In other words, qualifying property owners would maintain the same taxation rate they were paying prior to the environmental hazard. The California Legislative Analyst estimates that, because there are few qualifying properties, the tax revenue loss would be less than one million dollars. However, should large environmental hazards occur or be discovered this tax revenue loss estimate could change dramatically. A YES vote on Proposition 1 means that the owner of environmentally contaminated property could transfer the assessed value of that property to a replacement property. A NO vote means that when the owner of environmentally contaminated property replaces that property it would be assessed at its market value and taxed at that value.
Current law provides the same protection to victims of natural disasters.
The same degree of fairness should be extended to those whose property is destroyed by health and life threatening toxic or hazardous material. This measure would only increase the unfairness of the present Proposition 13 property tax system. Instead of tinkering with the system to benefit a very few, the legislature should undertake an overhaul of the system because it creates wide differences in taxation for citizens who become homeowners in different years. No ballot arguments were filed in opposition. Copyright 1998 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.