Proposition 13 (formally named People's Initiative to Restrict Property Taxation ) is an amendment to the California Constitution enacted during 1978, through the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was declared constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn , 505 U.S.1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.
The most important part of the action is the first paragraph, which limits the tax rate for real estate:
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of the property. One percent (1%) tax will be collected by the district and distributed according to the law to the districts within the district.
The proposition lowers property taxes by valuing property values ​​at 1975 and limiting the annual increase in the assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not exceeding 2% per annum. It also prohibits a reassessment of new base year values ​​except for cases (a) change of ownership, or (b) completion of new construction.
In addition to the decline in property taxes, this initiative also contains languages ​​that require two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature for future increases of any state tax rate or amount of revenue collected, including income tax rates. It also requires a two-thirds majority vote in local elections for local governments seeking to increase special taxes. Proposition 13 receives large amounts of publicity, not only in California, but throughout the United States.
Part of this initiative initiated a "taxpayer rebellion" across the country that is sometimes thought to have contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency during 1980. However, of the 30 anti-tax tax collection measures that year, only 13 actions were passed.
A major contributor to Proposition 13 is the sentiment that older Californians should not get out of their homes with high taxes. The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics, and is not politically popular for lawmakers to try to change it.
Video California Proposition 13 (1978)
Destination
Limit tax rate for property
Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of the property. One percent (1%) tax will be collected by the district and distributed according to the law to the districts within the district.
Proposition 13 states property taxes must be valued in 1975 and limit the annual tax increase to the inflation factor, not exceeding 2% per annum. A reassessment of property tax can only be done a) when property ownership is changed or b) construction is completed.
Country Responsibility
The state has been given the responsibility to distribute property tax revenues to local agents.
Voting Terms of State Tax
In addition to reducing property taxes and changing the role of the state, Proposition 13 also contains languages ​​requiring two-thirds (2/3) majority in both legislative houses for future increases of any state tax rate or amount of revenue collected, including income tax rates and tariffs sales tax.
Voting Requirements Local Taxes
Proposition 13 also requires two-thirds (2/3) voter approval in local elections for most local governments proposing to raise specific taxes. In the Altadena Library District v. Bloodgood , 192 Cal. Application. 3d 585 (June 1987), the terms of the approval of two thirds of the voters for the special tax under Proposition 13 applies to the local tax increase initiative measures proposed by voters who exercise the power of local initiatives.
Maps California Proposition 13 (1978)
​​â € <â €
There are several accounts about the origin of Proposition 13. The evidence for or against these accounts varies.
One explanation is that older California residents with steady incomes experienced increased difficulty paying property taxes, which increased as a result of California population growth, increased housing demand, and inflation. Due to severe inflation during the 1970s, the reassessment of residential property increased the property taxes so much, that some pensioners could no longer live in homes they had purchased long ago. An academic study found support for this explanation, reporting that older voters, homeowners, and voters expect a tax increase is more likely to vote for Proposition 13.
Another popular explanation is Proposition 13 withdrawing its impetus from the 1971 and 1976 California Supreme Court rulings at Serrano v. Priest , which somewhat equates California school funding with redistributing local property taxes from rich to poor school districts. According to this explanation, property owners in wealthy districts are aware that the taxes they are paying no longer benefit their local schools, and choose to limit their taxes.
The underlying problem with this explanation is that the Serrano decision and the financial equity of the school are actually quite popular among California voters. It is true that Californians who voted for Proposition 13 were less likely than other voters to support school finance, but proponents of Proposition 13 were no more likely to oppose Serrano's decision, and on average they usually supported the Serrano and equity of school finance.
Another explanation that has been offered is that spending by the California government has increased dramatically during the years before 1978, and taxpayers seek to limit further growth. The evidence supporting this explanation is limited, as there has been no research related to California's view of the size and role of government against their views on Proposition 13. However, it is true that the California government has grown. Between 1973 and 1977, California state and local government spending per $ 1,000 of personal income was 8.2 percentage points higher than the national norm. From 1949 to 1979, public sector employment in California outstripped private employment growth. By 1978, 14.7 percent of California's civilian labor force was state and local government employees, almost double the proportion of the early 1950s.
