Deseret News | Don't bring Prop. 13 here

Reader comments
Don't bring Prop. 13 here

Craig | 3:35 a.m. June 20, 2008

Numbers do not lie however liers figure. This percentage of income compared to 65 is s bunch of hocus pokus. The truth, I am with in a few dollars of doubling what I 1st paid. We send in a tax payment to the county every 2 weeks to try and stay on top of it The madness needs stopped. Real people are close to getting forced out due to high taxes. Real appraisals are rarely done simply bumping it based on neighborhood averages. Options are needed like not paying for secondary water and doing away with traditional landscape. Eliminate exemptions to RDA commercial developers. You play you pay. We can not afford to carry them. Do not develop if you want tax payers to pay your taxes. No not California style we need something stronger and better.

Anonymous | 3:44 a.m. June 20, 2008

Not to mention what it would do to our already underfunded education system.

JS | 5:37 a.m. June 20, 2008

I agree. Prop 13 has been a problem in California since its inception. Those who choose to or are forced to move pay more than their fair share. Many people are having problems selling homes right now anyway. The last thing we need is another reason for people to not buy.

Comments continue below

Zac | 5:52 a.m. June 20, 2008

Taxes are to be based on real monies. I make 40,000 dollars a year, that is 40,000 of real money that I have to be taxed on. I buy a house for 100,000 dollars and it goes up in "value" 40,000 dollars, that raise in "value" is called an unrealized gain. There is nothing tangible there unless it is acted upon (selling the house for the gain). If it is held, then there is no real 40,000 dollars. Yet, Utah is taxing you as if actually had that extra "value" of 40,000 dollars. And that is what I think is wrong.

Timj | 6:46 a.m. June 20, 2008

Thanks for the editorial.
Having lived in California, I found Proposition 13 to be incredibly unfair.

Lionheart | 7:37 a.m. June 20, 2008

California does not suffer stagnant markets, they suffer from speculation and flip floppers. The comment on older people staying in their homes rather than moving into something smaller really irked me. Generally downgrading means a less attractive safe neighborhood rather than a smaller home. I like having the old folks in the neighborhood, diversity, you know. My parents, who live in Idaho are still in their home and I hope they stay there until they leave in body bags. Idaho has some kind of program for elderly home owners so that they can stay in the home. Does anyone know if Utah has something like that?

Dutchman | 7:39 a.m. June 20, 2008

I lived and owned two different homes in California. Glad to be back in Utah away from Prop 13. As you pointed out, new comers are treated very unfairly under the law. Neighbors right next door to me paid half or less property tax than I did and they had the same impact on schools, police, and fire services. Say no the prop. 13.

Anonymous | 7:40 a.m. June 20, 2008

Boy you really are out to lunch. Utah's property tax system didn't just fail last year. It fails year after year, throwing sudden shock on taxpayers and pricing people out of their homes. We don't need Prop 13, but we need significant, broadbased property tax relief.

Anonymous | 8:40 a.m. June 20, 2008

I grew up, spent 38 years in CA, Mom & siblings still live there. Prop 13 is GREAT. People want to move there, move in? Good, let them pay for all the growth related infrastructure through some additional property taxes. Prop 13 DOES protect older folks who cannot possibly have planned for what real estate in CA did over the past 5 years. A 2% cap increase was a beautiful thing.

kahmun sence | 9:18 a.m. June 20, 2008

FAIRNESS: The only way to acheive true fairness in valuation is to use the law of averages; taking all homes sold allows invididual circumstances surrounding a sale to be neutralized. For example, some sales may involve a desperate seller where they sell for way too little, while other sale may involve a desperate buyer where they pay way too much. The best way to determine fair market value is to use a system of comparable properties (comparable in size, location, age, etc.) when figuring the average value based on sales price. Prop 13 which focuses on the individual sale become grossly unfair.
FREE MARKET: Prop 13 also impedes the free market from operating by having gov't tax policy influence whether people sell. Bad idea.
FRAUD: If a buyer knows she'll be taxed on her individual "sales price," then she will have an incentive to hide the real value of the transaction. People will seek concessions in closing costs, repairs, financing and a host of other methods to make the sales price look as small as possible. In the end, that just shifts the tax burden to all other people.

We need a hybrid | 10:06 a.m. June 20, 2008

Utah's current system is unfair because, as Zac says, you get taxed on "value" that is unrealized. For example, at the interim committee on the Hill the other day, a Mapleton woman testified that she bought her house for $175,000 and then after her neighbors built houses for $400-500,000 her property taxes went through the roof. Her taxes skyrocketed even though she took no action whatsoever.

An acquisition based system is also unfair because people who stay in the same house forever never get a property tax increase. This can discourage people from buying new homes too.

