 |
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
45 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Will
Proposition 2½ be next?
|
Proposition 13 is untouchable.
That’s been the thinking for 40 years in
California. Politicians have feared for their careers if
they dared suggest changes to the measure that capped
property taxes, took a scythe to government spending and
spawned antitax initiatives across the country.
However, that is beginning to change. With
Republican influence in California on the wane and ascendant
Democrats making tax fairness an issue, advocates are
confident that the time is right to take a run at some
legacies of the 1978 measure....
Legislative Democrats hold so many seats
that they don’t have to worry about the GOP blocking such
ideas from going before voters. Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom has
said that “everything would be on the table,” including
Prop. 13, as he formulates a plan to reform the state’s tax
structure.
Perhaps most important, Prop. 13’s age is
becoming an advantage to would-be reformers: California’s
voting demography is changing. The generation of homeowners
that grew up with Prop. 13 is well into retirement now, and
some younger Californians blame flaws in the measure for
everything from the underfunding of public schools to
growing wealth inequality....
Prop. 13 was a remedy for a side-effect of
one of California’s first housing bubbles — spiking property
taxes. Moved by their own tax bills and horror stories of
longtime homeowners being forced to sell because of
skyrocketing assessments, voters overwhelmingly passed the
measure. It rolled back assessments for homes and businesses
to 1976 levels and capped annual tax increases at 2 percent.
Jon Coupal is president of Prop. 13’s
fiercest defender — the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,
named after the initiative’s co-author. He agreed that “the
number of homeowners who were around in 1978 is shrinking.
And many younger people don’t remember the fear and anger
about losing your home.”
But Coupal said that “notwithstanding the
leftward movement of politics in California,” his
organization’s internal polling shows support for Prop. 13
remains strong....
The League of Women Voters of California
says it has gathered enough signatures for a 2020 ballot
measure...
Helen Hutchison, president of the League of
Women Voters of California, acknowledged that changing the
law will be difficult because “Prop. 13 still has some kind
of magical pull. But we think the time is right to do this.”
Howard Jarvis,
sponsor of the Proposition 13 property tax limitation
initiative, in 1978.
The San Francisco Chronicle
December 27, 2018
Proposition 13 is no longer off-limits in California
Progressives are excited about an initiative
to change Proposition 13 that could generate billions of
dollars every year for schools and local government — and
it’s already qualified for the November 2020 ballot.
The California Democratic Party backs the
idea, and so do 54% of likely voters, according to an April
survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of
California....
The League of Women Voters and a coalition
of more than 300 community groups and labor organizers
united last year to back the ballot measure, colloquially
known as the “split roll” for how it treats commercial and
residential properties differently.
“Californians now have the opportunity to
reform a 40-year injustice,” Helen Hutchison, president of
the League of Women Voters of California, said when the
measure qualified for the ballot.
But the organization representing the
state’s assessors — while not taking an official position on
the measure — said it is worried about how its members would
fulfill the initiative’s demands.
A California Assessors Association report
conducted by Capitol Matrix Consulting on the split roll’s
effect predicts that 75% of all new assessments could be
appealed.
The San Francisco Chronicle
July 6, 2019
Prop. 13 reform headed to California ballot could swamp
counties
A 2020 ballot initiative that would
dramatically change Proposition 13, California’s landmark
property tax-cutting measure, is being pushed aside by its
backers in favor of a revised plan they believe will have a
better chance of passing.
Like the measure that backers hope to
replace, the new initiative would split the property tax
roll, keeping the Prop. 13 tax limits for residential, small
business and agricultural property, but eliminating those
limits for most high-dollar commercial and industrial
buildings and land.
Prop. 13’s restrictions on taxing properties
such as shopping centers, office buildings and factories
“have starved funding for schools and local communities,”
said Tyler Law, a spokesman for the “Schools & Communities
First” initiative. “We are refiling the initiative to
substantially strengthen the measure ... and widen the path
to victory in November 2020.”
Like the original measure, the new one would
lead to more frequent reassessments of commercial and
industrial property. Limiting such reassessments was a key
feature of Prop. 13, which voters passed in 1978. Under it,
property is reassessed only when it changes hands....
The move means that supporters of the
split-roll plan are committed to running an expensive effort
to qualify a new initiative, even though the measure it
would replace has already qualified for the November 2020
ballot....
“Our studies suggest the tax measure has a
very, very tough row to hoe,” said Jon Coupal, president of
the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a group named after
the man behind Prop. 13. “This is an $11 billion tax
increase, and why would people vote for it at a time
California is flush with cash?”
While a February 2018 report on the original
split-roll initiative by the nonpartisan legislative analyst
estimated it would bring the state $11 billion in new
revenue, the new measure’s changes could trim that amount.
Both versions would split the new money between schools and
local government.
The San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Prop. 13 reform measure pushed aside —
backers seek new tax plan for businesses
This weekend Massachusetts residents will
get a brief taste of the New Hampshire experience. Why?
Because for two, very brief days, Bay Staters will be able
to experience shopping the way those of us who live in New
Hampshire do every day — sales tax free....
