Letter: CTA challenges Prop. 13 opinion

Whether a columnist views Proposition 13 as the taxpayers' savior or evil incarnate, any column on the matter should be fact-based and accurate. Thomas D. Elias' July 13 piece on Proposition 13 was neither.

First, Elias alleges that Proposition 13 has "never been amended and may never be." Not true. In fact, Proposition 13 was amended as recently as last month, when Californians voted to exempt seismic retrofits from being considered as "new construction" that triggers reassessment.

The columnist also writes that Assembly Bill 2492, which alters the definition of "change in ownership" for purposes of property tax reassessment, "should not require a two-thirds majority that would be required to amend Proposition 13 itself." The nonpartisan legislative counsel says the bill "would result in a change in state taxes for the purpose of increasing state revenues within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of two-thirds of the membership of each house of the Legislature."

Third, while it is true that the definition of a "change in ownership" was not part of the original initiative, and was set by the Legislature after Proposition 13's passage, it is not true that this definition was designed to benefit business. The task force that was assembled to make recommendations to implement Proposition 13 originally recommended that no change in ownership of real property should occur if a corporation that owned the property changed hands, as the title still would be in the original corporation's name. The "change in ownership" definition was put in place by the Legislature to make sure that real property owned by a corporation would be reassessed when the corporation changed hands. This change arguably was contrary to the interests of business lobbyists, and certainly was not their idea. This provision was designed to close a perceived "loophole," not to open one.

Finally, Elias derides Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association for offering no evidence that AB2492 "represents the early phase of a drive to kill Proposition 13 altogether." Elias need do nothing more than review the press conference where the author of the bill said AB2492 is the first step in his effort to "nuke" Proposition 13.

Teresa Casazza, president

California Taxpayers' Association