting local taxes that a proper set of public schools cannot be afforded without the considerable direct influence of the state (which always accompanies the grant of money).