My point really isn’t to bash Massachusetts
or other nearby New England states. Instead, my job as
governor of the great state of New Hampshire is to advocate
for — and promote — the wonderful opportunities that await
in the Granite State. It’s a sales tax holiday in New
Hampshire 365 days a year. Anything from new cars to
clothes, big screen televisions and everything inside one of
our beautiful state-run liquor stores are sales tax free. On
top of that — we don’t have an income tax or capital gains
tax.
Elsewhere in New England, every other state
hits you hard with taxes at the checkout lane. In New
Hampshire, we aren’t looking to take any more of your money.
We’re looking for you to spend it, which helps our small
businesses and boosts local economies. That’s the whole
point of a sales tax holiday, after all. So why limit it to
just two days a year? ...
Other states always seem to have an excuse
to tax you. Politicians will say, “Times are good so people
can afford the tax hike,” or “Sorry, times are bad and the
government needs more money to operate.” Either way they
stick it to you and hope over time their citizens get used
to it. That’s a terrible approach and something we won’t do
in New Hampshire.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Taxes take a permanent holiday in N.H.
By Gov. Chris Sununu
You call this a party?
The ongoing spat between the political
committee of Governor Charlie Baker, a moderate Republican,
and the conservative state GOP has left Baker’s team locked
out of fund-raising databases for a month, while the party
has now regained access after threatening legal action.
A letter dated Wednesday from a MassGOP
lawyer obtained by The Boston Globe said the party has
recovered access to the databases kept by software giant
Salesforce.com. Evan Lips, a party spokesman, confirmed the
MassGOP is back online.
Jim Conroy, a top Baker political aide, said
the governor’s political committee remains locked out of
Salesforce.
The Globe reported last week that a MassGOP
lawyer sent a tart epistle to Salesforce, accusing the San
Francisco company of “unlawfully” blocking the party from
its databases since July 15 and said it had “knowingly
allowed access by unauthorized third parties,” an apparent
reference to Baker’s political team....
Baker aides have said they made an offer
through Salesforce to work with the state party to come up
with an appropriate division of donor databases, which
include years of information. But they have said the MassGOP
replied, through Salesforce, that the party is not
interested in such a division.
Asked about that version of events last
week, Lyons said simply: “When someone takes something
inappropriately away from someone, why would you want to
negotiate with them to begin with?”
The Boston Globe
Friday, August 16, 2019
Sorry, Charlie! Ongoing spat between Baker, state GOP
leaves governor’s political operation locked out
[MassGOP chairman Jim Lyons] offered an
analogy with an organization he called Non-Profit X.
“They rely on donors who have historically
given to an organization. Say there’s a change at the top of
the organization and new management walks in the front door
and all of the donors and all of the data get taken by the
old people walking out — that’s a very valuable asset that
Non-Profit X no longer has,” the chairman said. “And that’s
pretty much what happened here.”
The Boston Globe
Friday, August 9, 2019
MassGOP and Charlie Baker’s political team clash over donor
databases
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Among the
volumes of information relating to taxation and
government that I digest every day, I came across the
newsletter issued by the
Institute on
Taxation and Economic Policy, another leftwing,
Washington, DC-based progressive "think tank" that
advocates for "tax fairness." Always striving to
keep on top of what's potentially coming at us before it
does, I am subscribed to its e-mail newsletter, "State
Rundown." Last week I first learned from it of the
California liberals'
assault on Proposition 13 —
the inspiration for our Proposition 2½
— and immediately researched further.
What starts in "The Land of Fruits
and Nuts" on the Left Coast often — even usually — very
soon migrates to Massachusetts.
In 1978 California
voters approved Proposition 13 by nearly two-thirds.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — the initiative
petition's sponsor —
reports:
Prior to Proposition 13, property
taxes were out of control. People were losing their
homes because they could not pay their property taxes,
yet government did nothing to help them.
In the finest tradition of the
Boston Tea Party, California taxpayers stood up and said
“No more!” to excessive taxes.
The Proposition 13 Revolution
swept the country and made headlines around the world.
It began a change in thinking about the tax burden
property owners had to bear. Proposition 13 also started
a revolution in the people turning to the initiative
process to gain greater control over their lives.
Citizens for Limited Taxation
immediately took the bit in its teeth and followed the
trail blazed by Howard Jarvis in the once-Golden State,
collected the signatures and put our Proposition 2½ on
the Massachusetts ballot two years later, in 1980.
It also won voters' support by almost two-thirds.
At the National Taxpayers Union's
1999 dinner in Washington, D.C., CLT's Barbara Anderson
was
presented with the prestigious Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association's "Lifetime Taxfighter Award" by
its current president, Jon Coupal, who took over
the reins of the organization after Howard passed away
in 1986. (Since the early
'80s there were only four recipients; Barbara was the
fifth. Ronald Reagan was
the first, and his now resides in the Reagan
Presidential Library.) I still have
the 30-pound solid bronze bust displayed, now on my fireplace
mantel. (Photo on right; click on it to
enlarge).
It's noteworthy that the driving
force behind the current assault on California's
Proposition 13 — alongside of course the Democrat Party
— is the League of Women Voters. The
"Plague of Women Vultures" as we 'affectionately' call
them has been an opponent —
no, make that adversary —
of every tax cut or reform CLT has fought for or won.
