New Prop 13?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: New Prop 13?

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: aliikane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,491

    New Prop 13?

    So, does anyone have any details of new Prop 13? Lots of differing information on the bill from those for it and against it.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of it is that it will raise property taxes limit statewide from 1.25% to 2% for residential real estate and 2.5% to 4% for commercial real estate.The new money would apparently go to school, colleges, and universities and would also be allocated to general fund to pay for other things. Sounds like it will raise the cost of living for everyone in California both for housing and business.

  2. #2
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: 5k bike 50cent legs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    5,786
    https://ballotpedia.org/California_P...d_(March_2020)

    My understanding is: this has nothing to do with property taxes, it's just a coincidental name based on how propositions are named in CA. This is a school bond measure. The 1.25% to 2% increase is the amount schools can borrow based on the value of property in the district, not an increase in property taxes.

    My position is CA should spend its huge budget surplus on schools before pet projects, not borrow money which requires an interest payment, while money is sitting in reserve. I do not support this prop.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: aliikane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,491
    Quote Originally Posted by 5k bike 50cent legs View Post
    https://ballotpedia.org/California_P...d_(March_2020)

    My understanding is: this has nothing to do with property taxes, it's just a coincidental name based on how propositions are named in CA. This is a school bond measure. The 1.25% to 2% increase is the amount schools can borrow based on the value of property in the district, not an increase in property taxes.

    My position is CA should spend its huge budget surplus on schools before pet projects, not borrow money which requires an interest payment, while money is sitting in reserve. I do not support this prop.
    There is so much differing information depending on which article you read it is difficult to get the true facts on the Prop 13.

    This article states:

    "Unlike the old Prop. 13, which capped property tax valuations, this new Prop. 13 would raise those caps from 1.25 percent of assessed property value to 2 percent for elementary-school and high-school districts and from 2.5 percent to 4 percent for unified school districts and community-college districts. These local bonds lead to direct and significant property-tax increases."

    https://www.ocregister.com/2020/02/0...no-on-march-3/

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    578
    ^ I wouldn't count on the OC Register for accurate reporting.

    From what I've read so far, I'm for it.
    "I will absolutely apologize hopefully sometime in the distant future if I'm ever wrong."

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    227
    I strongly recommend reviewing the Official Voter Information Guide, and discount all news accounts. It will answer all the questions, so you can make an informed decision. The Sect. of State recycles proposition numbers every 10 years, so you will see a number get used again.

    This prop 13 is a bond fund. The Legislative analyst provides an analysis of how this all works, how school districts get money, borrow, pay the money back, etc. This prop is not about property taxes.

    Bonds place greater pressure on the Legislature to raise taxes overall to pay for that borrowing. So, my general guide is to keep that pressure low.

    but my number 1 principle for all propositions, referendums, etc. is: If you don't understand it, vote no. A proposition is not an iterative process like the legislative process (you can participate in it and affect it) so what you see is what you get (it has already been decided by someone often who is not your elected representative, you just say yay or nay).

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SikeMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by 5k bike 50cent legs View Post
    https://ballotpedia.org/California_P...d_(March_2020)

    My understanding is: this has nothing to do with property taxes, it's just a coincidental name based on how propositions are named in CA. This is a school bond measure. The 1.25% to 2% increase is the amount schools can borrow based on the value of property in the district, not an increase in property taxes.

    My position is CA should spend its huge budget surplus on schools before pet projects, not borrow money which requires an interest payment, while money is sitting in reserve. I do not support this prop.
    Exactly right.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: k2rider1964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,503
    From the San Jose Mercury: Prop. 13 would also relax one of the checks on excessive school borrowing. Local districts have long faced responsible restrictions on the amount of bond debt they can take on. For elementary and high schools, that limit has been set at 1.25% of the assessed value of property in the district; for unified school districts, it’s 2.5%. Prop. 13 would raise those limits to 2% and 4% respectively, sending a strong signal that school districts should borrow more, meaning higher taxes for property owners.

    Those higher costs for property owners, even if just commercial businesses, those costs will be passed along. Just look at who's for the bill and that should help you decide. If you want more money coming out of your bank account, go ahead and vote YES.
    Carpe Diem!!

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    578
    Well, CA ranks 46th in the country for per-pupil spending. Maybe we could at least shoot for average?! You get what you pay for.
    "I will absolutely apologize hopefully sometime in the distant future if I'm ever wrong."

