Proposition 13 is unmitigated evil. Don't try to fix it; it can't be fixed.

Simply get rid of it, and treat everyone as if we -- gasp! -- honestly believed them to have been created equal. California's Prop 13 does just the opposite, and simply can't be defended.

Can't be defended.

Don't defend it. End it.

And there will turn out to be enough land for all. When that some of that land hits the market -- at prices people can afford, realtors will collect commissions. Builders will have a place to ply their trade. People who need places to live will be able to afford to own them, and there will be plenty of rental housing available. All sorts of jobs will be created, with tremendous benefits to the entire community, not JUST the landholders, who collect most of the goodies now.

Doesn't that sound like a better place to live than one where poor people who own no land are the ones who pay an inordinate share of the taxes (through sales taxes which burden the economy and destroy jobs) in addition to the high rents they pay their landlords (mostly land value, not for luxurious homes, you know) and where people who have only recently been able to buy their homes pay the highest taxes in addition to having paid off the seller for land value he didn't create?

There is a better way, and most Californians will benefit. But those few who would lose -- the owners of the very best land -- are a powerful force, and they manage to convince many others that they, too, would be net losers, in spite of the untruth of that.

Wouldn't a California with good jobs and affordable homes and a vibrant economy be a better place to live?

Just get rid of Proposition 13. Many things will start to pick up.

End it. Don't defend it.

Proposition 13 is pure evil. Get rid of it, period! It is unconstitutional. Homeowners on fixed incomes who can not afford to pay their rising property tax bills should be forced to go the county welfare office just like renters who can not pay their rent. Their income status should be verified right down to pocket change!!

Pick some slow-growth California town which is full of filthy rich homeowners, and stage a yearly anti-Proposition 13 parade there. Invite young people from around the country to march and peacefully demonstrate. At least a very public parade might force the media to talk about Propostion 13 honestly, rather than keep up the current silent attitude which is goes something like this: "Shhh!! Don't talk about California's dirty little secret! California homeowners want to perpetuate the financial abuse of California's children"

Rise up youth of California and get rid of Propostion 13!! Your energy and determination will guarantee your success!!

Angel-33

Sorry Angel-33, as much as I wish it were unconstitutional, the constitutionality of Prop 13 was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. It won't go away very easily.

Web Link

bizarre- you think charging more to own a house will help fix the market?

Another reason to vote McCain/Palin 08. These are the same types who will vote Obama and seek to raise everybody's taxes.

Three responses and a quotation follow.

---------------------------------

Response to Matt's "Sorry Angel-33 ... upheld ... It won't go away easily":

Yes Matt, Proposition 13 will not go away easily, just as slavery in America did not go away easily. But, slavery did indeed go away, and I guarantee you Proposition-13 will go away as well. And Matt, did you ever hear of the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision by the U.S. Supreme Court? Oh yes, those wonderful justices in 1857 proclaimed that "the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories." That ruling of 1857 is null and void today.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that it is indeed constitutional for a newly-arrived homeowner to pay a much higher property tax than a nearby long-term homeowner. This was a very narrow ruling on a very narrow challenge. Propostion-13 can be challenged again and again on a variety of other grounds. One new challenge would be that Proposition 13 violates the civil rights of renters and the homeless by denying them affordable housing. How? Well, residential development is controlled by the majority homeowner class through community land-use rights, e.g. zoning, planning commissions, elected officials who favor slow-growth, and various other mechanisms of government. Proposition 13 allows homeowners to be rewarded when they restrict residential development; such a restriction increases the value of their property. Renters are then penalized by unaffordable housing, thus sending them into poverty and homelessness. This is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection under the law. The key violation is the blanket limitation of property taxes extended to all homeowners. Warren Buffet and others like him do not need or deserve a property tax limitation. When property taxes are limited for all homeowners, it then becomes a conflict of interest when these same homeowners exercise their community-land-use powers. They will vote and agitate to restrict residential development to enrich themselves while simultaneously denying the non-homeowning class an affordable place to live. Sorry Matt, this is clearly unconstitutional, and it represents a new angle of attack on Proposition 13 for the high court to consider.

link to the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision:
Web Link

---------------------------------

Response to Joe's "bizarre- you think charging more to own a house will help fix the market?

