To Voters, Proposition 13 Is Still a Winner

By Jon Coupal

What has dominated political discussion in California for 30 years,
been blamed for everything from the O.J. Simpson "not guilty"
verdict to the Third World debt crisis, and yet remains as
overwhelmingly popular as ever?

The answer is Proposition 13, Howard Jarvis' landmark tax limiting
measure approved by nearly two-thirds of voters in 1978. A
just-completed survey of California voters shows that, even after
three decades, Proposition 13 enjoys overwhelming support.

The survey, conducted by Arnold Steinberg and Associates, reveals
that if Proposition 13 were on the ballot today it would win by a
margin of better than two to one. Perhaps even more amazing is that,
in spite of the wild accusations against it, as voters learn more
about Proposition 13 support reaches landslide proportions.

These results are consistent with other recent polls testing
Proposition 13's popularity. From survey information and from
thousands upon thousands of calls and letters we receive at the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, we know that Californians
clearly recognize that Proposition 13 benefits all homeowners --
whether they bought 20 years ago or last week -- by making taxes
predictable. By limiting yearly property tax increases to no more
than two percent, property owners no longer have to fear the nasty
surprises -- surprises that forced many out of their homes in the
1970s. Wisely, voters jettisoned the prior "no limit" system in
place prior to Proposition 13.

And it is not just the property tax reduction features of
Proposition 13 that voters support. They also appreciate that,
because of Proposition 13, they have the opportunity to vote on most
new or increased taxes at the local level.

An additional bonus of Proposition 13 is that it actually helps
stabilize government revenue -- with annual increases approaching
double digits in good times, while still providing low single digit
growth when the housing market turns down. However, this revenue
stability is a two-edged sword. While eliminating the wild
fluctuations that characterize sales and income tax receipts, this
reliable source of government income makes Proposition 13 the
target of short-sighted politicians and bureaucrats who would like
to see the property tax rate increased, regardless of the negative
impact on property owners.

So if Proposition 13 continues to be as popular as sunshine with
voters, who is opposed to it and why do we still hear shrill
complaints and calls for changing the property tax system?

Those who do most of the complaining are the previously mentioned
politicians, bureaucrats and others who rely on their relationship
with government for their power and incomes. They continue to hatch
schemes to raise taxes even though California governments at all
levels, have more money, after adjusting for population growth and
inflation, than then they did prior to the passage of Proposition
13, and this includes schools. For example, in inflation-adjusted
dollars we spend 30 percent more per pupil than we did in what some
advocates of taxing and spending wistfully refer to as the "golden
age" just before Proposition 13.

It is easy to see why public employee union leaders reject any
measure that limits revenue, and potential pay increases for union
members, even though, according to the U.S. Census bureau we have
the highest paid public employees in the nation. But opposition to
Proposition 13 is not limited to those who receive a pay check
directly from government.

There is a mammoth extended government infrastructure that includes
contractors, bond brokers and businesses that prosper by selling
goods and services to government. In short, anyone who profits from
government spending is likely to oppose Proposition 13's reasonable
limits on taxation.

Even with Proposition 13, California remains a high tax state. One
can only imagine what it would be like for the average resident
without Proposition 13.

This is why the dividing lines between support and opposition to
Proposition 13 are so clear. On the one side are Proposition 13
backers who believe government's obligation is to serve the public.
On the other side are those who see government's role is to serve
itself. To the second group, a formidable and vocal minority,
Proposition 13 is like sunlight to a vampire.



Property owners throughout California should be pleased that the
court supported the view that Prop. 98 provides real and sensible
private property protections without infringing on government's
ability to use eminent domain for legitimate public projects that
convey water or protect the environment. Prop. 98's eminent domain
provisions simply limit government's ability to forcibly seize
private property from those who don't want to sell to wealthy and
politically connected redevelopment interests. No more, no less.

Backers of genuine property rights protections noted the fact that
the League of Cities lawsuit never challenged the State of
California for not including any language in Prop. 98's ballot title
and summary supporting their previously stated claim that Prop. 98
would somehow limit government's ability to use eminent domain for
water projects. This outlandish assertion has been rejected by the
State Legislative Analyst's Office, water and private property
experts and California's farming community.

"Clearly, opponents of private property rights did not want to test
their false claim in court. Prop. 98 does not prohibit the use of
eminent domain to build public water projects. Their decision not to
test this political scare tactic in the court room really puts the
water issue to rest," said California Farm Bureau Federation
President Doug Mosebar. "Water supply and conveyance are critical
issues for farmers. This ballot measure protects farmland and the
water critical to California's food supply. This is why we are
strong proponents of Prop. 98."

Since the private property grabbing coalition can no longer claim
Prop. 98 threatens local land use decisions or water projects,
voters can be certain that it is only matter of time until they
conjure up some other fraudulent reason why voters should forfeit
their private property rights so that private developers, supported
by their public agency allies, can continue to enrich themselves at
the expense of private property owners.