SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
January 3, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Governor Brown to target Enterprise Zones, Redevelopment Agencies

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

You want fiscal conservatism? I got some fiscal conservatism here for yas, from no less a figure than Governor Moonbeam, who wants to cut/eliminate Enterprise Zones and Redevelopment Agencies, according to the Times and the Sac Bee:

Among the breaks are multibillion-dollar incentives for redevelopment projects and hundreds of millions of dollars of “enterprise zone” credits meant to encourage investment in blighted neighborhoods. Also targeted is a recent change to state business tax formulas that has saved corporate California roughly $1 billion.

Now, if you ask the City of Santa Clarita (and now, the County of LA), the Enterprise Zone is a godsend of a program because it attracts job creators to the SCV and encourages companies here to retain and hire even more workers for good, local jobs. The program works like this: a company operating within a geographic EZ gets tax credits from the State of California for hiring certain disadvantaged workers (veterans, disabled folks, etc). The idea is to incentivize businesses in “blighted” areas with money so that they hire people who are disadvantaged. The theory is we create a social good with this program: businesses save money, people who wouldn’t be otherwise employed get jobs, and the economy of EZ areas is improved. Everyone’s happy. There’s other facets to the program (like equipment purchases), but that’s essentially it.

But policy analysts have long debated whether the program is really effective, and Governor Brown appears to be coming from that school of thought.

In Santa Clarita, the City says the local EZ program (within City boundaries, the EZ is set to expand later this year to include County areas) has saved businesses a whopping $105.5 million in the nearly 4 year existence of the program. The same banner headline on their site says “430 new jobs” have been created and “2819 jobs hired through the tax credit.” The banner says 248 local companies have received tax credits for participating in the program.

I’m not sure what the difference is between “2819 jobs hired through the tax credit” and “430 new jobs created” is, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say the EZ program in Santa Clarita has lead to the creation/hiring of 3,249 local jobs (we’ll even assume they are full time equivalent jobs).

Taking the $105.5 million the State of California has given to local businesses (for jobs created and other program elements) and dividing it by the number of jobs, we taxpayers have basically paid $32,471.53 for each local job created. If we except the “2819 jobs hired through the tax credit” and just count 430 new jobs created, we paid much more per job to local businesses to create a measly 430 jobs: $245,348 per job.

Now of course these savings aren’t over a single year; the program spreads the incentives to businesses over the course of 5 years, but still: that’s a lot of money per job.

What’s more, businesses in California have resisted efforts to add value for the taxpayer’s investment in the program. Last year, Dems tried to add a provision to the EZ program that would require qualifying businesses to offer health insurance plans & full time jobs to the employees they hire on our dime. Businesses and the City of Santa Clarita, of course, resisted the push, even though the type of worker targeted in the EZ program is likely not to have quality health insurance and likely draws from public health programs. The City said at the time that such a requirement would “strangle” local businesses.

That’s not the only local program that Brown’s austerity measures could impact though. The SacBee says he’ll eliminate Redevelopment Agencies, like the one we have for Old Town Newhall:

In a major reduction, Brown would wipe out hundreds of local redevelopment agencies, which use property taxes to spur projects in blighted areas. State leaders in 2009-10 took $1.7 billion from redevelopment agencies, though voters in November approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 22, that presumably blocks such transfers in the future.

I don’t even know what impact that would have on Old Town Newhall redevelopment, but it can’t be good. I’m glad we finished the streetscape, the Metrolink station, the Community Center, Veteran’s Park, and other parts of OTN.

For those pining for some more public employee pain: don’t worry, it’s coming too. Brown promises “painful” cuts to CSU, UC, the school districts and libraries. Good thing the City of Santa Clarita got to the latter first; we’ve already given notice to our librarians!

