Note: Author’s views do not necessarily reflect the views of the OB Rag.
By Lisa Mortensen
Our city and county governments are looking for any avenue available to obtain revenue to feed their over-sized staffing. Rather than pop the staffing balloon, our elected officials would like to tap into our property taxes by placing initiatives on the ballot that would require only a 51% threshold to approve these measures into law that would threaten to uncontrollably increase our property taxes and jeopardize our Prop 13 protections.
Currently the county of San Diego wants to place a measure on the ballot that would increase the real estate sales transfer tax from 55 cents for every $500 in assessed property value to $30.55 for every $500. This would basically burden both buyers and sellers to have to come up with this excessive additional transfer tax during a for-purchase transaction.
Let’s not forget the trash tax assessment that was placed on our property tax bill ($539 and rising in 2026-2027 tax bill) by just a 51% threshold.
While these two examples may not affect you presently, if the city or county is able to craft future property tax assessments, you could very well feel the pain. PLEASE NOTE: once these tax measures are approved, they will be impossible to remove.
Like a professional thief, the city has found a way to create initiatives that would only require a 51% threshold to pass so they can tap into our property taxes.
But help is on the way!
The Save Prop 13 initiative is a state initiative sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Tax Association. It will enshrine the threshold of 67% for all revenue/ bond initiatives that will obtain funding from property taxes.
If you are a California registered voter, please sign the petition to Save Prop 13. Click on the links below and you can download the petition, sign and then mail back to the Howard Jarvis Organization. The first link also provides you the complete facts and details on this initiative. OR
You can come by the Save Prop 13 petition signing events that are taking place every Saturday from 10a-12p from January 3rd through February 7th.
Location: MISSION HILLS FABRIC CARE CENTER
1604 W Lewis St, San Diego, CA 92103
Save-Prop-13-fact-sheet-091025.pdf
Official-initiative-petition-to-Save-Prop-13_PRINT-SIGN-MAIL-SAVE-PROP-13.pdf
If you have friends and family who are registered California voters but live outside of San Diego County, we hope you will pass this information on to them and encourage them to sign the petition form as well.
Please spread the word on your social media platforms! The local media outlets will not publish this information for fear of losing access to the county and city elected officials.
Interesting choice of messaging as this isn’t directly about Prop 13. Probably gets some people excited but for those of us who find Prop 13 in need of significant reform, aka applying only to primary residences not commercial properties or housing units outside of primary, this really turns me off.
Off topic, but it is too bad Howard Jarvis didn’t stay in Utah and do his damage there. Instead, Utah has what I would call my almost ideal “reformed Prop 13” through the Primary Residential Exemption on their property taxes while we are stuck with Mr. Jarvis’ awful piece of legislation.
There is not enough money to stop the Cali politicians to stop spending. if it’s not here, they want to endanger jobs with a billionaires tax that amounts to double taxation. While it might be fair to say they don’t pay their fair share, it is the structure of the tax code that has allowed them to do so. Run them out of town and then what? Pick your poison.
I’m sorry you feel that way Greg, I was a Realtor prior to Prop 13 passing, those on fixed incomes could not afford to stay in their homes due to escalating taxes.
In addition, it provides buyers an element of certainty on what their taxes will be as part of their housing budget.
In 2020, there was a measure on the ballot to add commercial properties to also be assessed under Prop 13 guidelines but corporations such as Disney were against reassessing their ‘legacy’ tax rates and spent a great amount to get the initiative defeated.
But because the commercial sector has not come under the Prop 13 umbrella, shouldn’t be a reason to provide affordability to homebuyers.
Lastly, I will say, it has not ‘robbed’ the county or city coffers, our elected officials have done that on their own. Real Property total assessments in San Diego County are the highest ever (now in the trillion-dollar range).
So, tell me, Greg, what part of Prop 13 do you oppose?
Hi Lisa,
I believe Prop 13 should only apply to primary residences which covers persons on fixed incomes living in their homes as well as buyers looking for homes to live in. I am opposed to it being applied to commercial and residential properties beyond primary residences.
Yes, assessments are “the highest ever” — because, well, they almost have to be. It is extremely rare for the value of property to decline across-the-board anywhere, but especially in California. More importantly, however, is the fact that those assessments are unfair to new homeowners. Much of the argument in the piece is about protection for current homeowners. What that overlooks is the barrier it presents to new homeowners. If you have some time, poke around in Zillow and you will discover huge (seriously, $10k-plus per year) differences in the property tax bill for similar houses on the same block. Why? Because Prop. 13 means that new homeowners subsidize those that have owned the home down the street longer. That might be ok if it is the seniors living off of social security — but it is becoming more likely it is a hedge fund that bought the property as an investment. Or, the person living in Texas who rents it out as an AirBnB. My kids are going to struggle to be able to buy a home in California. I don’t see why a law passed 50 years ago should penalize them while giving a break to people that don’t even live here.
