Vote 2000 Home | Ballot Pamphlet Home | Campaign Finance | Secretary of State Home
32  | 33  | 34  | 35  | 36  | 37  | 38  | 39
PROPOSITION 2000 General
39 SCHOOL FACILITIES. 55% LOCAL VOTE. BONDS, TAXES. ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
Argument Against
Argument Against Proposition 39

NOTICE TO VOTERS: After Proposition 39 was filed, its promoters introduced a special law in the Legislature adding provisions which only take effect if Proposition 39 passes. Therefore, all the changes which will occur if 39 passes are not in Proposition 39 itself. These added provisions DO NOT appear in Proposition 39: Text of the Proposed Law in this Voter Information Guide. If Proposition 39 passes, these added “Special Provisions” could be changed or revoked anytime in the future without voter approval.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROPOSITION 39:

The “Special Provisions,” dealing with critically important tax increase and accountability issues, were either added because of drafting errors, or because the promoters wanted to be free to make changes after the election without voter approval.

In either case, these “Special Provisions” create huge risks. What changes will be made later WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL?

These “Special Provisions” risks are reason enough to reject Proposition 39.

However, Proposition 39 is also misleading. It says it’s about schools. Actually it’s about your home and your taxes. What Proposition 39 does:

1. Permits local bond passage with 55% votes instead of the current two-thirds vote requirement. There is NO LIMIT on how much property taxes can eventually increase with passage of 55% bonds.

2. Ends our Constitution’s 121 year old provision requiring a two-thirds vote on local bonds. These bonds put liens on your home, usually for 30 years. Tax collectors foreclose if homeowners cannot pay. Prior to voter approved property tax limitations in 1978, excessive taxes often forced home sales.

3. Proposition 39 bonds increase apartment taxes. Landlords may increase rents to pay these taxes.

4. Proposition 39 bonds require taxpayers in the poorest districts to pay tax rates about twenty times higher (and taxpayers typical districts to pay about five times higher) than taxpayers in the richest districts to raise the same amount per student.

What Proposition 39 DOES NOT do:

1. DOES NOT require student performance improvements.

2. DOES NOT require parental or taxpayer oversight.

Campaign:

Proposition 39’s wealthy promoters reportedly pledged $30 million. We cannot match their money. But, we outnumber them, so we can win. Pledge your help now. Visit saveourhomes.com or call (toll-free) 1-866-VOTE39NO (1-866-868-3396).

55% risks:

In 1978, property taxes were 2.6 times higher. Could history repeat? Could property taxes return to twice, even three times today’s levels? Once started, 55% bonds won’t stop here. Every government agency will demand 55%. PROPOSITION 39 PROVIDES NO TAX LIMITS. So, yes, 55% could lead to further actions which eventually double, even triple, property taxes.

Conclusion:

Don’t risk the “Special Provisions” without voter control.

Don’t risk unlimited property tax increases.

Don’t risk starting 55% bonds for all government agencies.

Don’t risk new 30 year homeowner liens.

Don’t risk higher rents.

Don’t encourage putting the highest tax rates on the poorest districts.

And, don’t give up our Constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement to increase property taxes.

Help Save Our Homes. Please VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 39.

JON COUPAL, Chairman
Save Our Homes Committee, Vote No on Proposition 39,
a Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
DEAN ANDAL, Chairman
Board of Equalization, State of California
FELICIA ELKINSON, Past President
Council of Sacramento Senior Organizations
 


  Analysis by the Legislative Analyst
  Argument in Favor of Proposition 39
  Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 39
  Argument Against Proposition 39
  Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 39
 

Vote 2000 Home | Ballot Pamphlet Home | Campaign Finance | Secretary of State Home