In the 1970s soaring property values in California led to dramatic increases in property taxes, prompting a tax revolt that resulted in the passage of Proposition 13 in the June 1978 California primary. Also called the Jarvis-Gann Initiative after its chief sponsors, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann. Proposition 13 reduced local property taxes by 57% and thereby slashed the revenue base for local governments and schools. Over the years the revenue loss has been made up by a varying mix of state funds and new revenue from specialized local fees and taxes, as well as by outright local budget cuts.
The California tax revolt did not end with Proposition 13. In November 1979 voters passed the Proposition 4, also known as the Gann Amendment. Proposition 4 imposed a limit on most state and local government expenditures from tax sources. The limit is calculated annually according to a formula based on population and the cost of living. Under Proposition 4, excess revenues must be returned to the taxpayers. The Gann limit, as it is often called, was not exceeded until the 1986-87 fiscal year when $1.1 billion was refunded to taxpayers.
Both Propositions 13 and 4 have been modified in the years since their passage. While weakened by the changes, Propositions 13 and 4 remain constraints on California state and local budgeting, and continue to be focal points in the public policy debate about California taxing and spending.
Proposition 13
Proposition 13 (Art. XIIIA of the California Constitution) is widely regarded as the most far reaching of California's many initiative measures, and is the most enduring artifact of the California tax revolt of the late 1970s. Its passage in the June 1978 primary heralded a new era of using the initiative process as an instrument of California public policy. In cutting local property taxes by 57%, Proposition 13 fundamentally changed California's tax system and state-local fiscal relations.
Essentially, Proposition 13:
- Limits property taxes to 1% of assessed valuation with fiscal 1975-76 as the base year.
- Limits assessment increases to 2% per year.
- Allows reassessments to market value only when a property is sold.
- Prohibits state lawmakers from imposing new taxes without a 2/3 vote of the legislature.
- Prohibits local governments from enacting most new taxes without a 2/3 vote of the electorate.
With property taxes as their revenue base, local governments and school districts bore the brunt of Proposition 13. The revenue shortfall was managed in various ways: many local jurisdictions cut services and reduced expenditures; cities and counties found alternative revenue sources in new or increased user fees, special taxes and assessments; and the state came to the rescue with a bailout program involving shifts in the allocation of sales tax and other revenues. An intergovernmental fiscal realignment took shape which, in broad strokes, gave property tax revenues mostly to cities and counties, and funded school districts mostly from state general funds instead of the property tax.
Proposition 13 succeeded in its core aim of providing property tax relief to beleaguered property owners alarmed by swiftly rising assessment increases. But it has had many other consequences. It created new inequities in the burden of the property tax. Because properties are fully reassessed only when they are sold, owners of very similar properties can have very different property tax bills. Since commercial property turns over less often than residential property, residential property owners have gradually assumed a larger percentage of the property tax burden. Observers note that Proposition 13 considerably diminished local taxing authority and centralized it in the state, thus undermining home rule. Local jurisdictions are largely at the state's mercy in determining what their actual budgets will be, and local officials complain that the state has not been reliable in its allocation of funds. Observers also note that an unintended consequence of Proposition 13 was that, because of the continuing robustness of the sales tax as a revenue source, Proposition 13 encouraged cities and counties to promote retail development at the expense of housing and job-creating businesses.
Proposition 13 has been extensively litigated in the courts. It survived a big hurdle when in 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court found that disparate property tax assessments under the measure were not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (Nordlinger v. Hahn). Among the many particular points of contention was local government authority to impose "special taxes" under Proposition 13. After much litigation and two further voter approved initiatives, Proposition 62 (1986) and Proposition 218 (1996), it was settled that all new local taxes, whether for general or specific purposes, require 2/3 voter approval.
Voters have revised Proposition 13 many times since its passage. Many revisions ameliorate negative impacts of Proposition 13 on particular groups of citizens. For example, Proposition 8* (1978), Proposition 50* (1986) and Proposition 171* (1993) give assessment breaks to property owners harmed by natural disasters. Other revisions remove reassessment requirements in order to advance particular policies, such as historic structures rehabilitation (Proposition 34,* 1984), and the seismic retrofitting of existing buildings (Proposition 127,* 1990).
The 2/3 vote requirement for approving tax increases is one of Proposition 13's fundamental principles. Only once since Proposition 13's passage have voters relaxed that requirement. In November 2000 they passed Proposition 39,* authorizing the passage of school construction bonds by a 55% vote. Proposition 39 passed with a 53.4% margin.
Proposition 4
Modern spending limits in California began in 1979 with the passage of Proposition 4* (Article XIII B of the California Constitution). Also called the Gann Initiative after its chief sponsor, Paul Gann, Proposition 4 places an appropriations limit on most spending from tax proceeds. The limit for each year is equal to the prior year's spending with upward adjustments allowed for changes in population and the cost of living. Most state and local government appropriations are subject to the limit. However, the law exempts certain appropriations from the limit including capital outlay, debt service and local government subventions. When the limit is exceeded, Proposition 4 requires the surplus to be returned to the taxpayers within two years. Appropriations in the two year period can be averaged before becoming subject to the excess revenue provisions of the Gann limit.
Voters approved the Gann limit in a November 1979 special election by a 74% margin. The late 1970s were a time of surplus state revenues in California, and voter exasperation at the inability of the legislature and the governor to agree on a plan to return the surplus to the taxpayers in the form of refunds or property tax relief helped fuel the tax revolt that led first to Proposition 13 and then to Proposition 4. With the Gann limit, voters took the matter of spending limits into their own hands, and ignored objections that spending limit formulas are an artificial constraint on policy making and hamper the government's ability to address citizen needs.
During the early 1980s, increases in population and the consumer price index outpaced the growth in state revenue, and the Gann limit was not reached. However, a surge in state revenues in 1987 caused the limit to be breached, and led to the first--and so far, only--refund to taxpayers.
Voters have modified the Gann limit in a series of initiative measures. Proposition 99* (1988) and Proposition 10* (1998) exempted new tobacco taxes from the Gann limit. Proposition 98* (1988) required public schools to receive a share of revenues exceeding the Gann limit. That share was changed to a flat 50% by Proposition 111* (1990). Proposition 111 also added three exemptions to the Gann limit: capital outlay spending, appropriations supported by increased gas taxes, and appropriations resulting from national disasters. Most significantly, Proposition 111 changed the formula used for calculating annual adjustments to the Gann limit. Under Proposition 111, the population factor is based on a weighted average of population and K-14 school enrollment growth (instead of population only), and the cost of living factor is based solely on California per-capita personal income growth (and no longer takes into account the Consumer Price Index).
The changes to the Gann limit formula under Proposition 111 substantially raised the Gann limit, making it less likely that the limit will be reached in the future. Many observers believe that in its current weakened state the Gann limit has ceased to be a meaningful constraint on state spending.
TOP
Comments. Questions. Broken links? Bad spelling! Incorrect Grammar? Let me know at webmaster.
Last modified: , 2006
Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike
McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or
positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to
disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
