Proposition 5: No

Proposition 13, the onerous 1978 initiative to limit property tax increases that has eviscerated local budgets statewide, was one of the most contentious and far-reaching changes to the California state Constitution. Supporters continue to rave about how seniors were enabled to keep their homes because of its passage, while critics, like me, bemoan how it has slashed income for local jurisdictions, resulting in less money for parks, schools, law enforcement, housing, and more, and borrowing to make of for the lack of funding.

And for years, initiatives have been proposed to chip away at various aspects of Proposition 13. All face fierce opposition from the odious Howard Jarvis folks. Nothing that changes Proposition 13 in even the tiniest amount is ever even remotely acceptable to then.

Proposition 13 had good tent. But like many — most!! — initiatives, its core of a decent idea is overwhelmed by unintended consequences. This reveals a major flaw of the initiative process: They are written with agendas and are not well-vetted by stakeholders.

Proposition 5 is an attempt to snip at a narrow slice of Proposition 13. One of Proposition 13’s mandates is that tax increases in local jurisdictions require a 2/3 supermajority vote. For decades, now, this has been a significant barrier to overcome in cities and counties across the state. And some might say good, raising taxes shouldn’t be easy. Especially when we know that people’s vote can be so easily swayed.

The counter argument is that this is un-American, that majority rules is the foundational bedrock of our democracy.

What the backers of Proposition 5 are trying to do is sway your vote by targeting specific causes that in theory would be difficult to vote against: affordable housing and infrastructure projects.

But here’s why I recommend a “no” vote. I do agree that raising taxes shouldn’t be simple. A 2/3 supermajority, however, makes it just too difficult. We have the data that our communities are crumbling because this requirement has made it exceedingly difficult to raise good money (as opposed to be bad money of borrowing) to maintain those communities.

55%, on the other hand, gets uncomfortably close to easy. If the Proposition authors had chosen 60%, I would have been a full-throated supporter. That number strikes a good balance. 2/3 doesn’t, and neither does 55%. And while I would prefer Proposition 13 repealed in its entirety, I also think that if we’re going to chip away at it, we should do it right. This is…not (quite) right, and I choose doing it right over doing it half-assed. The latter keeps making the initiative process work badly, ad we should not support that. Vote No until they get it right.