Ignore the naysayers; Prop. 13 is still working

In most of America, one of the worst impacts of high inflation is a sharp rise in property taxes. But that’s not the case in California.

True, housing prices are some of the highest in the nation, due mostly to government policies restricting supply. But existing homeowners are protected by Proposition 13’s cap on annual increases in assessed value of 2%.

According to the California Taxpayers Association, Californians would have seen their property taxes increase more than 7% this year without Prop. 13.

It is understandable why the political left — which wants all your money — has it in for Proposition 13, but we were surprised when the normally credible Tax Foundation, based in Washington, D.C., fell for some of the same falsehoods advanced by the “taxand-spend” crowd. The foundation is advising other states not to adopt Prop. 13-style reforms. We disagree and believe all states currently struggling with out-ofcontrol property taxes should take a good, long look at California’s system based on acquisition value. It is vastly superior to one based on market value.

While the Tax Foundation admits, “Proposition 13 and other property tax assessment limits have done their job, keeping incumbent property owners’ taxes in check,” it asserts that those systems result in “hidden costs.”

One clearly false claim is that assessment limits “discourage homeowners from renovating or adding onto their homes, for fear of incurring a dramatic tax increase.” In general, remodeling and repairs that are part of normal maintenance or cosmetic are not considered assessable. New additions that increase the square footage of a home or add new improvements that didn’t exist before are assessable — but that’s true everywhere. The difference is, in California, the reassessment is limited to the value added by the addition, with the rest of the assessment unchanged. So what you would pay under Prop. 13 is still less than what you would have paid in a market-based property tax system.

Next, the Tax Foundation claims property tax assessment limits “make it less attractive for growing families to move past their starter homes or for empty nesters to downsize.” This isn’t true in California.

Homeowners age 55 and older can move and take their Prop. 13 base-year value with them to a new home. For younger homeowners, moving to a larger and more expensive home means higher property taxes — but again, that’s true everywhere. Before Prop. 13, the statewide average tax rate was 2.67%, applied annually to the current market value. That means a n See Coupal, page A5

Belltower

Letters To The Editor

Corruption

EDITOR:

During the summer of 2020 we acquired a local property that included a newly built, beautiful and spacious barn that wasn’t completely finished. For two years I worked along with the help of some local tradesmen, adding the finishing touches and going down the path of updating the building’s permit (a whole other story). I recently received my final approval from the Building Department. One of my initial motivators was to add a solar power system to the building, which required the permitting.

Now, the Public Utilities Commission has torpedoed the retrofitting of existing structures with solar systems by cutting the amount PG&E refunds the system’s owners by a whopping 75% for the electricity they generate. There is no way after mid-April for someone to recoup their multiple-thousand-dollar investment within their lifetime. Once again the PUC has demonstrated why it is on top of the list of corrupt organizations in California.

For a state that is forcing a switch to electric vehicles, requiring solar systems on all new housing and eliminating gasoline powered small engines, why would this happen? I’ll bet the PUC members received their annual Christmas card, with a little bit extra from PG&E. All while Gov. Newsom does nothing to stop this thievery.

JIM SIMONE El Dorado

A Little Concern

EDITOR:

Afriend and I had an appointment with the El Dorado County Planning Department as suggested by Supervisor Wendy Thomas after a Board of Supervisors meeting regarding the over-development of Diamond Springs.

I drove down the hill, got the appointment and gave the information to the receptionist that we wanted to discuss and see the environmental impact report for Dorado Oaks. They said it should be a one-hour meeting at 1 p.m. the very next Friday. The sweet lady assigned to us was 25 minutes late. She came out with the EIR, dropped it on the table and asked if we had questions. Huh?

Just about every question we asked received an “I don’t know” or “I’ll go ask Evan, who is in charge of this subdivision but is in a meeting now.” We asked if we could have a big copy of the most up-to-date map ... no, the most up to date EIR ... no can’t do that; go to the library or on the internet (it’s 502 pages).

The Very High Fire Hazard Zone (new in November 2022) was brought up by us and there was no concise answer as to whether it would affect the existing EIR since it was a “fire safe community” and therefore all needs would be met by the developer.

Has anyone in the county hierarchy ridden down Fowler Lane to see the canyon to the east? Where is the room for expansion? Who is going to remove the fuel on the canyon walls and then maintain the erosion? And what about the increased traffic in an emergency off Antares and Argonaut? The emergency roads from the subdivision — locked except in emergencies — are only 12 feet wide. This precludes simultaneous ingress of emergency vehicles and personnel and egress of residents. Who will respond, analyze the situation, have the gate opened and then direct the traffic either from or to the scene of the emergency?

Has anyone actually walked the property?

The EIR doesn’t mention underground water flows or air vents from gold mining activity and it calls the parallel rows of rocks a mining dredge tailing (even though we have info that states otherwise). Yikes. I wonder how much the developer paid for that EIR.

Now, the only time to make additional comments (public comment on the EIR has closed) are during public meetings after the final EIR, indicating no mitigation after the first mitigation, whatever that means. I will attempt to see Wendy Thomas with anyone who wants to come along and discuss what the actual process on these projects are. It must be written somewhere for those of us not well versed in the procedure.

LINDA COLOMBO El Dorado