What most
concerned me upon learning of the assault on California
taxpayers' Proposition 13 are the comments by head
vulture Helen Hutchison, president of the League of
Women Voters of California: “Prop. 13 still has
some kind of magical pull. But we think the time
is right to do this. . . . Californians now have the
opportunity to reform a 40-year injustice.”
Jon Coupal of
the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association retorted, “This
is an $11 billion tax increase, and why would people
vote for it at a time California is flush with cash?”
That sounds
too much like Taxachusetts and its pending
"Millionaire's Tax" and the upcoming "transportation
funding" tax proposals —
and we know too well that More Is Never Enough (MINE).
Proposition 13
and the national tax revolt began in California.
Two years later Massachusetts joined the revolution and
passed our own version of it —
CLT's Proposition 2½.
Two years after California.
In my
commentary for the CLT Update of February 24th ("Narrative
Data Points") I noted:
. . . Beyond committee
assignments there is little to see at the beginning
of a legislative year but narrative data points.
I call them "narrative data
points" because if connected soon enough they
portend the direction that state government will
take. If one follows political news and trends
over time religiously, eventually the subtle but
evolving narrative becomes obvious. The
various dots begin to connect and a direction is
defined; goals materialize and the means for
achieving them emerge.
Stay alert,
taxpayers — stay very
alert! CLT intends to be.
Another
intriguing political drama that caught my eye this week
in an otherwise somnambulant period on Beacon Hill is
the street fight over who owns the Republican Party's
fund-raising mailing list —
the Massachusetts Republican Party, or Gov. Charlie
Baker and his cohorts. For someone who is the
antithesis of all things Republican it's not all that
shocking that Charlie Baker would try to abscond with
the Republicans' most critical resources. Any
Democrat worth his or her standing would leap at the
opportunity.
In my CLT
Update commentary of January 19th I wrote:
I admit to
being pleasantly shocked by news that the state
Republican Party elected former-State Rep. Jim
Lyons (R-Andover) as its new
chairman. I never thought anything like that was
even remotely possible in Massachusetts ― but when
you've got not a thing to lose anymore it's time to
try something, anything new. A tireless,
committed conservative, Jim Lyons will shake things
up among the state's complacent Republican
minority. The MassGOP has had a long run of trying
to out-Democrat Bay State Democrats for decades.
President Harry
S. Truman, speaking to the National Convention of
the Americans for Democratic Action in 1952, noted:
"If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and
a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will
choose the genuine article, every time."
The obverse is
just as true, as Republicans have, or should
have learned over those decades.
Is it
conceivable that Massachusetts is so liberal
Democrat entrenched because there has not
been another option in memory, a different vision, a
real contrast for so long? If you've had enough of
higher and higher taxes and cradle-to-grave control
where do you turn ― besides paying Charlie's new
hostage release ransom and running for your life?
Maybe we'll
find out with Jim Lyons at the helm of "the loyal
opposition." Massachusetts Republicans have nothing
to lose and everything to gain.
The same can be
said for taxpayers.
So to whom
does the Republican Party's membership mailing list
belong?
Seems to me
this question is rhetorical, moot. It belongs to
the Republican Party, not some outside interloper.
Who the interlopers are is self-evident.
Yesterday in
its whimsical Weekly Roundup column during a dearth of
news from Beacon Hill the State House News Service
reported:
Picked-up pieces while "spending time" in August's
sleepy State House this week because at least there
are no sharks here ... Gov. Charlie Baker and First
Lady Lauren Baker decamped from their Swampscott
home this week and will be "spending time" in
Gloucester through next week, his office said, amid
the State House doldrums. Do you think they got
someone to take the mail in, or will they make a few
trips home to pick it up? ...
The
governor made a stop in another popular vacation
spot this week. On Saturday he visited Nantucket to
greet Vice President Mike Pence, who was on the
island to help raise money for the national
Republican Party and President Donald Trump's
re-election. Baker was there because the governor is
supposed to welcome the president or vice president
to their state and to talk with Pence about the
Vineyard Wind project, a key part of Baker's clean
energy agenda that the Trump/Pence administration
has thrown off course.
The
tarmac meeting with Pence would be the only known
interaction between the governor and White House
this week. When Trump came to nearby Manchester, N.H.,
on Thursday night for a rally the staycationing
governor decided against making the trip to see the
nominal head of his party. A Baker campaign aide
declined to elaborate on the governor's reasoning,
though it's well known that Baker is not a Trump
fan.
Here
are some Massachusetts Republicans who did attend
Trump's rally Thursday, per a source in the arena:
MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons, Executive Director Wendy
Wakeman, Political Director John Milligan, Field
Director Jason Ross, Communications Director Evan
Lips, Financial Assistant Luan Giannone, state
committee members Amy Carnevale and Tom Mountain,
and Rep. David DeCoste of Norwell.
I'd say that
clearly demonstrates who are the Republicans, and who
are the treacherous interlopers.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
The San Francisco
Chronicle
December 27, 2018
Proposition 13 is no longer off-limits in
California
By Joe Garofoli
Proposition 13 is untouchable.
That’s been the thinking for 40 years in
California. Politicians have feared for their
careers if they dared suggest changes to the
measure that capped property taxes, took a
scythe to government spending and spawned
antitax initiatives across the country.