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SikeMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    616

    Quote Originally Posted by Callender View Post
    Well, CA ranks 46th in the country for per-pupil spending. Maybe we could at least shoot for average?! You get what you pay for.
    There are many arguments against this. For one, money in does not guarantee output. We already pay the highest income taxes in the country. Prop 13 (the original one) limits money for schools. My neighbor literally pays 1/20th what I pay in property taxes for a house that is 90% the size of mine. There is a surplus in the general fund that could pay for much of this. The problem is that our state and local legislatures are completely inept. I won't be voting for any new taxes or bonds this time or any time in the near future.

    Unfortunately we live in a country where it is political suicide to cut spending on anything. I am sure there are many areas in CA government where spending could be cut and better spent on schools. I've been here for twelve years and have seen lots of new taxes and programs. However no one ever seems to audit any of them to see if they're actually working. Take 'Healthy SF' for example.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    578
    No, it doesn't guarantee output--but it sure helps. Class sizes in primary grades have increased about 30% in the last 10 years and compensation is stagnant. I know a lot of people leaving the profession. We don't have kids, but I don't mind paying a little bit more for better schools.
    "I will absolutely apologize hopefully sometime in the distant future if I'm ever wrong."

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CactusJackSlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,541
    Current bill is for COMMERCIAL properties... even so, proceed with caution!
    Largest NorCal XC Race Series
    http://www.bicyclingevents.com
    http://www.UavTechReview.com
    Best in the West!

  12. #12
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: 5k bike 50cent legs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    5,786
    Quote Originally Posted by CactusJackSlade View Post
    Current bill is for COMMERCIAL properties... even so, proceed with caution!
    Do you mean it favors multl-family developers by passing school impact fees onto tax payers? If so, you are right.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    67
    Schools are solo underfunded and as I understand it, can't raise money locally to rectify, so dependent on money from State. Middle income districts hit the worst.. as lower income districts get more state money and higher income ones get more fundraising.

    Not saying I'm for it, I don't understand the details.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: benchcomptons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    65
    There are two relevant ballot measures in 2020.

    The new Prop 13 is a bond - it has nothing to do with your property taxes. It's only named Prop 13 because California resets the numbers every few years.

    There is a different measure about reassessment for commercial properties. Because of Prop 13 (1978), Exxon and the Los Angeles county club get the same tax cuts on their oil fields and golf courses that fixed income seniors do. IMO that's insane. The new proposition would phase out this aspect of Prop 13 (1978). More https://ballotpedia.org/California_T...tiative_(2020)

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: aliikane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,491
    Quote Originally Posted by SikeMo View Post



    There are many arguments against this. For one, money in does not guarantee output. We already pay the highest income taxes in the country. Prop 13 (the original one) limits money for schools. My neighbor literally pays 1/20th what I pay in property taxes for a house that is 90% the size of mine. There is a surplus in the general fund that could pay for much of this. The problem is that our state and local legislatures are completely inept. I won't be voting for any new taxes or bonds this time or any time in the near future.

    Unfortunately we live in a country where it is political suicide to cut spending on anything. I am sure there are many areas in CA government where spending could be cut and better spent on schools. I've been here for twelve years and have seen lots of new taxes and programs. However no one ever seems to audit any of them to see if they're actually working. Take 'Healthy SF' for example.
    Yeah, I am not fond of the way the government spends money. They fail to distinguish the difference between "want" and "need". They are like teenagers with a credit cards. Lol.

    Just like the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space is building a $50 million dollar building in the most expensive trendy area of Los Altos for 120 employees. That is spending $416,000 per employee to build that building. That doesn't seem economically efficient in the least. They could find a much more inexpensive commercial building to do business and hire dozens more employees instead. There are a lot of vacant commercial office space vacancies around.

    https://padailypost.com/2019/02/10/m...n-new-offices/

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SikeMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    616
    Yep, another glaring example. They're not exactly civil servants in California. More like pampered primadonnas.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrozCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,512
    Quote Originally Posted by PL Scott View Post
    but my number 1 principle for all propositions, referendums, etc. is: If you don't understand it, vote no. A proposition is not an iterative process like the legislative process (you can participate in it and affect it) so what you see is what you get (it has already been decided by someone often who is not your elected representative, you just say yay or nay).
    Yes, there is too much misinformation around propositions. I would like a proposition to eliminate the proposition mechanism and let elected officials deal with legislation. 😀

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by CactusJackSlade View Post
    Current bill is for COMMERCIAL properties... even so, proceed with caution!
    I think you are confusing the Prop 13 bond measure that will be on the March ballot with the split roll property tax measure expected to be on the November ballot. The November measure is about commercial property, the March one isn't.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by CrozCountry View Post
    Yes, there is too much misinformation around propositions. I would like a proposition to eliminate the proposition mechanism and let elected officials deal with legislation. 😀
    100% with you. Props are way too confusing for voters, the debate in this thread illustrates that.

