California Proposition 13

With Massachusetts State spending on affordable housing and open space at a historic low, when considered as a percentage of the total budget, the production of dwelling units and the conservation of land have become the responsibility of local government, but cities and towns do not build housing, except in rare circumstances. As well they do not routinely buy expensive tracts of open land,

During the 1970’s, Connecticut was a very prosperous state with growing numbers of minorities. Many of these minorities would tend to live in the same neighborhoods which would lead to other races, like whites, leaving an area and moving to a new area away from these minorities. We learned about white flight in The Children in Room E4, but this has been relevant for many decades. These whites may have not moved out of state, but just away from the minority neighborhoods to places like the suburbs. This tended to cause property values to decrease in the minority neighborhoods, making it cheaper for more minorities to move in, but also harder for the minorities to move to areas where white people may be living like the suburbs. With decreased property values beginning to happen, the property taxes were also beginning to decrease. This is what led to the development of the case Horton v. Meskill. Also during this time, the United States was barely a decade old from all of the segregation it had experienced during the 1960’s. the segregation had an influence on why whites were moving away from the minorities, which was causing these public school property tax funding’s to be low. Even though segregation de jure was outlawed at this time, there were still people living by segregation de facto. The people did not realize this at this time in the 1970’s, but it eventually built up momentum and became relevant in the Connecticut court case Sheff v. O’Neill.

Property tax is a charge on property that the owner is responsible for paying. The tax is constructed on the value of the property one owns and is often estimated by local or municipal governments. When paying a property tax bill, the money goes to a number of important programs, city employees, police officers, firefighters, and public works departments also receive pay. The property tax money is used to pay for parks, traffic construction, street lights, sidewalks, and public transportation. Imposing a cap on property taxes would not only impact communities but it will also create several major problems. Cities would be affected and unable to hire employees in the public safety, since salaries and other benefits would be increased. A cap would reduce job establishment and damage the state's economic growth. The cap would also create more traffic problems by limiting

Those who cannot afford the high prices of housing are often forced out into the streets where they face a very uncertain future due to the number of abuses they encounter daily from all walks of life, with the most damning being the vagrancy laws that come into vogue in areas that are getting gentrified, which many cities have passed to “protect” their newfound assets and tax base from the “lowering” of property values. Furthermore, when cities such as Los Angeles demand that property developers set aside affordable housing for lower income people, they get sued in court, such as in 2009, when real estate developer Geoffrey Palmer successfully sued in order to overturned an ordnance which required that. This was also the same man who also proposed building a footbridge connecting two of his buildings to minimize contact with people he deemed undesirable (Davis).

Many opponents to gentrification argue that it will cause property taxes to go up and cause many families to struggle. Rising property taxes could occur, and may result in more struggles in the lower class and families that are already struggling, but these struggles are still just something that may happen but is not a guaranteed repercussion. There are many families that are trying to stay afloat and are barely doing so. Living paycheck to paycheck, a tax increase can be detrimental for some families. It will help improve communities and promote new businesses. Author of “Cities Mobilize to Help Those Threatened by

In 2009, Roberts and Trounstein argued that California was "ungovernable" and “our state government did not have the capacity to make timely decision to solve the problems facing our state”. However, California is not ungovernable anymore. In past few years, California has many changes, which affect on the state legislature as well as change the ways Californians vote. People can name some changes as “Open” or “Jungle” Primary (Prop. 14), Citizen’s Redistricting Commission (Prop.11), Majority budget (Prop. 25), and enacted the “top-two” open primary. The Governor and the Legislature, in turn, gave up authority to solve problems that are better solved at a regional or community scale. Nowadays, California is one of the model of state government.

