‘Son-of-26’ Still Targets Land Owners

Gov. Gray Davis, who until now resisted pleas from tax proponents, finally has buckled, promising to play a prominent role in making it easier to raise property taxes. Davis says he will lead the charge to bring a defeated March ballot proposition back to the voters in November. If successful, we can thank Davis for the property tax increases that will surely begin popping up all across the state after the fall election.

In March, voters rejected Proposition 26, which would have lowered the constitutional requirement to pass local school bonds--which are paid off exclusively by property taxes--from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority of the electorate. The new proposal touted by Davis would lower the two-thirds vote requirement to 55%.

The 5% difference in passing rates between 50% and 55% will hardly be noticed by property taxpayers. Since 1996, 98% of all school bonds captured 50% of the popular vote, of which 94% won 55% of the vote.

It is astonishing that the governor would embrace a plan that, for all intents and purposes, is identical to the one the voters denied a month ago.

Why not consider an alternative plan for school construction funding that won’t exclusively burden the property taxpayer? Why isn’t some of the $10-billion state surplus being used for this purpose?

Why was a proposal put forth by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which included a statewide bond, so quickly rejected? Statewide school bonds are paid off from the general fund. That means all taxpayers contribute to these school bonds, not just property owners. Statewide bonds are paid by all taxpayers, and they require only a majority vote.

A statewide bond would supplement the revenue already being approved by local taxpayers. Since 1997, local taxpayers have passed $12 billion in school construction money. On the same day that Proposition 26 was rejected, local taxpayers throughout the state approved 13 of 19 school bonds with a two-thirds vote. The steady flow of local bond revenue, along with a new statewide school construction bond and money from the state surplus, should provide the necessary resources for school construction without eliminating a long-time taxpayer protection.

However, instead of seeking alternatives, Davis has joined with some Silicon Valley multimillionaires in rushing a measure close to the defeated one back on the ballot. These business executives resist any tax increases on e-commerce and refuse to talk about business property tax increases, yet they are quite willing to see homeowners’ property taxes grow.

Recent studies have shown that in the last couple of years, the overall property tax burden is shifting away from business and toward residential taxpayers.

Should “Son-of-26” win in November, there is no doubt many school bonds will soon pass because the system has been rigged so that these bonds will prevail. School districts have been given an exemption that allows them to call an election on just about any Tuesday of the year. (Other local government agencies must wait for general or primary elections.) These special school elections get low turnouts, sometimes little more than 10% of the registered voters. School district consultants usually recommend a low-key campaign so citizens are not aware that there is a tax increase measure on the ballot or that there is even an election scheduled. Only likely supporters are urged to vote. If passing requirements are eased, the bonds almost certainly will be fatter, increasing the debt and taxes on property taxpayers.

Davis probably will argue that the new initiative is not a property tax increase. He said the same thing about Proposition 26. He claimed that the initiative just changed the rules and that the tax increases would be determined later by local voters. That’s like saying a man who was shot to death died from the loss of blood and the gun had nothing to do with it.

The “Son-of-26” is a gun aimed at the taxpayers’ wallet.