Imagine for a moment that there was no Prop 13 and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had the ability to set property tax rates.

Imagine if the San Francisco Board of Supervisors could raise property taxes.

Imagine if we could have a debate: Should everyone in SF pay 2 percent more in property taxes so no teachers have to be laid off, kindergarten classrooms could stay at 20 kids (instead of 30), and Muni didn't have to cut service and raise fares?

I know which side I'd be on. But if you're on the other side, there's a simple and elegant solution: Vote out the supervisors who raised your taxes. With district elections, you can actually have that debate, in your neigborhood.

That's called democracy. 

The best indicator we have of how the electorate would respond to amending Prop 13 (and I'm glad you seek to amend it rather than repeal it) is the 2000 Prop 39, which lowered the voting requirement to pass a school bond measure down from 2/3 to 55%. Prop 39 passed with about a 53% approval. Close but decisive enough.

The electorate don't trust the Supervisors of many municipalities. I certainly don't trust the SF Supes to increase property taxes by only 2%. I'm sorry but I just don't and I suspect most voters at the State level feel the same.

I could get behind a modest and reasonably crafted amendment that still provide the same essential protections for individual homeowners that the current law does.

I simply want equality so that I'm not subsidizing the rich and corporate entities. It is unjust that some people (including the artificial) are paying such an immensely different rate that is not based on income or anything substantial. Prop 13 make it like some sort of deluded hybrid between nepotism aristocracy and maybe plutocracy when a small percentage (of low to middle wage earners) pays the majority of taxes. It needs to be fixed so that property taxes are on a level playing field. It's crazy that I pay 5 to 10 times more in tax for my chicken coop size shack than the massive mansion down the street pays. It is unjust that I have to subsidize their public services on such a towering scale.

I look forward to raising property taxes, thus the cost of living on everyone so that the cities board of supes can give more to non profits, to make up for the more they have to pay in property tax.

I also look forward to all the new programs that the progressive will create and all the pay raises SEIU will demand, then when that money runs out Tim and the gang will be crying again about the greedy rich not wanting to pay for schools.

Giving progressives money is like giving a child money, they will spend it all then demand more, if you don't they will be outraged, in the case of a child it is real outrage, in the case of a progressive its studied learned behavior from being a child.

That's exactly the same line George W. Bush used to use; hey, the IRS isn't stopping you from paying extra. But it's nonsense; taxes don't work when they're voluntary. Taxes work when everyone pays a fair share.

People who purchase homes budget in the amount of property taxes they'll have to pay before deciding if they can afford to buy their home. If you change the rules and increase tax rates, that could be a real burden on people -- and could make their homes no longer affordable to them.

Jeff,

"Tax the Rich" isn't a policy. it's a slogan that you'd barely see outside SF and Berkeley. And remember, this is a State issue. And in the great State of California, 2/3 of voters own their own home. All would be adversely affected by a repeal of Prop 13 and I confidently predict that all but a handful would vote against a repeal.

And since Prop 13 would require a 2/3 majority to be repealed, or even amended, you can surely see that all the 1960's era slogans in the world won't change that.

The truly rich don't care about Prop 13. They can afford homes in Incline, NV or offshore and make sure they don't spend enough time in CA to get hit with CA taxes. Moreover, there aren't nearly enough of them to make a difference.

It's the middle class that would get hit the worst. And that's ordinary folks like you and me. Don't make this about "the rich". It's about the 2/3 who own their home and fear that their property taxes might double or more overnight if Prop 13 is dismantled.

Nobody has to be driven from his or her home by increased property taxes. Jeff is right; the vast majority of homeowners, particularly those who aren't on fixed incomes, can afford more than they're paying now. Americans pay far less taxes than the residents of most other industrialized democracies. And you don't have to allow taxes to double overnight, the way they did before Prop. 13.

Bring some properties that are still getting taxed on 10 and 20-year old valuations a little closer to what others are paying. Tax commercial property at a different rate, since it changes hands less often and corporations use loopholes to avoid reassessments. You can still have limits on increases and avoid giving local supervisors the freedom to set any tax rates they want. And you can do what a lot of states do -- allow property tax increases specifically for the schools.

In New York, for example, people pay a general property tax for overall governmental functions, and a separate property tax just for public schools. My brother owns a house in a small town in upstate New York; his house is worth about half what mine is, and he pays double my property taxes. Much of that difference is school taxes. And in exchange for maybe $3000  a year more in taxes, his kids go to the equvalent of $25,000 a year private schools. Only those schools are public. He's a carpenter who doesn't make a lot of money, and the taxes kill him -- but he has never once doubted that he's getting one hell of a good deal.

To my more conservative critics:

I appreciate your perspective, and this is an open forum where all views are allowed and encouraged. But let's try to be civil to each other, okay? It doesn't do anyone any good to make personal attacks and call people names. There's been a fair degree of nastiness in the past few discussions, and I'd like to see it stop. Please: Disagree, make your case forcefully, and show some respect for the rest of us.

