I had an opportunity to hear State Senate candidate Josh Becker speak this week at a neighborhood meet and greet. These are always interesting grass roots events and the Q&A can be enlightening beyond what one can read about a candidate in the papers. I got just that sort of insight about Becker regarding Prop. 13 and what is known as the "split roll". The split roll initiative would remove the tax protections on commercial properties in an effort to address the fact that they do not sell as often as residential properties and hence do not get reassessed as often. Back in August, the proponents of split roll reworked their initial proposal:
The Schools and Communities First campaign, backed by the state's largest public labor unions and civil rights groups, will formally announce plans to refile the initiative later today. The changes include “improvements to implementation dates, expansive new small business tax relief, clarified education financing and stronger zoning language to ensure large corporations cannot avoid reassessment,’’ Tyler Law, a spokesperson for the campaign, told POLITICO.
Becker noted he backs the revised split roll initiative while noting he had not reviewed the final revisions to the text. If those revisions offer some protections to "the corner grocery store" he would support it. But Mr. Becker did not stop there. Without being asked, he felt the need to go even further and suggest that the residential protections might also be reduced. After noting that the original intent of Prop. 13 was to protect seniors, those on fixed incomes and lower income homeowners from escalating property taxes, he suggested that a move to remove those protections could be supplemented by "some sort of escrow account" that would hold the higher tax liabilities until the property changed hands at which point the seller would use some of the proceeds to pay the deferred taxes.
This is exactly the sort of stealth attack on Prop. 13 that groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association warn about with the split roll initiative. The complexity of it all, especially for seniors, boggles the mind. Who sets these escrow accounts up, figures out the balances every year, applies some sort of interest rate to the balances, and adds the paperwork to an already endless pile of paperwork one gets during closings? For me the real kicker was that Becker said all of this after earlier thanking those of us in the room who were paying the top 14% California income tax rate............
So, we should leave a massively regressive tax hand out to the richest earners in place because it would be complicated to stop? Do you even listen to yourself?
Posted by: Eat the rich | January 18, 2020 at 01:37 PM
Said the snowflake whose only mortgage was on the Monopoly board.
Posted by: Said the snowflake | January 18, 2020 at 08:04 PM
There is NOTHING POSITIVE about Prop 13. Prop 13 had it's day. I do not believe Prop 13 was meant to last this long, and created only to "Right Wrongs" of CA. gone wild. Prop 13 is now a "Loophole" that takes Monies away from Schools, Health Care for the Poor. The only People who benefit from Prop 13 are the wealthy property owners. How can people be so selfish?
Then go to Church every Sunday?
Go Niner's!
Posted by: [email protected] | January 18, 2020 at 10:34 PM
The main driver for Prop 13 was to help control the unlimited growth of property taxes.
CA needs restrictions on never ending increases to taxes today more than ever.
Thank you for the info on Josh. Sounds like just another unlimited tax and spend progressive undeterred by the lack of success from this approach to date.
CA is growing slower than the rest of the country and will lose a congressional seat for the first time ever as the middle class is leaving. All while creating the state with the largest wealth gap and fastest growing druggie and homeless population.
More of the same policies is not the answer.
Posted by: Concerned | January 19, 2020 at 10:46 AM
There is no shortage of limousine liberals in the Bay Area. Did anyone check his voting record? I'll bet he never even bothered to vote until he decided to throw his wallet in the ring.
What people like the cannibal above don't get is that for a lot of middle class people who have been paying the cost of living and taxes to live in the state for decades their house is their 401K or pension. So Eat should really call himself Eat the Middle Class.
Posted by: Phinancier | January 19, 2020 at 03:34 PM
Did Mr Becker give his thoughts on SB50?
Posted by: Barking Dog | January 21, 2020 at 09:08 AM
Good question. He was asked that by someone else and he wandered around a bit "admiring the problem". So I when I tried to pin him down - yes or no - and he went with no because "with the modifications that have been made, it replicates the planning process most cities have in place today". He had no insight one couldn't get from reading the local letters to the editor and did not appear to want to be pinned down. And the "replicates current processes" is not true. Another think to be very wary of.
Posted by: Joe | January 21, 2020 at 07:49 PM
Thanks Joe
Posted by: Barking Dog | January 22, 2020 at 10:08 AM
Always love when this discussion comes up about doing away with prop 13 on commercial properties. Taxing the rich property owner as they can pay it or afford it! Well, the property owner in 99% of the leases in the Bay and throughout California, do not pay the property tax. Your employer does as part of their Community Area Maintenance costs. That fee is always passed on to the tenant. By doing away with prop 13, that increases that businesses cost of doing business, tremendously! Think you will get that raise or bonus or new employee if that tax increase goes to your employer? Think not. May even put small business which employes many in our State, out of business!