We need a hybrid system that creates predictability and evens out the tax burden. The best solution I've heard proposed so far is to change to an acquisition based system for predictability and then increase property taxes slowly at a rate equal to the inflation of housing prices in a specific area. I think that's what we should do for predictability and fairness.

cp1kl | 10:10 a.m. June 20, 2008

Great Editorial. Prop 13 was bad public policy in California, but even worse it spawned poorer replicas in other states around the nation such as Proposal A in Michigan and the current property tax debacle in Florida. Our current property tax system in Utah generally works well.

crmeatball | 10:26 a.m. June 20, 2008

I don't think a carbon copy of prop 13 would work. It was not the best solution for CA. However, my parents have lived in the same home, in CA, for 33 years. If it was not for the intervention of Prop 13, my parents would have lost the home due to increasing property taxes. Something needs to be done when property taxes increase to a point where someone cannot afford to pay them. If someone purchased a home within their ability to pay and 10 years later loses it - not because they can't pay the mortgage but because they can't pay the taxes, something needs to be done.

Nobody loses their homes | 11:08 a.m. June 20, 2008

This whining about "people losing their homes" because of property taxes should stop. A tax of less than one percent on a home's value in Utah can't possibly be the real reason people decide to move. We're talking about less money per day than most families spend on Big Gulps.

liberal larry | 11:52 a.m. June 20, 2008

I pay about 10k/year in property taxes, on several properties, in Utah and I don't even have any kids. I think the current system needs to be tweaked to protect a few older, low income, people, but over all it's pretty fair. Yammering by the "something for nothing" conservative crowd is getting very tiring.

Anonymous | 2:41 p.m. June 20, 2008

A dozen or so grumpy, vocal old men are behind this push for acquisition based valuation. This is nothing more than a brazen attempt by these old men to shift property taxes to young families.

John | 2:57 p.m. June 20, 2008

Hey there "Nobody loses their homes"

I am sick to death of hearing stupid comments like your closing words. When the school raises fees and taxes, "it barely amounts to a pizza and a bottle of soda." When the city shoves recycling down our throats in the middle of the night, its no big deal because "its less than the cost of a night at the movies for two."

When the forest service doubles recreation tax fees, its no big deal "because gas costs $4 so if you can get there, you should be able to afford $6 more dollars."

We are not talking Big Gulps here. We are talking about the city randomly assigning a value to a house, and taxing the life out of the people just because they can. My income is limited, and not great. They tripled the value of my house, and so no more movies, no more big gulps, no more pizza and soda and I am dam tired of it.

People who keep excusing tax increases as "no more than a pack of gum" ought to consider just how many packs of gum do you have to give up,just to have a house

to "John" | 3:50 p.m. June 20, 2008

Man, you are right on. There are only a few people who get it like you do. All these little taxes and fees really add up and when was the last time any of them ever went down? Never.

People like you and me want a small government that doesn't interfere with our lives. Just give us roads, utilities, schools, and law enforcement and let the free market take care of the rest.

I've always wondered why government can't downsize a little here and there and show us that they are trying to operate within the budget that our taxes provide. Instead, they come up with all these new programs and things that require increased taxation. I say "ENOUGH".

To John | 3:58 p.m. June 20, 2008

The Big Gulp point is that if you are so financially strained that your property tax is "taxing the life" out of you, you likely have bigger problems on your hands than property tax. Everyone has limited income, we all make choices about what to spend it on. If you find your property tax unacceptable, you can choose to change to a different house. People move for all kinds of reasons every day.

Also, cities do NOT "randomly assign a value to a house," and they DO need money to provide services that we all yell and scream for. With the rights attached to being a homeowner in a civilized country come responsibilities, like contributing to the well-being of the community. If you don't believe that, you should be living in a hut somewhere in the woods.

Prop. 13 a bad thing? | 6:15 p.m. June 20, 2008

It was WUNDERBAR for people with lower incomes. What a relief it was! God Bless the late HOWARD JARVIS, who initiated Prop. 13. The initiative was APPROVED by more than 68 percent. Only government bureaucrats and their relatives opposed it!

arc | 11:15 p.m. June 21, 2008

I actually agree with the Des. News on something.

I am all for lower taxes, but making the property valuation not be even and the same for all properties in an area with the same size, shape, age, etc. is the worst idea I have heard.

If my house if valued at $150,000 and the family across the street is valued at $40,000 because they have been there 20 years, that is a bunch of crock.

I know, lower everyone's taxes, but don't mess with property values, unless they can be more accurate.

WL | 12:08 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008

"but making the property valuation not be even and the same for all properties in an area with the same size, shape, age, etc is th worst idea I have ever heard . . ."

Actually property valuations in the free market vary tremendously - look at the stock market daily or gas prices or gasp real estate prices! With Prop 13, you are not forced to pay more than a predictable amount that you know you can afford. If an Arab millionaire pays $600K for the house next door to you and you paid $100K for yours 10 years ago, under Prop 13 your property tax does not change due to big spenders throwing around money. Simple and predictable - that's why politicians and government taxeaters hate it and homeowners love it!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.