Thanks,

Tim

Why is it that folks jump to the conclusion that fixing P13 automatically entails eliminating ANY homeowner protection..immediately followed by sheer hysteria as to the reaming that must surely follow? Why is it "either" versus "or" with these people? Maybe it's just another excuse not to look at the issue clearly and honestly. I never liked P13..voted against it, even though I have been a beneficiary of a lower property tax than most of my neighbors, lo these many years since it passed. Fact is, it's unfair and has been a sham, ever since it was put on the ballot.

The concern about those of little means losing their homes was certainly valid then, as now, but that issue could have been addressed independently in any number of ways, then and now! The truth was that it was a "red herring", hiding what others have mentoned here..megacorporate collusion in getting yet another free ride, along with bringing the effectiveness of the legislature to a grinding halt..later regarded as "Norquistian governance" (''..then drag it into the bathtub and drown it..").

Fact is..as currently administered, this tax is both a "property tax" and a sales tax..double taxation..but the worst of both worlds! As it stands, my neighbor's house..effectively the same in most respects as my own but purchased long after mine..is yearly taxed at a rate more than double my own. The next guy down the street, for whatever reason, lost his home and it was eventually sold at less than half the price..also a house much like my own.

The new owner (after the bank, then intervening speculators, resold it a few times) recently bought it for something near half the price my first neighbor had paid for his home, originally. His tax rate is therefore considerably more than my own, but much less than my first neighbor's..and puhleeze..we all know that the "reappraisal" of property this last year didn't bring down the property tax anywhere NEAR what the market really reflected!.

This whole scenario is just ridiculous. If taxes pay for highways and schools, etc. (though we know that the money just goes to the state, with relatively little returned to localities, these last thirty years), then all three households are getting the same benefits..but for a wholly different price! If it's a sales tax..based on the sales price of the house..supposedly after a realistically appraised vauation..then it should be charged once..like any other sales tax! If it's an annual property tax, then it should be uniformly applied to all conforming properties within a particular area..period.

Maybe, the solution is to charge both? Ah, you say..not fair..for I'll also have to pay capital gains tax on my profit when I sell..unless, of course, you take the huge exemption you're allowed under most circumstances as a homeowner..which you undoubtedly will do. Add to that, there is even a "carry-over" available between some counties, allowing you to retain your current low rate if you move. Come on folks..where's the equity in all this? Don't even mention the corporate shell-game that is played with commercial properties to avoid "reasssessment"!

"Grandfather" in, at least up to a certain level, the tax exemptions of certain residential HOMEowners, with rates capped for all those on limited incomes, past and future. Charge a one-time sales tax on a house, like anything else purchased, then apply a reasonable annual services tax afterwards, tied to a realistic base. Let the localities have control of their tax revenues again, instead of the state stealing it all. The state can go back to "billing" the counties for state highways, etc. The greedy will object..but strangely, they're usually the same folks who seem to want to continually remind everyone else that you should "pay for what you get"..unless, I guess, they're doing the paying..hmm.

Once upon a time, this state had the best infrastructure and best public educational system in the country. Fine arts, sports, the latest technical innovations and the finest teachers..all offered as part of the regular curriculum, without having to hold bake sales and sell candy bars to supplement the costs! Once upon a time, the junior and state colleges were free to residents, with only very low fees at university level.

Now, no one can even afford a junior college education without piling up a mountain of debt..and the spiral continues downward, needlessly. I agree that there should be protections against those on limited incomes..particularly seniors and disabled individuals et al..being taxed out of house and home. There is just no reason that can't be done in a more equitable way!

What's interesting is we seem to be debating whether to get rid of Prop 13 altogether or keep it - when I tend to think we just need to change the rules a bit. Use a formula with two inputs - equity and income and produces a number. That number simply makes the property owners who aren't paying their fare share have to pony up more, but it does so based on their equity and income.

My Mom is 74, her house was bought in the early 70s, she owes nothing and pays about $500 per year in property taxes. She is on a fixed income from investments and social security - and lives on about $32,000 per year.

So for all the people that say she should be fully protected by Prop 13 and her property taxes should not go up - well, even though it's my Mom - I say this is wrong. Her next door neighbor bought their house 3 years ago and pays over $20,000 per year in property taxes. A conservative guess would be that my Mom has over $1.2 million in equity (it's closer to $1.5 million). My Mom can easily afford to pay another $2000 a year in property taxes and if she can't get it out of her fixed income there are numerous other ways (family, equity loans, etc.). Simply put - if my Mom couldn't make the payment - my sisters and brother and I would all kick in and cover her since that fat equity amount will go into our family trust eventually.

Back to the formula. My Mom might be an extreme case but I know there's numerous situations just like hers all over California. We need to produce minimums to true up the homeowners who should be paying their fair share. Example - anyone with $1,000,000 - $1,250,000 in equity making over $30,000 a year must pay $2,500. Anyone with $1,250,000-$1,500,000 equity and making over $30,000 must pay $3,000 per year. For every $10,000 yearly they make over $30,000 you add another $200 or something.

There are numerous ways to adjust the formula - it's certainly not simple...but the bottom line is we put something in place that gets these homeowners who have been paying nominal amounts but have significant equity to come up a little bit. Note in my example my Mom is still not paying anywhere close to here neighbor who pays $20,000 - but my Mom should definitely pay more.

Why can't a politician come up with something like this