However, that is beginning to change. With
Republican influence in California on the wane
and ascendant Democrats making tax fairness an
issue, advocates are confident that the time is
right to take a run at some legacies of the 1978
measure.
High on their list: making businesses pay more
and ending a sweetheart deal for people who
inherit homes and their low tax bills, then turn
a profit by renting them out.
Legislative Democrats hold so many seats that
they don’t have to worry about the GOP blocking
such ideas from going before voters. Gov.-elect
Gavin Newsom has said that “everything would be
on the table,” including Prop. 13, as he
formulates a plan to reform the state’s tax
structure.
Perhaps most important, Prop. 13’s age is
becoming an advantage to would-be reformers:
California’s voting demography is changing. The
generation of homeowners that grew up with Prop.
13 is well into retirement now, and some younger
Californians blame flaws in the measure for
everything from the underfunding of public
schools to growing wealth inequality.
“For Californians who grew up in the public
education system that came after Prop. 13, their
education was robbed from them. They didn’t get
the same education their parents did,” said
Catherine Bracy, executive director of
TechEquity Collaborative, which is trying to
rally the tech community to support changes to
the state’s tax structure.
Bracy, 38, moved to the state six years ago from
Chicago. “For newcomers (to California) like me,
who were born after Prop. 13, we want to
experience the California dream, too,” she said.
“But we don’t have the opportunity to, because
all the goodies have been locked up by the older
generations.”
Prop. 13 was a remedy for a side-effect of one
of California’s first housing bubbles — spiking
property taxes. Moved by their own tax bills and
horror stories of longtime homeowners being
forced to sell because of skyrocketing
assessments, voters overwhelmingly passed the
measure. It rolled back assessments for homes
and businesses to 1976 levels and capped annual
tax increases at 2 percent.
Jon Coupal is president of Prop. 13’s fiercest
defender — the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, named after the initiative’s
co-author. He agreed that “the number of
homeowners who were around in 1978 is shrinking.
And many younger people don’t remember the fear
and anger about losing your home.”
But Coupal said that “notwithstanding the
leftward movement of politics in California,”
his organization’s internal polling shows
support for Prop. 13 remains strong. And a
survey in March by a nonpartisan group
unaffiliated with Coupal’s organization, the
Public Policy Institute of California, found
that 65 percent of likely voters surveyed said
Prop. 13 “turned out to be mostly a good thing
for the state.”
Under Prop. 13, residential and commercial
property alike is reassessed only when it is
sold. But while homes often change hands every
few years, many large businesses remain in the
same ownership for a long time. Some businesses
are paying property taxes based on assessments
that haven’t changed in 40 years.
That’s one main target of people who want to
tweak Prop. 13. The League of Women Voters of
California says it has gathered enough
signatures for a 2020 ballot measure that would
create a so-called split roll system, under
which businesses’ property would be reassessed
every three years. Agricultural land and
businesses with 50 or fewer employees would be
exempt. Residential property would not be
affected.
The change could raise $11 billion in tax
revenue statewide, including $2.4 billion for
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and
San Mateo counties, according to a January study
by the USC Program for Environmental and
Regional Equity. The study found that 56 percent
of all Bay Area commercial properties had not
been reassessed for 20 years, and 22 percent had
assessments dating back to the 1970s.
Could a split-roll measure pass? It might be
close. Forty-six percent of likely voters
surveyed by the Public Policy Institute of
California in January said they supported the
idea, while 43 percent were against it. Support
was far higher among likely voters under 35 (57
percent) than with those over 55 (41 percent).
However, the split-roll concept has actually
been growing less popular over the years, the
institute said: Six years ago, 60 percent of
likely voters backed it.
Helen Hutchison, president of the League of
Women Voters of California, acknowledged that
changing the law will be difficult because
“Prop. 13 still has some kind of magical pull.
But we think the time is right to do this.”
So does state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo. He
has introduced a ballot initiative that would
tweak a different part of Prop. 13’s legacy.
Hill’s proposal, Senate Constitutional Amendment
3, takes aim at Proposition 58, which voters
approved in 1986. The measure allowed parents to
give their residential property to their heirs
without triggering a tax reassessment. The
intent of the measure was to insulate children
from absorbing a huge spike in property taxes
and help them stay in the family home.
California is the only state to offer this tax
break.
Hill proposed the change after learning that
many heirs are using their inherited properties
as second homes or renting them out for many
times more than what they’re paying in Prop.
13-controlled property taxes.
The proposed ballot measure would require people
who inherit property in this way to move into
the home within a year if they wanted the
property tax break. The change would apply to
future heirs, not those who have already
inherited homes.
Getting this measure on the ballot in 2020
requires Hill to corral a two-thirds majority
from both houses of the Legislature. If it makes
it to the ballot, it could be passed by a simple
majority of voters.
Hill is mindful of the politics around property
taxes.
“We’re not touching Prop. 13. We’re touching
Prop. 58,” Hill said. “The goal is to get people
to pay their fair share.”
Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, doesn’t think Hill’s measure is the
biggest threat to Californians concerned about
taxes.