Posted by: Laura | January 23, 2020 at 04:27 AM
Bingo Laura! CAM fees always passed on to business/tenant. But of course the politicians don't or won't recognize this as they have never owned or operated a business. California is already the most unfriendly business state in the nation, split roll will only make it tougher for small businesses to start or continue in state. Chui, Weiner, etc all never ever been in the private sector and have no clue how the real world works...The exodus from continue from California...businesses and residential. Prop 13 going byb bye will only add to the 700k that left the state in 2019.
I love how people like Eat the Rich and Holly think that since your house is Prop 13, you are rich and a rich earner....I am far from either. Progressive taxation and cost of living(gas, electricity, food, insurance, etc) is why I'm joining the 700k leaving California. I will then have the freedom to give my earned money to groups who I feel need it, not whom the State tells me needs it. Leaving puts 14% right away into my pocket and not Gavin's to give to a homeless fentanyl addict or a techie who makes 130k a yr and needs the state to subsidize their housing.
Posted by: Barking Dog | January 23, 2020 at 10:27 AM
The opposition research factory for some candidate is working overtime. The Daily Post headline Tuesday about Brownriggs mom putting 460K into a committee is followed by today's healine about Oliva losing part of her real estate license. This should get interesting depending on who has the snoops running the show. At this rate we should know who it is by the end of next week since there will only be one candidate without their own headline.
I also liked the thought that we should worry less about the millionaire who spends his money to get elected and more about the pauper who leaves office as a millinaire.
Posted by: JP | January 23, 2020 at 11:36 AM
My guess is Socialist Shelly Mauser.
Posted by: Barking Dog | January 23, 2020 at 01:33 PM
You know what we need, RIGHT NOW?
MORE COWBELL!
F Prop 13
Posted by: [email protected] | January 24, 2020 at 07:46 PM
.....Says the guy collecting his social security check but never wrote a mortgage or property tax bill check...comical
Posted by: Barking Dog | January 25, 2020 at 11:11 AM
?
Posted by: [email protected] | January 25, 2020 at 03:42 PM
With the news that Josh Becker now has Jerry Hill's endorsement to go with the Gavinor's endorsement, he is looking like the frontrunner. It should be interesting to see how much those matter verses having been a grassroots politician in the County for long periods of time.
Posted by: Joe | February 06, 2020 at 11:54 AM
Kind of shocked today to see the SMDJ give Mr Brownrigg their endorsement as I was totally expecting them to endorse Mrs. Mauser.
Posted by: Barking Dog | February 07, 2020 at 11:47 AM
I wasn't surprised. Jon Mays is very perceptive and discerning.
Posted by: Jennifer Pfaff | February 07, 2020 at 01:03 PM
Hey Holyroller, you said "There is NOTHING POSITIVE about Prop 13." YOU ARE WRONG.
DemocRAT politicians have NEVER met a tax increase they were opposed to! Why is that? Prop 13 saved many from having to move due to the insatiable appetite of DemocRats to take our many and fund their pet programs.
Posted by: Paloma Ave | February 07, 2020 at 01:39 PM
That is a nice endorsement for Mr. Brownrigg. Going to be a hot contested race.
With downtown RWC looking like Soviet Bloc housing and her support of SB50, Mauser is an easy NO for me. Neighborhood destroyer
Posted by: Barking Dog | February 07, 2020 at 02:23 PM
ABM
Anyone but Mauser.
SB50 and socialism is not what we want.
Posted by: Concerned | February 07, 2020 at 08:36 PM
I see Mr. Browrigg for another endorsement from the Daily Post. Have the 2 local independent free newspapers are nice endorsements for Mr. Brownrigg
https://padailypost.com/2020/02/20/opinion-post-endorses-brownrigg-for-state-senate/amp/
Posted by: Barking Dog | February 21, 2020 at 11:08 AM
Here is my meatball analysis of the State Senate race now that we know a Republican no one ever heard of and who the Post says raised about a nickel is up against Josh Becker--who has the D behind his name and Newsom and Jerry Hill's endorsements. Lessons learned:
1) For Republicans--you need to avoid knee-jerk votes for candidates who will never win. Voting for Glew is the same as voting for Mayor Pete or Amy Klobuchar two weeks before election day. It's a waste.
2) For local Dem candidates--when there are FIVE of you in a "jungle" election (top two of any party move on) you should think about the WHOLE electorate--not just the D's but the NPPs and R's.
3) For local City Council candidates-- it's a big district. About a million people and your name recognition in Millbrae or Burlingame of RWC does not translate without a concerted campaign to garner support elsewhere. Unless Newsom or Hill endorse you, you should think about an intermediate step like County Supe.
4) Feel free to ignore meatball analysis.
Posted by: Joe | March 04, 2020 at 08:30 PM
It's no wonder Talbot's closed
Don't "toy stores" have it hard enough already? Perhaps no sector of the economy has suffered more from globalization, online shopping, and onerous labor regulations than neighborhood toy stores. Even the name "toy store" seems quaint, harkening back to a simpler time. California legislators seem intent to sacrifice those few remaining at the altar of gender politics with a new bill that would fine retailers that have separate "girls" and "boys" toy sections. Madness!
Posted by: Phinancier | February 26, 2021 at 05:37 PM