Lisa,
Prop 13 has always included Commercial RE. The 2020 Prop. 15 was to create a “split roll” so that Commercial RE would be reassessed more frequently. One reason given was Companies were playing games with “change of ownership”.
You are correct, commercial has been successful to do a “work around”. I supported prop 15 but it didn’t have a chance of passing.
But I believe we can at least help the residential sector with the 67% threshold.
Thank you for bring this up.
Greg gets it exactly right – this all has nothing to do with Prop 13. I would go beyond Greg, however, and say that we should seriously think about repealing Prop 13.
I’ll admit that I was against it when it originally passed. After all, I was a renter, not a property owner, and really didn’t have a dog in the fight. But I was also a graduate student of urban planning and could see that much of the intent of Prop 13 was not to save the homes of seniors, as it was successfully pitched, but to benefit corporate real estate interests. If we were truly interested in saving seniors’ homes there were far more focused and intentional ways of providing housing and/or tax relief to that targeted group.
Instead we are left with a legacy of oft times irrational and unfair property tax assessments. My neighbor, who has lived in her home far longer than I have, pays much higher property taxes than I do because of how and when she took ownership of her home. Do I deserve the tax break I get relative to her? Do young couples starting out on their life journeys deserve to be taxed at a higher rate than a long time property owner? It just doesn’t make any sense.
I certainly have benefited from Prop 13, but I have to look at the impacts its passing has had on our society. It is time to reassess and reevaluate the supposed “benefits” of Prop 13.
I’m sorry you feel that way, Paul. What exactly are the negative impacts you are talking about? Prop 13 is not just about helping seniors but those who are struggling to stay in their homes due to inflation and the cost of goods and services, ie: health insurance and medical care, childcare, food and gas prices, etc. Most people try to maintain stability and Prop 13 offers that.
With prop 13, it’s about having your eyes wide open at the time of property purchase that you have some control over your housing budget.
If we have a housing affordability crisis which I believe we do, how would allowing uncontrolled property tax increases keep people in their homes?
I agree with this article:
https://itep.org/california-prop-13-avoid-repeating-past-mistakes-property-taxes/
I think there are a few discrepancies in the article< Chris. Prop 60 & Prop 90 have helped the issue of longtime residents being able to move and transfer their tax base; but certain conditions apply.
Prop 19 put some stipulations in place on estate family transfers.
As for gutting schools, did prop 13 lead parents to put their kids in charter or private schools? What about the CA lottery? What happened there? Could it be the school administrators are a bit top heavy and disconnected with what teachers, kids and parents expect from their schools?
Prop 13 is applied only to single family residential and two to four units of residential. It does not apply to commercial. But to use that as a reason to repeal Prop 13 is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I agree with Jay C. the initiative process is flawed and deceptive, but the only safeguard would be to require 67% threshold for passage of tax measures. This would require more information and transparency. Then the special interests wouldn't have a slam dunk to getting their measures passed.
Our back and forth about Prop 13 is really a sideshow that our City and County officials have created so we will be quibbling about Prop 13 and not pass the requirement of a higher threshold on tax proposals.
La Mesa passed their sales tax proposal in 2024 by 81%. This shows the citizens of La Mesa trust their elected officials.
Meanwhile, in the past 10 years, the city of San Diego population has only increased by 1.1%; yet staffing increased by 27% and productivity declined (information from former two-term Coronado Mayor, Richard Bailey – check out his Instagram reels).
So, we should demand that the city cut their staffing first before we sign on to any tax increases, whether it is sales tax or property tax.
Let's turn the tables on our local governments to pop their staffing balloon. By increasing thresholds to raise taxes by a 67%, that would be the tough love the city and county need.
It doesn’t sound as if you have really come to really see how prop 13 has helped seniors. You say it was to benefit corporate real estate but yet here we are today with you advocating against it with corporate real estate . Nonsensically to me. Especially in a Todd driven society. How do you parse that?
