What cha' got for ballot props and initiatives?

[fskimospy]

Arguably, shouldn't everyone be in favor of ranked choice - including the parties?

Republicans get butt-hurt by votes lost to Libertarians
Democrats get butt-hurt by votes lost to Green Party

Thus they would no longer "lose" those votes - presuming that they are next in line in ranking.

I doubt they look at it this way - I suspect the ones with the capacity to change it (ie: the ones in power) think the system is working out just great as it is.

Also generally speaking I'm not aware of research that indicates either party would be particularly advantaged by adding current third party voters, so what it does is raise the specter of additional competition without giving them an electoral advantage. Doesn't sound like something the parties would want. (there could be research that indicates otherwise but I haven't seen it.)

 

[Zorba]

What California needs is fair tax revenue. It makes absolutely zero sense to tax two identical buildings next door to each other wildly differently just based on when they were bought. It advantages incumbent property owners and stifles new businesses.

For all I care the property tax revenues should stay exactly the same as they are now, but everyone who owns equal property pays an equal amount in taxes.

I think capping the amount of increase makes sense for primary residences. It makes zero since for commercial property or vacation property.

 

[bbhaag]

There was only one on the ballot here in Illinois and it is an amendment to the constitution regarding taxes. I voted no not because I don't think that the tax system in Illinois needs an overhaul but the language of this amendment was just to broad and gave politicians to much power over taxation at the state level.

 

[mect]

I think capping the amount of increase makes sense for primary residences. It makes zero since for commercial property or vacation property.

I don't even think it makes sense for primary residences. Why should long time inhabitants pay lower taxes than a family that just moved in? It promotes a NIMBY mentality and stifles housing growth since the people that already own their homes don't want property values to fall and also don't care if property taxes are high on others, so long as it isn't them. If you allow property taxes to track with property values, it motivates voters to support policies that keep property values under control.

 

[K1052]

Here in Austin:

Prop A - $7B property tax hike to finance bonds for new light rail transit system

Prop B - $640M property tax hike to finance bonds for sidewalks/trails/ped bridges/road repair/bikeways

Voted yes on both.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't even think it makes sense for primary residences. Why should long time inhabitants pay lower taxes than a family that just moved in? It promotes a NIMBY mentality and stifles housing growth since the people that already own their homes don't want property values to fall and also don't care if property taxes are high on others, so long as it isn't them. If you allow property taxes to track with property values, it motivates voters to support policies that keep property values under control.

I have tried to argue this many times without success, haha.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think capping the amount of increase makes sense for primary residences. It makes zero since for commercial property or vacation property.

The move away from valuation based on sale price also closes a big loophole for commercial properties. If you own a retail business, say a dry cleaner, and the property it is located on, you can have the property be owned by a corporate entity like an LLC. Then when you sell the property, you sell the business entity that owns it instead, so there is no "change of ownership" for the property itself to trigger a tax re-assessment.

I strongly support the initiative.

 

[nickqt]

I doubt they look at it this way - I suspect the ones with the capacity to change it (ie: the ones in power) think the system is working out just great as it is.

Also generally speaking I'm not aware of research that indicates either party would be particularly advantaged by adding current third party voters, so what it does is raise the specter of additional competition without giving them an electoral advantage. Doesn't sound like something the parties would want. (there could be research that indicates otherwise but I haven't seen it.)

Well, obviously Republicans and Democrats don't want third party candidates getting elected. But, if you're a Democrat in a blue-ish state or a Republican in a red-ish state, how valuable would it be to snag 1-3% of the vote in close elections, that would otherwise go to a rock or a dog or whatever? Or a purple state for that matter...being able to grab the third party votes after the third party candidate fails to win could be a solid 1% or more vote total, not an insignificant amount.

