2020 California Proposition 15

Last updated
Proposition 15
Flag of California.svg
Schools and Communities First Initiative
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes8,213,05448.03%
Light brown x.svg No8,885,56951.97%
Valid votes17,098,62396.14%
Invalid or blank votes686,5283.86%
Total votes17,785,151100.00%
Registered voters/turnout22,047,44880.67%
 2020 California Proposition 15 results map by county.svg

California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. [1] The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points. [2]

Contents

Proposition 15 would have amended the Constitution of California to adjust the limitations on property taxes introduced by 1978 California Proposition 13. It would have changed the property tax assessment on owners of commercial properties with a combined value of greater than $3 million to pay property tax based on the property's current market value, not purchase price. The measure would have exempted all agricultural land and small businesses that owned their own properties. It also included a small business tax cut by increasing the small business personal property tax deduction. All residential properties for homeowners and renters were exempt and other special circumstantial exemptions were provided under the proposition, such as an exemption for rental units or properties with a higher value in which the owner does not in the property (in this case, the tax would have been based on the market value of the property starting in 2022). [3]

According to the official ballot summary, Proposition 15: [1]

According to the official voter information guide: [1]

It was one of two ballot measures on the 2020 California ballot that would adjust the original Proposition 13, the other being Proposition 19. [4]

Background

In 1978, the California voters passed Proposition 13, which limited property taxes to 1% of assessed value, limited increases in assessed value to at most 2% per year, and set assessed value at the 1975–76 value. The assessed value only changes when the property is sold, when there is new construction on the property, or when a change of ownership otherwise occurs. [5] This led to a 60% decrease in property tax revenue collected by local governments the year after Proposition 13 was passed, [6] and forced local authorities in California to subsequently rely on sales taxes, which are more regressive, [7] as well as on state government funding originating from California's personal income tax, which is more progressive but also more volatile. [8]

If Proposition 15 passed, it would have required owners of large commercial, non-residential properties of a combined value of over $3 million to pay property taxes based on current market value, not purchase price. Owners of commercial parcels with a combined value of under $3 million and owners of agricultural or residential property would still be covered by Proposition 13. This type of "split roll" property tax system would have resulted in most owners of large commercial properties paying higher property taxes commensurate with the property's current market value, without changing property taxes for small businesses, agricultural lands, or residential properties. Upon this proposition passing, there would have been a reduction in taxes on business equipment. The amount of funding allocated to the local government and schools is dependent on the Local Control Funding Formula. [3]

Property transfer loophole

Some businesses have exploited a property transfer loophole in Proposition 13 implementing statutes created by the California Legislature [9] that define what constitutes a change in property ownership. [10] To take advantage of this loophole, businesses only have to make sure that no change in ownership exceeds 50% in order to avoid a property tax reassessment.

One of the world's largest investment firms The Blackstone Group, [11] for example, avoided paying $2.7 million in property taxes when they purchased 49% ownership of a San Francisco property in 2017. [12] The Trump Organization, owned by Donald Trump, is another notable property owner who has avoided millions of dollars in California property taxes as a result of the loophole. [13] In 2018, the California Board of Equalization estimated that closing this loophole would raise up to $269 million annually in new tax revenue. [14] [15]

The Legislature could close the property transfer loophole with a 2/3 vote. [16] The loophole was almost closed in 2014 by a bipartisan coalition in the state legislature but the effort died after progressive politicians, organized labor, and community groups refused to support the effort. [17] In 2015 and 2018, Republican efforts to fix this loophole were stalled by Democratic state legislators in legislative committee. [18] Another Republican attempt to close the loophole was made in 2020. [15] Democrat Don Perata, former California senate leader, said this loophole is left open by his party to create justification for ending Proposition 13. [19]

Support

Political endorsements

This measure was supported by over 650 federal, state, and local elected officials and the California Democratic Party. [20] Notable endorsements include: [20] [21] [22]

Organizational endorsements

The measure was also supported by a broad coalition of over 900 education, health and public service employees, and advocacy groups. Notable endorsing organizations included: [20] [21] [22]

This initiative attracted 1.7 million signatures as part of the ballot initiative campaign, a number which organizers describe as 'record-breaking'. [23]