Comments (98)

  1. BrianJanuary 3, 2011 at 10:29 pm
    … good local jobs. You wouldn’t happen to have an analysis on how the local economy breaks down according to earned wages, would you? My point being that there are few non white collar jobs here which can sustain a family unless everyone works. We can only employ so many lawyers and plastic surgeons. What about the unwashed masses?
  2. ToddJanuary 3, 2011 at 11:00 pm
    Cut cut cut until theres a balanced budget. Then watch the state really fall to pieces until people realize that they really like their standard of living, and are willing to pay for it. I have no problem with this. Sooner or later, we need to realize that Prop 13 needs to be repealed, and redone. The worst part about Prop 13 was the centralization of funds. Return the funds to the local areas for them to spend, not to Sacramento for them to disburse. I’m curious to see how this will shake out.
  3. CastaicClayJanuary 4, 2011 at 9:14 am
    If Prop. 13 were not in place I would be taxed out of my home.
  4. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 9:38 am
    And I would have a much lower tax burden as a new home owner. Ever stop to think that Prop 13, on the margins, inflates home values by constraining supply? Folks stay in their homes ’cause “they can’t afford to move.” Prop 13 has had way too many unintended consequences.
  5. drive66January 4, 2011 at 10:43 am
    N/D Please explain why repealing prop. 13 would lower property taxes for new home buyers.
  6. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 11:37 am
    Mello-Roos, for starters, would be unnecessary.
  7. drive66January 4, 2011 at 11:42 am
    That is a lame example. Buy an older home if you don’t like Mello-Roos..
  8. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 11:50 am
    Lame? Mello-roos were enacted precisely because of Prop 13. You asked… But let’s go with your recommendation to buy an older home. Prop 13 discourages move-up buying. Families don’t want their property tax reset. So supply is artificially constrained. It’s a negative feedback loop that inflates home values, thereby causing recent homebuyers to pay an unfair amount of property tax vs. their neighbor who has been in their home for a longer period of time. Think about that for a minute. The guy who just bought is paying more in tax than his neighbor, but is consuming the exact same services. Prop 13 is rent control for homeowners, plain and simple.
  9. MikeJanuary 4, 2011 at 11:59 am
    He asked to be pwnd, and pwnd he got.
  10. drive66January 4, 2011 at 12:14 pm
    Mike, How old are you? Let the adults talk.
  11. drive66January 4, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    N/D wrote: Think about that for a minute. The guy who just bought is paying more in tax than his neighbor, but is consuming the exact same services. WTF!!! You are paying the exact same tax with prop 13, the house may costs more, depending on the market. People are buying houses now for a lot less now than the the guy who bought 3 years ago and their property tax is less, you of all people should know that. If you move up you will still be paying higher prop tax because the house cost more, regardless of prop 13. And if you think that higher property tax going to Sacramento will help schools and infrastructure on a local level as Mello-Roos do you are kidding yourself. I’m no fan of Mello-Roos but the alternative of losing prop 13 is worse. You higher taxes will solve everything types make no sense at all.
  12. thomasJanuary 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm
    Mello-roos aren’t necessary. You just chose to pay them.
  13. cashJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    You a renter? Don’t think you will be immune from your recommendation.
  14. PoliticoJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:36 pm
    I agree completely with Todd. There are two choices here, cut the budget or raise taxes. If the Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes, then we’re going to have to gut . . . . . excuse me, cut the budget. Sorry folks, that’s all there is to it. Doesn’t matter if Meg had won, we’d be facing the same choices. The time of reckoning is upon us. As Todd, said, this will be very interesting to watch.
  15. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 4, 2011 at 6:32 am
    I predict Gov Moonbeam will raise taxes and fees at every opportunity. We are stuck with liberal politicians controlling California and they will satisfy their growing base… mainly gov’t union employees who thrive off a shrinking private sector… Watch what he does, not what he says.
  16. CastaicClayJanuary 4, 2011 at 9:15 am
    Only if you vote for the tax increases.
  17. spineflower2January 4, 2011 at 9:17 am
    Less than 24 hours after swearing in, and the hate has already started. Classic!
  18. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 9:40 am
    Didn’t you hear? Gov Brown caused all our state’s problems!
  19. damageincJanuary 4, 2011 at 10:51 am
    Bill running with the typical rheotoric.
  20. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 4, 2011 at 11:51 am
    Brain Damaged running with his eyes closed.
  21. DamageincJanuary 4, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    Says the guys spitting the same tired rhetoric over and over again.
  22. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:04 pm
    There’s Brain Damaged stuck in his liberal rhetoric loop. Wise up, Scooter…
  23. spineflower2January 4, 2011 at 9:22 am