The San Francisco
Chronicle
July 6, 2019
Prop. 13 reform headed to California ballot
could swamp counties
By Joe Garofoli
Progressives are excited about an initiative to
change Proposition 13 that could generate
billions of dollars every year for schools and
local government — and it’s already qualified
for the November 2020 ballot.
The California Democratic Party backs the idea,
and so do 54% of likely voters, according to an
April survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy
Institute of California. All it would take to
unleash that new waterfall of tax revenue would
be to reassess commercial and industrial
properties in California every three years
instead of whenever they are sold.
But that may not be as easy as it sounds.
Assessing the estimated 642,502 commercial
properties that would be eligible for an
adjustment in California would be a logistical
and legal nightmare, and the state might not see
much more than a trickle of new revenue for
years, say the people who would have to do the
grunt work: county assessors.
Assessors say it is already hard enough to hire
and train people to determine the value of
commercial property for tax purposes. An
independent assessment conducted for the
California Assessors Association estimated it
would cost counties $470 million to staff up for
the increased workload should voters pass the
Prop. 13 reform.
Plus, assessors expect deep-pocketed
corporations to bulk up their legal teams so
they can endlessly appeal the new assessments,
jam the new law in the courts, and even hire
away assessors’ staffers at higher salaries to
help them fight counties.
“It would be impossible to implement,” said
Larry Stone, the Santa Clara County assessor.
Stone is no fan of Prop. 13. He said he voted
against the 1978 ballot measure because he
didn’t think it taxed commercial property
fairly, and he still thinks it’s a bad idea: “I
don’t think you could devise a more unfair way
to calculate property taxes.”
But Stone says the possible 2020 ballot measure
is a poor fix.
Under Prop. 13, both residential and commercial
property is reassessed only when it is sold.
Otherwise, assessment increases are capped at 2%
a year.
Many homes change hands every few years, so
they’ve been repeatedly reassessed since 1978.
Large businesses, however, often remain under
the same ownership for a long time. Some
California businesses are paying property taxes
based on assessments that haven’t changed in 40
years.
Stone cited a 25.9-acre parcel of land in Santa
Clara that is owned by Intel. The assessed value
of the then-empty property before Prop. 13
passed was $2.9 million, he said. Now the land
has buildings on it and is assessed at $23.9
million.
If it were to be reassessed today, Stone
estimates, it would be valued at $169 million.
The measure that has qualified for next year’s
ballot would not touch the residential half of
Prop. 13, something that has been politically
sacrosanct in California since the day the
initiative passed. But proponents say it would
repair a feature of the initiative that has
increasingly put the property tax burden on
residential owners and would help fund public
education.
“With California schools ranked 41st in
per-pupil spending and almost dead last in
student-to-teacher ratios, we know that the
status quo is not good enough,” said Tyler Law,
spokesman for Schools and Communities First, the
coalition of labor and civil rights groups
backing the measure. “Given that nearly every
other state successfully taxes commercial
property at fair market value, it’s clear that
we can do it here in California.”
The measure could raise up to $11 billion
annually for schools and local government,
including $2.4 billion for Alameda, Contra
Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo
counties, according to a 2018 study by the USC
Program for Environmental and Regional Equity.
Roughly half the revenue raised by the
initiative would go to California’s public
schools and community colleges, and the rest
would be allotted to cities and counties.
Agricultural land and businesses with 50 or
fewer employees would be exempt from the
reassessments.
The League of Women Voters and a coalition of
more than 300 community groups and labor
organizers united last year to back the ballot
measure, colloquially known as the “split roll”
for how it treats commercial and residential
properties differently.
“Californians now have the opportunity to reform
a 40-year injustice,” Helen Hutchison, president
of the League of Women Voters of California,
said when the measure qualified for the ballot.
But the organization representing the state’s
assessors — while not taking an official
position on the measure — said it is worried
about how its members would fulfill the
initiative’s demands.
A California Assessors Association report
conducted by Capitol Matrix Consulting on the
split roll’s effect predicts that 75% of all new
assessments could be appealed.
Fighting those appeals takes time, money and
personnel. Assessor Jeffrey Prang of Los Angeles
County, which has $436 billion worth of
commercial property — the most in the state —
says he has a lot of “logistical” concerns
should the measure pass.
Prang said that even though Los Angeles County’s
assessor’s department is four times as big as
the state’s next largest, with 1,400 employees,
it would be overwhelmed for years. It already
has a backlog of roughly 25,000 appeals.
“We don’t have the internal capacity to hire 500
appraisers in one year or even five years,”
Prang said. “Even if they threw money at me, I
couldn’t do it.”
San Francisco Assessor Carmen Chu said her
office typically does 1,500 commercial
appraisals a year. “If split roll passes, it
could be anywhere from 7,000 to 9,000 a year,”
she said. It would be a challenge hiring enough
staffers to keep pace — especially for a job in
high-priced San Francisco during a time of low
unemployment.
“When we have a bad economy, government has
great time recruiting,” Chu said. “When the
opposite is going on, not so much.”
Typically, it is difficult to fill the 130
assessor office jobs that are available annually
in California. If the split-roll measure passes,
900 new positions would be required statewide,
according to the report done for California
Assessors Association by Capitol Matrix
Consulting. Even after assessors are hired, it
typically takes three to five years to train
them before they can appraise major commercial
properties.
