Prop. 13 property taxes in the voters' hands

Friday, June 6, 2008
Section: MAIN NEWS
Page: A1
San Francisco Chronicle

Thirty years ago today, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13 as a way to keep seniors from losing their homes to skyrocketing property taxes. But the 1978 vote also ignited a revolution that dramatically changed the way people across America look at government and taxes.

The grassroots initiative has saved California property owners billions of dollars since it was passed, but the shackles Prop. 13 put on the ability of state and local governments to increase taxes could turn out to be its most important legacy. Even today, with the state facing a $17 billion budget shortfall, tax increases face certain opposition from many legislators and voters.

"Clearly, the Prop. 13 movement had the general attitude ... that government and its ability to tax people isn't to be trusted," said Mark Baldassare, head of the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. "That's very much the theme that Ronald Reagan picked up when he ran for president in 1980, and it's had a dramatic impact on national politics, particularly on the Republican side."

When GOP Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia put together his "Contract with America" in 1994 as part of the successful Republican effort to take control of Congress, his call for requiring a three-fifths majority vote on tax increases was straight out of Prop. 13. And when liberal Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama says that, as president, he would reverse President Bush's tax cuts only for the wealthiest Americans, he recognizes the same middle-class antipathy to taxes that Prop. 13's backers saw three decades ago.

A distrust of officials

Both Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, the public faces of Prop. 13, disliked government almost as much as they despised taxes, and neither was willing to trust elected officials to do the right thing with the public's money.

That's one reason the measure not only put tight limits on property taxes but also required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for state tax increases and a two-thirds vote of the people for most local tax boosts.

"The disaster of the moment was that people were being taxed out of their homes," said Joel Fox, past president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "But Howard Jarvis and others behind the initiative were determined that they were going to control the tax monster."

More than property tax relief

The heated discussions backers of Prop. 13 had when they were putting the initiative together make it clear they were looking for more than property tax relief, said Ted Costa, who runs the People's Advocate, an organization founded by Gann.

"The overwhelming opinion was that the purpose of Prop. 13 was to limit the size of government," he said. "By the month before the election, it was clear that blue-collar voters and homeowners everywhere were using Prop. 13 to send a message to government."

It's a message that even many opponents of the initiative admit was needed.

For decades before 1978, property tax in California was based on a percentage of the assessed value of a home. Every two or three years, the county assessor would look at the sales prices of homes in a neighborhood and set a new and generally higher assessment, which generally meant higher property taxes.

But this low-key process went haywire in the runaway inflation of the 1970s, which sent home prices - and assessments - soaring. Homeowners paying $500 a year in property taxes in 1972 found themselves looking at a $2,000 tax bill in 1978. Between 1974 and 1978, the average value of a California home jumped from $34,000 to $85,000, and property taxes rose with it.

Homeowners, many of them seniors on fixed incomes, couldn't come up with the cash for their dramatically higher property tax bills and faced the terrifying prospect of losing the houses they had lived in for decades.

In one of the great grassroots political efforts in California history, Jarvis and Gann, joined by an army of angry and anxious homeowners, collected more than twice as many signatures as needed to get the initiative on the ballot. On election day, Prop. 13 passed with 65 percent of the vote.

But those angry voters didn't just celebrate and go home. After tasting the political power of ballot-box democracy, they quickly went back for more.

A year later, Gann wrote an initiative to limit government spending that passed with 74 percent of the vote. In 1982, Proposition 7, which prevented state income tax from rising with inflation, passed. Proposition 218, a 1996 initiative, required a public vote on many local assessment increases.

Tightening the screws

Each new measure tightened the screws on state and local government, either limiting revenues or making it tougher to raise money through taxes.

"Because of Prop. 13, taxpayers felt they needed to be in control because government wasn't giving them a fair shake," said Teresa Casazza, president of the nonpartisan California Taxpayers Association. "Taxpayers have a real skeptical view of how the government is taking care of the money it's receiving."

Requiring a two-thirds vote for any type of statewide tax increase has tied the Legislature in knots because Republicans, who make up more than a third of both the Assembly and the state Senate, have adamantly opposed any tax hikes.

California voters don't see the restrictions as a bad thing. In a Field Poll released today, 72 percent of those surveyed disapproved of changing Prop. 13 to allow the Legislature to raise taxes by a simple majority vote. When they were reminded that the state faces a multibillion-dollar deficit, the numbers barely moved.

"The huge deficit and state debt don't make a difference," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll. "Voters want to set a fairly high bar for increases in taxes and want to see bipartisan support."

Bureaucrats unhappy

Complaints about Prop. 13 come mainly from government officials and bureaucrats unhappy with the way the initiative transferred the power of the purse to the people paying taxes, said Fox, who worked closely with Jarvis.

