Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02091993 - 1.56 dtl4 1!t i. RECEIVED DONALD H. F18USH, J.O., C.L.U. VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE EOR CHILDREN Q �+ FEB _" I� 2301 PINE KNOLL DR.#10 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PHONE:510-939-1019 CONTRA COSTA CO. I have been an unpaid volunteer for the past 51 years. In 1964 I retired to advocate full time at the Capitol and throughout the state in behalf of children and youth. The last few years my activities in Sacramento have been very limited due to advancing years. I am extremely upset with the yearly diminishing services for children. The purpose of this letter and the enclosure is to explain a Constitution Amendment Proposition for which I am contemplating securing an author and co- authors and for which I will work devotedly just as I have in the past. It is based on recognition of the fact that we cannot avoid having greater deficits each succeeding year indefinitely unless we make some equitable modifications to Proposition 13. When we have an increase in the cost of living each year, it also increases the cost of government services. Similarly, although usually delayed, we likewise have an increase in the per capita income. It is further reflected in a corresponding increase in the cost of government services by increasing the income of persons providing those services. I have received social security retirement for the past 21 years. Each year the amount is increased by about.the same percentage as the percentage increase in the cost of living for the preceding year. I have read that the increase in cost of living last year was about the lowest since the depression. My social security increased 3%. According to the Social Security Office the increase in the past eight years has been 33%, which is an average of 4.14+% each year. Economists say that historically similar increases in per capita income follow cost of living increases. Under Proposition 13 real property taxes are limited to a 2% increase each year. Ever since Proposition 13 became effective, unless there is a change in ownership, properties are no longer reassessed and the maximum increase in taxes each year is limited to 2%. With the cost of living increase each year far exceeding 2%, the difference is the cause of a substantial portion of our fiscal deficits every year. This must be changed to stop the yearly decreasing services and increasing harm to our children and families. To correct these problems, without forcing low income residents to pay increased taxes, I would include the following provisions in the proposed Constitution Amendment Proposition: 1. Change the property tax maximum increase each year to be the lesser of California's preceding year's percentage increase in cost of living or the percentage increase in per capita income, provided, however, that the increase in any year over the tax rate for the preceding year shall not exceed one-half of one percent. 2. Allow people with income below 120% of the per capita income to continue to pay no more than 2% each year for their lifetime, provided they sign an affidavit which specifies that the tax increase each year in excess of 2% shall accumulate and be payable upon sale, inheritance, or gift of the property. The attached typical current property tax information would indicate that probably only about 5% of all property owners would be residential who would qualify. The needy would be protected just as we protected farmers so they wouldn't be obliged to sell their farms. FEB — $ — 9 3 W E D 1 G 1a7'-. -;SUP T O M T O R L A K S O N P 0 $ STATISTICAL INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED PROPOSITION TO REDUCE SOME OF THE DEFICITS RESULTING FROM THE YEARLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCREASED COST OF LIVING AND THE 2% PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION OF PROPOSITION 13 AND TO STILL PROTECT THE NEEDY AGED. Contra Costa property tax and assessment information which has been provided by the offices of the tax collecter, the assessor, and the controller: 1991-92 Fiscal Year percentage of county taxes and assessed valuation: 64.65 Residential 13.11 Commercial 20.35 Industrial 1.89 Agricultural The percentage of Residential properties which have not been reassessed since the inception of Proposition 13 as of July 1, 1991: 18% which constituted those who have owned and lived in the same home 18% of 64.65 = 11.637% of athe county total. OF THIS TOTAL ONLY THE PORTION WHOSE INCOME IS BELOW 120% OF THE STATE PER CAPITA INCOME WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE 2% TAX. THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE SAYS IT HAS ONLY THE INFORMATION IN ITS COMPUTER CONCERNING THE INCREASES SINCE 1985. FROM THEN UNTIL 1993 THERE WAS A ATOTAL INCREASE OF 33% IN THE NATIONAL COST OFLIVING. THIS WOULD BE 4.14179% PER YEAR. FOR THE LASST 5 YEARS THE INCREASE HAS BEEN 22.4% WHICH IS 4.48 PER YEAR. THEY RANGE FROM 2.89% TO 5.31%. WE HAVE NOW BEEN INFORMED THAT EVEN THE 1992 INCREASE WAS 2.9%. FEE - Z -51 :5 W E D 1 s - 0 9 S U P T O M T O R L A K S O N P . 