Basically, it makes sense in the short-term for parties, and obviously it makes sense long-term for citizens.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Here in Austin:

Prop A - $7B property tax hike to finance bonds for new light rail transit system

Prop B - $640M property tax hike to finance bonds for sidewalks/trails/ped bridges/road repair/bikeways

Voted yes on both.

Why.... oh why... would you vote for that?

You're just asking for pain with all the tax hikes.


The light rail will get no where and won't help with traffic.

Repairs for roads, sidewalks, etc... were already baked in to ALL the other tax provisions passed over the years - they just want more and are putting it under the guise as-if it's something new. It isn't.

 

[K1052]

Why.... oh why... would you vote for that?

You're just asking for pain with all the tax hikes.


The light rail will get no where and won't help with traffic.

Repairs for roads, sidewalks, etc... were already baked in to ALL the other tax provisions passed over the years - they just want more and are putting it under the guise as-if it's something new. It isn't.

The system as proposed looks relatively useful and traffic is getting worse. Best to start now IMO.

I don't know about what's come before this as a newer resident. A big pot of money for trails, bike, and pedestrian improvements I'm pretty cool with. Having made a lot more use of them lately like many in the city I'm game for upgrades.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't even think it makes sense for primary residences. Why should long time inhabitants pay lower taxes than a family that just moved in? It promotes a NIMBY mentality and stifles housing growth since the people that already own their homes don't want property values to fall and also don't care if property taxes are high on others, so long as it isn't them. If you allow property taxes to track with property values, it motivates voters to support policies that keep property values under control.

This should be easy to prove. What state is setup like you suggest and how have their property values done compared to CA (percent increase/decrease)?

 

[sactoking]

Five statewide questions here:
Question 1 - Should the Board of Regents be removed from the State Constitution? Currently the Regents are independently elected and operate as a fourth branch of government. This would strike that provision to give the Regents, and by extension higher education, more Legislative oversight.
Question 2 - Should the State Constitution be amended to remove the prohibition on same-sex marriage?
Question 3 - Should the State Constitution be amended to change certain Board of Pardons provisions? Currently a pardon can only be granted by majority vote of the Board but the Governor must be on the prevailing side of any vote, so the Governor cannot unilaterally grant a pardon but may block a pardon.
Question 4 - Should the State's Voters Bill of Right, already enshrined in statue, be added to the State Constitution?
Question 6 - Should the State Constitution be amended to enshrine a 50% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2030? State law currently requires an RPS of 50% by 2030 AND has higher annual increases through 2024 but the current laws regarding RPS can be changed easily.

Question 5 didn't gather enough signatures to qualify.

I voted 'Yes' on all.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Five statewide questions here:
Question 1 - Should the Board of Regents be removed from the State Constitution? Currently the Regents are independently elected and operate as a fourth branch of government. This would strike that provision to give the Regents, and by extension higher education, more Legislative oversight.
Question 2 - Should the State Constitution be amended to remove the prohibition on same-sex marriage?
Question 3 - Should the State Constitution be amended to change certain Board of Pardons provisions? Currently a pardon can only be granted by majority vote of the Board but the Governor must be on the prevailing side of any vote, so the Governor cannot unilaterally grant a pardon but may block a pardon.
Question 4 - Should the State's Voters Bill of Right, already enshrined in statue, be added to the State Constitution?
Question 6 - Should the State Constitution be amended to enshrine a 50% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2030? State law currently requires an RPS of 50% by 2030 AND has higher annual increases through 2024 but the current laws regarding RPS can be changed easily.

Question 5 didn't gather enough signatures to qualify.

I voted 'Yes' on all.

How d o you fail to get enough signatures? Just stand-outside grocery stores and go up to everyone that comes out and say "Hey fucker, sign this shit or I'll continue to annoy you for 5 more minutes. We know you can't take it, so just sign it already"

 

[fskimospy]

This should be easy to prove. What state is setup like you suggest and how have their property values done compared to CA (percent increase/decrease)?

