2 ms·
2/3 of California voted for prop13. Focusing on the beneficiaries misses the whole issue. No one voting for the law at the time was looking To benefit "whit pe
by IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
2/3 of California voted for prop13.
Focusing on the beneficiaries misses the whole issue. No one voting for the law at the time was looking To benefit "whit people". The court case Serrano v priest, which eventually led to prop13 getting momentum... That Serrano case simply enforced a law that , as usual, with good intentions, created unintended winners and losers. Its just this time the incentives ended up going the wrong way towards prop13.
People that passed the law, 2/3 of Californians, simply wanted to control how their money was spent. They wanted to do away with the Serrano vs priest decision.
Serrano vs Priest decision broke the link between housing taxes and local government. That court case was directly related to a law passed by the same proponents of aboliahing prop13 now.
In other words, it is the same people that created the perverse incentives of prop13 who now want to get rid of it
Why should they be trusted?
- rcpt 4y agoMob rule doesn't make for good laws. Especially in California, example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_California_Proposition_14 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_California_Proposition_... Prop 13 is arguably illegal under federal law. Of course with the current court I wouldn't want to press it. After all Clarence Thomas loves Prop 13 so much that he refused to sign the majority opinion in Nordlinger v Hahn because it didn't go far enough in empowering landowners. > No one voting for the law at the time was looking To benefit "whit people". Again, the Fair Housing Act cares about "disparate impact". Intention is irrelevant. (Though given that the 70s was the era of school bussing battles it's a bit of a stretch to say that people weren't thinking about race wrt Serrano and school funding)