0 !5 DONALD H. FIBUSH, J.D., C.L.U. VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN 2301 PINE KNOLL OR.#10 WALNUT CREEK,CA 04595 PHONE:510-939.1019 � 1y: SUGGESTED LEGISLATION TO REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY AND PROBABILITY OF VOTERS BEING MISLED OR UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE PROVISIONS OF PROPOSITIONS W11EN READING TIIR COMMENTS AND OPINIONS IN THE PROPOSITION PAMPHLET. T11ROUGHOUT THE RECENT CAMPAIGN, AS WELL AS IN PREVIOUS CAMPAIGNS, MANY PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS HAVE BEEN DELETED AND/OR MISREPRESENTED BY THE OTHER. THIS SEEMED TO BE PARTICULARLY EVIDENT ON BOTH SIDES WITH PROPOSITIONS 165 AND 167 THIS YEAR. AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE OF ARGUMENTS AND OPINIONS THE PROPOSITION PAMPHLET HAS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT; Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. I SUGGEST THAT LEGISLATION BE INTRODUCED TO REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL PRECEDING SENTENCE TO BE ADDED. BOTH SENTENCES WOULD BE. IN CAPITOL LETTERS AND PRINTED JUST BELOW THE LONG LINE EXTENDED FROM THE BLOCK SPECIFYING THE PROPOSITION NUMBER. THE ENTIRE STATEMENT WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: "READ TILE SUMMARY ON THE FIRST PAGE FOR THIS PROPOSITION WHICH STATES ALL ITS IMPORTANT PROVISIONS CLEARLY, COMPLETELY, AND ACCURATELY. THEN READ THE ARGUMENTS PRINTED ON THIS PAGE WHICH ARE THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHORS AND HAVE NOT BEEN CHECKED FOR ACCURACY BY ANY- OFFICIAL AGENCY." FEB — 3 — W E D 1 6 0 5 S u p T O M T O R L A K S O N P . 02 DONALD H. FlsysH, J.D., C.L.U. REGE/ViE�'o VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE FOR CHILDRENJAN 2 4n 2301 PINE KNOLL DR.X10 $ 1993 WALNUT CREEK.CA 94595 PHONE:510-939-1019 Deal Tom, January 22,1993 By the time you receive this, Gloria will have told you how anxious I am to talk with you about my proposed Prop 13 bill. I hope you and Sunne will secure CSAC to sp onsor it. On Tuesday last week I went to the Capitol to secure an author. Unfortunately, in the early morning, after I had only been to Presley's office, as I was walking near the elevators, my legs, feet and equilibrium all went CW1@t9 Wt. P67rtunately a staff member who knows me, saw it, caught me before my heaad hit the marble, and almost carried me to a seat. At 83 1 am 2 inches shorter due to numeroussqusgd lower vertebrae. As a result the nerves to my legs and feet are in pain -all the time. It has been getting worse for a number of years. I wasn't surprised that this happened and I decided : wouldn't go to the Capital alone again because I know how Dot would worry. That's why I thought I would talk with you, Sunne and the Board. Enclosed are the papers I prepared in connection with the proposed Prop 13 modification bill. I'm also enclosing the page pertaining to an other bill which will be carried by Henry Mello or an author Ken Maddy said he would get for it. I have copies of both for each Board member and the Clerk. if CSAC is the sponsor, they should know that I expect strong support from the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the California Association of Cities, and practically every advocacy organization for children and family services. I have already talked with the legislative Advocates and Presidents of the League and Common Cause. I have also sent the enclosed material to 26 legislators. i hope you agree that, with few exceptions, the general public does not understand how the difference between the 2% tax limitation-and cost of living increases substantially contribute to our continuing deficits. They also don't seem to realize that increases in per capita income follow in keeping with increases in cost of living. It is my opinion, once this bill is introduced news and editorial articles will repeatedly appear and gradually educate the general public in this regard. The only ones who will continue to be against this will be those who think the way to go is to keep giving less support and help to children, their parents, the needy, the disabled, the unemployed, and the homeless. It's amazing how many letters to the editor actually say this. They are only interested in having their income continue to increase and to pay less taxes. Of course, the taxpayers association will be in this latter category. I think you know the Killea bill last year was expanded in conference committee with Tom Hannigan's bill, passed the legislature, and was vetoed. She has introduced it again. It is S816 dated December 7, 1992. It has Hill, Hart Hayden, Keene, and Thompson as co=authors. I 'm looking forward to seeing you next Tuesday or the following Tuesday. Fondest and warmest best wishes, DONALD H. FIBUSH, J.D., C.L.U. VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN 2301 PINE KNOLL DR.