By: Geena Varezzi

Geena Varezzi — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:05:22 +0000

Despite the 2/3 vote requirement, and an increase in revenues year after year, at least until cery recently, legislators still managed to create a fiscal mess — overspend and fail to plan for the future- what would have happened without the 2/3 requirement?
Where are the investments in our infrastructure, including transportation and water deleivery and storage systems, energy? I might agree with a change to a 60% aprroval, but never a simple majority to approve the budget.
As far as Prop 13, perhaps a small fixed increase should be considered-at least on commercial properties, but I would never want to see the limit be at the mercy of legislators who are more interested in passing favors to their special interest constituencies, as they look for teir next job, than protecting the state’s future.
What really needs to be changed is our Inititative process, both voters and legislators have completly misused the process, and have stupidly voted to earmark too much of the state budget for specific expenditures…

By: Leigh Hill

Leigh Hill — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:11:07 +0000

The two-thirds super-majority is only one of the things that needs to be changed in the laws promulgated by Prop. 13. Personally, I’d like the whole thing to disappear, except for seniors’ exemptions, but that would arouse too much opposition. But there is NO reason to keep the business property owners at a reduced rate on their property taxes. Getting rid of that would help raise quite a bit of revenue to pay off CA’s debts.

Comments on: Jean Ross on the State’s Cash Flow Crisis

By: Geena Varezzi

By: Leigh Hill