When Is Assessor Webster Guillory Termed Out?
Posted by: Jubal | 07/02/2008 3:39 PM
The unfortunate answer to that question is "never." Term limits only apply to OC County Supervisors, so taxpayers have to wait for Guillory to mercifully retire.
I borach the subject because of this article in today's OC Register about Guillory's policy, after a property has recovered value, of jacking up that property's taxable rate far beyond the maximum annual hike set by Proposition 13.
It's called "recapturing."
When the taxable value of someone property decreases, so does the assessed property tax. As readers know, Proposition 13 limits the annual increase in a property's tax value to a maximum of 2%. It stands to reason that would also apply once a property rebounds from a loss in value. At least, common sense and an affinity for protecting the purses of taxpayers instead of government should incline us in that direction.
Not so for Assessor Guillory. His attitude is more akin to that of a casino boss: "the house never loses." Except a casino can't prevent a player from leaving with his or her winnings.
Orange County's Assessor views the property tax reduction stemming from falling property values as a temporary set-back to government's eternal quest for revenue. "Recapturing" effectively decrees that one's property never actually lost any value and repossesses the tax reduction resulting from that loss of value. It's an ex poste facto application of the Brezhnev Doctrine to property tax revenue.
The state Appellate Court in 2004 reversed a Superior Court decision against Guillory's "recapturing policy." While the appeals court ruling allows it, it doesn't require Guillory to implement it. Unless I'm mistaken, Webster Guillory has the discretion not to hammer taxpayers with his "recapturing" mallet.
Among California county assessor, Webster Guillory has the reputation of being one of the most (if not the most) aggressive in the pursuit of tax dollars. He's also up for re-election in 2010. Maybe he'll do us a favor and retire, opening up the possibility of electing a tax advocate to the post. If Guillory seeks re-election, then it's incumbent on conservatives to find a strong challenger.
I'd encourage Supervisor Chris Norby to run for the job, regardless of what Guillory does. I know the talk is of Norby running for OC Superintendent of Schools in 2010, but I think Chris could do as much, if not more, for taxpayers as Orange County Assessor. Plus, if Guillory seeks re-election, it would probably take an incumbent supervisor to defeat him. The anti-tax, libertarian Norby would be more concerned with championing taxpayers than with squeezing every last possible dollar out of them.
I borach the subject because of this article in today's OC Register about Guillory's policy, after a property has recovered value, of jacking up that property's taxable rate far beyond the maximum annual hike set by Proposition 13.
It's called "recapturing."
When the taxable value of someone property decreases, so does the assessed property tax. As readers know, Proposition 13 limits the annual increase in a property's tax value to a maximum of 2%. It stands to reason that would also apply once a property rebounds from a loss in value. At least, common sense and an affinity for protecting the purses of taxpayers instead of government should incline us in that direction.
Not so for Assessor Guillory. His attitude is more akin to that of a casino boss: "the house never loses." Except a casino can't prevent a player from leaving with his or her winnings.
Orange County's Assessor views the property tax reduction stemming from falling property values as a temporary set-back to government's eternal quest for revenue. "Recapturing" effectively decrees that one's property never actually lost any value and repossesses the tax reduction resulting from that loss of value. It's an ex poste facto application of the Brezhnev Doctrine to property tax revenue.
The state Appellate Court in 2004 reversed a Superior Court decision against Guillory's "recapturing policy." While the appeals court ruling allows it, it doesn't require Guillory to implement it. Unless I'm mistaken, Webster Guillory has the discretion not to hammer taxpayers with his "recapturing" mallet.
Among California county assessor, Webster Guillory has the reputation of being one of the most (if not the most) aggressive in the pursuit of tax dollars. He's also up for re-election in 2010. Maybe he'll do us a favor and retire, opening up the possibility of electing a tax advocate to the post. If Guillory seeks re-election, then it's incumbent on conservatives to find a strong challenger.
I'd encourage Supervisor Chris Norby to run for the job, regardless of what Guillory does. I know the talk is of Norby running for OC Superintendent of Schools in 2010, but I think Chris could do as much, if not more, for taxpayers as Orange County Assessor. Plus, if Guillory seeks re-election, it would probably take an incumbent supervisor to defeat him. The anti-tax, libertarian Norby would be more concerned with championing taxpayers than with squeezing every last possible dollar out of them.
Jubal ~
We could only wish that Guillory were alone in this practice. Notwithstanding the plain language prohibition on increases in assessed values exceeding two percent per year (article XIII A, section (2)(b)), the decline in value "recapture" policy reflects the county assessors' practices on a statewide basis. The appellate court's holding in the Pool matter merely allowed county assessors to continue the practice.
Unfortunately, this practice was also supported by the State Board of Equalization, the state agency charged with the oversight of county assessors' offices. (See page 138 of Assessors' Handbook Section 501 published by the Board at http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/ah501.pdf)
Although I do not agree with this practice, Guillory's failure to "recapture" those declines in value could violate his obligation to assess all property at its full value, as required by article XIII, section 1 of the State Constitution. If the appellate court authorized the practice, assessing real property at anything other than the lesser of its fair market value or its Prop 13 base year value adjusted for inflation would run contrary to the requirements of Rev. & Tax. Code section 110.1.
Under no circumstances do I agree with the Court of Appeals's intrepretation of Prop 13 authorizing this "recapture" process as it applies to these decline in value assessments. But, unless and until that precedent is reversed, county assessors must either follow it or file suit to overturn it BEFORE refusing to enforce it. (See, Rev. & Tax. Code section 538.)
For better or worse, our county has re-elected Guillory twice now. But until the county's (largest) landowner(s) get(s) sick of him--and trust me they're are not sick of him--we're stuck with him.
MN
I noticed this on my recent property tax assessment. Sadly, we are one of the 14% who have seen a decrease in our property value (to the tune of $90k. Ugh) and will have "rebounding" taxes. What I'm wondering is - do all counties do this, since it's technically allowed by law?