Fact check: Is Proposition 13 under attack? SLO County supervisors disagree on changes
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors updated their position on Proposition 13 last year — causing some to accuse them of weakening homeowner protections.
The changes were small, though, and the county’s State Legislative Platform still calls for protection of the landmark initiative that limits property tax increases in California, at least one supervisor said.
At the Tuesday board meeting, Supervisor Debbie Arnold said last year’s changes erode the county’s support of Proposition 13. Supervisor Jimmy Paulding disagreed — maintaining that the county fully supports Proposition 13.
Arnold, dissatisfied with the county’s position, made a motion to review and update its State Legislative Platform. The board majority shot down the motion, however, choosing instead to wait until it hires a new county administrative officer to update the platform.
The board expects to hire the new administrative officer by May, Supervisor Bruce Gibson said at the meeting.
The board then voted 4-1, with Arnold dissenting, to direct its lobbyists to use the 2023 legislative platform until it is updated.
They directed staff to return to the board around May 1 with a report on state bills and budget adjustments that could impact the county.
Where does SLO County stand on Proposition 13?
In 1978, voters passed Proposition 13 — which reset property taxes to 1% of the 1975 value of the home and capped future increases at 2% per year, according to the California State Board of Equalization. The proposition also requires a two-thirds vote of electors to increase taxes.
On Sept. 12, the board voted 3-2 to update its position on Proposition 13 in its State Legislative Platform, a report that informs what policies the county’s lobbyists will pursue in Sacramento.
The platform still opposes “any legislation or initiative that proposes to modify Proposition 13” or establish split roll property taxes.
The board added a line to the platform that called for the opposition of “any proposal that would weaken the homeowner protections afforded by Proposition 13 by increasing or eliminating the 2% cap on annual property tax increases for homeowners,” the platform read.
The board did remove a section that opposed “any measures or legislation that reduces the super-majority vote required to raise taxes from two-thirds to 55%,” according to the meeting minutes.
Supervisors John Peschong and Arnold voted against the changes in September.
On Tuesday, Arnold said the board shouldn’t have removed the section about the two-thirds voter threshold from the platform, as it is a key component of Proposition 13.
“Our county officially is no longer supporting that two-thirds threshold,” Arnold said. “It’s worked so well for a couple of generations now and to take it apart or dismantle it? Nope.”
Paulding, however, said the county took a “neutral position” on the two-thirds voter threshold because it is not included in the legislative platform — which he said does not weaken Proposition 13.
Instead, it gives room for the voters to decide on Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1, which would lower the voter approval threshold for increasing taxes from two-thirds to 55% for initiatives that fund public infrastructure or affordable housing projects, he said.
The initiative will be on the November ballot.
“There’s quite a lot of misinformation saying that we oppose Proposition 13,” Paulding said. “That is just 100% false. We have a neutral legislative platform on the two-thirds threshold issue, and I personally want to hear from our voters and see where they come in on ACA 1.”
Paulding added that Oceano’s fire tax narrowly missed the two-thirds voter threshold during the June 2022 election, which means the county may now need to fund fire services for that community.
“It is precisely those kinds of issues that we see that are really hindering our ability as local government to protect public safety, to provide funding for infrastructure,” he said. “That’s why I totally support where our neutral position is on the two-thirds threshold issue.”
Peschong abandoned committee to workshop legislative platform, Paulding says
During the meeting, Paulding also called out Peschong, saying he abandoned a committee that was meant to work on the county’s legislative platform.
After revising the legislative platform on Sept. 12, the two agreed to form an ad hoc committee to further workshop the legislative platform with state lobbyists, Paulding said.
A few weeks later, however, former interim County Administrative Officer John Nilon told Paulding that Peschong would no longer participate in the committee, Paulding said.
Paulding said this halted the county’s progress on its State Legislative Platform.
“We established a process that if, had been completed, I think we’d be in a much better position with an updated platform being brought by that committee,” he said. “That process broke down. It wasn’t completed.”
During a break in the meeting, Peschong told The Tribune he left the committee because he disagrees with the board majority’s policy goals. He said he didn’t expect them to support his initiatives, so he didn’t think serving on the committee would be a productive use of his time.
“I’m not going to get my way,” Peschong said. “I’m not holding it against them, they’re exercising majority rule. They have every right to.”
This story was originally published February 28, 2024 at 12:00 AM.
