Green Gov Candidate Laura Wells on Prop 13 (Feb 2010)

VALENTINE TO PROPOSITION 13

Gubernatorial candidate sends handwritten Valentine to Prop 13:
‘I love you, but honey, you've got to change'

February 12, 2010
http://www.laurawells.org/press.html

SACRAMENTO – Gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells – a candidate for the Green Party nomination for Governor – has sent a handwritten valentine to Prop 13. Approved by voters in 1978, this proposition flattened property tax and required a two-thirds vote of the electorate or legislature to increase taxes.

"Prop 13, I love you, but honey, you've got to change," wrote Ms. Wells.

"There are some very good parts to Proposition 13. It has enabled people, especially seniors on fixed incomes, to stay in their homes, rather than lose them due to rising property taxes. That's what people voted for in 1978, and it's a very good thing that needs to be kept."

But, she calls the two-thirds super majority required to raise revenue "a safeguard for the super-rich, not the mildly rich or merely affluent, but the richest individuals and corporations in the land."

Ms. Wells points out that in boom years, the simple majority lowered taxes, benefiting primarily the super-rich, but now, she claims, "We're stuck."

Ms. Wells wrote on the flip side of her valentine: "You didn't mean to (Prop 13), but you've hurt the children."

In a recent campaign blog, Wells lists university tuition hikes as one of the 13 ways that Prop 13 was unlucky for California.

"Tuition hikes reached 34 percent this school year. As bad luck would have it, that is the same percentage of legislators that can block any increase in revenue."

Ms. Wells, 62, is a former financial and business analyst.


-------------------------------
PROP 13: UNLUCKY FOR CALIFORNIA IN 13 WAYS
Thursday, February 04, 2010
http://laurawells.org/blog.html

But first, the GOOD part of Prop 13:

Proposition 13 allows people, especially seniors on fixed incomes, to stay in their homes, rather than lose them due to rising property taxes. That’s what people voted for in 1978, and it’s a very good thing that we will keep.

And now, How Prop 13 was BAD for California in 13 Ways:

1. Corporations benefit. Two-thirds (2/3) of the total benefit of flattening property tax went not to residential properties, but rather to commercial/corporate properties – they don’t get sold and reassessed.

2. New homeowners. New and would-be first-time home-buyers get hurt – they pay more in property tax than their long-term neighbors.

3. Minority rule. Just one-third, 34 of 100 legislators can stop any budget dead in the water until their districts get greater benefits – and lower taxes.

4. Safeguard for the richest. That same one-third, 34 of 100 legislators can stall until their corporate and super-rich backers get greater benefits – and lower taxes.

5. Disparity grows. Since Prop 13 requires a 2/3 vote to raise taxes, but maintains a simple majority vote to lower them, California’s tax base crumbled – they lowered tax rates in boom years, benefiting primarily super-rich individuals and corporations – and now we’re stuck since 67% is needed to get it back.

6. Housing market tightens. Long-time residents are staying in their homes, and localities, in their rush to increase sales tax and decrease expenses, focus on retail malls and big box stores, rather than housing.

7. Income tax swings. State budgets became more dependent on income tax relative to property tax – resulting in more volatility, less stability.

8. Sales tax grows. Sales tax increased to almost 10% – hitting middle class, lower income, and even the affluent harder than the super rich.

9. Parking fees and potholes. Parking fees and traffic fines increased and so did potholes – as cities scrambled to find money for their budgets.

10. Tuition hikes. Tuition fees have gone beyond the reach of many would-be college students – 34% hike this past year alone. (The number 34 keeps showing up!)

11. Opportunity shrinks. California’s schools went from being best in the nation to 47th out of 50 in terms of per-pupil spending – and in educational opportunities offered.

12. Goodbye services. To increase sales tax revenues and reduce services and expenses, city zoning became more friendly to malls than parks or housing.

13. Kids and grandkids pay. The “no new taxes” mantra led to bonds funding everything from water quality and transportation to hospitals and schools – inadvertently promoting the philosophy, “We want it, but we don’t want to pay for it, so let’s put it on credit, and have our children and grandchildren pay!”

See also:

Economy – Key Themes
http://www.laurawells.org/platform/8-economy.html

Laura Wells
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Wells