I got curious who Evolve was, then I got curious why the environmentalists on the board of Evolve, and now it seems to me Evolve might be looking at building some public schools -- which takes money, Prop 13 money. http://www.evolveea.com/our-work
BTW, LPSF might want to develop an official position on Prop 13 reform (one that actually addresses the issues, not "just say no"), since everybody else will be taking official sides pretty soon.
This subject has been coming up for years. Here’s the basic issue…the spenders want to make it sound like property tax issues are preventing them from doing the good work they want to do. Here are some older statistics but check the links for updates.
But according to the Board of Equalization ( http://www.boe.ca.gov/annual/pdf/2007/table14_07.pdf ) total property taxes collected in 2006-07 were $43.16 billion. The oldest property tax stats at www.caltax.org<http://www.caltax.org> are for 1980-81. That year, property tax revenue was $6.36 billion. Property tax revenue increased by 579 percent since Prop 13 was implemented. During that time, the population went from 24 million to 38 million—an increase of 58 percent.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s budget database ( http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/LAOMenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx ), in 1980-1981, total general AND special fund revenue for California was $22.1 billion. For 2006-07, it was $120.7 billion. That is an increase of 555 percent. THAT MEANS PROPERTY TAX REVENUE WENT UP FASTER THAN ALL OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE!
A lot of good information. Thank you. I disagree that LPSF needs to ignore the fate of Proposition 13. "The government" is not going away in the next year or so, any more than it has gone away up to now; but Prop 13 will, if the spenders focus their energy on the subject and we do not. However, statistics such as those you posted are always useful.
I'm not opposed to us taking an official position on Prop. 13, but as always, I have this question:
What are we going to do to balance the libertarian message, so that our presentation of libertarianism appeals at least as much to the left as to the right?
I say "at least as much" because I think we have a deficit to make up -- most Libertarian efforts have traditionally appealed more to conservatives. It's not impossible to talk about economic issues, such as Prop. 13, in a way that meets this need, but I think it requires care and diligence and a willingness to approach the issues in new and different ways.
Another concern is that Prop. 13 is primarily a state-level issue. Again I don't fundamentally object to our weighing in on such issues, but it seems to me that an even stronger need is for us to craft some policy positions on issues that are more local and specific to San Francisco. A number of them:
• Cooperation of local authorities with the Feds on immigration
• The criminalization of people sleeping in their vehicles
• The harm done by local zoning laws
• The harm done by local restrictions on economic activity
• The rising cost of permits for public events and their impact on culture and the arts
• The parking racket
• The city government's hostility to skateboarding, skating, and alternative personal transportation
• Reopening the bath houses
• The cable TV and PG&E monopolies
• The ban on nudity
• MUNI and transit (the SFMTA has just proposed raising the adult MUNI fare again to $2.25)
• Decriminalizing prostitution in the city
• The closure of the parks at night
• Gentrification and the cost of housing
• The assault on the "sharing economy" (Lyft, AirBnB, etc.)
• The central subway
• The war on off-leash dogs
• Police abuse, efforts by the SFPD to acquire Tasers
• The attempt to destroy the Patrol Specials
Indeed. And when proposed legislation is eminent on any of the issues you mention, we need to get involved. Right now, significant legislation is eminent on Prop 13, which will affect local schools, local police, local fire departments, local pocketbooks.