In 1978, California taxpayers started a tax reform revolution by passing Proposition 13. It changed and lowered how property is taxed. The proposition also required the approval of two-thirds of the voters for any new ‘special’ taxes – taxes earmarked for a specific purpose. The slowing of property tax increases kept thousands of retiring citizens in their homes and has saved the average homeowner thousands of dollars annually.
If homeowners did not have a Prop 13 protection their property tax would be $3,000 for a $100,000 home; $4,500 for a $150,000 home; $9,000 for $300,000 home; $12,000 for $400,000 home; $15,000 for $500,000; $21,000 for $700,000; $27,000 for $900,000 home.
Most all property owners also pay additional taxes in “below the line itemizations” for bond debt, parcel taxes etc. For some people this could be equal to the property taxes at the top of the statement. These extra charges were voted upon at one point but needed to be passed with a two-thirds popular vote due to Prop 13’s requirements.
Nearly every year the state legislature has at least one Constitutional Amendment attempting to repeal the Two-Thirds Rule. Now, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1) has been reintroduced for the 2021-22 legislative session. If passed, ACA 1 would lower the vote needed to pass taxes and bonds from two-thirds to just 55% if the money will go for affordable and homeless housing or infrastructure.
Local governments could also put new taxes and bond debt on the ballot for nearly any purpose passable with just 55% versus two-thirds of voters. By making it easier to pass tax increases and local bonds, ACA 1 would guarantee that property tax bills would rise after nearly every election.
Yuba County’s now invalidated (but on appeal) Measure K - 1% sales tax increase (Nov 6, 2018) still would not have passed under ACA 1 receiving only 53% of the vote. Opponents argued it needed two-thirds as a special public safety tax. The local Superior Court ruling against the County was appealed by Supervisors to the Appellate Court in Sacramento and is awaiting a hearing.
Another threat to the two-thirds protection is from state court rulings. In 2017, the State Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland suggesting that if citizens use the initiative process to pass a measure then a two-thirds vote margin is unnecessary.
San Francisco Board of Supervisors then used this tactic with one Supervisor acting as a “citizen proponent” of the measure. This was Measure C that added a gross receipts tax on business rents. The measure collected just over 50% of the vote and the Supervisors declared victory. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) joined other organizations for a court challenge.
HJTA is involved with the Yuba County Measure K legal action as well as another ‘special tax’ dispute in Fresno. Other groups are opposing flawed measures in San Francisco, Alameda and the County of Oakland.
ACA 1 still needs a two-thirds vote in both houses of the state legislature to get on the ballot. If achieved then a simple majority approval of voters is only needed to remove more Proposition 13 protections.
HJTA says they are committed to defeating ACA 1 in the legislature and citizens should let their representatives know their views. Taxpayers can also become a member of HJTA and donate at HJTA.org. It’s a much better investment to support HJTA than the government via higher taxes.
(Lou Binninger can be heard on No Hostages Radio podcast, live on KMYC 1410AM 10-noon Saturdays, read at Live with Lou Facebook and Nohostagesradio.com)
###