Thirty years ago this month, a grassroots movement of homeowners led by Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, came together determined to stop the runaway increase in California property taxes.  Due to an inflationary real estate market, homeowners were seeing the assessed value of their property rising rapidly and their tax bill increasing along with it. Some homeowners, especially senior citizens living on fixed incomes, found themselves unable to keep their homes because of the ever-increasing taxes.  

When California's voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13 in 1978 it rolled back assessed property values to 1975 levels and capped property taxes at 1 percent, while limiting the annual increase in assessed value to 2 percent.  Proposition 13 also required that any tax increases approved by the legislature had to have a 2/3 vote of approval in both houses.  Finally, it required that any local special tax would require a 2/3 vote by the voters. These measures have saved individual homeowners, businesses, and farmers thousands of dollars since its passage.  Even if you bought your home as recently as 2000, Prop 13 has saved you around $54,000 in taxes in just eight years. Since 1978, Prop 13 has saved California taxpayers a total of $528 billion in taxes.

Prop 13 is under attack this year because of the huge deficit in the state budget.  Some legislators are looking to "adjust" Prop 13 in order to find some kind of quick-fix for the budget mess. This proposal is nothing more than another scheme to paper over the deficit and ignore the real problem of runaway state spending.   The tax and spend liberals are also trying to do away with the Prop 13 requirement of a 2/3 vote in the legislature to approve the budget.  This would allow a hyper-liberal majority to freely raise taxes and put state spending into overdrive. Another popular, yet equally misguided idea is the "split-roll" tax, which would delete business property from the safeguards of Prop 13.  If that were to happen, it would jack up commercial property taxes and increase rents all over California.  This would be the equivalent of a major natural disaster in terms of lost business to the state.

Whether or not they are homeowners, all Californians have benefited from Proposition 13. Lowered property taxes on apartment buildings, commercial real estate, and agricultural land means less costs to be passed on to renters, small businesses, and the family grocery bill. Since its passage, Proposition 13 has been under attack by those who think the people's money is best spent by the government.  They claim that Prop 13 is responsible for school funding problems and is the reason why many of our schools are in such terrible shape. This is simply not true. Adjusted for inflation, California spends 30 percent more per pupil now than it did before Proposition 13 was passed.

In recognition of the historic approval of Proposition 13 on June 6, 1978, I have authored Senate Concurrent Resolution 116.  SCR 116 commemorates an important moment in California history and commends the people of California for passing a landmark initiative that has become synonymous with tax relief, responsible government, and most importantly, the citizen's right to place sensible limitations on the power of government.

Unfortunately the democrats in the legislature could not approve this simple non-binding resolution. On Thursday, June 5, I presented my bill before the Senate Committee on Revenue & Taxation, where it was rejected by a party-line vote. Proposition 13 was a bi-partisan effort, and even today it is supported by a majority of both parties in California. The action by the Committee in rejecting SCR 116 should put every California homeowner on notice that tax and spend liberals could fill the $14 billion deficit by turning back the clock on Proposition 13.