#10 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595 PHONE:510-939-1019 I have been an unpaid volunteer for the past 51 years. In 1964 I retired to advocate full time at the Capitol and throughout the state in behalf of children and youth. The last few years my activities in Sacramento have been very limited due to advancing years. I am extremely upset with the yearly diminishing services for children. The purpose of this letter and the enclosure is to explain a Constitution Amendment Proposition for which I am contemplating securing an author and co- authors and for which I will work devotedly just as I have in the past. It is based on recognition of the fact that we cannot avoid having greater deficits each succeeding year indefinitely unless we make some equitable modifications to Proposition 13. When we have an increase in the cost of living each year, ,it also increases the cost of government services. Similarly, although usually delayed, we likewise have an increase in the per capita income. It is further reflected in a corresponding increase in the cost of government services by increasing the income of persons providing those services. I have received social security retirement for the past 21 years. Each year the amount is increased by about the same percentage as the percentage increase in the cost of living for the preceding year. I have read that the increase in . cost of living last year was about the lowest since the depression. My social security increased 3%. According to the Social Security Office the increase in the past eight years has been 33%, which is an average of 4.14+% each year. Economists say that historically similar increases in per capita income follow cost of living increases. Under Proposition 13 real property taxes are limited to a 2% increase each year. Ever since Proposition 13 became effective, unless there is a change in ownership, properties are no longer reassessed and the maximum increase in taxes each year is limited to 2%. With the cost of living increase each year far exceeding 2%, the difference is the cause of a substantial portion of our fiscal deficits every year. This must be changed to stop the yearly decreasing services and increasing harm to our children and families. To correct these problems, without forcing low income residents to pay increased taxes, I would include the following provisions in the proposed Constitution Amendment Proposition: 1. Change the property tax maximum increase each year to be the lesser of California's preceding year's percentage increase in cost of living or the percentage increase in per capita income, provided, however, that the increase in any year over the tax rate for the preceding year shall not exceed one-half of one percent. 2. Allow people with income below 120% of the per capita income to continue to pay no more than 2% each year for their lifetime, provided they sign an affidavit which specifies that the tax increase each year in excess of 2% shall accumulate and be payable upon sale, inheritance, or gift of the property. The attached typical current property tax information would indicate that probably only about 5% of all property owners would be residential who would qualify. The needy would be protected just as we protected farmers so they wouldn't be obliged to sell their farms. ..f .. :.tY �J O DONALD H. FIBUSH, J.D.; C.L.U. VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN 2301 PINE KNOLL DR.810 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595 PHONE:510-939-1019 February 8, 1993 YESTERDAY'S CONTRA COSTA TIMES HAD A FEATURE STATISTICAL ARTICLE WHICH SHOWED THE INCREASE IN CAST OF LIVING EACH YEAR SINCE 1982. IT FURTHER DEMONSTRATED THAT THE INCREASR IN THE AVERAGE WORKERS' AND PROFESSIONALS' INCOME, BASED ON 1991 DOLLARS, EXCEEDED THOSE INCREASES YEARLY IN KEEPING WITH THE INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING. USING THOSE FIGURES IN THE ARTICLE I ARRIVE AT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION BELOW WHICH I RECENTLY SUBMITTED: 10 YEARS (1982-91 INCLUSIVE) INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING 38.1% INCREASE IN INCOME FOR ALL WORKERS 45.2% INCREASE FOR PROFESSIONALS PAST 9 YEARS 44.1% (1982 FIGURE NOT AVAILABLE) PREVIOUS