Donations

The Yes on Proposition 15 campaign raised over $67.6 million mostly from foundations and public service unions. The top 3 contributors were the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, California Teachers Association, and SEIU California. [20]

Supporter arguments

Supporters said Prop 15 is a broad coalition of 1600 organizations launched by civil rights organizations, housing groups, parents, teachers, nurses, firefighters and community-based organizations who advocate for equality and justice for communities of color. [21] [24]

Supporters stated that 92% of the revenue generated from Prop. 15 would be paid by 10% of the highest value commercial properties based on a study using the assessor's property tax data. Almost half of the revenue generated would be paid by properties that have not been reassessed since before 2000. [25]

Supporters cited a report that Proposition 15 will not impact small businesses, including those who rent and are in triple net leases. The report was published by Beacon Economics and commissioned by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. [26] The study said that rents are determined by the local market, not by the property taxes paid. [27]

U.S. President-elect Joe Biden said: "Every kid deserves a quality education, and every family deserves to live in a safe, healthy community. That's why I support Prop 15." while previous U.S. Senator from California and Vice President–elect Kamala Harris, also a supporter, stated: "A corporate tax loophole has allowed billions to be drained from our public schools and local communities. No more. I'm proud to support Prop 15." [21]

Proponents of the split roll property tax system said the intent of Proposition 13 was to protect residential property taxes from spiking and say the broad application of Proposition 13 to corporate property is a loophole. [28]

Governor Gavin Newsom announced his endorsement of Proposition 15, calling the proposal "a fair, phased-in and long-overdue reform to state tax policy." The governor said in a written statement, "It's consistent with California's progressive fiscal values, it will exempt small businesses and residential property owners, it will fund essential services such as public schools and public safety and, most importantly, it will be decided by a vote of the people." [29]

Many argued that the additional public revenue provided by this initiative is badly needed. After Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, San Jose had to cut public services and resulted in the first public school in America in 40 years to declare bankruptcy. [30] These issues with educational inequality have only worsened in light of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. San Francisco mayor London Breed referred to this in her statement of support, saying "When I look at our dire budget deficits over the next couple of years, and then I see these revenue estimates showing how much we can invest in our community without having to raise any taxes on residents, it makes it more important for me to give my full support on this initiative." [31]

Labor leader Dolores Huerta also argued that this revenue will help fund public health services such as clinics and public hospitals, which are facing the additional burden of the pandemic. [32]

Socialists supporting Proposition 15 stated: "Prop 15 is a progressive tax, drawing its revenue from those best able to pay on behalf of the common good." [33]

Environmentalists also argues that the tax reform would constrain urban sprawl, which increases greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbates climate change by inducing vehicle travel demand. [34]

California State PTA President Celia Jaffe stated: "Our schools have been desperately underfunded for years, and we need this measure to ensure our children have the resources they need in order to learn. We urge parents and families across the state to support this act to give classrooms – and our children – the funding they need." [35]

Opposition

Political opponents

The measure was opposed by over 190 current and former federal, state, and local elected officials, and the California Republican Party. Notable opponents include: [20] [36] [22] [37]

Organizational opponents

This measure is also opposed by a coalition of over 350 business groups, taxpayer and civic organizations, land developers, and agricultural interests. Notable opposing organizations include: [20] [36] [22]

Donations

The No on Proposition 15 campaign raised over $73.1 million mostly from land developers, agricultural interests and golf and country clubs. The largest donor was the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC, which contributed more than $38 million to the No on 15 campaign. [20] The Business Roundtable's biggest donors were New York–based Blackstone Property Partners, which gave $7 million, and Michael Hayde, CEO of the Irvine real estate investment firm Western National Group, who gave $4.5 million. [38]

Opposition arguments

Opponents said the costs of the tax increase would ultimately be borne by commercial property renters (business owners), and at a time already challenging for retail businesses to survive. Property taxes are paid by the tenant (as opposed to the landlord) under most retail leases. That is because retail leases are generally structured as triple-net leases, whereby a building's property taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance expenses are passed through to the tenant, who is responsible to pay for its proportionate share of those costs in addition to base rent. Retailers, already struggling due to the pandemic, may be unable to meet the increased tax bill, putting their survivability at greater risk. It was also expected to affect tenants who enter into gross leases (whereby expenses are included in base rent), as the higher taxes may be offset with higher rent. This would have a negative impact on tenant finances, and tenants may ultimately pass the higher costs to consumers. [39] [40] [41] [42] Opponents and analysts say Proposition 15 will have the greatest adverse impact on minority- and family-owned businesses, [41] hitting local and regional players the hardest. [39]

