Nearly four decades after its passage, California’s Proposition 13 is still a contentious political landmark.
To conservatives, its property tax limit and restrictions on raising other taxes are bulwarks protecting Californians from rapacious demands for more spending.
To liberals, Proposition 13 is the devil’s work, starving education, health and social programs of badly needed support and fostering economic injustice.
However, it’s evident that many of those debating it really don’t understand how it has affected state and local finance.
Moreover, the purported analyses of Proposition 13’s effects tend to be self-serving, ginned up by those in the debate – particularly over whether its limits should continue for all taxable property or be stripped from commercial property via a “split roll.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office, a fount of straightforward information about government finances for 75 years, stepped into the void Monday with a booklet that delves into the many “common claims about Proposition 13” with facts and analysis about each.
Most importantly, the LAO’s analysis separates fact from fiction about the split-roll concept, which unions and other liberal groups have promoted for decades by arguing that homeowners are shouldering an ever-larger share of the $50 billion in property taxes that schools and local governments collect each year.
Fundamentally, the LAO’s analysis rejects that claim, concluding, “Proposition 13 likely did not cause the slight increase in the share of property taxes paid by homeowners.”
As comprehensive as it is, the LAO’s booklet does not answer the most intriguing question about Proposition 13 – what would have happened on property taxes had voters not passed it in 1978?
View Article