INFORMATION I PREPARED STATISTICAL INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED PROPOSITION TO REDUCE SOME OF THE DEFICITS RESULTING FROM THE YEARLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCREASED COST OF LIVING AND THE 2% PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION OF PROPOSITION 13 AND TO STILL PROTECT. THE NEEDY AGED. Contra Costa property tax and assessment information which has been provided by the offices of the tax collector, the assessor, and the controller: 1991-92 Fiscal Year percentage of county taxes and assessed valuation: 64.65 Residential, 13.11 Commercial, 20.35 Industrial, 1.89 Agricultural The percentage of Residential properties which have not been reassessed since the inception of Proposition 13 as of July 1, 1991: 18% which constituted those who have owned and lived in the same home 18% of 64.65 = 11.637% of all the county total. OF THIS TOTAL ONLY THE PORTION WHOSE INCOME IS BELOW 120% OF THE STATE PER CAPITA INCOME WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE 2% TAX. THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE SAYS IT HAS ONLY THE INFORMATION IN ITS COMPUTER CONCERNING THE INCREASES SINCE 1985. From 1985 to 1993 the cost of living increase was 33%. Even compounding the maximum 2% tax for 8 years that total is 16.28% From 1958 to 1993 the cost of living increase was 22.4%. Compounding the maximum 2% tax for 5 years that total is 10.16% - The yearly average cost of living increase for the 8 year period was 4.14% and for the last 5 year period it was 4.48%. We now know for 1992 it was 2.9%. L 1 DONALD H. FIBUSH, J.D., C.L.U. VOLUNTEER ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN 2301 PINE KNOLL DR.#10 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94595 PHONE:510-939-1019 ORIGINATOR AND PROPONENT: Donald H. Fibush CONTACT PERSON: Same PHONE: 510-939-1019 LOBBYIST: myself (volunteer advocate for children) SUBJECT MATTER: Proposed proposition to modify Proposition 13 PROPOSAL: (1) Change property tax maximum increase each year to be the lesser of the percentage increase in the California cost of living increase or increase in per capita income for the preceding year but not more than by one half of one percent over the rate for the preceding year. (2) Allow residential property owners with incomes below 120% of the per capita income to sign an affidavit to continue to pay a maximum of 2% with the excess to accumulate and be payable upon transfer of the property by death, gift, sale, or inheritance. There would be no chance in Prop 13 assessed valuation rules. JUSTIFICATION: Every year since -the great depression cost of living and/or per capita income have exceeded 2%. The services provided by government at all levels likewise increase in cosCwith the cost of living increase. A large portion of our government deficits, especially in cities and counties is attributable to this and it keeps compounding year after year. Our deterioration of services continues to be greater each year. What is happening to children and families is disastrous. The proposed change would alleviate some of this for cities and counties. In addition residential property rental income keep increasing due to .increased property values and due to the scarcity of rental properties. No additional taxes are now payable ,to pay for the increasing costs of the services provided by local government. PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: None to my knowledge. The only one of which I am .aware was to re-assess business and industry properties in specified circumstances. Phil Isenberg carried the bill and it did not pass. He has told me that he thinks my idea is a good one, but he is going to devote almost his entire time to the budget this year. LIST PROSPECTIVE SUPPORTERS: League of Women Voters, Common Cause, SCAC, Calif. State Cities Org. , Practically all the agencies and lobbyists advocating for children and those providing services for families and children. I have talked with .the Presidents and Lobbyists for the League of Women Voters and Common Cause who said it is the subject and type of proposal in which they are interested. They also said they would present it to their Boards when there is a bill. LIST PROSPECTIVE OPPONENTS: Those who are adamant that there should never be any property tax increase for any reason. LIST STATE AGENCIES/DEPTS INVOLVED: None, but the additional income should indirectly benefit all of them and be helpful in formulating budgets. '.. I have written to the Governor asking his opinion, but have not received a reply. To meet the deadline, at my request, Senator Johnston sent it to Leg Counsel as an "unbacked" bill on January 28th. The last day to introduce a bill . in 1993 is March 5th.