    By the way, yesterday was Day One for Camarillo libraries, which jumped off the Ventura County system to go with LSSI. A couple of interesitng quotes from the local Star: Councilwoman Charlotte Craven said the goal is to keep the library operating smoothly. “The best thing is for people to say that there has been little to no difference in the service,” said Craven, who stopped by for a quick visit Monday. Gee, so the best we can hope for is for it to be merely as good as it was before? Shouldn’t they be aiming a little higher?! Also: Mary Goldberg, youth services librarian, said that although it could take “a little bit longer” to order books, Camarillo will have access to libraries across the state. So there it is… if you are student looking for a book in another branch, and it arrives after your assignment is due, is it worth anything to you at all?
  24. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 9:55 am
    Spine: I agree with you sentiments — however, Ventura County’s library system has suffered some notable setbacks, including closing the highly popular Wright library in Ventura : Wright Library closed as part of a consolidation of library services in Ventura to Foster Library. The Ventura County Library Services Agency simply did not have enough funds available to keep both libraries open. There was also more participation in the process. I’m certain if the City could do it all over again, they’d have either have waited for this to become a crisis, involved more folks early on, or both.
  25. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 10:38 am
    I believe the best cure for California problems would be a stimulus bill. Spend 2 trillion on union jobs and temp workers. That will create/ save 7 million jobs and at the same time free California from all the debt and boost the economy
  26. damageincJanuary 4, 2011 at 10:53 am
    Well obviously tax cuts don’t work, you said so yourself.
  27. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 12:53 pm
    Looking at the map of the states most in debt and at the verge of total collapse they all have one thing in common? The liberal answer? It is Palin’s fault!
  28. MikeJanuary 4, 2011 at 2:04 pm
    Johnny, which state has a higher debt-to-GDP ratio, Alaska or California?
  29. DamageincJanuary 4, 2011 at 2:52 pm
    uh oh… truth isn’t setting him free.
  30. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:05 pm
    You can’t handle the truth…
  31. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    Mikey, Which State has the better possibility of turning that around? (Be honest) Liberal rags (the ones you love) always quote the debt after Palin left Wassila. But they never mention to debt now? Why? _____ _____ _______ (you fill in the blanks) Calif under years and years of liberal leadership is in the toilet. ( Try and debate that) Looking forward to your response…..
  32. MikeJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:45 pm
    Never a pet issue of mine, but since you brought it up, I figured some factual foundation was in order. Nice try though.
  33. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:59 pm
    I brought it up? What did I bring up? Mike you are slipping in your old age. I was expecting a debate. You may want to start this argument over. Oh and you did not answer my question. Who has the better chance? (I know this will hurt but, be honest and give us your reasons why…LOL)
  34. MikeJanuary 4, 2011 at 5:22 pm
    What do you mean by “turning that around”?
  35. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 6:11 pm
    Swing and a miss! Who do you think you are the Phillies? Please just answer the question. Which State has a better chance of turning their debt around? You can even add the liberal platitudes to make your case. I am still wondering why MSNBC (your bible) still never mentions the present day Wasilla debt? I am sure you have a great answer (unless Chris Matthews has not covered that talking point)
  36. MikeJanuary 4, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    It was an honest question. I’ll go out on a limb and say California. The factors determining the situation in Californiaare more fluid and the problem is worse, proportionately, in Alaska.
  37. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    LOL ! I will take that bet! Say $100.00 (I will save the post for further debates/payoffs) You must have complete confidence in liberal leadership and keynesian economics so this bet should be easy for you. (The winner will be the state that is out of debt first) This is where Mike ducks his chin and walks away proclaiming Marx was the smartest man ever.
  38. OccassionalPosterJanuary 5, 2011 at 10:20 am
    Wait a second, Texas – right-to-work state nearly absent of unionized labor – $20 billion in the hole.
  39. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 1:56 pm
    drive66: The guy who bought at peak prices can apply for a re-assessment to current values. The guy who bought in ’96 at still pays at his ’96 level, plus a maximum of 2% annual appreciation in alignment with inflation. So the guy who bought at the peak is paying based on today’s basis, but the guy from ’96 is paying basically the old rate. AND… when the guy from ’96 transfers the property to his son, the son pays at the old rate! And this is all in the same neighborhood, on the same street – all households consuming the same services yet paying totally different rates — based on WHEN they bought. Talk about WTF and making no sense at all. ps You think the hypothetical son with the home bought in ’96 will EVER sell that stucco box? NOT A CHANCE. “He can’t afford to.” He’ll take the tax deduction and rent the place out, paying property taxes from yesteryear ad infinitum, then pass it on to his kids. All the new suckers moving in will shoulder the tax burden.