County assessors were almost uniformly against Proposition 15, saying the measure would lead to an unmanageable workload which would result in expenditures exceeding revenues to the state for many years, while revenue would be less than expected due to costly litigation associated with assessment appeals by property owners. Assessors said running the transition alone would cost $470 million per year for up to 10 years, and that the costs and challenges of the transition and increased workload could exceed any additional tax revenues. They also were critical of the tax breaks offered in the initiative, purportedly to appease small businesses. The measure provided that businesses with 50 employees or fewer would be exempt from the property tax on "equipment and fixtures," which assessors said did not make sense and would be impossible to implement as they have no means to determine a business's workforce. [43] According to the California Assessor's Association, Proposition 15 would require the hiring of up to 900 new assessors statewide at a total cost of $517 million to $639 million per year. [44]

Opponents said that while the measure targets the large commercial beneficiaries of Proposition 13, it will ultimately burden property renters, consumers, and business owners alike. [39] [41] [42] They also state it may inevitably lead to a full repeal of Proposition 13. [45] "We're next on the menu," said the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who also said: "California has the highest income tax rate in America, we have the highest sales tax in America, we have the highest gas tax in America." and that "Even with Proposition 13 protections, California has higher property taxes than two-thirds of the nation." [46] [47]

Opponents drew attention to the significant financial support Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given the measure through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). Newer Silicon Valley corporations like Facebook derive smaller benefits from Proposition 13 than traditional California businesses do. While Facebook has not come out in support of the measure, opponents at the California Business Roundtable say: "We see CZI as a tool of Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. It's a tool in his toolbox." Officials at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative say the two entities operate independently. [48]

Prop. 15 was also opposed by the California NAACP State Conference, which said it will harm minority small business owners. [49] The endorsement received criticism because the leader of the California NAACP, Alice Huffman, owns a political consulting firm which has received cumulatively over $1.2 million in payments by campaigns that she endorsed. Huffman said she only takes on political clients whose campaigns are aligned with the California NAACP's positions. [50]

Some commentators noted how the initiative would not provide funding for affordable housing development and would further lower the incentive for governmental approval of needed residential development in favor of more-taxable commercial development (for its attendant sales, payroll, business, and/or property tax revenue). [51] [52]

Opponents of the split roll property tax system said voters deliberately sought to extend Proposition 13 protections to all commercial property by rejecting a split roll promoted by Jerry Brown in 1978, and that the transfer loophole was created by the legislature and was not a component of the original Proposition 13 voters approved in the same election that year. [53]

Some people contended this would be a way for state and local governments to pay off their significant unfunded pension liabilities rather than reforming pensions (by capping large payouts and making employees contribute more) that they feel are overly generous and adopted not because of market necessity, but because of unions' political power and bad legislative choices. [54]

The California Farm Bureau opposed the measure because it feared that improvements to farms could be taxed at higher rates. [34]

Another oppositional argument came from the fact that Proposition 15 would have a varying effect on different regions of the state because of the decreased business equipment taxes. It is possible that the rural areas would actually lose money, which would decrease the amount of funding going to public schools, amongst other local needs, deepening inequities state-wide. [3]

Expenditure of tax proceeds

All local governments that receive funds from the property tax increases imposed by Proposition 15 would have been required to publicly disclose for each fiscal year the amount of property tax revenues received thereunder for that fiscal year and how those property tax revenues were spent. [55] Spending decisions on Proposition 15 tax proceeds will be made by local elected officials as part of the annual budget process. [55]

Education funding allocation

Of the Proposition 15 revenue, 40% would have been allocated for K–12 public school districts (89%) and community colleges (11%). [56] The additional education revenue would have been distributed to local school districts through the state Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) [56] that uses state taxes to supplement the local property tax revenue so that every school district in the state reaches a minimum funding level based on the following principles: [57]