In addition, during the early 1960s, there were several scandals in California involving regional appraisers. These assessors are found to reward friends and allies with artificially low valuations, with tax bills to be matched. This scandal led to the passage of AB 80 in 1966, which sets the standard for conducting an assessment of market value. The return of market value in the wake of AB 80 can easily represent an increase in the percentage of middle-double digit valuation for many homeowners. As a result, a large number of homeowners in California experienced an increase in direct and drastic assessments, along with the increase in tax rates on the assessed value, only to be told that the money taxed would be redistributed to distant communities. The subsequent anger began to form into a reaction to the unified property taxes around Howard Jarvis, a former journalist and toolmaker, transforming taxpayer activists in retirement.
Size
Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann are the most vocal and visible supporters of Proposition 13. Formally called the "People's Initiative to Restrict Property Taxation," and popularly known as the "Jarvis-Gann Amendment," Proposition 13 is registered on a ballot through the California voting initiative process, the provisions of the California Constitution allowing proposed legislation or constitutional amendments which will be offered to voters if the supporters collect enough signatures on the petition. Proposition 13 passed with almost 65% of those voting for support and with the participation of nearly 70% of registered voters. After passing, it becomes article XIII A of the California Constitution.
Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on property is limited to 1% of the assessed value. This "assessed value," may be increased by a maximum of 2% per annum, until and unless the property has a change of ownership. At the time of the change of ownership, the lower valued value may be re-assessed to complement the current market value that will result in a new base year value for the property, but future assessments are also limited to a maximum annual increase of 2% of the new base year of value.
If the value of the property market increases rapidly (the value of many homes in California is priced at an average annual rate of more than 10% in the decade that ends in 2005) or if inflation exceeds 2%, the difference between the owner tax and the new owner's tax will have to pay can get very big.
Property may be subject to review under certain conditions other than a change of ownership, such as when new additions or constructions occur. The assessed value can also be reduced if the market value of the property decreases below the assessed value, for example, during a real estate slump. The reduction of property valuation was not provided by Proposition 13 itself, but was made possible by the passage of Proposition 8 (SCA No. 67) during 1978 that amended Proposition 13. Such as real estate downturn and downward review occurred during 2009 when the California State Equality Council announced an estimated value reduction the base of the property tax year due to negative inflation. Property taxes in California are Ad valorem taxes which means that the tax assessed (generally) increases and decreases with the value of the property.
Results
Analysis
Positive effects
Predictability of tax and community stability
Proposition 13 is said to have given predictability to property owners, and enhanced community stability. While a progressive income tax structure affects higher income, property taxes take a higher percentage of lower income. The state income tax and sales tax started during the Great Depression, when the taxpayer's resistance began due to property taxes that unemployed workers could not pay. According to the Government Analysis Center, between fiscal year 2000 and 2005 property tax revenue has increased by 22.11%, while personal per capita income has increased 13.80% and general per capita income is 21.93%.
Tax deductions
Taxpayer Association Howard Jarvis estimates that Proposition 13 has reduced the taxes paid by California taxpayers by aggregating $ 528 Billion (value taken May 31, 2009).
However, other estimates suggest that Proposition 13 does not seem to reduce the overall per capita tax burden on California or the expenditure of the State. California has the highest marginal income tax rate in the country, and is in the top ten corporate tax and national sales tax rate.
Property tax equity
The California Taxpayers Association believes that taxes are progressive, as newly acquired housing with higher rates tend to have higher incomes.
Decrease in funding volatility
Restrictions on tax increases for previously owned properties have lowered the volatility of funding for municipalities. Pre-Proposition 13 property tax revenues are almost three times more volatile.
During 2009, the California State Equality Agency noted that only five times since the passage of Proposition 13 was an annual increase of less than 2% allowed, and that the adjusted forecast for 2010 would be negative, for the first time since the passage of Proposition 13.
David Doerr argues that the "value system of acquisitions" acts as a control against excessive spending because of high real estate values, while allowing sources of revenue growth in times of recession. Local governments then have to reduce spending more severely when the housing market declines.
