For California residents!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TomCat84, Jun 7, 2010.

  1. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Don't forget to vote in the primary election tomorrow! Yes on 13, 14, No on 16 and 17! :biggrin1:
     
  2. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You should post some info on those Props... Then people will know what you're talking about. :)
     
  3. Countryguy63

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    14,488
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    near Monterey, Calif.
    Verified:
    Photo
    Help us lazy people out :tongue:

    I'm sure one of them is the 420 - Yes :biggrin1:


     
  4. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    420 (not that I know about that kinda stuff :tongue:) will be coming up for a vote in November.

    @tall- 13 would modify CA law to exempt earthquake retrofitted buildings from being reassessed for a subsequently higher property taxes after said retrofitting was completed.
    14 would end party primaries and instead allow anybody to run in a first round of voting, and send the top two vote-getters to a general election run off
    16 would require local governments to obtain a 2/3 vote before forming municpal utilities. The prop 16 campaign has been funded primarily by PG+E (Pacific Gas+ Electric, a major utilities company)
    17 would allow drivers to get a discount for continuous driving instead of the usual safe driving discount. This has been funded primarily by Mercury insurance.

    There :biggrin1:
     
  5. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't vote for that. The punishment a non-retrofitted building takes at resale and on higher insurance premiums should be disincentive enough. Plus, I'm sure there are already tax breaks for retrofitting, so why should everyone else have to pay proportionally higher taxes so that what amounts to a special interest group can double dip on the payola? Sounds like BS to me bro. Not all tax cuts are good.

    Anything that cuts down on the power of political parties is a good thing.

    Def no vote from me. Anything that boosts corporate power against citizen power is very bad in my book.

    Not sure I fully understand, but anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that encouraging more driving = higher odds of eventually being in a collision. Sounds like the insurers want to legislate themselves higher profits, and who cares if more people are hurt or killed?
     
  6. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I didn't mention this, but it was placed on the ballot by a UNANIMOUS vote of the legislature. The Legislature doesn't normally agree on ANYTHING. There was no argument opposed to it that was filed with the Sec of State. Besides, nobody has earthquake insurance in California anyway- it's too expensive, even for houses and structures built to withstand earthquakes. This would mainly apply to old buildings that haven't been retrofitted yet. Under current law, after said building is retrofitted, the new property value can be used as the new assessment for property taxes.
     
  7. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Normal homeowner's insurance doesn't cover damage due to earthquakes.
     
  8. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I think giving them a tax cut is completely the wrong approach and is unfair to the owners of buildings who have already retrofitted (or paid more for a building that doesn't need to be) before with less 'financial encouragement'. Is the state going to give back all of the additional tax money collected from owners who were responsible and previously modified their structure under different tax policies?

    If anything, they should be doing the opposite... Assessing a special tax on non-retrofitted buildings, which are obviously the ones most likely to collapse and injure people and cost taxpayers more for cleanup... And the special tax assessment on these buildings which are ostensibly less safe should rise every year until the owners of these buildings finally take responsibility for bringing their structures up to code.

    The state shouldn't be 'rewarding' bad players in the market imo, they should be penalizing the ones that raise risks for everyone.
     
  9. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,354
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    the missing element here is Prop 15 which rescinds the ban on public funding of elections. allow dollars to flow to anyone meeting the criteria of the board of elections and stop protecting candidates protected by party affiliation or corporate donors. VOTE YES
     
  10. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    ^I'm with you on Prop 15... That needs to pass too.

    I don't think I have it backwards. I just have no interest in using the power of government to reward the laggards in society who refuse to do the right thing on their own.

    This new law will reward owners who have yet to retrofit, even though seismic codes have been on the books for many years. I'm strongly of the opinion that owners who have failed to retrofit their structures to meet modern safety standards by now DO NOT deserve further incentives to do so.

    As I asked before, why should everyone else have to pay proportionally higher taxes, so that these irresponsible parties can reap a financial windfall for finally doing what everyone else already did years ago?... I'm sure it will pass but it is a wrongheaded law, imo.
     
    #10 B_talltpaguy, Jun 7, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2010
  11. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,354
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    I still don't understand your argument. Let me offer some back story in hopes of encouraging you to seeing this a different way.

    The costs associated with retrofitting can be, are, very very expensive and while safety for one's self, family and neighbors is enough to compel retrofitting it is wholly unfair that by doing so a property owner triggers a reassessment of the property's value by a county tax collector in the same way as cosmetic remodels might.

    so, if I can use myself as a metaphorical example: I own a property, a single family home, I purchased in 1984 for $75,000. My annual tax bill is just about $1000 (1.25% of purchase price) (I'm leaving off other fees and assessments for the purpose of this example).