  1. Funding schools more equitably based on student needs
  2. Making more decisions at a local level — local control of spending
  3. Measure achievement using multiple metrics and supporting schools to improve

Some wealthier school districts receive more funding through their local property taxes than the LCFF limit. These school districts keep all their local property taxes and only receive "basic aid" from state taxes. [56] On average, basic-aid school districts have more than $4,000 per student (30.6% increase) than LCFF school districts. [58] Proposition 15 guarantees that all school districts will receive at least $100 more per student regardless of their LCFF or basic aid status. [56]

Revenue projections for each district were calculated based on 2019–2020 enrollments and have been identified by School Services of California (as published by EdSource). [59]

Polling

In order to pass, it needed a simple majority (>50%).

Poll sourceDate(s)
administered		Sample
size [lower-alpha 1] 		Margin
of error		For Proposition 15Against Proposition 15Undecided
UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies October 16–21, 20205,352 (LV)–49%42%9%
Public Policy Institute of California October 9–18, 20201,185 (LV)± 4.3%49%45%6%
Ipsos/Spectrum News October 7–15, 20201,400 (A)± 3%55%29%16%
SurveyUSA September 26–28, 2020588 (LV)± 5.4%49%21%30%
UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies September 9–15, 20205,942 (LV)± 2%49%34%17%
Public Policy Institute of California September 4–13, 20201,168 (LV)± 4.3%51%40%9%
Probolsky Research August 27 – September 2, 2020900 (V)± 3.3%41%49%10% [lower-alpha 2]
Public Policy Institute of California [lower-alpha 3] April 1–9, 20201,091 (LV)± 3.7%53%47%1%
Public Policy Institute of California [lower-alpha 3] November 3–12, 20191,008 (LV)± 4.3%46%45%9%
Public Policy Institute of California [lower-alpha 3] September 16–25, 20191,031 (LV)± 4.2%47%45%8%
Public Policy Institute of California [lower-alpha 3] April 5–15, 20191,035 (LV)± 4%54%45%1%
Public Policy Institute of California [lower-alpha 3] January 20–29, 20191,154 (LV)± 4%49%43%8%
Public Policy Institute of California [lower-alpha 3] October 27 – November 5, 20181,095 (LV)± 4.4%56%40%4%
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times [lower-alpha 3] September 17 – October 14, 2018980 (RV)± 4%46%22%31%
Public Policy Institute of California [lower-alpha 3] March 25 – April 3, 2018867 (LV)± 4.4%53%42%5%

Result

ChoiceVotes%
For8,213,05448.03
Against8,885,56951.97
Blank votes686,528-
Total17,785,151100
Registered voters/turnout22,047,44880.67
Source: elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov

Notes

  1. ↑ Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear
  2. ↑ Includes "Refused"
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Did not specify exemptions for commercial properties of $3 million or less

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1978 California Proposition 13</span> Ballot initiative which capped property tax at 1% and yearly increases at 2%

Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

The Oregon tax revolt is a political movement in Oregon which advocates for lower taxes. This movement is part of a larger anti-tax movement in the western United States which began with the enactment of Proposition 13 in California. The tax revolt, carried out in large part by a series of citizens' initiatives and referendums, has reshaped the debate about taxes and public services in Oregon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 Texas constitutional amendment election</span>

The 2007 Texas constitutional amendment election took place 6 November 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 7</span> 2008 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 7, would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources would more than quadruple from their current output of 10.9%. It would also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. Current law AB32 requires an RPS of 20% by 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 10</span> Ballot measure in California

California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an unsuccessful initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. Proposition 10 was funded by Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a corporation owned by T. Boone Pickens. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is the nation's leading operator of natural gas vehicle fueling stations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 19</span> Failed measure to legalize marijuana

California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.