Positive fiscal impact of new home construction
According to the Building Industry Association of California, the construction of homes with average prices produced a slightly positive fiscal impact, compared to the position that housing is not "paying in its own way". Trade associations argue that this is because the new home is valued at the value when it was first sold. In addition, due to higher new home costs, the trade association claims that new residents are more prosperous and can provide more sales tax revenue and use less of the social services of the host community.
Popular with selectors (especially homeowners)
Proposition 13 remains popular among California voters, most of whom are homeowners. Among the potential voters, 53% described Proposition 13 as "mostly good stuff" while 33% responded that it was "largely a bad thing" in the 2006 California Public Policy Institute survey. For adults who are unlikely to be voters (mostly tenants), Proposition 13 is unpopular - only 29% approval for 47% rejection. Among Californian adults, overall approval is 47% approval for 38% rejection. Quarterly newspaper accounts report high voter approval.
Tax is targeted to the service
Others argue that the real reason for the claimed negative effect is the lack of trust for elected officials to spend public money wisely. The business improvement district is one of the means by which property owners have opted to burden themselves for additional government services. Property owners find that these targeted charges are more suitable than general taxes.
Household ownership
The proposition causes homeowners to increase the duration of time spent in the home given by 1.04 years, with an increase of 0.79 years for tenants, during the period 1970 to 2000. The increase in duration spent in a given lease may be due to the late conversion of the tenant to ownership caused by Prop 13.
Negative effects
Sales disincentives, less individual mobility, higher housing costs
Proposition 13 alters the balance of the housing market as it provides a disincentive to sell the property, supports the rest of the current property and modifies or transfers it to family members to avoid a new higher property tax assessment. More detailed evidence of this is provided in the book Property Tax and Tax Rebellion: The Legacy of Proposition 13 .
California has more rigidity and friction both in the housing market and in renting from other countries; one study comparing the California market with other countries found that between 1970 and 2000, ownership of owned homes increased by 10% and in rent by 19%, and attributed this change to Proposition 13. Other research has found that an increase in rent ownership could attributed in part to rent control. D.R. Mullins stated that "the prospect of increasing property tax liabilities triggered by residential or business location changes is likely to limit mobility and screening in the housing and property markets." (Pp.Ã, 118)
In addition, evidence suggests that since homeowners are expected to keep their homes longer, younger households often hire longer before buying a home. Since Proposition 13 can be a disincentive to sell, there is a slight turnaround among owners near the older urban centers, leading to upward pressures on price appreciation in these areas.
Proposition 13 reduces the property tax revenue for municipalities in California. They are forced to rely more on state funding and therefore can lose autonomy and control. The amount of tax available to the municipality in any given year depends on the amount of property transfer taking place. However, since existing property owners have an incentive to keep on their property and do not sell, there are fewer property transfers under this type of property tax system.
California also has high levels of entrants from other states and states, which has contributed to more demand for housing, and has a modest amount of housing at moderate prices due to increased property tax obligations after sales. As a result, because different tax treatments make real estate more valuable to current owners than potential buyers, selling it makes no sense economically.
Effects on commercial property owners
Owners of commercial real estate benefit from original rule Proposition 13: If a company owning a commercial property (such as a shopping center) is sold or combined, but the property remains technically left to the company, ownership of the property can effectively change without triggering the provisions of Proposition 13. Under the current law, changes to the control or ownership of a legal entity lead to a reassessment of the actual property as well as the real property of the entity under its control.
Corporations often avoid reassessment by limiting the share of ownership by buying in groups where no party has more than 50%. For example: "In 2002... wine baron E & J Gallo bought 1,765 hectares of vineyards in Napa and Sonoma from Louis M. Martini but the deal avoided reassessment, as 12 Gallo family members individually gained minority rights. "
On the California tax structure
Assessment is not the same based on date of purchase in regressive taxation
Proposition 13 sets the value of the property assessed at the time of purchase (known as the acquisition value system), with a possible increase of 2% per annum. As a result, properties with the same value can have a large number of variations in the assessed value, even if they are contiguous. This disparity grows when property prices are valued at more than 2% per year. The Case-Shiller housing index shows prices in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco were valued at 170% from 1987 (beginning of available data) to 2012 while the 2% cover only allowed a 67% increase in tax on unsold homes during the period 26 this year.
