Some Key Players Reflect on Impact of Proposition 13

Here are some recent reflections on the long-range impact of Proposition 13 from some who took sides on its passage in 1978:

Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, who voted against Proposition 13: “Proposition 13 was vital to many Californians who were faced with the loss of their homes because of rising property tax bills. Proposition 13 sent a clear message to state and local government that the days of tax and spend and government as usual were over. To this day, the people of California have demonstrated that they want government to live within its means. If taxes are to be raised, the people want to make that decision with their votes.”

Walter Zelman, executive director of California Common Cause: “We opposed it at the time. It didn’t have the overwhelming visible negative impact that many of the opponents thought it might have. On the other hand, if you looked a little below the surface to libraries and infrastructure and a variety of less visible areas of government spending, I think the impact was substantial and generally negative . . . . Its passage did reflect an inability of the government to address some of the more pressing public needs of the day.”

Carol Federighi, president of the League of Women Voters of California: “While property tax relief was sorely needed in 1978, Proposition 13 has spawned additional tax inequities. Lost property tax revenues for local services have been made up in part by imposition of additional fees on the few to benefit the many. More seriously, recent home purchasers often pay three times (in property taxes) what their long-established neighbors pay for a near-identical home. The league felt that Proposition 13 was overkill but there’s no question . . . a lot of people benefitted from it.”

Paul Gann, Proposition 13 co-author: “My only regret is there isn’t some way, and I keep looking for a way, that we can adjust this thing so my neighbor doesn’t pay more property tax on the same valued piece of property than I pay (due to reassessment of property when it is sold). I’m very proud to have been part of Proposition 13. I think the thing we were trying to say, No. 1, was to make it possible for people to retain their homes. No. 2 was that we want less government, not more government. We in California have shown the entire world . . . that we can still be what the Constitution says we are, and that is the government.”

Dianne Feinstein, outgoing mayor of San Francisco who opposed Proposition 13: “I think the popularity of Proposition 13 is much less than it was 10 years ago. However, I’m not sure people are ready to repeal it. Many people are starting to realize that cities are very much hobbled by it in the provision of direct services--police, fire, libraries, parks and health services. I think it would be important to revisit the issue, particularly re-examining a split rate, with a separate tax rate for residential as opposed to commercial property.”

Kirk West, president of the California Chamber of Commerce: “Speaking as somebody who opposed it, it appears the pluses outweigh the minuses. Due to a whole lot of cleanup (by the Legislature, voters and courts), it has been made to work better. At that time, government was on a spending spree--spending far outweighed growth in cost of living--and this was needed for the shock value, to send a message. The tax revolt was really brought on by over-indulgence. It’s not unlike what might be necessary at the national level.”

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), who opposed the proposition: “Proposition 13 has not succeeded at anything except for those homeowners who have lived in the same house since before its passage and who intend to die in that house. . . . The biggest loser since Proposition 13 has been local government. Cities, counties and schools had relied on local property taxes. Now they are almost totally reliant on the state. They feel they must come to Sacramento, hat in hand, to beg for minimum financing. . . . Until elected officials at all levels acknowledge that Proposition 13 was not a panacea, and start looking together for solutions, I’m not sure we can work our way of the morass.”

Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti (D-Los Angeles), who opposed Proposition 13: “I think government by and large has been able to work within the restrictions. Certain services have been hurt; those that come to mind are libraries, parks and recreation. I don’t think Proposition 13 has had the drastic effect we all feared it would have and, frankly, has been successful in many areas. Maintaining the fabric of home ownership in our society is important for maintaining social stability. We’re going to have to try to do things about the inequities, where certain groups . . . living in similar houses and receiving similar services (are taxed at different rates) and the only differences are the purchase dates of the property.”

Herb Salinger, executive director of the California School Boards Assn., which opposed the proposition: “The fact is that schools have suffered in terms of finances and the reality is that this state, which once was among the top 10 states in terms of per-pupil expenditures, is now below average. The general public has really never understood the kinds of cuts that so many districts had to make after Proposition 13, that really were not restored. We’ve seen where class sizes have increased to second largest in the country (behind Utah). There’s a tremendous backlog of needs.”

Harry Snyder, executive director of Consumers Union: “I voted against Proposition 13. I thought we were going from a vision of greatness to a vision of penny pinching. I think it’s been an absolute disaster for this state. Our transportation system stopped growing. Our police and fire system deteriorated. We’ve thrown people out of mental hospitals. We’ve denied access to hospitals for the medically indigent. Street people are Proposition 13’s gift to us. There’s no public housing being developed. This is not a great state anymore.”