  40. drive66January 4, 2011 at 2:41 pm
    The guy who bought at peak prices still has neighbors that bought for less equaling lower taxes. If the guy who bought in 96 wants to move and rent his house he will still pay 1% prop tax on the new house. Your argument makes no sense. If you can’t afford a new house with a higher price and higher taxes then you couldn’t afford to move anyway. You wait until the home appreciates and sell at a profit thereby being able to afford a new house and property tax. Your solution would cause housing to stagnate in prices ruining the market. And…if it wasn’t for prop 13 our property tax would be through the roof with Sacramento balancing the budget every year on the backs of homeowners. You should just rent!
  41. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm
    Prop 13 is rent control for home owners. Folks on the same street pay varying amounts of tax for the same services. That’s fundamentally unfair. Folks who have inherited rental property (at the beach, for example) are paying ridiculously low property tax because they are literally grandfathered into that rate. That’s fundamentally unfair. Prop 13 constrains supply of homes, artificially inflating the value of homes available for sale. And I get the intent of Prop 13 was to constrain spending, but it has wildly unintended consequences.
  42. cashJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:28 pm
    Prop 13 was intended cut taxes and revenue to the state for a good reason. Problem is that the state and local agencies kept spending as though they had the revenue flowing in. We need dog parks and other such unnecessary crap like we need two heads on our shoulder. The issue is STOP the unnecessary spending.
  43. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    Nickle says…. “Folks on the same street pay varying amounts of tax for the same services. That’s fundamentally unfair.” and “And this is all in the same neighborhood, on the same street – all households consuming the same services yet paying totally different rates — based on WHEN they bought.” How about based on what they make? Does that not bother you? It seems that Nickle is only worried about problems when he is getting the short end? Hey Nickle would you add income tax into the same argument? Just asking
  44. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:47 pm
    Progressive taxation gives me the relative short end of the stick. I haven’t voiced any grievances on that – it’s the price we pay for living in the land of opportunity.
  45. cashJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm
    The land of opportunity is not defined as the land of freebies and handout. Take a look at how our tax dollars are spent (wasted), it is obscene!
  46. MikeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:35 pm
    It’s like saying if you can’t afford to pay $100, then you can’t afford to pay $70. False on its face.
  47. ReaderMamaJanuary 4, 2011 at 2:50 pm
    The property tax RATE is the SAME for everyone. The assessed value is what changes (or doesn’t change as the case may be). I’m thinking, ND, that if your home had doubled in “value” over the course of a few years (as has happened in California on a few occasions) you might not be so eager to see your property taxes double. The reason Prop 13 passed in the first place is because people were literally being taxed right out of their homes. Those who don’t sell (or take out second mortgages) do not benefit in any way from the increased “value” of their home. Why should the government? As to the exclusion from reassessment being made for transfers between parents and children or grandparents and grandchildren, these exclusions are equally available to anyone with children or parents. But really, how many people do you know who move into their parents’ house? Or keep it and rent it out? I don’t know anyone who has done that myself. In California people move around a lot, they don’t remain in one neighborhood generation after generation. It is far more likely that the parents’ house gets sold and the proceeds are split amongst the heirs. While I share your frustration at the cost of buying a house in So Cal, inflation is unavoidable. Subsequent generations will always pay more . . .
  48. drive66January 4, 2011 at 2:56 pm
    Thank you ReaderMama, and from Gov. Brown in todays LA Times: Brown made clear Tuesday he was not blaming the state’s current problems on Proposition 13. But, he said, the decisions made by state lawmakers in the wake of Proposition 13’s passage have created an untenable situation. “It was what the Legislature did after 13,” Brown said. Proposition 13 was not the problem, “it was what happened after 13 was passed.”
  49. navigatorJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:05 pm
    BINGO RM!
  50. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:08 pm
    Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, Prop 13 might actually have contributed to inflated housing valuations?
  51. David KJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:25 pm