"What was revolutionary is that under Prop. 13, certainty goes to the taxpayer," he said. "Before 1978, the certainty belonged to the tax collector."

Reagan, both as governor of California and as president, took the view that government was more the problem than the solution. But with the passage of Prop. 13, conservative voters saw a solution, a way to shrink government by starving it of revenue.

Costa, who took over People's Advocate after Gann died in 1989, has involved the organization not only in tax battles but also in ballot fights on such issues as term limits, victim's rights, legislative reform and the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis. He's talking about a ballot initiative that would define taxes to include several of the government charges and fees that don't now fall under Prop. 13's rules.

"We want to reduce the size of government," he said. "Our ballot measures don't say it in so many words, but that's understood to be on the top of any initiative we put out."

The buzz: A hardball tactic could ricochet

Monday, February 11, 2008
Section: MAIN NEWS
Page: A3
Sacramento Bee

By Steve Wiegand - Bee Capitol Bureau

Ted Costa isn't one to take government tomfoolery lying down. Costa, who heads the People's Advocate political watchdog group and was a leading architect of the 2003 recall campaign that toppled Gov. Gray Davis, is incensed that Democrats are trying to recall Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater.

Chief among Denham's alleged crimes is that he opposed the state budget last year. But Costa says he's thinking about launching a recall against Senate-leader-to-be Darrell Steinberg, unless Steinberg repudiates the Denham recall effort. Costa's grounds: Steinberg helped get the state in its current fiscal mess by supporting last year's budget.

"The budget is $14 billion out of whack and these guys are out here playing games," Costa said. "I have a statewide mailing list … we raise enough money and we'll just put Mr. Steinberg on the ballot about July 15, right when he's supposed to be balancing the budget, and the whole damn bunch of them down there could take notice."

Costa says he'll poll others in the group before any final decision. Steinberg spokesman Jim Evans said Costa's threat "doesn't deserve a response."

At least not yet.

SURF'S UP FOR SOME LEGISLATORS

STATE LAWMAKERS SUN THEMSELVES IN MAUI WHILE DOING BUSINESS.

Thursday, November 8, 2007
Section: MAIN NEWS
Page: A4
Sacramento Bee

By Jim Sanders

Numerous California legislators are lodged in a $300-a-night Maui hotel this week to mingle with business, labor and other interests that do business at the Capitol.

The weeklong conference, in the luxurious Fairmont Kea Lani resort, is touted as a chance to escape the capital's glare for bipartisan policy discussions, scuba diving and beachcombing.

Lawmakers are picking up the tab themselves, either through personal or campaign funds, but some political analysts say lawmakers should be rolling up their shirt sleeves – not their beach towels.

"It's business as usual with the good-old-boy network," said Ted Costa of People's Advocate, a Sacramento-based watchdog group.

Costa noted that the Maui get-together comes at a time when the state is facing massive water and health care problems and is bracing for a potential multibillion-dollar budget shortfall.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, who is not attending the conference, sparked headlines recently for campaign disclosure statements listing tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-state travel and luxury purchases.

"You'd think with all the notoriety they've had, they'd know better," Costa said of legislators packing their bags for Hawaii.

But Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine, who is attending the conference, said it provides top-notch panel discussions on energy, health care, water and other key issues.

"It's extremely valuable," Ackerman said.

He estimated that 15 to 20 lawmakers are attending this year.

They include Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge; Assemblyman George Plescia, R-La Jolla; Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka; Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Whittier; and Sen. Jim Battin, R-Palm Desert.

Few, if any, Sacramento-area legislators attended the event.

Plescia said he appreciates the chance to meet in a more relaxed atmosphere with colleagues from both parties. "There's much more open dialogue," he said.

Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University, said the state can benefit from such conferences.

"We have this huge deficit looming," Gerston said. "This is the kind of a place where legislators can get away from the posturing and say, 'How are we going to deal with this?' ... But I'm not saying they aren't having their share of mai tais; I'm sure they are."

Besides lawmakers, other participants include representatives of Chevron, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Indian gambling tribes, environmental groups and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, according to a daily agenda.

Calderon said panel or policy discussions are held until about 12:30 p.m. each day, after which lawmakers can plan their own schedules.

The weeklong event ends Saturday at the Maui resort, where visitors can enjoy championship golf courses, 11 tennis courts, boutique shopping, snorkeling, kayaking, sailing or diving.

Several years ago, the correctional peace officers association sponsored a similar Maui get-together each year, but there was a public backlash at the prospect of legislators being a captive audience to one of the state's most powerful labor unions.