California has seen an enormous increase in property values over the last 20-25 years or so as compared to most of the rest of the country. It’s great if you owned a house at some point early in that, not so great if you’re anyone else.

When conservatives talk about people fleeing California they are right there is significant net migration - they think it’s because of taxes though, which is silliness. It’s because people simply can’t afford the cost of living and it starts with rent.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

California has seen an enormous increase in property values over the last 20-25 years or so as compared to most of the rest of the country. It’s great if you owned a house at some point early in that, not so great if you’re anyone else.

When conservatives talk about people fleeing California they are right there is significant net migration - they think it’s because of taxes though, which is silliness. It’s because people simply can’t afford the cost of living and it starts with rent.

You're kidding, right?

You have...

Federal Income Tax (most will fall under the 22% bracket)
California Income Tax (most will fall under the 9.3% bracket)
California Sales Tax (Often times 8-10% depending on jurisdictions)
California property tax - While they have a more reasonable amount for the overall property tax rate - their property VALUES are far higher than most other places, so their property taxes are still obscenely high. So think 2% on a $1m property.

Then you get into high excise taxes (no where else is there $5/gallon gas) and many other types of taxes. But what's the answer to these high taxes? The answer is always more. We have to increase the taxes. They are ALWAYS hungry for more. They will only ever call for MORE.

None of this is sustainable to any middle-class american. No one should want to pay for these things unless they are seeing something TANGIBLE resulting out from it. Homelessness continues to climb. People continue to leave. Why stay - knowing how much you are paying and there is nothing more than what you would see in any other state - but without such high taxes? j


Meanwhile here in Texas - my city/suburb area continues to expand. Year after year our property tax rates continue to go down because as we expand and grow, they can continue to decrease the rates.

 

[fskimospy]

You're kidding, right?

You have...

Federal Income Tax (most will fall under the 22% bracket)
California Income Tax (most will fall under the 9.3% bracket)
California Sales Tax (Often times 8-10% depending on jurisdictions)
California property tax - While they have a more reasonable amount for the overall property tax rate - their property VALUES are far higher than most other places, so their property taxes are still obscenely high. So think 2% on a $1m property.

Then you get into high excise taxes (no where else is there $5/gallon gas) and many other types of taxes. But what's the answer to these high taxes? The answer is always more. We have to increase the taxes. They are ALWAYS hungry for more. They will only ever call for MORE.

None of this is sustainable to any middle-class american. No one should want to pay for these things unless they are seeing something TANGIBLE resulting out from it. Homelessness continues to climb. People continue to leave. Why stay - knowing how much you are paying and there is nothing more than what you would see in any other state - but without such high taxes? j


Meanwhile here in Texas - my city/suburb area continues to expand. Year after year our property tax rates continue to go down because as we expand and grow, they can continue to decrease the rates.

Yes I’m being completely serious and the data backs me up.

 

[ewdotson]

We have six state amendments on our ballots here in Alabama. The first is a dog whistle that could have nasty repercussions down the road. The current state constitution guarantees the right to vote to "every citizen". The amendment changes that to "only citizens". On it's face, it's do-nothing demagoguery, but it opens the door to removing the right to vote to some citizens.

The second and third are legalese-packed amendments tweaking our judicial system. As I understand it, they basically help the folks in power stay in power. So, the GOP since this is Alabama.

The fifth and sixth are separate amendments to the state constitution to add stand-your-ground laws to churches in specific counties.

The fourth authorizes the state legislature to recompile our absurd constitution (there's a reason I listed this one after #5 and #6), consolidating it, removing racist language and repealed/invalid portions of the constitution. For example, our state constitution still mandates segregated schools. Yes, mandates. Obviously, that's superseded by federal law and it's no longer enforced, but it's still part of the constitution. The electorate would get the chance to approve of the revised constitution before it went into effect.