    I have heard this theory before as well. Texas has much higher property tax levels, but the result of this is lower housing values than California. The theory is that if people only have so much to spend on housing (mortgage payments plus property taxes), the market will push down the price of the house to meet the demand. Of course while this would benefit those of us who dont yet own our own homes, to existing homeowners it is more important to keep taxes low while maximizing home prices, even if it comes at the expense of future generations (both with high housing costs and reduced government services, including education).
  52. ReaderMamaJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    How so? Prop 13 was enacted in RESPONSE to a big run-up in real estate values back in the ’70′s. So that would tend to disprove that theory. There were/are a lot of factors which tend to encourage inflated values. One major factor in this last bubble was the $500,000 capital gains exclusion for homeowners under the federal income tax code. It made flipping homes for profit a very attractive thing for people who weren’t really professionals. Another factor in California is simply the fact that our state is considered a very desirable place to live. At one time one out of every eight Americans lived in California.
  53. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:31 pm
    Prop 13 is a dis-incentive on mobility. That constrains supply.
  54. ReaderMamaJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:40 pm
    I would have to ask you to support that with some evidence. Californians have historically been far more mobile than residents of other states.
  55. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    Fair enough. Glad to research. While I do, how many times have you heard the argument “I can’t afford to move – my property taxes would go up too much!”
  56. ReaderMamaJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:00 pm
    I have only heard it once. The person who said this was unaware that they could transfer their property tax basis. http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/guides/prop6090.aspx In general, that argument doesn’t hold water even if you’re not 55. If your property has increased that much in value, you can put a sizeable down payment on the next property and thereby reduce your monthly payment.
  57. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:34 pm
    Funny Nickle as a mortgage banker for over 20 years I can tell you without a question californians are a movers. The national average for living in homes is near 9 years. The california average is close to 4 years? How do you resolve that?
  58. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    The standard deviation in those numbers tell the story. If you have only been in your home a short time, Prop 13 doesn’t benefit you – so there’s less of a disincentive to move.
  59. john adamsJanuary 4, 2011 at 6:49 pm
    If that is the case Nickle how do you explain the mobility of Calif citizens? I am sure youknowthey are way above the national average.
  60. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 6:58 pm
    Averages don’t tell the whole story. Fact is, Prop 13 is a disincentive to mobility for folks who bought at troughs, not for those that didn’t. The standard deviation in the numbers would validate that theory, not the averages.
  61. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:11 pm
    But really, how many people do you know who move into their parents’ house? Or keep it and rent it out? I don’t know anyone who has done that myself. Good, so we agree then – that this provision of transferring tax valuation basis between generations is completely unnecessary?
  62. ReaderMamaJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    While it has never benefitted me personally, nor do I anticipate it doing so in the future, there may be some justification for it of which I am unaware. I would like to hear an argument from the other side before I make a “final” decision.
  63. HermanJanuary 4, 2011 at 8:26 pm
    If you don’t think it’s fair then don’t buy a house.
  64. drive66January 4, 2011 at 3:22 pm
    And N/D gets the last word, as usual. Pathetic.
  65. drive66January 4, 2011 at 3:28 pm
    You better remove this post like all my others cause it doesn’t make sense since people don’t know your moderating me for disagreeing with you.
  66. MikeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    Such a sore loser.
  67. drive66January 4, 2011 at 3:32 pm
    You can’t lose when the game is rigged.
  68. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    The sniping exchange between the two of us was pulled. The stuff that adds to the conversation remains. It happens to all of us. Ask ScottE, John Adams, Nate and Bill Reynolds. They were hit yesterday. I’m sorry to break it to you, but you’re not that special.
  69. drive66January 4, 2011 at 4:01 pm
    Always with the personal attacks, good for you.
  70. Bill ReynoldsJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    I was hit yesterday because of my humorous comments regarding Global Warming is back in the SCV. That was shot at Master Blogger ‘s religion.
  71. thomasJanuary 5, 2011 at 6:05 am
    That’s why this forum is not a true blog. So many posts are removed because the people who run it can’t handle the truth.
  72. NickelDimeJanuary 5, 2011 at 6:37 am
    Feel free to use the red “x” in the corner of your browser. Folks on all sides are moderated all the time.
  73. drive66January 4, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    I can’t believe you are such a bad sport N/D, what little respect I had for you is bye bye.