The parcel tax is a form of real estate tax. Unlike most real estate taxes or a land value tax, it is not directly based on property value. It funds K–12 public education and community facilities districts, which are usually known as "Mello-Roos" districts. The California parcel tax, in its typical form as a flat tax, is regressive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 39</span> Ballot measure in California modifying corporate tax burdens

Proposition 39 is a ballot initiative in the state of California that modifies the way out-of-state corporations calculate their income tax burdens. The proposition was approved by voters in the November 6 general election, with 61.1% voting in favor of it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 30</span> California ballot measure regarding taxes

Proposition 30, officially titled Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, is a California ballot measure that was decided by California voters at the statewide election on November 6, 2012. The initiative is a measure to increase taxes to prevent US$6 billion cuts to the education budget for California state schools. The measure was approved by California voters by a margin of 55 to 45 percent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 Michigan Proposal 1</span> Michigan ballot measure

2015 Michigan Proposal 1, also known as the Michigan Sales Tax Increase for Transportation Amendment, was a referendum held on May 5, 2015, concerning a legislatively-referred ballot measure. The measure's approval would have caused one constitutional amendment and 10 statutes to go into effect. It is estimated that Proposal 1 would raise state revenues from sales and use taxes by $1.427 billion, fuel taxes by $463 million, truck registration fees by $50 million, and vehicle registration fees by $10.1 million in the first year. If approved, the proposal was estimated by the Associated Press to result in an average tax increase of $545 per household in 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 55</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

Proposition 55 is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot, regarding extending by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K–12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Proposition 55 will raise tax revenue by between $4 billion and $9 billion a year. Half of funds will go to schools and community colleges, up to $2 billion a year would go to Medi-Cal, and up to $1.5 billion will be saved and applied to debt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California elections</span>

The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Road Repair and Accountability Act</span> California legislative bill

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, also known as the "Gas Tax", is a California legislative bill that was passed on April 6, 2017 with the aim of repairing roads, improving traffic safety, and expanding public transit systems across the state. The approval of the fuel tax was for a projected $52.4 billion, or $5.24 billion per year, to be raised over the next 10 years to fund the state's infrastructure. The bill passed primarily along party lines, with most Democrats supporting the bill while most Republicans were against it. The bill passed with a vote of 27–11 in the Senate and 54–26 in the Assembly. According to California Department of Transportation, for maintenance projects on state highways, while providing funding to enhance trade corridors, transit, and active transportation facilities, in addition to repairing local streets and roads throughout California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California elections</span>

California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California Proposition 6</span> Failed amendment to the Constitution of California

California Proposition 6 was a measure that was submitted to California voters as part of the November 2018 election. The ballot measure proposed a repeal of the Road Repair and Accountability Act, which is also known as Senate Bill 1. The measure failed with about 57% of the voters against and 43% in favor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California Proposition 12</span> Ballot measure in California requiring certain space requirements for farm animals

Proposition 12 was a California ballot proposition in that state's general election on November 6, 2018. The measure was self-titled the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act. The measure passed, by a vote of about 63% Yes to 37% No.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 13</span> $15 billion bond initiative for educational facility maintenance

Proposition 13 was a failed California ballot proposition on the March 3, 2020, ballot that would have authorized the issuance of $15 billion in bonds to finance capital improvements for public and charter schools statewide. The proposition would have also raised the borrowing limit for some school districts and eliminated school impact fees for multifamily housing near transit stations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 19</span> Successful property tax ballot initiative

California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters, and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 30</span> 2022 California ballot proposition