About sales and other taxes
Other taxes created or upgraded
Local governments in California are now using imaginative strategies to maintain or increase revenue because of Proposition 13 and the loss of property tax revenues (which previously went to cities, counties, and other local agents). For example, many local governments in California have recently sought voter approval for special taxes such as parcel taxes for public services that were previously paid in whole or part of the property tax imposed prior to Proposition 13 being law. These public services include: roads, water, sewerage, electricity, infrastructure, schools, parks, police protection, firefighting units, and prison facilities. The provisions for the tax are made by the Community Facility Act 1982 (better known as Mello-Roos). The sales tax rate also increased from 6% (pre-proposition level 13) to 8.25% and even higher in some local jurisdictions. [1] [2]
This led to the issuance of California Proposition 218 in 1996 (the "Right to Choose Tax Law") which constitutionally required voter approval for local government taxes and some non-tax levies such as valuation of benefits on real property and related property costs and expenses certain..
In the city and locality
Larger effects on coastal metropolitan areas than in other states
Proposal 13 disproportionately affects coastal metropolitan areas, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, where home prices are higher, relative to inland communities with lower housing prices. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, more research will show whether the benefits of Proposition 13 outweigh the redistribution of the tax base and the overall cost of lost tax revenues.
Loss of power of local government to state government
Local governments are becoming more dependent on state funds, which has increased state power over local communities. The state provides "grant funds" to cities to provide services, and purchases facilities that locally manage state-mandated programs. The Economist argued in 2011 that "for all of its small government pretenses, Proposition 13 ended up centralizing California's finances, shifting them from local to state government."
Changes in the resulting planning, cost or downgrade, new fees
Due to the reduced revenue generated from property taxes, local governments are becoming more dependent on sales taxes for public revenue funds, which some parties maintain has resulted in "fiscal land use". The land-use fisilization means that land use decisions are influenced by new development capabilities to generate income. Proposition 13 has increased incentives for local governments to attract new commercial developments such as large box retailers and car dealers instead of residential housing developments. This is the result of commercial development capabilities to generate revenue for general funds through sales tax and business license taxes. The ongoing sales jobs and taxes provided by these stores can hamper the growth of other sectors and the types of jobs that can provide better opportunities for the population. Retail offices and development get further incentives because they do not burden the local government as much as housing construction in terms of public services. In addition, cities have decreased services and increased costs to compensate for deficiencies, with very high impact costs imposed on developers building new homes or industrial outlets. The cost of impact is a way to impose additional service and infrastructure costs required by new developments. These fees are usually transferred to a building buyer, who may not be aware of the thousands of costs that are included in the cost of the building.
Education and public services
Effects on public schools
The California public school, which during the 1960s has ranked nationally as one of the best, has dropped to 48 in many student achievement surveys. Some have denied the attribution of the decline to the role of Proposition 13 in the change of state financing from public schools, since schools financed mostly by property taxes are unconstitutional (differences in funding between low- and high-income areas are considered to violate the Equal Protection of the Fourteenth Amendment Clause of the Constitution) in Serrano vs. Priest , and Proposition 13 was then partially validated as a result of the case. California spending per pupil equals the national average until about 1985, when it began to decline, resulting in another referendum, Proposition 98, which required a certain percentage of the state budget to be directed to public education.
Prior to the implementation of Proposition 13, the state of California saw a significant increase in the collection of property tax revenues "with the share of state and local revenue derived from property taxes rising from 34% at the turn of the decade to 44% in 1978 (Schwartz 1998)." Proposition 13 causing a sharp decline in state and local tax collection in the first year. School expenditure as part of personal income in California has declined since the 1970s, while it is increasing across the United States. A year before the implementation of Proposition 13 (1977-1978), California school spending equaled 3.76% of the country's private income while the rest of the US was 4.20% equivalent. In the decade of implementation, California school spending as a percentage of income declined, reaching "3.17% in fiscal year 1983-1984.