    Props are one of those things that make sense in theory, but in practice…

    Maybe the CA prop system is really just a stealth jobs program for lobbyists, PR agencies and media consultants?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SikeMo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    616
    The problem with the Props is that they're always written in a matter that they sound like something everyone should want. The average human will read it and think 'hmm, more free sh*t, sounds good to me'. I imagine very few people actually read the arguments for and against.

  21. #21
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,631
    CA spends its money on pensions, hence the need for ever increasing taxes and diminished services

    Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CrozCountry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,512
    Quote Originally Posted by SikeMo View Post
    The problem with the Props is that they're always written in a matter that they sound like something everyone should want. The average human will read it and think 'hmm, more free sh*t, sounds good to me'. I imagine very few people actually read the arguments for and against.
    Typically thats taxing A and giving the money to B. Which hardly ever makes sense.

    But the best was prop 60, which appointed a porn czar with unlimited powers (can override the state attorney general). It even named the czar and appointed him for life.

    Presented as worked safety.

    Before you laugh, it got 46% yes votes.

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/08/...asure-prop-60/

  23. #23
    ol'guy who says hi &waves
    Reputation: fred-da-trog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,546
    From a good friend and former county CEO...NO on ALL bond measures.
    Last edited by fred-da-trog; 1 Week Ago at 07:36 AM.
    .

    I may not have the best of everything, but I have the best everything that matters.

  24. #24
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,629
    My general rule is never vote for a bond issue.
    Bonds are nothing more than paying for stuff with a credit card. Instead of paying for it now you pay later with interest, and the state is sitting on a budget surplus, so why pay more later? The proceeds from the bonds is stated as going to ongoing and routine maintenance. This is extremely bad fiscal management. You do not go into long term debt to pay regular ongoing expenses. Do you take out a second mortgage on your home to pay recurring monthly bills?

    Plus, I no longer trust our state legislature to keep any promises or follow the intent of laws they foist upon us. The ink will not even be dry on the bonds before the money is siphoned off to other pet pork barrels -- all okayed by the lap dog judges on the state courts.
    Last edited by dave54; 3 Days Ago at 05:05 PM.
    Do not take anything I post seriously. I don't.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,902
    Another in the continuous series of tax increases in this state. This is an easy 'NO' vote for me.

  26. #26
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,174
    Quote Originally Posted by Callender View Post
    We don't have kids, but I don't mind paying a little bit more for better schools.
    Fellow educator says "we all have kids" even if their our neighbors' kids.

  27. #27
    Oaktown Honkey on Strava
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,961
    Pinole High School just spent $200 million on a remodel (budget was $125 million). Taxpayers are now on the hook to pay $450 million over next 40 years to repay $200 million project. Californians are toast! By the time the average moron figures out what is going on, its going to look like a 3rd world country in CA. Wealthy 55 year old pension"airs" making $120,000 in retirement, living next to homeless working class. We are just seeing the tip of the iceburg, next 20 yrs will make for some entertaining headlines. But the weather is really great, so I am staying. I have checked out, But I will be moving to suburbs, and away from Urban chaos pretty soon. So glad I do not have kids, or I would have had to move sooner (From Oakland CA). thank god for original Prop 13, or spending would be worse. Edit 2/19: CA awards highest pension ever, $418,000 yr. forever. I make that in 8 yrs WORKING. Dispicable.
    Last edited by hoolie; 3 Days Ago at 08:11 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Cant find the post where Prop 68 is linked with Delta Tunnel funding
    By Blackies Pasture in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-06-2018, 10:42 AM
  2. ATTENTION 20112 BMX'-R'S AND DIRT JUMPERS! Prop's Trail REBUILD!
    By dkTechEthan in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2015, 10:49 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2013, 09:45 AM
  4. Prop to PricePoint
    By mimi1885 in forum Where are the Best Deals?
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-11-2011, 09:37 PM

Members who have read this thread: 239

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.