Proposition 30 is a California ballot proposition that appeared in the general election on November 8, 2022. The measure was defeated. The initiative would have raised taxes on the wealthy to fund wildfire management and electric vehicle incentives and infrastructure.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Proposition 15 Official Title and Summary | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State". voterguide.sos.ca.gov. Retrieved 2020-10-02.
  2. ↑ Hooks, Chris Nichols, Kris. "What We Know About California Proposition Results". www.capradio.org. Retrieved 2020-11-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Bessey, Marshall (2019). "Proposition 15: Commercial Property Tax Assessments: 'Split Roll'". roseinstitute.org. Retrieved 2020-11-08.
  4. 1 2 3 "California Proposition 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment (2020)". Ballotpedia.
  5. ↑ Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 2, subd. (a).
  6. ↑ "Common Claims About Proposition 13". lao.ca.gov.
  7. ↑ "Analysis: The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act". Southern California Grantmakers. 2019-12-05. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  8. ↑ Richard C. Auxier, Tracy Gordon, and Kim Rueben (July 2020). "California's State and Local Revenue System" (PDF). Tax Policy Center.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ↑ Proposition 13 implementing statutes were adopted by the California Legislature and are not part of the actual constitutional provisions of Proposition 13.
  10. ↑ Chapter 2 of Part 0.5 of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
  11. ↑ "PEI 300". Private Equity International. Retrieved 2020-11-03.
  12. ↑ "45 Fremont Street: How Commercial Real Estate Owners Avoid Higher Property Taxes". KQED. 31 October 2020. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  13. ↑ Walker, Alissa (2020-10-27). "The Most Notorious Property-Tax Underpayers in California". Curbed. Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  14. ↑ "Legislative Bill Analysis" (PDF). Web Archive/State Board of Equalization. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-11-16.
  15. 1 2 "Senator Patricia Bates Authors Measure to Clarify Prop. 13 (1978) Property "Change of Ownership"". 9 March 2020.
  16. ↑ Eskenazi, Joe (2012-01-04). "Proposition 13: The Building-Sized Loopholes Corporations Exploit". SF Weekly . Archived from the original on 2012-03-08. Retrieved 2018-11-26. Meanwhile, it would require a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to close loopholes regarding corporate "change of control."
  17. ↑ Abramsky, Sasha (22 December 2015). "Have California Voters Finally Had Enough of Prop 13?".{{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
  18. ↑ "Do Democrats in Sacramento really want to fix Prop. 13 problems?". 5 July 2018.
  19. ↑ "Opinion: Don't alter California's revered Prop 13 tax initiative". 20 October 2019.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Prop. 15 – Taxes on Commercial Property". Voter's Edge California. Retrieved 2020-10-14.
  21. 1 2 3 4 "Who Supports | Prop 15". Yes on 15. Retrieved 2020-10-14.
  22. 1 2 3 4 "California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  23. ↑ "Schools and Communities First". Schoolsfirst. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  24. ↑ McAlevey, Jane (2020-06-02). "We Really Need to Tax the Rich". The Nation. ISSN   0027-8378 . Retrieved 2020-11-02.
  25. ↑ "10% of Landowners Will Pay 92% of New Property Tax Revenue, Prop. 15 Supporters Say". KQED. 15 July 2020. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  26. ↑ "Quick Guide: Proposition 15, the proposed 'split-roll' tax on commercial property | EdSource". edsource.org.
  27. ↑ "Understanding the Impact of Proposition 15 on Small Businesses in California" (PDF).
  28. ↑ Commentary, Guest (17 August 2020). "Commentary: How Prop. 13 gave California's richest corporations a multibillion-dollar tax break they didn't want". Calmatters.
  29. ↑ "Newsom endorses November ballot measure to limit Prop. 13 property tax rules". Los Angeles Times. 2020-09-11. Retrieved 2020-10-21.
  30. ↑ Gruber, Jonathan (29 May 2019). Public Finance and Public Policy. Worth publishers. pp. 286–287. ISBN   978-1-319-10527-3.
  31. ↑ "California measure to reform Proposition 13 qualifies for ballot". SFChronicle.com. 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  32. ↑ "Sí se puede: Dolores Huerta on a November ballot measure on commercial property". SFChronicle.com. 2020-06-23. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  33. ↑ Glass, Fred (September 28, 2020). "Prop 15: A reform with revolutionary implications". Majority. Democratic Socialists of America, East Bay chapter. Retrieved 2 October 2020.
  34. 1 2 Nieves, Evelyn (2020-09-29). "California Farm Bureau Fears Improvements Like Barns, and Even Trees, Will Be Taxed Under Prop. 15". InsideClimate News. Retrieved 2020-10-03.
  35. ↑ "Prop. 15: California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act | California State PTA". capta.org. Retrieved 2020-10-23.
