The new Legislature is dominated by pro-tax politicians, and bills, that undermine the taxpayer protections in Proposition 13, have been introduced and are starting to be heard in committee. If approved, these bills could cost every property owner thousands of dollars.
There are seven bills pertaining to Proposition 13 that are up in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee next Wednesday morning, May 15th, at 9:30 in Room 112. Six of these bills directly undercut various provisions of Proposition 13 (SCA 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11). Another bill, Senate Constitutional Resolution 25 (State Senator Mark Wyland, R—Escondido) is also up in the committee that day and honors Proposition 13 on its upcoming 35th anniversary.
An additional two bills, Assembly Constitutional Amendments 3 and 8, also diminish Proposition 13's protections. These have not been set for a hearing yet.
Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 (SCA 3), Mark Leno (D—San Francisco): Lowers the threshold for school district per-parcel property taxes from two-thirds to 55%. This is a direct assault on Proposition 13 because it makes it easier to increase property taxes above Proposition 13's one percent cap.
Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 (SCA 4), Carol Liu (D—La Canada) and Senate Constitutional Amendment 8 (SCA 8), Ellen Corbett (D—San Leandro): Lowers the threshold for the imposition, extension or increase of local transportation special taxes from the Proposition 13-mandated two-thirds vote to 55%. Most transportation special tax increases consist of very regressive sales tax hikes. These add to the burden of California taxpayers who already pay the highest state sales tax in the nation.
Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 (SCA 7), Lois Wolk (D—Davis): Lowers the threshold from two-thirds to 55% in order to approve a bond to fund public library facilities. Lowering the threshold for school facilities to 55% has already resulted in billions of dollars of additional property tax payments that otherwise would not have been approved by voters.
Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (SCA 9), Ellen Corbett (D—San Leandro): Lowers the threshold from two-thirds to 55% to increase special taxes to fund community and economic development projects.
Senate Constitutional Amendment 11 (SCA 11), Loni Hancock (D—Berkeley): Lowers the threshold to 55% to allow for voters representing ANY local government entity to approve a special tax for ANY purpose. This is far and away the broadest application, and thus the most egregious, of these constitutional amendments.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3 (ACA 3), Nora Campos (D—San Jose): Lowers the threshold to 55% for voters within cities, counties and special districts to approve EITHER a local bond measure or a special tax in order to fund emergency service facilities projects including police and fire services.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8 (ACA 8), Bob Blumenfield (D—Woodland Hills): Lowers the threshold to 55% for city and county voters to approve a local bond measure in order to fund emergency service facilities projects.
Tell your representatives that you oppose these bills that attack your Proposition 13 protections.
Nathan Fletcher is a member of the Democratic Party. This doesn’t surprise me. I knew when he made the choice to throw the “independent” Hail Mary pass that, if he wanted a political future, he would have to (a) move to another state and try to woo Republican voters there or (b) join with the Democrats. Getting elected, in a big state like California, is nearly impossible as an independent, especially one who holds competing positions within a 12-month period.
This isn’t about Nathan though–this is about you. Many of you are registered Republicans who thought Nathan was electable. I get that. He’s good looking, a combat veteran, and has a politically connected wife. Some volunteers, donors, and consultants thought that was what was needed to win and govern in San Diego. Most Republican volunteers, donors, and consultants disagreed and the local party (and Republican voters) backed Carl DeMaio. I can’t speak for them or the local party but I can for myself. I supported DeMaio and got involved in the local party because I think ideas and principles matter. I like that our local party, for which Carl held the banner in the last election, is focused on limiting and reforming government.
The voters like the ideas we’re offering:
I suspect that you like those ideas too. This is good news for all of us. Together, we can continue to develop more ideas for government reform and elect candidates who can implement those ideas. I believe the local Republican Party is a coalition of like-minded people who, while we don’t always agree on every issue, can rally around the basic principles of reform.
If you’re a registered Republican who supported Fletcher, we want to see more of you. It is you who make this Republican Party special. Please come see us on the second Monday of each month. I promise you that nobody will say “I told you so”
If you’re an independent who thought Fletcher represented the center-right principles with which you identify, we want to hear from you. Naturally, we’d love for you to re-register and volunteer but if you don’t want to do that, we still want your input–neither political party can win elections without appealing to you. I extend the same invitation to visit us on the second Monday of each month. I promise you that we will listen to you.
If you’re like some of my moderate “Legacy Democrat” friends, we know that Fletcher might have appealed to you. We want to know why. We think you might share our principles and, while you may not be comfortable identifying with the Republican Party, you ultimately vote for many our candidates. That’s cool—we want to hear from you, too. You’re invited on the second Monday of each month but if you aren’t comfortable visiting us, reach out to a Republican elected official whom you like–she’ll appreciate that you did so.
Republicans believe in limited government which works. Republicans believe in the rule of law. Republicans believe in individual rights. Republicans believe that by limiting government and following the rule of law, individuals competing and cooperating with one another produce far superior results than a big, centralized government, trying to plan our individual lives.
Nathan Fletcher, the Marine veteran, is worthy of our respect, Nathan Fletcher, the politician, doesn’t subscribe to the principles with which you and I identify. That’s okay. Come back to the Republican Party and we’ll work on big ideas…together. Those ideas will always transcend any one person.