    If I perform any sort of renovations on my property it is reassessed based on today's property values (in this example $400,000)

    So starting from a value of $90,000 the assessor programs the cost / value of the renovation (in this case, retrofitting) and factors in the variance between 1984 dollars and 2010 dollars using a mathmatical equation so complicated Einstein couldn't figure it out, to arrive at a new annual tax bill of (and this is a guesstimate) $2800. And that's AFTER I've spent the $5,000 - 10,000 on the actual work.

    All this new bill does is stop the triggering of a mandatory reassessment by county tax collectors.

    I don't understand your references to everyone else paying higher taxes. Where? How?
     
  12. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    ^If the taxes on retrofitted properties will no longer go up, like they did on everyone else who retrofitted their buildings over the past numerous years before this proposed change in the law, then that means that less taxes will now be collected, compared to the old way the tax code was written. (and it says so right in the summary that will be printed on the ballot... Quote, "Fiscal Impact: Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the assessment of earthquake upgrades.")

    To make up for the shortfall in tax collections created by this new law, that means that either less govt services are offered, or much more likely, some other kind of tax will go up to offset the cost of this tax cut. (in my experience, the 'fees' assessed for something like building permits or impact fees will go up). The net result is that some people will be 'punished' with higher taxation (and/or less services), so that the people who neglected doing upgrades to their property for years can be rewarded.
     
    #12 B_talltpaguy, Jun 7, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2010
  13. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,354
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    713
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    OK I see your point but I still think the net win goes in the public safety column with more properties retrofitted that otherwise would not have been and I venture a guess that number is huge.

    Keep in mind a large number of dwellings requiring the work are very old, with very old owners who live on fixed incomes.

    and retrofitting is not now mandatory so there wouldn't be any change in tax collections anyway. And as you cited: "Fiscal Impact: Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the assessment of earthquake upgrades."
     
    #13 slurper_la, Jun 7, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2010
  14. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Oh christ. You're showing your complete lack of knowledge of California property taxes. It's more likely that the owners of buildings not retrofitted to be earthquake safe are already getting disgustingly low property taxes anyway- California has some of the lowest property tax rates in the country due to the passage of Prop 13 in 1978- which kept assessed values of properties artificially low. All this would do is exempt the improvements from being counted in any subsequent assessment by county tax officials.
     
  15. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Prop 15 only rescinds the ban on public financing for the Secretary of State elections. I don't want any half assed improvements. Private financing of campaigns should be banned completely throught the US, and a public system set up.
     
  16. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    This is why I put "For California residents." People in other parts of the country don't understand California politics.
     
  17. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    ^Well, except for states that have copycatted CA's laws, like Florida... And except for people who closely follow politics in general... Just because I asked you to post some info on the props doesn't mean I didn't about them. It means I knew that almost nobody else was going to know about them.

    And my proposal to offer an ever-shrinking window before the existing tax incentives would expire, and turn into a 'safety tax' on non-retrofitted structures would be even more effective... Like has been proven so many times elsewhere in life, all carrot and no stick isn't nearly as effective as presenting choices that include some of both.

    Two thoughts... My guess is that the vast majority of these people weren't on fixed incomes when they neglected to upgrade. They just chose to spend their money on other things. That was their choice, why should everyone else pay now? Just because they are on fixed incomes now is their problem, not society's problem.

    Secondly, I'm not sure if I've written about it here or not, but I strongly favor the repeal of Prop13 (property tax amendment from 1978), with a dramatically larger Homestead Exemption for retired and disabled homeowners... In which case there would be no meaningful reassessment after retrofitting anyways.
     
    #17 B_talltpaguy, Jun 8, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  18. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Btw, the most recent polling (by SurveyUSA), shows that...

    Prop13 will likely pass
    Prop14 will likely pass
    Prop15 will likely fail
    Prop16 is leaning towards failure
    Prop17 is leaning towards passing.
     
  19. earllogjam

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    5,027
    Likes Received:
    21
    Isn't it surprising that there hasn't even been one No on Prop 16 ad and millions pumped into Yes on 16 campaign funded by PG&E dollars and it's loosing!

    The truth is that we already DO vote for municipal sponsored energy which requires a simple majority, 51%. The PG&E sponsored initiative would require 2/3 majority which would hand them the key and guarantee their energy monopoly, high rates and bad customer service. How dumb does PG&E think we are?
     
  20. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    ^The allure of them being able to use the power of legislative manipulation to secure their profits in an evolving CA energy market pretty much guarantees that they will try again and again... They simply have too much to lose if they are increasingly forced to compete with municipalities looking out for the customers, not profits, especially with the inception of CCAs in the state.
     
    #20 B_talltpaguy, Jun 8, 2010
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
Draft saved Draft deleted