CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS BALLOT MEASURES : Prop. 110 Would Help the Disabled Get a Property Tax Break

Proposition 110, a June ballot issue giving the Legislature the authority to create a property tax credit for disabled homeowners, is designed to help someone like Marsha Clark, a 44-year-old Simi Valley woman with multiple sclerosis.

The measure would allow physically disabled homeowners to take a lower property tax rate with them if they move from one house to another in the same county--or to a house in another county if the board of supervisors in the second county votes to accept the lower assessed valuation. Voters approved a similar tax break for people 55 and older in 1986.

The possibility of needing such a tax break never crossed Clark’s mind when she and her husband, Daryl, moved into their home in 1971. At the time, she had no symptoms of the disease that would strike her just about a year later. And she gave little thought to the small step leading up from the “sunken” living room. That step has become a symbol of her disability.

Now, on days when the paralyzing illness weakens her and makes it impossible for her to walk, Marsha Clark needs someone to lift her wheelchair over the step. Otherwise she is a prisoner in her own home.

Clark said she and her husband have considered moving to a house better suited to a wheelchair and ramps.

But, like many other disabled Californians, the Clarks are caught in the velvet maw of Proposition 13. While the 1978 initiative that froze tax assessments at 1975 levels has kept the taxes down on their Simi Valley home, it also requires that they pay a new and higher property tax if they decide to move and purchase a new home.

Since the Clarks’ home is taxed closer to the $29,000 they paid for it than the $200,000-plus it is worth today, Marsha Clark figures that moving to any new home, even a smaller one, will double or triple her property taxes.

“There is no way we could buy what we have now, make the payments and pay the additional property taxes,” Clark said.

Clark became one of a number of disabled Californians who began pressing legislators for property tax relief. She went to her local legislator, Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley), who subsequently introduced one of the bills now under consideration to implement Proposition 110. “I know my problem is a problem for a tremendous number of disabled people,” she said.

The legislation putting Proposition 110 on the ballot was drafted by Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), who said he was prompted by a letter from the husband of a disabled constituent.

Carol Risley, executive director of the Organization of Developmental Disabilities Areas, said that because the tax break was made available for older homeowners in 1986, it is only right that it be extended to the disabled. She said the disabled “are just as deserving.”

“We also see Proposition 110 as a way for more people to maintain their independence for longer periods. Nursing facilities and out-of-home placements cost the state a lot more money,” she said.

The measure, once fully implemented, would also prohibit reassessing property if improvements are made to accommodate a disabled person. These include building wheelchair ramps, widening doorways or adding a room if one is needed, say, on the ground floor of a two-story house to assist a person who has trouble climbing stairs.

A major issue, still to be decided, is how lawmakers will legally define who is disabled and thus entitled to benefits under Proposition 110.

A relatively narrow definition might limit the tax break to someone who can’t work or move without a mechanical aid. Tax experts believe that relatively few homeowners would qualify under that interpretation. But there could be a broader definition, such as one that gives blanket coverage to anyone who qualifies for a handicapped parking permit or one that allows for mental and emotional disabilities.

On the outside, the number of people eligible for the benefit probably would not exceed the number of handicapped parking permits--although that number is growing rapidly. In 1987, the Department of Motor Vehicles gave out 410,000 handicapped parking placards. For the 12 months ending in February, the number had jumped to 568,000. A DMV spokesman said the agency has not been able to determine why there was such a large jump but believes that the increase is due primarily to more awareness of the program by disabled people.

Until it is determined who would qualify, it will be impossible to estimate the cost of Proposition 110. The state legislative analyst estimates the statewide loss in property tax revenues to be in the $1-million to $2-million range, but those estimates are based on a definition of severe disability that would be highly restrictive.

Based on the legislative analyst’s estimate, the Los Angeles County tax assessor’s office figures that the county would lose about $100,000 annually.

Counties hope the tax break will be a trade-off. If a person moves and carries their low tax rate with them, assessors figure that someone will buy the house they are leaving, which will cause an upward increase in the assessment on their old place. Another factor limiting the tax loss is that disabled people over 55 already are covered by the earlier measure.

Although there are no opponents to the measure listed in the sample ballot, city and county government agencies opposed the legislation that put Proposition 110 on the ballot.

One of the organizations that initially opposed the tax break, the League of California Cities, has switched its position and now supports Proposition 110.

“We think the tax loss to cities will be minimal. Members of the league felt it was an appropriate way to assist the disabled,” said Shirley Earlywine, a league spokeswoman.

The County Supervisors Assn. of California is opposed to the measure, one of only two ballot propositions it opposes (the other is Proposition 117, which would set up a $30-million-a-year conservation fund for wildlife protection).

Dan Wall, a CSAC official, said counties, like cities, are worried about a loss of revenue, since the measure would be financed by local property tax dollars.

“It’s a revenue loser for a number of counties,” Wall said. He said the Legislature took the easy way out by proposing a tax break, then passing the cost on to other government agencies. “If it’s such a good policy, why do they want us to foot the bill? They should pay for it themselves through the income tax,” Wall said.