Tax Help for Victims of Dump Cleanups Sought

As toxic cleanup crews ripped out her lovely garden and demolished her Westminster home of 34 years on orders of the federal EPA in 1995, Rosa Garcia grieved.

“They said they had to clean up under my house and they knocked my house down,” Garcia, a widow who gets a Social Security pension, recalled recently. “I did not want to move. I had invested a lot in my garden. I had pride in my yard. All that went.”

Another shock was soon to follow. For her troubles, Garcia’s property taxes would soar 300%.

“I had been paying about $500 a year in property taxes and now I’m paying $2,000,” said Garcia, who now lives in a replacement house. “I am really struggling to pay the taxes.”

Never did she imagine, Garcia said, that her home had been built on a covered former hazardous waste dump or that it would be ordered demolished as part of the cleanup of a Superfund site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Garcia said she also never dreamed that it would take an act of the Legislature and a favorable vote of the California electorate to bring her tax justice.

It was Garcia and four former neighbors in the Westminster housing development whom the Legislature had in mind when it put Proposition 1, a proposed constitutional amendment, on Tuesday’s ballot.

Under Proposition 1, homeowners who lose their property as the result of environmental contamination or government-required cleanups would suffer no property tax increases when they rebuild or buy another home of similar value.

Such tax protections long have been available for victims of fires, earthquakes and other natural disasters under Proposition 13 tax restrictions written into the state Constitution. But the same protections do not exist for unknowing property owners who lose their homes as the result of hazardous contamination.

“In my book, it was a disaster,” Garcia said.

Assemblyman Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) was alerted to the homeowners’ tax plight by EPA officials and carried the proposal in the Legislature.

Pringle said the same tax fairness available to victims of natural disasters should be extended to homeowners whose property “is destroyed by health- and life-threatening toxic waste buried on their residential property.”

In contrast to the highly publicized campaigns raging over other ballot measures, such as Indian gambling and utility regulation, Proposition 1 has received scant attention. There are neither big-spending special interests involved nor high-powered campaign organizations. It faces no organized opposition.

Proposition 1 and two other noncontroversial technical measures--Propositions 2 and 11--were approved by the Legislature and found their way to the ballot because any amendment to the state Constitution must be submitted to the voters.

Proposition 2 would tighten requirements for swift repayment of intra-government loans from state transportation funds. Proposition 11 would allow a city council and county board of supervisors to approve agreements for the sharing of local sales tax revenue by a two-thirds majority instead of a vote of the electorate.

All three ballot measures received heavy bipartisan approval in both the Senate and Assembly.

Proposition 2 would put more restrictions on loans made from state transportation funds to the general fund for cash flow and budget-balancing purposes.

Generally, such loans would be required to be paid in full within a fiscal year, although the governor could declare a fiscal emergency and repayment of the loans could be extended over three fiscal years.

Supporters say the protections of Proposition 2 are necessary to ensure that the use of motor vehicle and other transportation-related funds are spent for transportation purposes. There is no organized opposition to the measure.

Proposition 11 is aimed at easing fights between local governments over the location of major sales tax producers such as auto malls and shopping centers.

The competition for such establishments is often fierce, with local governments bidding against each other so that big retailers locate in their jurisdictions and bring new sales tax revenues to their coffers.

Legislative supporters of Proposition 11 say that it represents an attempt to cool these costly competitions by allowing city councils and boards of supervisors to agree by a two-thirds vote to share the disputed revenue.

Now, local revenue sharing contracts must be approved by voters, an expensive process that apparently has never been used, according to the California legislative analyst.

No organizations were formed to campaign for or against Proposition 11, but Melvin L. Emerich, a San Jose attorney, filed a ballot argument against it, saying that the measure would make it “more inviting for counties and cities to . . . increase taxes.”

Supporters of Proposition 11, including Assemblyman George Runner Jr. (R-Lancaster), deny the charge, saying that Proposition 11 would save taxpayers money by ending “wasteful bidding wars over sales tax revenue.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Props. 1, 2 and 11 at a Glance

Proposition 1

What it would do: Enable property owners forced to abandon their homes because of environmental contamination to rebuild or purchase a replacement home without incurring higher property taxes.

Arguments for: Homeowner victims of natural disasters, including floods, fires and earthquakes, are protected from paying increased property taxes when they rebuild or replace their residences. The same fairness should be extended to victims of environmental disasters.

Arguments against: None filed.

Supporters: Assemblyman Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove), Rosa Garcia and several other property owners, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and the Sierra Club.

Opponents: No formal campaign organized against it.

****

Proposition 2

What it would do: Place tighter restrictions on repayment of loans from state transportation funds to the state general fund.

Arguments for: Would ensure timely repayment of funds earmarked for highway and other transportation projects.

Arguments against: None filed.

Supporters: Asphalt Pavement Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, Caterpillar Inc., Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Sierra Club, United Transportation Union, various construction materials and contractor organizations.

Opponents: No formal campaign organized against it.

****

Proposition 11

What it would do: Allow city councils and county boards of supervisors to approve local sales tax revenue-sharing contracts by a two-thirds vote instead of a vote of the electorate.

Arguments for: Would end costly bidding disputes among government entities who want major retailers to locate within their boundaries so they can collect more sales tax.

Arguments against: Would make it more attractive for local governments to try to raise taxes.

Supporters: League of California Cities, California State Assn. of Counties; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., California Business Properties Assn., various cities and counties.

Opponent: Melvin L. Emerich, San Jose attorney.