UCSD Economics professor Julian Betts states: "What this all means for spending is that from about 1978-1979 we saw a sharp reduction in school spending.We fell out dramatically compared to other countries, and we still have not really succeeded in stating. "From 1977, in California there has been a steady growth grade compared to the national average," which has declined since 1970. " The shortage of funds translates into a decrease in expenditure per student in the years following the passage of Proposition 13. During the 1970s, school expenditure per student was almost equal to the national average. Using the discount rate, "measured in 1997-1998 dollars, California spent about $ 100 more per capita in public schools in 1969-1970 than the rest of the country." From 1981 to 1982, California has consistently spent less per student than the rest of the US as shown by data collected by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis and by the Institute of California Public Policy has resulted in an increase in pupil-teacher ratio at K-12 public schools in California. Professor Betts observes that "teacher-pupil ratios have skyrocketed in the years after 1978, and a large gap opens up between teacher-student ratios here and across the country, and we still have not recovered from it."
Loss of funds for libraries, other public services
Public libraries have seen a decrease in funding from the city. The police department generally received the same amount of funds, from 15% in 1978 to 16% during 1995. Cities also reduced the cost of water, gas and electricity.
Aftermath
The United States Supreme Court held, at Nordlinger v. Hahn , that Proposition 13 is constitutional. Justice Harry Blackmun, writing majority opinion, notes that California has "a legitimate interest in the preservation of the local environment, sustainability, and stability" and that it is acceptable to treat owners who have invested for some time on different properties from new owners. If anyone objects to the rules, they can choose not to buy. Stephanie Nordlinger, the plaintiff in this case, sued Los Angeles County Taxpayer Kenneth Hahn for the same Protection Clause with the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Nordlinger purchased property in the Los Angeles area and, under the terms of Proposition 13, was required to have the property reassessed with a new value. The revalued value of the Nordlinger property raised its tax rate by 36%, while its neighbors continued to pay much lower rates on their properties. Canceled by differences in taxation, Nordlinger viewed this reassessment as favoritism in the eyes of the law and was selected to bring charges at the Los Angeles County Tax Assessment office and its chief assessor, Kenneth Hahn. Applicant that a reassessment of his property does not provide equal protection, expressed as a right in the 4th Amendment, Nordlinger took Hahn to court and appealed to the Supreme Court in 1981. The court ruled in favor of Hahn, affirming Proposition 13 as constitution.
In the California 2003 recall election in which Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor, his adviser Warren Buffett suggested that Proposal 13 be revoked or amended as a method of balancing the state budget. Schwarzenegger, believing that such an act would not be politically prosecutable and could end his governor's career, said, "I told Warren that if he mentioned Proposisi 13 again he had to do 500 sit-ups."
In January 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown was quoted as saying that it was not Proposition 13 that became a problem, but "That is what the Legislature did after 13, that is what happened after 13th was passed" because the legislature reduced the local authorities' power.
In December 2011, a team of lawyers led by former federal appeals court judges failed to overthrow the terms of Proposition 13 that two-thirds (2/3) votes from the Legislature needed to increase the State tax.
In an interview in 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown complained that he did not build "war cages" that could be used for campaigning as an alternative to Proposition 13. Governor Brown said he learned from his failure in the mid-1970s to build a casket can be used to encourage alternatives to Proposition 13. Governor Brown believes that he will not seek to change the law, the third path in California politics. "Prop. 13 is a sacred doctrine that should never be questioned," he said.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Trulia's real estate website, Trulia calculates that by 2015, Proposition 13 gives property owners a $ 12.5 billion profit. Coastal cities are prosperous with high home value awards and long-term ownership the most benefited, with San Francisco property owners paying an effective tax rate of 0.6%. That year, Palo Alto, California property owners' effective rate of 0.42% was the lowest in the country.
Amendments
- California Proposition 8 (November 1978) allows for a reassessment of real property values ​​in a declining market.
- California Proposition 60 (1986) allows homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer the assessed value from their current home to a replacement home if a replacement home is located in the same area, has the same or lower value, and is purchased within 2 years of sales.
- California Proposition 90 (1988) is similar to California Proposition 60 (1986) in that it allows homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer the assessed value of their current home to a replacement home if a replacement home is located in a different place. county, provided the incoming county allows transfer.