Like everything–it’s complicated. First of all I think Prop 13 is deeply flawed and needs repair but not repeal. I think the reason it passed was because it did help a lot of regular people but that was a side effect and not we’re stuck with the poison pen part of the initiative. Almost everything that comes through the initiative process is flawed–generally because the monied or special interests pushing it misrepresent it to the people to obtain their own ends. We need to reform the initiative process too. But this particular reform (or ending) Prop 13 is flawed and will hurt us all–except for the zealots who believe in no taxes and the big money interests. This is not what will save the spirit of Prop 13. Locally our politicians have betrayed us by refusing to have an open process and by making a lot of chicken bad decisions. They made it worse by thinking they could trick us into a tax increase without really showing us a reasonable way forward. They further screwed us by name changes in what they are doing–does anyone think that the bait and switch “fee” for trash is anything other than another tax? Really, they did not lower our property taxes by the amount that was going to trash collection so they just swapped one tax for another as well as the disingenuous switch in the amount they are charging us. Last–the parking. What a fiasco–they can’t even make it work and I don’t know anyone who really thinks that’s a good idea. Of course most of these incumbents are termed out but we must resist them when they run for state office and we must make better choices for their replacements.
The sales transfer tax, specifically, defies any form of logic. If homeowners are sitting on properties now because of low mortgage rates and unrealized capital gains think of what will happen with this new levy. And, not all property sales result in a net gain. What about folks who have to sell at a loss but still face the transfer tax based on gross sales price? Wasn’t it Forrest Gump who said, “stupid is as stupid does?”
I agree with your every word, Chaz.
Fellow Californians,
California’s tax burden is among the highest in the United States, and our state’s fiscal trajectory raises important questions about how tax dollars are being collected and spent and whether current policies are delivering the outcomes residents expect.
1. California’s Tax Burden and Spending Growth
California’s state and local tax burden — including income, sales, and property taxes — ranks near the top nationally, in part because of high marginal income tax rates and progressive tax structures. The Tax Foundation reports that California’s top marginal income tax rate is the highest in the nation, which affects both individuals and businesses. ?
Since Governor Newsom took office, state spending has increased substantially. This growth reflects pandemic-era demands, but it also includes structural expansions in ongoing programs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and other analysts have highlighted widening deficits despite past surpluses, which suggests long-term budget sustainability challenges.
2. COVID-19-Era Mismanagement and Budget Issues
During the pandemic, California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) lost track of billions in unemployment insurance due to fraud and system issues. State audits documented that at least $11.4 billion in unemployment benefits were paid to ineligible claimants, with tens of billions more under investigation or disputed, making it one of the largest cases of program mismanagement during the pandemic.
These issues contributed to record-high unemployment payouts and delays in benefits for eligible residents. Mismanagement of large emergency programs erodes public confidence and raises questions about fiscal controls.
3. Homelessness Spending and Outcomes
California has spent large sums on homelessness. Independent research indicates that the state allocated around $24 billion since 2019 toward homelessness programs, yet the total population of unhoused individuals increased during this period. This suggests weak linkage between spending levels and measurable reductions in homelessness when accountability and outcome tracking are limited.
Local oversight reports also cite gaps in spending transparency and service effectiveness, underlining the need for stronger performance measures in state and local homelessness policies.
4. Fiscal Accountability and Tracking Outcomes
Public auditing and oversight bodies repeatedly note gaps in California’s tracking of major programs, which makes it difficult for taxpayers and policymakers to assess whether large expenditures are achieving stated goals. Transparent performance metrics are foundational to responsible budgeting. This concern isn’t unique to one sector; similar issues arise across large service categories unless explicit outcome measures are adopted.
5. Economic Competitiveness and Population Trends
California’s cost of living — including housing and taxes — is a major factor in interstate migration patterns. Independent data shows that more residents are moving from California to other states such as Texas, Florida, and other lower-cost, lower-tax states. For example, data from recent years indicate that hundreds of thousands of Californians relocated out of state, with Texas alone gaining a significant share of new residents, many attracted by lower housing costs and tax burdens.
Let’s not kill our golden goose, let’s reform CA and bring tax and spend under control.
Not sure what city and country departments you’re dealing with but over staffing has never been a problem. Every department I’ve had dealings with is terribly understaffed, overwhelmed, and begging to hire more staff. Maybe if you started your argument with “the city is looking for ways to pay for the engulfing pension debt” instead of eluding that we need to take more jobs away, I would have been more amenable to your argument. People can’t buy housing if they don’t have jobs, let alone be sad about a wealthier persons tax burden.
I agree with what Chaz & Lisa had to say.
Great article Lisa! I agree with you and with what Chaz wrote.
Thank you, Sadie. Appreciate your support.