Proposition 13, 30 years ago

In early 1978, The Times editorial board began to consider what was then called the "Jarvis initiative," after Howard Jarvis, an unsuccessful Senate candidate turned taxpayer revolt leader (and later still turned "Airplane!" actor). The board didn't simply dislike the Jarvis plan — it believed the plan would send schools and local governments into financial tailspins. Despite feeling the taxpayer pinch, and despite the several failed legislative attempts to ease the pain, The Times said Jarvis' Proposition 13 wasn't the way to go. Read on for The Times' arguments against the amendment in the months before it passed, on June 6, 1978, by a 2-to-1 margin. (And read today's editorial for the current board's take.)

"Airplane!" actorThe Times' assault on the Jarvis plan began with three nearly back-to-back editorials in February of that year. The first marked the official status of the Jarvis plan as a ballot proposition, and urged then-Gov. Jerry Brown and the legislature to act fast:

"Grasping at Tax Straws," Feb. 2
The threat posed by the Jarvis property-tax limitation initiative is intensifying. Gov. Brown and his allies in the California Legislature are grasping almost desperately for ways to meet it. But there is still time for caution, time to devise a response that will avoid serious harm two or three years from now.
The Jarvis measure now has an official name. It is Proposition 13, and voters must decide the issue in the June 6 statewide primary election....
This undercutting of every city's county's and school district's source of support would spare few homeowners, for it would prompt at least a doubling of current rates on income taxes or sales taxes.
For all its drawbacks, the proposition has broad support from angry homeowners, whose tax bills have become unfair and unreasonable. It will take a good jolt of tax relief between now and June to prevent Proposition 13 from passing, but tax relief has proved a hard subject on which to reach a consensus.

Three days later, The Times explained that even putting Proposition 13 on the ballot was harming local governments:

"The Grim Alternative," Feb. 5
The specter of the Jarvis initiative hovers over virtually every financial issue coming before local government. Purchases are being delayed, tighter restrictions are being placed on filling job openings and administrators are drawing up alternate plans that entail major cutbacks in police and fire budgets, including layoffs....
[I]t's up to local governments to also show, between now and June 6, that they, too, have received the message and that their new budgets will begin reflecting the economies the taxpaying public clearly demands. If not, the crippling, chaotic alternative open to voters is clear.

And the day after that, The Times acknowledged that Proposition 13's placement on the ballot might have one positive consequence — but only one:

"Scary, but No Scare Tactic," Feb. 6
We agree that property taxes are too high. We agree that many services that have no relationship to home ownership should be taken off the property tax. We also agree that the Legislature and the governor must act at this session to reduce the burden on the homeowner. And, to the extent that Proposition 13 spurs Sacramento into action, its presence on the ballot may further that objective.
But that is its only positive aspect. Enactment of Proposition 13 would create fiscal havoc among cities and counties in California, and the new and higher state taxes necessary to restore their stability would fall heaviest on those whom the initiative purports to benefit.
The greatest relief under Proposition 13 would accrue not to homeowners but to owners of commercial and industrial enterprises, whose holdings amount to approximately two-thirds of all real property on the tax rolls....
In the end, the Jarvis amendment would not lower taxes in California. It would merely transfer the burden to other revenue sources — and at greater cost to those who most need help.

The next month, the board seemed to get its wish — a viable Proposition 13 alternative came up in the legislature, drafted by Republican State Sen. Peter H. Behr of San Rafael. Behr's plan, which promised a 30% rather than a 60% reduction in property taxes, a cap on new or higher taxes, renter assistance, and relief for the elderly.

"Behr Vs. Jarvis," March 5
We have never thought much of the Jarvis amendment — Proposition 13 — but we will concede that its presence on the primary ballot was responsible for forcing the Legislature to enact, and the governor to sign, a $1.4 billion guarantee of property-tax relief late last week....
Unlike Proposition 13, the Legislature's plan would bring true, not illusory, tax relief to homeowners and renters; and, unlike the initiative, it would not threaten the solvency of school districts and city and county governments....
Were the amendment to pass, the state would have no choice but to drain the present surplus and impose new and higher taxes to raise the $7 billion to $8 billion that would be necessary to prevent a chaotic disruption of essential public services.

But on June 6, Proposition 13 passed. The board waited till June 18 for its summation of the election, and hypothesized what might have moved voters to approve the measure in such high numbers:

"A New Direction," June 18
Now that the shock waves and emotions stirred by the June 6 primary have settled a bit, it is good to look back and calmly reflect on the results....
An anti-incumbent attitude, part of the Proposition 13 anger against government, was unmistakenly evident. Taxpayers were disgruntled by the failure of incumbent officials to control government costs and the resultant rise in taxes, and they showed it in marking their ballots....

Discuss today's Cold Copy.