  74. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    Does this add to the conversation? We’ll leave it here just for purposes of a great example.
  75. cashJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:02 pm
    It’s about time the freebies stop. My hat is of the Governor Brown. It’s time for the everyday taxpayer to stop carrying business and time for business to make it on their own or close. Downtown Newhall is the mess it is for a good reason, and no one is to blame but the business and property owners.
  76. JaneJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:12 pm
    Totally agree with you Cash, but last year when I wrote of this topic in a slightly different context (business owners who use our residential streets for parking their company trucks/vans, etc. rather than parking them at their business or renting a parking lot) I was lambasted six ways to Sunday – Good Luck!
  77. cashJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    Jane I remember your issue. It is shameful how the city has encouraged the use of enterprise zones for the wealthy. The EZ was never intended to enrich car delears and other well known companies in this valley. Santa Clarita is far from a “blighted urban area” and the city action demonstrates that the Council and Kenny the Skamp are too close to the business community. I have said this for a long long time.
  78. cashJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:13 pm
    1. Jerry Brown wants to eliminate local redevelopment agencies as part of his plan to close the state’s $28 billion budget gap, the Sacramento Bee reports. The plan also would kill Oakland’s proposal for a new ballpark for the A’s in Jack London Square, because the stadium project requires redevelopment money for land acquisition and infrastructure upgrades. Under Brown’s proposal, local redevelopment agencies, which are designed to transform blighted urban areas, would cease to exist. Oakland has numerous redevelopment areas, and Brown used them to help revitalize parts of the city when he was mayor. It’s unclear whether Brown’s proposal would require voter approval. He also is proposing to eliminate “enterprise zones” — depressed areas where businesses receive tax breaks.
  79. Alan FerdmanJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:18 pm
    Proposition 58, (NOT PROPOSITION 13) a law passed in 1986 is what allows property to be passed from parent to child with no reassessment of the property. Read about it, use the following link. http://www.almanacnews.com/story.php?story_id=9360
  80. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 4:45 pm
    Thanks for clarifying that, Al.
  81. NickelDimeJanuary 4, 2011 at 7:13 pm
    Here are the findings on the question of Prop 13 and its impact on mobility for Californian homeowners, from the National Bureau of Economic Research , the largest economics research organization in the US: We find that from 1970 to 2000, the average tenure length of owners and renters in California increased by 1.04 years and .79 years, respectively, relative to the comparison states…Among owner-occupiers, the response to Prop 13 increases sharply as the size of the subsidy rises. Homeowners living in inland California cities such as Bakersfield receive Prop 13 subsidies averaging only $110/year and their average tenure length increased by only .11 years in 2000, but owners living in coastal California cities receive Prop 13 subsidies averaging in the thousands of dollars and their average tenure length increased by 2 to 3 years. Sorry it doesn’t track with the anecdotes shared, but it does validate the theory – folks who have a higher subsidy level (tax basis vs. comparable assessments) stay longer, thus constraining home supply.
  82. ReaderMamaJanuary 4, 2011 at 8:59 pm
    First of all, the title of the working paper you quote is “Property Tax Limitations and Mobility: The Lock-in Effect of California’s Proposition 13.” Nowhere in the excerpt you quote (I wasn’t willing to pay $5.00 for the entire article, were you?) is there mention of Prop. 13 constraining home supply. Mobility and home supply are not necessarily related. If you move, you still need a place to live. Further, worth noting is the disclaimer which appears on the NBER website with regard to working papers: NBER Working Papers have not undergone the review accorded official NBER publications; in particular, they have not been submitted for approval by the Board of directors. They are intended to make results of NBER research available to other economists in preliminary form to encourage discussion and suggestions for revision before final publication. In addition, three other points are worthy of mention: (1) Prop. 13 was passed in 1978, so measuring the frequency of moves from 1970 through 1978 to support the theory that Prop. 13 has caused a decrease in mobility is misleading; (2) Coastal property is always more desirable and anyone who lives on the coast would naturally be less inclined to move than someone living in Bakersfield (something perhaps that someone living elsewhere might not realize); and (3) The likelihood of someone moving increases with education and income level according to the Pew Research Center, which would seem to contradict what the working paper you cite is saying. http://pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/who-moves-who-stays-put-wheres-home/
  83. mikeJanuary 4, 2011 at 8:08 pm
    Jr: in for 100. It’s a deal!
  84. john adamsJanuary 5, 2011 at 7:47 am
    Yahtzee!!!
