Major Threats to Proposition 13 and Homeowners

Bills That Threaten Homeowners and Small Businesses Are Starting to Move Through the Legislature!

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.

On May 15th, six of these bills that directly undercut various provisions of Proposition 13 (SCA 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 11) were heard in the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Despite strong testimony from HJTA these were approved on a party-line vote (Democrats in favor). The battle now shifts to the Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee. While the bills have not yet been set for a hearing, they could be taken up at any time. We will continue to alert you promptly regarding these and other threats to Proposition 13.

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.

THE FOLLOWING BILLS PUT A BULL'S-EYE ON PROPOSITION 13 AND TAXPAYERS:

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.

Click here to contact your representative.

Click here to receive regular HJTA updates.

Check back often to see the latest threats to Proposition 13 and to learn how you can fight back.