 

[sactoking]

How d o you fail to get enough signatures? Just stand-outside grocery stores and go up to everyone that comes out and say "Hey fucker, sign this shit or I'll continue to annoy you for 5 more minutes. We know you can't take it, so just sign it already"

Hard to do that during COVID lockdowns. We actually had something like 9 measures fail to make the ballot. It's a combination of COVID, the signature count hurdle, and lack of funding. In order to qualify for a ballot here you need a % of votes cast in the last election in each county.

 

[ivwshane]

California has seen an enormous increase in property values over the last 20-25 years or so as compared to most of the rest of the country. It’s great if you owned a house at some point early in that, not so great if you’re anyone else.

When conservatives talk about people fleeing California they are right there is significant net migration - they think it’s because of taxes though, which is silliness. It’s because people simply can’t afford the cost of living and it starts with rent.

Yes and increasing the cost of owning a home would go up under your plan and people would migrate out faster than they are now. Guess who would be leaving the state? It’s not rich people, it’s the poor and middle class and that would devastate California’s economy.

The solution isn’t higher property taxes (show me any state where that’s working in conjunction with a sales tax similar to California’s), its more housing, rent control, and higher wages, either all of them or a combo.

California’s property values are high but they aren’t increasing the most, in fact they don’t even break the top 15 depending on what time frame you are looking at.

Raising property taxes yearly based on home prices does several things; it causes financial instability and increases out of state migration and or homelessness. Your solution would be horrible for California. There is a reason similar measures have been voted down and why realtors support it, it’s good for investors and that’s it.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes and increasing the cost of owning a home would go up under your plan and people would migrate out faster than they are now. Guess who would be leaving the state? It’s not rich people, it’s the poor and middle class and that would devastate California’s economy.

The solution isn’t higher property taxes (show me any state where that’s working in conjunction with a sales tax similar to California’s), its more housing, rent control, and higher wages, either all of them or a combo.

California’s property values are high but they aren’t increasing the most, in fact they don’t even break the top 15 depending on what time frame you are looking at.

Raising property taxes yearly based on home prices does several things; it causes financial instability and increases out of state migration and or homelessness. Your solution would be horrible for California. There is a reason similar measures have been voted down and why realtors support it, it’s good for investors and that’s it.

It would be lower property taxes for new homeowners, not higher.

 

[ivwshane]

It would be lower property taxes for new homeowners, not higher.

I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion since property taxes are set at the time of purchase, so no they wouldn’t see lower property taxes, it would be the same as it is now. But it would most definitely raise the property taxes of almost every existing property owner.

 

[fskimospy]

I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion since property taxes are set at the time of purchase, so no they wouldn’t see lower property taxes, it would be the same as it is now. But it would most definitely raise the property taxes of almost every existing property owner.

Because if town X needs $X in property taxes right now those come mostly from new homeowners. If old homeowners had to pay their fair share overall taxes could be reduced.

 

[ivwshane]

Because if town X needs $X in property taxes right now those come mostly from new homeowners. If old homeowners had to pay their fair share overall taxes could be reduced.

Considering the fact that the property tax rate of 1% is set by the constitution, I don’t see how or why property taxes would be lowered by any city.

 

[fskimospy]

Considering the fact that the property tax rate of 1% is set by the constitution, I don’t see how or why property taxes would be lowered by any city.

Uhm, what. The California constitution means nothing, it is changed by a simple majority vote like any other law.

Right now new homeowners who can least afford it pay much higher taxes than old homeowners. This is dumb and should stop. It makes housing unaffordable and encourages turtling.

 

[ivwshane]

Uhm, what. The California constitution means nothing, it is changed by a simple majority vote like any other law.

Right now new homeowners who can least afford it pay much higher taxes than old homeowners. This is dumb and should stop. It makes housing unaffordable and encourages turtling.

You aren’t providing any information that would cause housing prices to go down nor are you providing any information as to why property taxes would go down.

As of right now, there isn’t any constitutional amendment about property taxes on the ballot, so nothing will change with regards to the rate.