February 18, 2000

Proposition 26 could result in an explosion of middle-class homelessness. Think I'm exaggerating? Here's a quick review of some public employees' shenanigans pulled in the decades before Proposition 13 saved a huge percentage of homeowners from losing property.

In 1965, a consultant came upon some overlooked assessor's files. This fluke discovery revealed longstanding statewide corruption within county assessors' offices. Ultimately, many assessors and consultants were indicted, removed from policy posts, and convicted of bribery and conspiracy. Learning he was being implicated, one official committed suicide.

The legislature managed to dodge a voters' revolution for 13 years following the scandals of the Sixties, but they added to growing outrage over property tax improprieties and excesses. What finally did it in was sheer greed. From 5.8% in 1950, by the time voters entered polling sites to pass Proposition 13 in the 1978 elections, the state's average tax rate had hit 10.68% of property owners' assessed value.

That same taxation level would mean that, had the infamous proposition not passed, the household taxes on our middle-class home would now be around $17,000!

Back to the future: Backers of Proposition 26 are a motley crew of special-interest groups that would benefit from its passage, including teachers, developers, businesses wishing to shift taxes to homeowners, construction firms, etc. A peek at the endorsement list reveals the usual suspects for this type of scheme, such as the California PTA, California Teachers Association, Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, etc.

Most importantly, proponents are making false claims about this proposition's unique accountability. Current law already prohibits using 2/3 vote bonds' revenues for educators salaries and operating expenses. Current law already requires annual audits of school district funds. And though Prop 26 would require school boards to use any bond money for projects outlined before bond votes, it would allow shifting of proceeds from one project to another, so long as each project had been listed.

Finally, concerning pleas that this potential spending spree is "for the children," I can't improve on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1971 summation upholding the 2/3 majority bond requirement: "in voting to issue bonds voters are committing, in part, the credit of infants and of generations yet unborn, and some restriction on such commitment is not an unreasonable demand." Amen.

© 2000 Cynthia Hahn