The challenge of hiring more assessors is even
tougher in smaller, more rural places like
Calaveras County in the Sierra foothills, said
Leslie Davis, the assessor there. She recently
hired an entry-level assessor after having spent
a year trying to recruit one. She also has
openings for more senior assessors — and no
applicants.
“We don’t know how we can gear up fast enough
for this,” said Davis, who is also president of
the California Assessors Association. “It would
be chaotic. But if the taxpayers approved this
(ballot measure), we would find a way to get it
done.”
Proponents said they worked with assessors to
write the measure. It provides that counties
will determine how to pick up the administrative
costs associated with the change.
“The reality is that all meaningful reform
requires a healthy transition period, and we
remain committed to working with all
stakeholders to protect California homeowners
and provide funding for our schools and vital
services,” said Law, the spokesman for Schools
and Communities First.
Stone, the Santa Clara County assessor, has
other worries. He fears that when some Silicon
Valley corporations get their new reassessments,
they will hire his top staffers and pay them
much more than they are making in local
government to work for them — and fight their
new tax bills.
Typically, Santa Clara County fields about 3,000
appeals a year. Stone estimates that could zoom
up to 25,000 if the measure passes.
“If you were a company and looking at having to
pay $23 million more in taxes, how much would
you spend on $2,000-an-hour lawyers and expert
witnesses and appraisers?” Stone said. “Where
would you get some of those people? For some of
them, you’d come into my office and say, ‘How
about we quadruple your salary?’”
Alameda County Assessor Phong La isn’t waiting
to see whether the measure passes. He is
creating an appraisers academy where he will
begin training potential staffers. He estimates
that hiring people to implement the split-roll
initiative would require adding $5 million a
year to his $27 million budget.
“If split roll comes down,” he said, “I’m going
to need a lot more help.”
The San Francisco
Chronicle
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Prop. 13 reform measure pushed aside —
backers seek new tax plan for businesses
John Wildermuth and Joe Garofoli
A 2020 ballot initiative that would dramatically
change Proposition 13, California’s landmark
property tax-cutting measure, is being pushed
aside by its backers in favor of a revised plan
they believe will have a better chance of
passing.
Like the measure that backers hope to replace,
the new initiative would split the property tax
roll, keeping the Prop. 13 tax limits for
residential, small business and agricultural
property, but eliminating those limits for most
high-dollar commercial and industrial buildings
and land.
Prop. 13’s restrictions on taxing properties
such as shopping centers, office buildings and
factories “have starved funding for schools and
local communities,” said Tyler Law, a spokesman
for the “Schools & Communities First”
initiative. “We are refiling the initiative to
substantially strengthen the measure ... and
widen the path to victory in November 2020.”
Like the original measure, the new one would
lead to more frequent reassessments of
commercial and industrial property. Limiting
such reassessments was a key feature of Prop.
13, which voters passed in 1978. Under it,
property is reassessed only when it changes
hands.
In practice, that has resulted in more frequent
reassessments for residential property. Large
commercial properties often remain under one
owner for decades, meaning that some are still
taxed based on 1970s assessments.
The new measure, which was submitted to the
state attorney general Tuesday, pushes back the
start date for the program, changes language to
ensure that every school district receives a
share of the estimated $11 billion windfall
anticipated from the tax changes, strengthens
tax relief for small businesses and toughens
zoning language “to ensure large corporations
cannot avoid reassessment,” Law said in a
statement.
The move means that supporters of the split-roll
plan are committed to running an expensive
effort to qualify a new initiative, even though
the measure it would replace has already
qualified for the November 2020 ballot.
That’s not a sign of confidence, said Rob
Lapsley, president of the California Business
Roundtable and co-chair of Californians to Stop
Higher Property Taxes, which opposes changing
the rules for commercial property taxation.
“The refiling of this shows that their first
measure was fatally flawed,” Lapsley said. “And
this one is equally flawed. ... People do not
like the idea of changing Prop. 13.”
But while voters have been adamant about
protecting the tax limits on residential
property, recent surveys suggest they don’t feel
the same way about commercial property. In an
April poll by the Public Policy Institute of
California, 54% of likely voters said they would
support the change.
That 54% is good, but not great, news for
split-roll supporters, and opponents suggest it
wouldn’t translate into a 2020 victory.
“Our studies suggest the tax measure has a very,
very tough row to hoe,” said Jon Coupal,
president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, a group named after the man behind
Prop. 13. “This is an $11 billion tax increase,
and why would people vote for it at a time
California is flush with cash?”
While a February 2018 report on the original
split-roll initiative by the nonpartisan
legislative analyst estimated it would bring the
state $11 billion in new revenue, the new
measure’s changes could trim that amount. Both
versions would split the new money between
schools and local government.
Split-roll backers now have to begin a new drive
to get their initiative on the ballot. And while
they needed 585,407 valid signatures to qualify
the original measure, the huge turnout for the
2018 governor’s race boosted the needed number
to 997,113 signatures. They must gather that
total by April 21 to make the November 2020
ballot.
“It’s going to take them a chunk of cash to get
that done,” Lapsley said. “It shows you they
were kind of desperate, because they’re spending
that kind of money.”
