Those wacky loopholes Save Prop 13 would close*

City of Upland, California, United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

We caught up with Susan Shelley of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n to explain why it's just basic logic to close the inequitable and economically misguided mistakes (like the Upland Loophole) in the CA tax code.

"Since citywide and statewide voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13 in 1978, court decisions have weakened or erased the plain language of the constitution. Courts have allowed real estate transfer taxes to be enacted in 'charter cities' for 'general' purposes {Ed. note: SJ's Measure E is an example.}

"Courts have also weakened the two-thirds vote requirement, inventing an exception for special taxes that are proposed as a citizens’ initiative, as opposed to being placed on the ballot by the vote of a government body {Ed. note: Recent county Measure D was an example.}

"As a result, special interest groups can now write their own tax increase, direct all the money to themselves, pay to collect the signatures to place it on the ballot, and evade the two-thirds vote requirement."

"The appellate courts of California have said these citizen-proposed taxes can pass with 50% plus one vote, even though the identical measure would require a two-thirds vote if placed on the ballot by a city council or county board of supervisors."
--Susan Shelley, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n

* San Jose City Council appears poised to oppose the Save Prop 13 Act at its Tuesday, June 16 meeting.

Those wacky loopholes Save Prop 13 would close*

Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles