Judge Sees Payback in Property Valuation

Agenda item No. 21 before the assessment appeals board Wednesday had John M. Watson’s name and a small notation that his property was secured.

There was nothing to explain the irony that it was Watson, aka Orange County Superior Court Judge John Watson, who declared the county’s property assessment method unconstitutional under Proposition 13.

But Watson’s visit before the board was personal.

The assessment of his La Habra condominium increased more than 18% last year, well above Proposition 13’s 2% annual limit.

He wondered why the assessed value of his two-bedroom, 2 1/2-bath condominium was $195,000 while similar-sized units in his complex were assessed at $138,000 to $164,000.

“A question I would like answered is, why me?” Watson asked.

His neighbors who, like him, did not sell or remodel their condominiums, saw their appraised value increase by 2% last year, he said.

His assessment is unconstitutional, Watson said, because it singles him out.

He asked the board to reset the appraisal and refund excess taxes.

Watson thinks he knows the root of his problem: his December 2001 ruling that Orange County, and by extension all counties in California, routinely violates the provision of Proposition 13 that limits assessment increases to 2% a year.

Orange County Assessor Webster J. Guillory appealed, arguing that assessors may increase valuations by more than 2% to “recapture” revenue they could not collect when property values were flat or declining.

A decision is pending from the state appellate court, which heard the case this month.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Watson said he bought the 1,209-square-foot condominium in 1989. He told the board his assessment increased 2% a year from 1997 to 2000.

Then it jumped 10% in 2001, 18% in 2002 and 18.6% last year, when he paid $2,190.

Watson never mentioned his judicial status to the assessment board, but he gave the three members newspaper articles discussing his Proposition 13 decision.

The judge said he isn’t someone “who believes in dark conspiracies,” but he asked the board members to “note the dates the stories ran,” which fell close to the date his assessment was increased.

Guillory denied his office was retaliating against the judge.

“At the assessor’s, we value thousands of properties each year, and there’s never one reason to single out people for good or bad treatment. We didn’t single out this one,” Guillory said in a telephone interview.

James Harman, an attorney for Guillory, argued that the appraised value of similar properties may fluctuate from homeowner to homeowner.

The appeals board has 10 days to rule.