Two years ago, a nonprofit group was created, Pacific Policy Research Foundation, to organize the annual Hawaiian trek. Former Assemblyman Tom Bordonaro serves as its president, and its board includes Sherry Leonard, wife of Bill Leonard, a Board of Equalization member; and Linda Ackerman, wife of the Senate Republican leader.

Names of legislators booked into the Fairmont Kea Lani are not a public record, though they ultimately must disclose any purchases made with campaign funds or any gifts they receive in Maui.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's legislative secretary, Chris Kahn, is attending the Hawaiian conference. But he is paying for the trip himself while vacationing with his wife, who is a lobbyist, spokesman Aaron McLear said.

Ackerman, Plescia and others contacted Wednesday in Hawaii declined to identify colleagues gathered in Maui.

By law, lawmakers can use campaign funds to finance travel and lodging expenses for themselves and their spouses to attend public policy conferences anywhere in the world.

The Pacific Policy Research Foundation, as a nonprofit agency, is not required to reveal its corporate donors or other funding sources. Officials did not return calls seeking comment.

Ryan Sherman, one of three CCPOA officials at the event, said holding the conference in Hawaii helps attract a good turnout, which benefits policy discussions.

"It makes sense to have it some place where people are interested in going," he said.

But Kevin Spillane, a leader in fighting a ballot measure to alter term limits, blasted the Hawaii trek as legislative arrogance.

"It's an example of business-as-usual by the state Legislature, the pursuit of political perks above serious policy," he said.

Editor's note: This story has changed from the version that appeared in print to correct Dick Ackerman's title.

ANOTHER VIEW: POLITICAL DOUBLE STANDARDS LIE BEHIND REDISTRICTING REFORM

Thursday, April 29, 2007
Sacramento Bee

By Ted Costa

The double standards of politicians are sometimes wondrous. Take for example Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez's redistricting proposal. He is scrambling to find a way to sabotage redistricting while appearing to "do something." His passion right now is to get himself relieved of term limits so he can remain speaker for another six years.

He's currently circulating an initiative to do just that for the February 2008 ballot. But he doesn't believe it can pass unless he can pair it with redistricting reform. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will support term limit relief only if legislators give up the power to gerrymander their districts. So Núñez is trying to come up with a redistricting reform scheme that will pass with a D-minus and still get the governor to count it as a passing grade.

His two major problems are: How to formulate a commission that can be given the job that still can be controlled by legislative leaders but not appear to be; and how to deal with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's insistence that congressional districts not be touched.

Núñez has been trying to come up with some idea of how to do that and has finally presented a plan that is being ridiculed by good government groups. His idea to keep legislators in control is to give the job to the Little Hoover Commission; it has a good reputation, but the problem is that the Legislature and the governor pick its members. He further telegraphed his intentions by writing into his plan that all members of the Hoover Commission would be up for appointment in 2010.

If the scenario plays out, he will have done his job on redistricting because he has confidence that the Hoover Commission is controllable in 2011. Congressional districts won't change, so Pelosi stays happy. He will get the governor to support the redistricting initiative and term limit relief on the February 2008, ballot. Both pass. Núñez gets six more years as speaker, and all is right with the universe.

We, of course, intend to make sure none of his plan is successful. And instead, we plan get true redistricting reform on the February 2008 ballot and defeat term limit relief.

Governor again floats plan for redistricting

Saturday, December 3, 2006
Section: MAIN NEWS
Page: A1
Sacramento Bee

By Kevin Yamamura - Bee Capitol Bureau

Out of California's 306 state legislative and congressional races in the past two general elections, only one seat -- that belonging to Rep. Richard Pombo -- changed party hands.

Government watchdogs say the lack of competition has bred complacency and allowed party leaders to install fierce partisans who make compromise difficult. They suggest the trend will continue as long as legislators draw their own political boundaries every decade.

With that in mind, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger once again will ask the Legislature to overhaul the state's redistricting system by turning the process over to an independent commission of voters.

"Now, I know firsthand that nothing drives excellence more than the threat of competition, and that's why I want California to lead the way to show the rest of the nation what true political reform is really all about," Schwarzenegger said in his Saturday radio address. "Redistricting can be done by moving the power into the hands of a neutral body."

But history has been unkind to redistricting ballot proposals. Voters have rejected five redistricting propositions since 1982, including a Schwarzenegger-backed plan in 2005. The governor believes he can get the Legislature to endorse a deal this time, but that task may prove nearly impossible.

"It's always been difficult because you're simply asking politicians to act against their own self-interests," said John J. Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College. "For incumbents, it's pretty cool to be able to choose your own electorate."