Split-roll backers spent about $3.5 million to
collect signatures for the original measure.
With the higher signature count and the
relatively short time frame, it’s going to be an
expensive proposition.
The original measure will stay on the November
2020 ballot, at least until the revised version
qualifies, Law said.
The Boston
Herald
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Taxes take a permanent holiday in N.H.
By Gov. Chris Sununu
Many people who have come to know me as the
governor of New Hampshire understand that I tend
to be a little quirky. I live primarily on
chocolate chip cookies and coffee, and I’m prone
to singing Katy Perry songs at the top of my
lungs in the car. I’m an unapologetic fan. So I
was taken aback last year when I heard Katy
Perry’s song “Every Day Is a Holiday,” and
frankly … it was terrible. A rare miss by one of
my favorites, but hey, we all have a bad day
sometimes. My disappointment in her song was
rooted in the fact that as governor of New
Hampshire, I know what a holiday is like — and
her song missed the mark. When it comes to
economic opportunity, environmental stewardship
or just our “Live Free or Die” quality of life,
Every Day Is a Holiday in the great state of New
Hampshire.
This weekend Massachusetts residents will get a
brief taste of the New Hampshire experience.
Why? Because for two, very brief days, Bay
Staters will be able to experience shopping the
way those of us who live in New Hampshire do
every day — sales tax free.
It is no surprise there are limits on what you
can take advantage of during the sales tax
holiday in Massachusetts. If you’re looking to
make a substantial purchase — anything over
$2,500 — you’re out of luck. The state will
still tax you. Hoping for tax-free alcohol?
You’ll be taxed.
Gov. Charlie Baker deserves a lot of credit for
insisting on — and delivering — a permanent
sales tax holiday in Massachusetts, despite
objections from lawmakers. The nearby states of
Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island weren’t as
lucky. In those states, the citizens asked for a
Sales Tax Holiday and got Big Government
Festivus instead. Pitiful and unfortunate.
My point really isn’t to bash Massachusetts or
other nearby New England states. Instead, my job
as governor of the great state of New Hampshire
is to advocate for — and promote — the wonderful
opportunities that await in the Granite State.
It’s a sales tax holiday in New Hampshire 365
days a year. Anything from new cars to clothes,
big screen televisions and everything inside one
of our beautiful state-run liquor stores are
sales tax free. On top of that — we don’t have
an income tax or capital gains tax.
Elsewhere in New England, every other state hits
you hard with taxes at the checkout lane. In New
Hampshire, we aren’t looking to take any more of
your money. We’re looking for you to spend it,
which helps our small businesses and boosts
local economies. That’s the whole point of a
sales tax holiday, after all. So why limit it to
just two days a year?
Other states always seem to have an excuse to
tax you. Politicians will say, “Times are good
so people can afford the tax hike,” or “Sorry,
times are bad and the government needs more
money to operate.” Either way they stick it to
you and hope over time their citizens get used
to it. That’s a terrible approach and something
we won’t do in New Hampshire. We believe that
the government’s job is to create doors of
opportunity for you, your family and your
business. Then we get out of the way and let
individuals have control of their path to
success.
Democratic critics of sales tax holidays often
say that any break, however small, will hurt
state revenue projections, and thus, limit state
services. I am here to tell you that is
completely false. Despite not having a sales,
income or capital gains tax, New Hampshire is
bringing in historic revenues. And how did we do
it? We lowered business taxes — which are
currently at their lowest this century, allowing
businesses to reinvest in their employees. Today
in New Hampshire, more people are working than
ever before, we have the lowest poverty rate in
the nation, and some of the highest median
incomes in the country. We are proud that our
economic success story has become the envy of
the Northeast because in New Hampshire, when it
comes to taxes, Every Day Is a Holiday, and we
sell it better than anyone.
Turns out even Katy Perry could take a lesson
from the Granite State.
—Chris Sununu is
the governor of New Hampshire.
The Boston
Globe
Friday, August 16, 2019
Sorry, Charlie! Ongoing spat between Baker,
state GOP
leaves governor’s political operation locked out
By Joshua Miller
You call this a party?
The ongoing spat between the political committee
of Governor Charlie Baker, a moderate
Republican, and the conservative state GOP has
left Baker’s team locked out of fund-raising
databases for a month, while the party has now
regained access after threatening legal action.
A letter dated Wednesday from a MassGOP lawyer
obtained by The Boston Globe said the party has
recovered access to the databases kept by
software giant Salesforce.com. Evan Lips, a
party spokesman, confirmed the MassGOP is back
online.
Jim Conroy, a top Baker political aide, said the
governor’s political committee remains locked
out of Salesforce.
The Globe reported last week that a MassGOP
lawyer sent a tart epistle to Salesforce,
accusing the San Francisco company of
“unlawfully” blocking the party from its
databases since July 15 and said it had
“knowingly allowed access by unauthorized third
parties,” an apparent reference to Baker’s
political team.
According to the MassGOP letter, written by
Arlington lawyer David W. Carr, the state party
had paid for a Salesforce subscription since
2015. It suggests that Baker aides tried to take
control of that subscription after party
chairman Jim Lyons was elected as party
chairman.
