From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Prop. 13 and California's fiscal crisis
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Distribution: ca
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

I can't stand it.  I never have any numbers to go by.

Written in article <1992Aug31.035746.18144@nas.nasa.gov>
 by dbailey@wk49.nas.nasa.gov (David H. Bailey):

: The following article appeared in the Perspective section of the
: San Jose Mercury News, Sunday August 30:
:
: "Blame Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, not Wilson and Brown", by
: Lawrence E. Stone
:
: If Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann were alive, they could experience, with
: the rest of us, the results of Proposition 13: the destruction of
: public services in California.  The Jarvis-Gann initiative of 1978 has
: finally crippled the ability of California citizens to receive the
: quality of public services they once enjoyed, and continue to demand,
: from governments at all levels throughout the state.

I've seen some numbers.  Bekins reports that 3 vans leave the state for
every one entering.  They're getting desperate from this, because that
means they need to pay somebody to bring back empty vans.

OBVIOUSLY these people are all LEAVING because our LIBRARIES are in dire
need.  >>cough cough<<

: The State of California is bankrupt.  The two-month budget deadlock in
: Sacramento is only one vivid and critical symptom of Proposition 13.

I'd be more inclined to say that's a symptom of our legislators'
insistance on increasing spending.

: Proposition 13 drastically restructured the property tax system in
: California in two ways.  First, it immediately cut property tax
: receipts severely by limiting, statewide, the tax rate to 1 percent
: of a property's 1975 assessed value.  This provision was not fatal to
: most local governments, as the assessed value of real property had
: been increasing at an extraordinary rate in the years immediately
: prior to 13's passage.

Who has the numbers on how much revenue has actually been collected at
the state-level from ALL TAXES COMBINED?  Compared against, say, the
population increases?

: The most insidious and damaging aspect of the initiative was the
: provision that limits the increase in assessed value of all properties
: to 2 percent annually.  This limit guaranteed the delayed budget
: catastrophe we are now experiencing.  The market value of property has
: increased nearly 10 percent per year since 1978.  But the costs of
: providing property related services must be funded by the 2 percent
: annual increases.

How do you know that the "market value" has been increasing?  From 
people buying new houses, I'd suspect.  What are the ratios of houses
which HAVE been sold since 1978 compared to those which have NOT been
sold?  Didn't someone mention they were around half?  Let's be
conservative, and say the numbers were around 60%.  This equates to
roughly 4% increase in property tax revenues.

Somehow I can't imagine the legislature as anything other than a pile of
greedy pigs, drooling over the prospects of snatching all that nice
juicy tax revenue from homeowners who somehow never moved.

: The costs of paving streets, keeping libraries open, maintaining
: parks, teaching kids, and protecting public safety are not limited by
: a 2 percent cap, however.  In fact, over the past 15 years, the
: Consumer Price Index, which reflects the costs of these services, has
: increased by up to 8 percent each year.

And what has inflation been over those years?  8%?  Or, averaged over the
entire span, a whole lot less?  Again, I plea for numbers.

: Jarvis and Gann guaranteed
: that California eventually would have to choose between disaster and
: debacle, between misery and pain.

Jarvis and Gann guaranteed that California would have to choose between
unbounded tax increases, and a nice, normal, controlled increase.  It's
unfortunate the legislature has been unable to live within those means.

: Proposition 13 is also perniciously unfair -- those who bought homes
: before the approval of the initiative pay low taxes, and those who
: bought after get soaked.  It has created gaping divisions among
: Californians, between generations, between those who own property and
: those who never will.

Oh, I am so sick of this old line. 

I don't call 1% of sale price getting "soaked."  Strong use of emotional
language, eh?

Consider:
Prop 13 has now been in effect for 14 years.  In another 16 years, anyone
who bought a house in 1978 will have paid off their mortgage.  Eventually,
every house in existance in 1978 will be sold.  At market value.

: Now that Jarvis-Gann has
: taken full effect, the Golden State can no longer boast even top 20
: status in any meaningful category that measures the quality of life.

Just exactly how do you measure that?  By the "quality" of libraries,
schools, roads, protection and parks?  That's IT?  

In other words, "quality of life" can only be provided by the state
legislature?

: P.S.  I might counter that we shouldn't blame Howard Jarvis and Paul
: Gann.  If we are looking for someone to blame, we need only look in
: the mirror.  After all it was California voters who voted for Prop.
: 13, and it is California voters who even now, in the face of
: unprecedented fiscal catastrophe, continue to resist reforming this
: crazy system.

Might I add, it is the same California voters who continue to re-elect
incumbants?

: David H. Bailey

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Hall's Third Law of Politics: Liberals defend military spending, and 
conservatives social spending, in their own districts.