Housing allocation determinations and planning review powers were also passed down from the state to Councils of Government (COG), which served as regional planning commissions that were thought to be closer to municipal governments and less likely to be perceived as encroaching on local land use decision-making (Ramsey-Musolf para. 7). The need for regional, as opposed to decentralized housing policies, is significant: shortages of housing in one area simply push housing burdens to adjacent cities, exacerbating statewide levels of inequality. Unfortunately, a study cited in the Journal of Planning Literature found that this well-intentioned legislation has only created a production imbalance between LIH and MRH: though collective housing element compliance may have increased between 1990 and 1997, a sample of 53 California municipalities only produced 32% of its

The Leno Amendment can help solve some of the issues that surround the act, by imposing new restrictions and regulations that will hopefully reduce the number of “casualties”. In imposing fines for violations of the act and limiting the number of times the act can be enforced, California is headed in the right direction. However, it has some missteps, such as the lack of time extension for evicted tenants to find new homes. Despite this, the Leno Amendment is the right choice for California. As the Leno Amendment attempts to aid the financial situation of the tenants by giving them more time to relocate, as well as being paid relocation fees, the state of California is attempting to even out the wealth gap. The landlords gained the most money and made up smaller, but wealthier end of the spectrum, whereas the tenants gained the least, and made up the poor majority while the Ellis Act is in place. However, with the aid of the Leno Amendment, California is not only addressing the issue of greed and high tenant evictions, it is also taking a progressive step forward in the fight against the wealth

Eminent domain disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged. For example, in San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for redevelopment are owned by minorities, even though only 30 percent of businesses are owned by minorities. These groups are disproportionately affected because they are easy political and economic targets. Condemnations in minority or elderly neighborhoods are often easier because they are less likely or able to resist. Areas with low property values are targeted because they cost less and the State gains financially when they replace areas with low property values with higher values. / / When an area is taken for "economic development," the

Aside from school funding and protecting Children’s Healthcare, Proposition 55 will also maintain low taxes for families whose income is low. Proposition 55 will only keep higher taxes on the rich because as many say, they are able to afford it. According to Protecting California, these high taxes will only “apply to singles that make $250,00 and couples who make $500,000 or more a year.” (Protecting California) This shows that it really does only tax higher to those who really are able to afford it. Voter’s Guide is also stating how it will, “Only affect the wealthiest Californians who can most afford it, ensuring they continue to pay their share of taxes.” (Voters Guide) Ergo meaning that, the high taxes being taxed will indeed be paid because

California Proposition 103 appeared on the ballot of November 8, 1988. The proposition sought to bring about some reforms to the insurance policies in the state of California. “The key reforms in Proposition 103 were to say that three primary

One of the major reasons this happened was due to proposition 13 which passed in 1978 under Jerry Brown. This law did two things, first changing the laws so that the state would have control over what the property taxes should be. In doing this they changed the taxing system so that whatever you bought your house for that would be the value your taxes will be based off regardless of inflation. This caused a huge problem as you could pay a lot less taxes on your property than someone who moved in more recently. Second it created the ballot initiative where people can vote on issues. While this was intended to stop special interests this creates a different problem as most average people do not understand or have the time for complex tax policies. This creates a problem of people voting for things that benefit them individually but is unrealistic for society as a whole or just voting for things that are against their best interest. Another cause of California’s problems was due to the gerrymandering laws and term limit laws that created polarized and career politicians. Gerrymandering cut up districts in a way that helped

want to keep property tax for public education funding. In my point of view, usually the schools

They wanted to keep their homes and ensure a property tax rate that was predictable and would remain constant despite constantly fluctuating costs. Proposition 13 succeeded in both of these categories. The main provision of Proposition 13 set property taxes at one percent of a home’s value at the time of its purchase, as well as backing up the assessed value to the value of the home in the year 1975 to 1976 (Sexton, Sheffrin, and O’Sullivan 99). Proposition 13 succeeded in lowering property tax. In fact, Local property taxes were immediately reduced by 57 percent following the amendment, and residents could once again afford to pay the taxes on their homes (Gerston and Christensen 107). It also succeeded in making California’s property tax rate predictable through its provision that allows for the assessed value on a piece of property will increase with the market value; however, the assessed value may never be increased more than two percent (Sexton, Sheffrin, and O’Sullivan 99). It also guaranteed a steady property tax rate by making it extremely difficult to raise taxes. Possibly the most influential provision of Proposition 13 is the provision that amends the requirement for raising the property tax rate. Under Proposition 13, there must be a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of California legislature in order to approve any tax increases (Glyn and Drenkard 1). This has made it all but

Sales and tax rates are stable in some states, but tend to be unpredictable in others. Counties, cities, school districts, and townships are continually expanded, becoming established and given effect in the United States. In some locations, sales and use tax rates are even more susceptible to change because of political influence, this can cause rates to even change as recurrently as a monthly