Link: SignOnSanDiego.com > Parcel tax to bolster schools is proposed.
Readers of this blog are probably aware that 30 years ago California capped its property tax at 1% of a property's assessed value, and capped the increase in assessments on individual properties at 2% per year, until they changed hands, at which point the transaction price would become the new assessed value. This means that two families in identical neighboring homes on similar lots could be paying very different property taxes: the people who have lived there for 30 years are paying about 90% more than what they paid in 1978 (2% compounded), while land values (and therefore house prices) have risen by hundreds -- often many hundreds -- of percent since 1978. And yes, the Supreme Court in 1992 managed to say this this was acceptable -- though it is difficult to believe that with another 16 years of data ANYONE could have looked at the results and reached the same conclusion.
This measure has starved local government and made them hungry for sales tax revenue. It has starved the school systems, taking it from among the most respected in the country to quite far down the list. Towns have considered closing their libraries for lack of funding. Parks suffer, as documented by David Cay Johnston in his recent book Free Lunch.
Now there is a proposal to add insult to injury:
Districts throughout the state, including several in Northern California, have passed parcel taxes that range from $90 to $1,141 per parcel. Others are considering such a tax for November.
So far, no details have been assigned to the proposed San Diego measure, which de Beck said could raise about $92.5 million by taxing homeowners $97.50 a year per parcel of taxable property. De Beck would like to exempt property owners who are older than 65 from the tax, something that is allowed for parcel taxes but not for bond measures.
So every parcel within the San Diego district -- be it a seaside mansion, a seaside cottage, a mansion located well back from the water, a cottage on a poorly-located postage stamp of land, a single condo, an apartment complex, a hotel, a golf club, a resort, a shopping mall or a high-rise office will pay an additional $97.50 per year. And there is some thought of exempting the "poor seniors" -- who, on average, already pay property taxes on a tiny fraction of their property's value compared to what their neighbors -- whose only crime is to have been born later or moved to the neighborhood later -- pay.
[The golf club is already favored with an awesomely kind subsidy from its neighbors. The waterfront folks are subsidized by the inlanders. The commercial properties -- which change hands less frequently -- are subsidized by residential, primarily the newest arrivees. What a deal! What a way to penalize some people for their unfortunate birthyears or lack of age!]
Proposition 13 cannot be fixed. The bandages people propose only make it worse. Proposition 13 cannot be fixed. Prop 13 cannot be mended. Just end it. And start treating every property owner in California as if they were actually created equal.
Assess every property, land first, and then collect the tax revenue the taxpayers feel is necessary to fund local services from that one tax base. A few people will decide they can no longer afford their luxurious views. We'll weep for them, just as we weep for those who must move into less appealing apartments when the landlord raises the rent (and the landlord currently gets to keep that additional rent, protected by Proposition 13!]
If the taxpayers decide that they don't need their roads paved regularly, or that ambulances and firefighters are low priorities, they can vote to skip those community services -- and watch people leave town because they don't share that preference. They will vote with their feet. But schools are a priority, and must be funded so that all our children have a decent opportunity in life.
Comments