  36. 1 2 "Coalition Members". No on Prop 15 – Stop Higher Property Taxes and Save Prop 13. Archived from the original on 2020-10-04. Retrieved 2020-10-14.
  37. ↑ Commentary, Guest (April 14, 2020). "Commentary: Changing Prop. 13 will generate a tax bill that will harm small businesses". CalMatters.
  38. ↑ Fensterwald, John; Willis, Daniel J. "Business donors have met their match in battle over Proposition 15's split-roll tax". EdSource. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  39. 1 2 3 Jonathan Woloshin (September 11, 2020). "Prop 15 could reshape California's commercial real estate – not in a positive way". UBS.[ permanent dead link ]
  40. ↑ Ben Christopher (September 28, 2020). "If voters raise taxes on corporate landlords, will small businesses foot the bill?". ABC10.
  41. 1 2 3 Joseph Pimentel (September 21, 2020). "Prop. 15 Pits California's Small Businesses vs. Schools". Spectrum News 1.
  42. 1 2 Briana Lee (October 15, 2020). "Your Guide To The Ballot Propositions In California's General Election". LAist . Archived from the original on October 11, 2020.
  43. ↑ "Column: A change to Proposition 13 that homeowners can get behind". Los Angeles Times . 29 March 2019.
  44. ↑ California Assessors’ Association (March 21, 2019). "White Paper on a "Generic" Split Roll" (PDF). California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors.
  45. ↑ Kilgore, Ed (2019-08-15). "California Is Headed Toward a Titanic Battle Over Raising Property Taxes". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2019-10-07.
  46. ↑ Renner, Lisa (March 13, 2018). "'Split roll,' the ghost of Prop. 13, haunts 2018". Capitol Weekly - capitolweekly.net. Archived from the original on 2018-05-18. Retrieved 2019-01-28.
  47. ↑ "Big change in California's Proposition 13 could be headed to ballot". SF Chronicle. August 14, 2018. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  48. ↑ "Mark Zuckerberg is spending millions like never before to overhaul a landmark tax law". www.vox.com. 12 October 2020.
  49. ↑ "Your Efforts to Raise Taxes on Minority-Owned Businesses by Spending Millions to Support Proposition 15" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-09-25. Retrieved 2020-09-26.
  50. ↑ Rosenhall, Laurel (2020-09-26). "California NAACP chief aids prop campaigns, gets $1.2 million". CalMatters. Retrieved 2020-10-14.
  51. ↑ "The Unintended Consequences of Split Roll". Orange County Register. November 9, 2019. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  52. ↑ Brinklow, Adam (Aug 15, 2018). "Proposition 13 tax split heading to vote—in the year 2020". Curbed. Archived from the original on 2018-10-21. Retrieved 2019-02-03. Commenting on Twitter, State Sen. and former SF legislator Scott Wiener speculated "split roll makes Proposition 13's anti-housing incentives worse" by giving cities an incentive to build commercial over residential development.
  53. ↑ "Just so you know, there's no loophole in Proposition 13". 26 July 2020.
  54. ↑ Editorial, Board (April 9, 2018). "That 'split roll' you heard about? Less a Prop. 13 fix than a pension bailout". The San Diego Union-Tribune . Archived from the original on 2018-05-02. Retrieved 2019-01-27. But the truth is the new revenue instead inevitably would go to deal with the pension tsunami inundating local governments and school districts. A League of California Cities report issued in January said cities expect pension costs to go from 8.3 percent of general spending now to 15.8 percent in 2024. Sharp increases are already set for school districts, which under a 2014 law must pay steadily more toward pension costs — going from 8.3 percent of payroll in 2013–14 to 19 percent in 2020–21. Against this backdrop, the minor pension reforms approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in recent years are simply inadequate. Until far-reaching reforms are adopted that start with a hard cap on the highest pensions and that make public employees pay significantly more toward total pension costs, here's how proposed tax increases to boost the operating budgets of local governments and school districts should be seen: as attempts to prop up government pension programs whose generosity is more a reflection of government unions' clout and lawmakers' bad decision-making than of job recruitment and retention needs.
  55. 1 2 California Secretary of State, Text of Proposed Laws (Proposition 15), November 3, 2020 General Election, p. 7.
  56. 1 2 3 4 Fensterwald, John (September 30, 2020). "Quick Guide: Proposition 15, the proposed 'split-roll' tax on commercial property". EdSource. Retrieved 10 October 2020.
  57. ↑ "Local Control Funding Formula Guide | EdSource". edsource.org. Retrieved 2020-10-16.
  58. ↑ "Effects of the Local Control Funding Formula on Revenues, Expenditures, and Student Outcomes" (PDF). Table 1, pg. 5.
  59. ↑ Willis, Daniel (September 30, 2020). "How Prop. 15 would increase K-12 districts' funding". EdSource. Retrieved 10 October 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.