Baker aides have said they made an offer through
Salesforce to work with the state party to come
up with an appropriate division of donor
databases, which include years of information.
But they have said the MassGOP replied, through
Salesforce, that the party is not interested in
such a division.
Asked about that version of events last week,
Lyons said simply: “When someone takes something
inappropriately away from someone, why would you
want to negotiate with them to begin with?”
Lyons, a former state representative from
Andover best known for his antiabortion rights
advocacy, was elected party chairman in January.
He succeeded Kirsten Hughes, a staunch Baker
ally who didn’t seek another term.
Baker’s support for abortion rights, backing of
transgender protections, willingness to raise
taxes and fees, and longtime opposition to
President Trump has frequently put him at odds
with the right wing of the party.
An e-mail to Salesforce wasn’t returned.
The Boston
Globe
Friday, August 9, 2019
MassGOP and Charlie Baker’s political team clash
over donor databases
By Joshua Miller
The Massachusetts Republican Party and the
political committee of GOP Governor Charlie
Baker are feuding over access to lucrative donor
databases, an embarrassing intraparty clash that
has left both sides locked out of the data by
software giant Salesforce.com.
In a scorching letter sent to the company last
week, a MassGOP lawyer said the San Francisco
company had “unlawfully” blocked the party from
its databases since July 15 and “knowingly
allowed access by unauthorized third parties,”
an apparent reference to Baker’s political team.
The letter, a copy of which was obtained by the
Globe, said the lockout had affected
fund-raising and demanded that Salesforce
restore the party’s access to its databases. It
threatened legal action if Salesforce failed to
“make a reasonable settlement offer” within 30
days.
The dispute is the latest indication of a rift
between the MassGOP and Baker, a moderate
Republican whose support for abortion rights,
transgender protections, and willingness to
raise taxes and fees has frequently put him at
odds with the right wing of the party. That
includes MassGOP chairman Jim Lyons, a supporter
of President Trump and staunch social and fiscal
conservative who was elected to the post in
January.
Evan Lips, a MassGOP spokesman, confirmed the
letter to Salesforce was authentic.
Lyons offered an analogy with an organization he
called Non-Profit X.
“They rely on donors who have historically given
to an organization. Say there’s a change at the
top of the organization and new management walks
in the front door and all of the donors and all
of the data get taken by the old people walking
out — that’s a very valuable asset that
Non-Profit X no longer has,” the chairman said.
“And that’s pretty much what happened here.”
Salesforce did not respond to e-mails seeking
comment.
Baker committee aides said they, too, have been
locked out from Salesforce since last month.
They said they made an offer through Salesforce
to work with the state party to come up with an
appropriate division of donor databases, which
include years of information. But they said the
MassGOP replied, through Salesforce, that the
party is not interested in such a division.
For his part, Lyons said, “When someone takes
something inappropriately away from someone, why
would you want to negotiate with them to begin
with?”
In response to questions from the Globe, Jim
Conroy, a senior Baker political adviser who
helps run the governor’s political committee
said, “the Baker Committee has enjoyed working
closely with the party for years, sharing
resources and information, and hopes to continue
to do so.”
The genesis of the dispute is somewhat unclear,
and both the Baker Committee and the MassGOP
were guarded in what they would tell the Globe.
But it appears to coincide with Lyons’s
ascension to party chairman in January.
Lyons, a former state representative from
Andover known for his advocacy against abortion
rights, succeeded Kirsten Hughes, a staunch
Baker ally who didn’t vie for another term.
According to the MassGOP letter, written by
Arlington lawyer David W. Carr, the state party
had paid for a Salesforce subscription since
2015. It suggests that Baker aides tried to take
control of that subscription after Lyons was
elected.
The letter stated that a Salesforce
investigation found an e-mail exchange involving
top Baker aides, including Conroy and
fund-raising guru John Cook, a week after Lyons
was elected.
The exchange was about a $12,273.79 check from
the Baker Committee to Salesforce “in payment of
an invoice to the MassGOP,” according to the
letter.
The letter also said, “The check tendered by
‘The Baker Committee’ was accompanied by a curt
explanation that the November, 2018 invoice was
‘paid from the wrong account,’ with a request
that Salesforce accept payment from an entity
with no relationship to the subscribing MassGOP.”
“The request did not originate from MassGOP,”
the letter said.
It added: “Salesforce made no effort to contact
its subscriber, MassGOP, to discuss this highly
unusual activity.”
State campaign finance records show the Baker
Committee paid Salesforce $12,273.79 on Jan. 28.
Federal election filings show years of past
payments from the MassGOP to Salesforce.com.
While Baker had once endorsed Lyons for his
state representative seat, they hold divergent
political views and under Lyons’s leadership,
the party’s messaging has shifted sharply from
Baker’s politically successful
focused-on-Massachusetts-allergic-to-Trump
rhetoric.
“MassGOP Chairman Lyons: President Trump
‘vindicated,’” one press release read.
Baker, who supports abortion rights, signed a
law last year that reaffirmed a woman’s right to
have a legal abortion. Lyons has been a strong
advocate against abortion rights, and in April
the state Republican Party denounced a
Democratic-led effort to expand abortion access
as “infanticide.”
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
