West Hollywood might get its light rail way earlier than expected

This may sound interesting to some: West Hollywood might get its light rail way earlier than expected.

Now let us see if that Measure M will be approved...

Light rail extension to West Hollywood might happen much sooner than planned
Construction could start as early as 2020
By Jeff Wattenhofer
September 20, 2016
http://la.curbed.com/2016/9/20/12990534/west-hollywood-public-transit-crenshaw-line-extension-

Yea, another 1/2 cent increase in LA County's sales tax bringing it up to 10%!

We still have the 1/2 cent increase from Measure R, passed in 2008 and set to run until 2038. In 2012 Measure J failed to extend R another 30 years to the year 2069.

For me, I'm getting tired of another 1/2 cent increase here and there.

"The half-cent tax would double to one cent in 2039 to replace the revenue lost when Measure R, another half-cent sales tax, expires. The one-cent tax would then continue indefinitely." (My emphasis).

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-metro-sales-tax-measure-20160802-snap-story.html

Well, the problem is that Prop 13 (of 1978) capped property taxes, and made it practically impossible to raise income taxes at the state level,.... so everyone is relying on sales taxes instead.

Repeal Prop 13, you can fund this stuff in a more sensible way. (Prop 13 is a piece of crap law and incredibly terrible public policy for dozens of reasons. Arguably it's never been valid law, but apparently nobody's sued over the fact that it was a "constitutional revision" which can't be passed by initiative rather than an "amendment".)

For reference, this refers to a proposed northern extension of the now-under construction Crenshaw Line.

neroden said:

Prop 13 is a piece of crap law and incredibly terrible public policy for dozens of reasons.

Click to expand...

Yep. Agree completely.

neroden said:

Well, the problem is that Prop 13 (of 1978) capped property taxes, and made it practically impossible to raise income taxes at the state level,.... so everyone is relying on sales taxes instead.Repeal Prop 13, you can fund this stuff in a more sensible way. (Prop 13 is a piece of crap law and incredibly terrible public policy for dozens of reasons. Arguably it's never been valid law, but apparently nobody's sued over the fact that it was a "constitutional revision" which can't be passed by initiative rather than an "amendment".)

Click to expand...

I live in LA and I recall it going all the way to the Supreme Court and the ruling was basically 'Taxes are not fair' and nothing changed because of it.

shelzp said:

neroden said:

Well, the problem is that Prop 13 (of 1978) capped property taxes, and made it practically impossible to raise income taxes at the state level,.... so everyone is relying on sales taxes instead.Repeal Prop 13, you can fund this stuff in a more sensible way. (Prop 13 is a piece of crap law and incredibly terrible public policy for dozens of reasons. Arguably it's never been valid law, but apparently nobody's sued over the fact that it was a "constitutional revision" which can't be passed by initiative rather than an "amendment".)

Click to expand...

I live in LA and I recall it going all the way to the Supreme Court and the ruling was basically 'Taxes are not fair' and nothing changed because of it.

Click to expand...

I've looked it up and I couldn't find a case (I may have missed it) over the specific question of whether Prop 13 constituted a constitutional "revision" under California's arcane Constitutional doctrines. This is a state constitutional question for the state Supreme Court. The issue there is not actually the property tax cap but the purported requirement of 2/3 votes in the legislature to raise *any* taxes, which is self-evidently not a mere amendment but a wholesale revision in California's entire constitutional structure. As such it was not legal to pass it by initiative, and the 2/3 requirement has never been valid law. But I don't think anyone challenged it on those grounds.

Prop 13 was vigorously challenged in state and federal courts. I was around back then too, working as a journalist and covering it as it played out over several years. Most of the challenges went nowhere. I don't recall if the specific question of whether it was a revision or an amendment ever came up. I assume it did, but it wouldn't have gone anywhere. It had a major impact on how California is governed, but it was a relatively small and targeted change to the constitution. Small changes can have huge effects, but that doesn't mean it's a revision, which would be a major change affecting the entire document and the structure of California government.

Tim Draper's proposed Six Californias initiative (to break the state up into six new states) would have almost certainly been reckoned a revision - that's the kind of change that rises to the level of a revision. Requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes isn't a major change -- there are other measures that require two-thirds votes (urgency bills and veto overrides are just two examples) and shifting tax raises from a simple majority to two-thirds is a minor change in that context.

Where Prop 13 did arguably violate constitutional requirements for initiatives is where it makes two changes – property tax limits and a two-thirds vote for tax hikes. Initiatives are supposed to be limited to a single issue, and that was the basis for the most serious challenges to Prop 13. In the end, the California supreme court ruled that Prop 13 met that requirement, but it was a contentious road getting there.

There's no question any longer that Prop 13 was a valid initiative.

There is, though, an ongoing discussion in California as to whether Prop 13 should be changed, along with a whole range of other things. The state's finances and taxation system are broke and baroque. One of the biggest problems is paying for infrastructure. But simply lifting the one percent property tax limit and/or allowing taxes to be raised on a majority vote of the legislature won't do it.

IIRC the big issue with Prop. 13 over the years isn't so much the bar on rate increases as it is the inflation-related adjustment cap which has basically created a "rent control" situation. However, as noted quite a few of the problems with CA's situation don't have as much to do with a stray bad tax issue as they do with a whole bunch of other problems (pension costs and partisan logjams ranking high on the list).

The other issue with prop 13, is that corporations DO NOT buy and sell properties. They "merge" which exempts them from the reset. Guess how many commercial properties actually are bought and sold in this state.

Essentially, just like every ballot measure in this state, it backfires big time and later on, we find out that the rich carved out exemptions for themselves.

As some Rich Wannabe Politician said just the other night when called out for not paying taxes: "It means I'm Smart! "

I'm Shocked! Shocked! that the wealthy's Puppets, aka Politicians,carve out tax loopholes for their puppetmasters!