If this time is any different, it may be because veteran lawmakers approaching the end of their limited tenure see an opportunity to combine redistricting with a term-limit change that allows them to stay in power longer.

One early Assembly idea would include changes in redistricting, term limits and California's 2008 presidential primary date to give Assembly and Senate leaders a chance to extend their time in power. Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, would stand to benefit most by such a change, as his term in the lower house expires in 2008.

Núñez broached the subject last week in a meeting with Schwarzenegger, and he said the Republican governor was receptive to the idea. Schwarzenegger previously has suggested he would be open to a change in the state's term-limits law as a means of taking redistricting out of the Legislature's hands.

"We talked about working together on a common plan that deals with redistricting, term limits and the presidential primary," Núñez said. "I'm very open to it."

Under the plan, lawmakers would agree to support a redistricting ballot proposal as long as it came with another alteration to the term-limits law allowing legislators to serve a total of 12 years in either house, rather than the currently prescribed six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate.

The package also would create a separate 2008 presidential primary election in March, on the surface giving California more influence over the eventual presidential nominees. But that change would allow incumbent lawmakers to put the term-limits plan on the early ballot.

If voters agree to a term-limits change in March 2008, some termed-out legislators could file for re-election in the state primary in June and serve longer. Núñez could conceivably serve another six years in the lower house and retain his speakership. The Democrat said legislative leaders have been "thinking out loud" about such a change.

Schwarzenegger has always believed that redistricting is "fundamental to restoring people's faith in government," Margita Thompson, the governor's press secretary, said. He hasn't taken a position on the idea of merging term limits and the presidential primary into the redistricting plan, she said.

Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, who wrote last year's redistricting legislation, said that any redistricting ballot initiative would suffer without legislative endorsement.

"The hope is to not have any organized opposition to it when it reaches the ballot," Lowenthal said. "I think redistricting fails when you have major opposition, and the more you completely disregard the Legislature, the more you're going to have opposition to it in a campaign."

Lowenthal said he believes the Legislature will still want some role in redistricting, but that it should not control the process or pre-select the independent commission members.

Under the current system, state lawmakers parcel out congressional and state legislative districts every decade, with the next such redraw due in 2011.

Ted Costa, executive director of People's Advocate, which has sought changes in government ranging from term limits to a part-time Legislature, believes the current redistricting system has diminished competition so much that most representatives do not feel beholden to constituents. Even though Costa disagrees with the philosophies of the Democratic challengers to Pombo and Rep. John Doolittle, he said their opposition sparked a "healthy democracy."

Schwarzenegger called for redistricting changes as far back as his recall campaign in 2003. In 2005, the governor threw his support behind Proposition 77, which would have required three retired judges to draw political lines. The proposal failed, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Núñez vowed to work this year on a new redistricting plan. But lawmakers in August allowed the redistricting plan to die before it could be placed on the November ballot.

Costa and other redistricting advocates of various political stripes are working together under the aegis of the nonpartisan group Voices of Reform, meeting with aides for the governor and lawmakers this fall.

Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, a government reform organization, said redistricting legislation may be introduced as soon as lawmakers return Monday for the new session.

She said one plan would create an independent commission pool for which any California voter would be eligible. Lawmakers would be able to strike some people from the pool, but they would not be able to select exactly who serves on the final 11-member panel. She said the plan would ensure that the state recruits a diverse group of voters to serve on the redistricting commission.

"This wouldn't take power away from the Legislature entirely, but it also wouldn't look like 11 people were serving as proxies for the Legislature," Feng said.

The Voices of Reform group is focused only on pursuing redistricting changes. Its members have varying opinions on whether to allow term limits and presidential primary proposals to enter the discussion.

Feng said Common Cause supports term-limit changes, whether they be an extension of the current restrictions or enabling members to serve a total of 12 years.

She said, however, that she would not want a proposal that would enact the redistricting plan only if the term-limits change passed. She said she believes the two ballot propositions should stand on their own, and she said they could not by law appear in the same ballot proposal.

Costa, who strongly backed the current term-limits system in 1990, said he doesn't want to connect the redistricting plan to any other proposal, though he concedes there will be plenty of negotiations ahead.

Feng said she plans to work first with the Legislature and the governor this year to reach a compromise, but that she is also working on putting a separate initiative on the 2008 ballot should lawmakers fail to act.

Even with a change in term limits as a carrot, lawmakers may not feel compelled to focus on redistricting in a year when health care, the budget and overcrowded prisons will loom as significant issues.

"Oh, it's the No. 1 topic on the list of every Californian," Núñez said sarcastically about an issue that ranks well below education and immigration in the minds of voters. "I get calls every day from my constituency about it."