California's 5 Worst Ballot Initiatives

• @ Matt. Now you can add Prop. 19 to the list.

• The other reason why Prop 16 sucked is that PG&E spent $44 million in advertising to back the self serving initiative instead of spending it on fixing the gas line that blew up and killed several people. Not only that but they pleaded with the PUC to raise rates so they could make much needed repairs on older pipes. Somehow the money never went to repairs, but to other priorities (like backing this self serving initiative). I hope the CEO sleeps well knowing he is responsilbe for these deaths.

• @ bill t. I think there are pros and cons associated with owning. Pros are tax deductions for interest and taxes, eventually owning something (hopefully, lol), and freedom to do what you want to it, for the most part. Cons are costs to maintain, and peeping tom for a neighbor. @ Paul. I was really young, but I remember when it was passed, and I agree with your post.

• You may all forget that the reason proposition 13 came about was because older people were being taxed out of the homes they had lived in for almost their entire lives. Unrestricted property tax becomes the endless source of revenue that our brilliant legislature is looking for. Remember, it's always a question for them of just "finding" the money. It must be hidden from all of us like the proverbial pot of gold that comes out of no ones pocket. Talk to people in Illinoise or New Jersey. They are paying property taxes in the area of $14,000 dollars per year on houses that we would consider to be very middle income here. This kind of property tax gets us the point where we you never really own our homes. We only rent them from the state. This is definitely an issue for the math challenged.

• In response to second point, the property taxes paid by the landlord would likely be much lower than the taxes a renter would pay on purchasing a home. This implies that the over-all cost of renting could be lower. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I like owning my home. Not often noted are the ancillary effects of prop 13 like removal of local control of education funding to Sacramento (I first spelled it "sacramental", funny). I've heard and have tried to confirm with limited success that only about 1/2 the money sent to Sacramento actually makes it back to the school districts.

• @ Matt. Your Prop. 13 argument has a few holes in it. First, without Prop. 13 owning a home would be incredibly difficult. As it stands now, annual tax on a $500K home is about $500 a month. If the tax rate was 3%, that would be $1,500 a month just for taxes. I don't know too many people that can afford an extra $1,000 a month. Second, how does it create an incentive for longtime renters to remain in rentals? If anything, it makes it more affordable by limiting the amount of tax they would pay if they actually bought. Which brings me to number three. How has it created a shortage of affordable housing? If anything, it has done just the opposite, by keeping property tax affordable. Fourth, how has it been unequally assessed? It is a simple math calculation. It is 1% of what you paid for your house, and can only go up by 2% of your assessed value. It doesn't matter if your house in Laguna or Santa Ana, so I don't see how it can be unequally assessed. If you think your assessed value is too high, all you have to do is appeal it. It is a very simple process and can get your assessed value lowered, which means lower property tax. True, local and state governments have had to create fees and special districts. But the people who use those services should be the ones who pay for them. The bottom line is that Prop. 13 has made home ownership possible for me and many others by making property tax affordable.

TotalComments: 6