- California Proposition 39 (2000) lowered the necessary supermajority for voters to impose local school bond action of two-thirds (2/3) votes cast by fifty-five percent (55%).
- California Proposition 26 (2010) adds the constitutional definition of "tax" to the needs of two-thirds of the legislative vote requirements for state taxes under Proposition 13.
Proposition 218 (1996) (" Right to Choose Tax Law ")
Proposition 218 was an amendment to the constitutional initiative approved by California voters on November 5, 1996. Called the "Right of the Right to Respond to Taxes," the Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Association of Taxpayers Howard Jarvis as a constitutional act up to Proposition 13.
Proposition 218 establishes strict constitutional limits on the ability of local governments to levy a valuation of benefits on real property and related property costs and expenses such as for utility services for property. The property-related assessments and costs and the cost reforms contained in Proposition 218 are responses to the use of California local government revenue sources that avoid the two-thirds of the vote requirement to raise local taxes under Proposition 13.
Proposition 218 also requires voter approval before local authorities, including the city's charter, may impose, increase, or extend local taxes. Proposition 218 also constitutionally reserves to local voters the right to use the power of initiatives to reduce or withdraw taxes, assessments, fees or local tax charges, including provisions for significantly reduced petition signing requirements < to qualify for ballot action.
See also
- Amador Valley High School District District v. Council on National Equality : the challenges of a failed trial for proposition.
- California Proposition 218 was passed in 1996 as a constitutional follow-up to Proposition 13.
- California Proposition 218 Local Ruling Initiative deals with tax deductions or retractions, assessments, costs, and local costs.
- Sales and use taxes in California
- Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act or only Mello-Roos passed in 1982.
- Proposition 2½, Massachusetts version of Proposition 13, passed in 1980.
- Oregon Ballot Measure 5 (1990), property tax capitalization in Oregon.
- Land Tax
Note
^ Ã, Serrano: Ã, Serrano v. Priest , 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971) (Serrano I); Serrano v. Priest , 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976) (Serrano II); Serrano v. Priest , 20 Cal.3d 25 (1977) (Serrano III)
References
Source
- Smith, Daniel A. (1998). Crusader Tax and Political Democracy Direct . New York: Routledge. ISBNÃ, 0-415-91991-6.
Further reading
- Fox, Joel. The Legend of Proposition 13 . Xlibris, 2003. (Joel Fox is former President of the Taxpayer Association of Howard Jarvis.)
- Campbell, Ballard C. "Tax rebellion and political change," Journal of Policy History, Jan 1998, Vol. 10 Problem 1, pp.Ã, 153-78
- Marble, Nancy. "Proposition 13: Difficult Periods for Art," Art in America, September/October 1978, p. 92-94.
- Martin, Isaac William. Permanent Tax Rebellion. Stanford University Press, 2008.
- O'Sullivan, Arthur, Terri A. Sexton and Steven M. Sheffrin, Property Tax and Rebellion: The Legacy of Proposition 13 , Cambridge Press, 1995. Paperback was reissued 2007.
- Sexton, Terry A. and Steven M. Sheffrin, Proposition 13 in Recession and Recovery , California Public Policy Institute, 1998.
- Sheffrin, Steven, "Re-Thinking the Fairness of Proposition 13," in Jack Citrin, ed., Proposition 13 at 30 , Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Public Policy Press, li>
- Smith, D. A. "Howard Jarvis, Entrepreneur Populis: Reevaluating the Causes of Proposition 13". History of Social Sciences (1999). 23 (2): 173-210. in JSTOR [not accessible: behind paywall]
External links
Archive collection
- Guide to Judith Stanley Files Subject to Proposition 13. Special Collections and Archives Ir Irvine, Irvine, California.
More
- California Voters Pamphlet, June 6, 1978
- The full text of Section 13A
- Proposition 13: Likes or Hates it, Roots Go Deep it
- California's Tax and Expense Limits: Proposition 13 & amp; Proposition 4
- Full Text Volume 505 from the United States Report at www.supremecourt.gov
- Howard Jarvis discussed Proposition 13 a few weeks before the 1978 election in this voicemail from the Club Commonwealth record at the Hoover Institution.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments