Effects of Proposition 13

Proposition 13 never actually addressed the fact that general services must be financed by a tax levied against net income, from whatever source derived--the only general property--with a subsistence-income exemption; it is illegal to tax assets in any form for this service. The tax or assessment against the ownership rights to realty, equipment, crops, and livestock must be limited to the cost of their fire and police protection. The “tax” and the “assessment” can legally be adopted without a vote of the people since they are now receiving the services, and the right is inherent in the government agency.

I allege Proposition 13 is invalid on its face for a number of other reasons in addition to those noted above. The 1% tax rate over-assesses realty for its protection. It unlawfully forces new homeowners to pay a higher price for local services than those who live in homes purchased before it took effect. As before, the renter’s property that should be taxed for general services remains untaxed. The tax unjustifiably forces low-income citizens to remain in less desirable neighborhoods or climates. Citizens who have to move for work or business, retirement or related reasons, may find the increase in taxes on their new home puts them at financial risk.

Proposition 13 has allowed local governments to adopt exorbitant permit fees for the privilege of building a new home. This tax cost my neighbor $10,000. Developers are unlawfully forced, in order to stay in business, to dedicate land and money to many general public projects all of which is added to the cost of the new home.

R. L. MIDDLETON

Pismo Beach