The only thing that is bizarre Joe is your apparent belief that home prices have to be propped up to "fix the market." Home prices have risen to a level which far exceeds affordablity based on people's incomes and prudent lending practices. Why?--because of homeowner greed. Homeowners want their property values to increase and then increase some more, and the heck with everyone else. This is wrong, and it's evil. Joe, if you knew you had to pay a much higher property tax bill like in the days before Proposition 13, would you vote for a slow-growther for mayor or a city council seat? Probably not. There would be a tremendous financial incentive for you to increase the supply of homes and rental units in your community to keep the value of your home from ballooning to an unreasonable level. And, what about a reverse mortgage? If you can't keep up with a higher property tax bill, then get a reverse mortgage to help you pay for it. That's what California homeowners have done for years when they want a new car, a new HDTV, or a vacation to Hawaii. But, to share their wealth with the "community" after they go around abusing the "community" through their selfish "community"-land-use policies and decisions?--why, hell no!!... that's your money, huh, Joe?... that increase in your home's value. Bull! That's not your money at all, because you abused the community of renters and homeless to get it! So get a reverse mortgage to pay for what you owe under the old pre-Proposition-13 taxation system. It was good enough for Californians in the 1950's and 1960's when California flourished, and it should be good enough for California now.

The housing market will be fixed when housing prices fall to the level where ordinary working folks can afford to buy a home with a traditional 30-year fixed rate loan and a 20 per cent down-payment. Striking down and repealing tax laws at the state and national level which cater to greedy homeowners will speed up this necessary home-value depreciation. One such law is Propostion 13. If you have to lose your home, sorry Joe. But, California homeowners had no compassion for the hundreds of homeless who died like animals in the open fields and creek-beds throughout this state. The credit-crisis and foreclosure crisis?--it's as if God himself is angry with the selfish attitude of homeowners throughout America. This is His divine retribution. Stand back and learn a lesson about unbridled greed and economics!!

California's median two or three times the national median? Bull! That's greed!

---------------------------------

Response to Ned's "Another reason to vote McCain/Palin 08. These are the same types who will vote Obama and seek to raise everybody's taxes."

Hey Ned, maybe you ought to vote for Satan in 08. I know he's not on the ballot, but you can write him in okay? He's just your "type." A tax is a contribution to the community. What don't you like about that? I know, I know! If there are too many people in the community who are not of your own race or ethnic stock, why then community is a dirty word, huh? Raising taxes is raising your contribution to the community. If you don't like that Ned, then don't you and your Republican friends talk reverently about community service, then don't you and your Republican friends talk about criminals paying their dues to the community, then don't you and your Republican friends talk about how students should have respect for the community. No way! Ned, I sense that you hold up community as some sort of beautiful idea that promotes law and order, except when it comes time to increase your contribution to the community. Are you religious Ned? What about a ten per cent tithe for the community? Is that a tax? Oh yes, I know, that tax is okay because everyone in your church is a community of good ole boys.

---------------------------------

Quotation:

Here is a quotation about Proposition 13 and the current credit-crisis in America. It's from Professor Ted Hamilton of Columbia College (in California), and is taken from an article in the Union Democrat, an online newspaper.

"Another "fetish" of the 1920s, according to Hamilton, was for the government to cut taxes and services, a trend he sees in California. He said, Proposition 13 (which capped property tax growth) though well-intended, took money from local governments and fueled the speculative real estate market that caused the current crisis."

link to the Union Democrat article:
Web Link

link to Professor Ted Hamiton:
Web Link

---------------------------------

Truly,
Angel-33

Three responses and a quotation follow.

---------------------------------

Response to Matt's "Sorry Angel-33 ... upheld ... It won't go away easily":

Yes Matt, Proposition 13 will not go away easily, just as slavery in America did not go away easily. But, slavery did indeed go away, and I guarantee you Proposition-13 will go away as well. And Matt, did you ever hear of the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision by the U.S. Supreme Court? Oh yes, those wonderful justices in 1857 proclaimed that "the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories." That ruling of 1857 is null and void today.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that it is indeed constitutional for a newly-arrived homeowner to pay a much higher property tax than a nearby long-term homeowner. This was a very narrow ruling on a very narrow challenge. Propostion-13 can be challenged again and again on a variety of other grounds. One new challenge would be that Proposition 13 violates the civil rights of renters and the homeless by denying them affordable housing. How? Well, residential development is controlled by the majority homeowner class through community land-use rights, e.g. zoning, planning commissions, elected officials who favor slow-growth, and various other mechanisms of government. Proposition 13 allows homeowners to be rewarded when they restrict residential development; such a restriction increases the value of their property. Renters are then penalized by unaffordable housing, thus sending them into poverty and homelessness. This is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection under the law. The key violation is the blanket limitation of property taxes extended to all homeowners. Warren Buffet and others like him do not need or deserve a property tax limitation. When property taxes are limited for all homeowners, it then becomes a conflict of interest when these same homeowners exercise their community-land-use powers. They will vote and agitate to restrict residential development to enrich themselves while simultaneously denying the non-homeowning class an affordable place to live. Sorry Matt, this is clearly unconstitutional, and it represents a new angle of attack on Proposition 13 for the high court to consider.