  85. HermanJanuary 4, 2011 at 8:44 pm
    If family “A” and family “B” both buy identical houses for the exact same price they will pay the exact same property tax. If family “A” has no children and family “B” has four children then, clearly they are not consuming the exact same services. I would say that’s fundamentally unfair.
  86. ReaderMamaJanuary 4, 2011 at 9:01 pm
    Believe me, anyone with four kids is paying for the “unfairness” in some way or another!
  87. thomasJanuary 5, 2011 at 6:07 am
    What’s unfair is that since I make over 100k a year, I can’t claim all the child tax credits on my state return. Yes Mama, you are right. I have four kids and it is unfair that I have to pay more.
  88. ReaderMamaJanuary 5, 2011 at 7:22 am
    I feel your pain. We rented for 9 years in between houses and never qualified for the California renters’ tax credit. We also paid A LOT of income tax because we had no mortgage payment. Life and taxes are never fair.
  89. john adamsJanuary 5, 2011 at 8:40 am
    I believe people that “Home School” their children deserve a tax break. Not only are they saving the state money. Their kids have a much better chance of future wealth due to their above average education.
  90. Timothy Myers SRJanuary 5, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    There is a lot of peer reviewed statistically viable information to back up that assertion you just pulled out of your butt.
  91. CurmudgeonJanuary 5, 2011 at 6:42 am
    Petz joins the entire SCVTALK community in sending best wishes and hope for success to the new GOP members of congress-lead by John Boehner in the House in their attempt to end the social experiment forced upon our country by the Obama administration and the profligate Democrat Party. Tomorrow begins today. Jerry Brown is a disgrace to the people of California-he feigned taking the oath of office which he clearly violated as Attorney General , and reluctantly placed his hand on a Bible which he looks at as a vampire to a cross. Petz rejects his attempt to extend tax increases and negatively impact business growth in California.
  92. john adamsJanuary 5, 2011 at 7:54 am
    The same people that voted for Brown swore that McCain was to old.
  93. ReaderMamaJanuary 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm
    Some people age a lot more than others in 70 years, making their longevity more questionable. McCain has battled cancer and was tortured as a prisoner of war. He also has children from two marriages. Jerry looks about 50; McCain looks like hell. That’s what made his choice of Palin so frightening.
  94. spineflower2January 5, 2011 at 5:11 pm
    I like JB but he wrongly aims to “decentralize power” which is just a keyword to dump responsibility for services to local governemnts… WITHOUT sending the money there to pay for it. So we have state unfunded mandates to be levied on local governments. This is looking like little more than the old (suck monies from Cities and Counties) dressed up with new labels. Look for all sorts of new “fees” on the local level. We need to: 1) challenge the pensions of government workers, and close off the tap for new employees. We have Bell on a larger scale and it can be challenged just as Bell’s contracts were. 2) drastically cut spending for services for illegals and take on the feds when they whine about the consequences. 3) significantly cut spending to match revenues that remain. Rolling back Prop 13 is not the answer, either. Cali has an overspending problem, not an undertaxing problem.
  95. navigatorJanuary 6, 2011 at 8:05 am
    Gee Spine, I thought you were a liberal.
  96. spineflower2January 6, 2011 at 8:36 am
    I am a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
  97. ReaderMamaJanuary 6, 2011 at 3:39 pm
    Many of us can’t be categorized as strictly liberal or conservative in our views . . . But don’t tell BR. It would only confuse him.
  98. GG VoterJanuary 15, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    Sadly, few people realize that their elected city council members also serve as redevelopment agency board members. There is little understanding of the power and use of eminent domain given to redevelopment agencies. The land values are frozen at the rate properties when they were put into redevelopment. Any improvements and tax increases are funneled back into the redevelopment agency not the city general funds which pay for public services. Your property can be determined to be “blighted” by broad city law definitions and/or put into redevelopment areas for decades. The practice of local cities assembling and acquiring private property for campaign contributors/developers to city council members. Therefore, tens thousands of dollars are given to incumbent city council members and candidates in favor of maintaining the status quo. The public has no vote when city council members issue COP, Certificates of Purchase, which are bonds. The terms of the DDA, Disposition and Development Agreements, are generous to developers such as tax increment rebates and reduced land assessments. Developers plot one city against another for these development agreements. It is the opposite of the free market system. It turns capitalism on its head. Local governments are doing the work of assembling property, paying mortgages, changing zoning, as well as financing loans for developers. Local general funds and the public are suffering the developers are the group benefiting from redevelopment agencies.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support