HousingWiki

Proposition 13: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Proposition 13 (view source)

Revision as of 23:36, 10 December 2017

308 bytes added ,  6 years ago
no edit summary
VisualWikitext
imported>Tmccormick
No edit summary
imported>Tmccormick
No edit summary
Line 67:
 
This subsequently led to the passage of California Proposition 218 in 1996 ("Right to Vote on Taxes Act") that constitutionally requires voter approval for local government taxes and some nontax levies such as benefit assessments on real property and certain property-related fees and charges.
 
 
 
Line 73 ⟶ 74:
 
#
=== Repeal for&nbsp;commercial property only<br/> (also known as "split roll" reform).<br/> ​​​ ===
 
##
==== [http://www.evolve-ca.org/our-plan/ Evolve CA proposal]:&nbsp; ====
 
##*#<span style="font-size: 13px;">'''Implement this reform in a smart way.&nbsp;&nbsp;'''<span style="font-size: 13px;">Some commercial properties have not been reassessed in 40 years, meaning their owners are still paying property rates based on 1970s assessments. Our proposal will gradually phase-in changes to tax rates. Upon implementation, it will take three years until non-residential, commercial property owners will be paying taxes based on their current market value.</span></span><br/> &nbsp;
##*#'''ProvideEstablish reliefregular forreassessment smallof businessesnon-residential, commercial property in California.'''<span style="font-size: 13px;">. &nbsp;Small businessNo ownersother willstate bein exemptthe fromcountry thishas reformfrozen andcommercial also provided with directproperty tax reliefrates. throughMost eliminationstates ofreassess thecommercial businessproperty personalevery property1-5 taxyears.</span><br/> &nbsp;
##*#'''Maintain current Prop. 13 protections for all residential property.&nbsp;&nbsp;'''<span style="font-size: 13px;">Homeowners, home renters, apartment owners, and apartment renters will not be affected by this reform.</span><br/> &nbsp;
##*#'''EstablishProvide regularrelief reassessmentfor ofsmall non-residential, commercial property in California.businesses'''<span style="font-size: 13px;">. &nbsp;Small Nobusiness otherowners statewill inbe theexempt countryfrom hasthis frozenreform commercialand propertyalso provided with direct tax rates.relief Mostthrough stateselimination reassessof commercialthe propertybusiness everypersonal 1-5property yearstax.</span><br/> &nbsp;
 
##
##Criticisms of 'split-roll' reform:
==== &nbsp;Criticisms of 'split-roll' reform: ====
###YIMBY Action:<br/> "We are conflicted about that proposal because it risks incentivizing municipalities to build only commercial and not residential, to increase their tax revenue."&nbsp;(Laura Clark, YIMBY Action, quoted in [Reisenwitz 2017]).&nbsp;<br/> &nbsp;
###California Chamber of Commerce.<br/> “Our position has always been that if you’re going to have a tax increase, it should be broad-based and universally applicable,” says CCC policy advocate Jennifer Barrera. “A split-roll tax treats residential property differently from commercial property, so it’s discriminatory.” (quoted in [Abramsky 2016]).&nbsp;<br/> &nbsp;
 
###
===== California Chamber of Commerce.<br/> “Our position has always been that if you’re going to have a tax increase, it should be broad-based and universally applicable,” says CCC policy advocate Jennifer Barrera. “A split-roll tax treats residential property differently from commercial property, so it’s discriminatory.” (quoted in [Abramsky 2016]).&nbsp; =====
 
###
===== YIMBY Action:<br/> "We are conflicted about that proposal because it risks incentivizing municipalities to build only commercial and not residential, to increase their tax revenue."&nbsp;(Laura Clark, YIMBY Action, quoted in [Reisenwitz 2017]).&nbsp; =====
=== &nbsp;Repeal or raise business tax, pair with low-income tax credit<br/> but mitigate resulting upward pressure on rents by expanding state income-tax credits for low-income renters. [Sexton 1999].&nbsp; ===
 
#
=== Raise the reassessment cap from 2% to 4%.&nbsp;<br/> [Sexton 1999].&nbsp; ===
 
 
#
 
&nbsp;
 
&nbsp;
 
#&nbsp;Repeal or raise business tax, pair with low-income tax credit
 
=== but mitigate resulting upward pressure on rents by expanding state income-tax credits for low-income renters. [Sexton 1999].&nbsp; ===
 
#Raise the reassessment cap from 2% to 4%.&nbsp;
 
=== [Sexton 1999].&nbsp; ===
 
#&nbsp;
 
=== Repeal inheritabilty of tax assessments&nbsp;<br/> [Sexton 1999].&nbsp; ===
 
#&nbsp;
#
 
==== Defer tax or tax increase payments until sale ====
 
##
##&nbsp;
 
 
&nbsp;
 
==== California program for seniors & disabled. ====
 
##
##&nbsp;
 
 
&nbsp;
 
==== Oregon program.&nbsp; ====
 
##
##&nbsp;
 
 
&nbsp;
 
==== Lexington, Kentucky proposed program<br/> (see [Musgrave 2017]):&nbsp; ====
 
###
##
###&nbsp;
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
City would make a loan to certain homeowners to cover increase in property taxes.&nbsp;
 
####
##
###
####&nbsp;
 
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
Applicants would have to have lived in their property at least five to 10 years.
 
####
##
###
####&nbsp;
 
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
Their income would have to be at or below 80 percent of the area median income and
 
####
##
###
####&nbsp;
 
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
their property taxes would have to increase more than 12 percent from the prior year.
 
####
##
###
####&nbsp;
 
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
Homeowners would have to re-apply each year.
 
####
##
###
####&nbsp;
 
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
The city would only pay for the increase in the property tax, not the entire property tax bill.
 
####
##
The city’s payment would be a loan that would have to be repaid when the property is sold.&nbsp;
###
.&nbsp;
####&nbsp;
 
 
 
 
&nbsp;
 
The city’s payment would be a loan that would have to be repaid when the property is sold.&nbsp; .&nbsp;
 
== Reform-related Events / Forums&nbsp; ==
Anonymous user
Retrieved from "https://housing.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/2685"