link to the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision:
Web Link

---------------------------------

Response to Joe's "bizarre- you think charging more to own a house will help fix the market?

The only thing that is bizarre Joe is your apparent belief that home prices have to be propped up to "fix the market." Home prices have risen to a level which far exceeds affordablity based on people's incomes and prudent lending practices. Why?--because of homeowner greed. Homeowners want their property values to increase and then increase some more, and the heck with everyone else. This is wrong, and it's evil. Joe, if you knew you had to pay a much higher property tax bill like in the days before Proposition 13, would you vote for a slow-growther for mayor or a city council seat? Probably not. There would be a tremendous financial incentive for you to increase the supply of homes and rental units in your community to keep the value of your home from ballooning to an unreasonable level. And, what about a reverse mortgage? If you can't keep up with a higher property tax bill, then get a reverse mortgage to help you pay for it. That's what California homeowners have done for years when they want a new car, a new HDTV, or a vacation to Hawaii. But, to share their wealth with the "community" after they go around abusing the "community" through their selfish "community"-land-use policies and decisions?--why, hell no!!... that's your money, huh, Joe?... that increase in your home's value. Bull! That's not your money at all, because you abused the community of renters and homeless to get it! So get a reverse mortgage to pay for what you owe under the old pre-Proposition-13 taxation system. It was good enough for Californians in the 1950's and 1960's when California flourished, and it should be good enough for California now.

The housing market will be fixed when housing prices fall to the level where ordinary working folks can afford to buy a home with a traditional 30-year fixed rate loan and a 20 per cent down-payment. Striking down and repealing tax laws at the state and national level which cater to greedy homeowners will speed up this necessary home-value depreciation. One such law is Propostion 13. If you have to lose your home, sorry Joe. But, California homeowners had no compassion for the hundreds of homeless who died like animals in the open fields and creek-beds throughout this state. The credit-crisis and foreclosure crisis?--it's as if God himself is angry with the selfish attitude of homeowners throughout America. This is His divine retribution. Stand back and learn a lesson about unbridled greed and economics!!

California's median two or three times the national median? Bull! That's greed!

---------------------------------

Response to Ned's "Another reason to vote McCain/Palin 08. These are the same types who will vote Obama and seek to raise everybody's taxes."

Hey Ned, maybe you ought to vote for Satan in 08. I know he's not on the ballot, but you can write him in okay? He's just your "type." A tax is a contribution to the community. What don't you like about that? I know, I know! If there are too many people in the community who are not of your own race or ethnic stock, why then community is a dirty word, huh? Raising taxes is raising your contribution to the community. If you don't like that Ned, then don't you and your Republican friends talk reverently about community service, then don't you and your Republican friends talk about criminals paying their dues to the community, then don't you and your Republican friends talk about how students should have respect for the community. No way! Ned, I sense that you hold up community as some sort of beautiful idea that promotes law and order, except when it comes time to increase your contribution to the community. Are you religious Ned? What about a ten per cent tithe for the community? Is that a tax? Oh yes, I know, that tax is okay because everyone in your church is a community of good ole boys.

---------------------------------

Quotation:

Here is a quotation about Proposition 13 and the current credit-crisis in America. It's from Professor Ted Hamilton of Columbia College (in California), and is taken from an article in the Union Democrat, an online newspaper.

"Another "fetish" of the 1920s, according to Hamilton, was for the government to cut taxes and services, a trend he sees in California. He said, Proposition 13 (which capped property tax growth) though well-intended, took money from local governments and fueled the speculative real estate market that caused the current crisis."

link to the Union Democrat article:
Web Link

link to Professor Ted Hamiton:
Web Link

---------------------------------

Truly,
Angel-33

Prop 13 the Holy Grail of tax reform.