Happy Birthday, Prop. 13



Printer-friendly versionPrint

Proposition 13, the California property tax–cap initiative that unleashed an era of fervent antitax sentiment and activism across the US, is 34 years old today. The necessary two-thirds of the voters who turned out passed the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation on June 6, 1978. Stable funding for public services, including libraries, hasn’t been the same since.

It wasn’t that Californians had tired of government services, explains Cody White in his award-winning essay “Rising from the Ashes: The Impact of Proposition 13 on Public Libraries in California” (Libraries & the Cultural Record, vol. 46, no. 4, p. 347–359). It was that Prop. 13 progenitor Howard Jarvis had hit on a winning strategy: decoupling the burden of paying taxes from the benefits taxpayers receive for contributing to the public welfare. After a series of antitax-reform defeats in which Jarvis called “to end payments for such programs as Social Security, Medicare, parks, garbage collecting, and libraries,” White writes, Jarvis hit on utilizing instead “anecdotal stories of the ‘hardship’ caused by tax increases” and shedding the use of hard data to make his point. In one poignant story that he often repeated, Jarvis told of “the trauma of high taxes on older people,” recounting that he saw “one woman have a heart attack in front of me back in 1962 right in the assessor’s office.” White notes that “even though the age of the deceased woman varied as Jarvis repeatedly told this story, the feelings it generated resonated with the public.”

Of course, for every action there’s a reaction. In this case, Prop. 13 propelled library advocacy into librarianship’s basic toolkit; the profession learned on the front lines how to sway constituencies with the facts—distilled from thousands of patrons’ stories.

Knowledge is power, after all. It’s a matter of how one wields it. The fact that there’s still a front line from which to fight speaks to that.

Comments

More of the same

Well, I guess Prop. 13 has the same divisive effect as always, and the reactions here seem particularly knee-jerked, enough so that people are agreeing/disagreeing with Cody White based solely on their opinions of Prop. 13. While I am pretty sure I can infer White’s opinion of Prop. 13 from his article, it strikes me that he has written an articulate piece on two important questions: how did Prop. 13 effect the funding of public libraries? And, what role did the public’s opinion of public libraries influence their consideration of anti-tax efforts? It seems to me that those are interesting and maybe for California librarians even important questions to try to answer, and I commend White for posing them, and giving us the first provisional answers.

Furthermore, for those who seem to have some ire for White and Goldberg for even raising the issue, White seems to anticipate the arguments: “anecdotal stories of the hardship caused by tax increases and shedding the use of hard data” and the decoupling of the consideration of paying taxes and receiving public benefits.

Sad

I agree with the above comment that ALA is so liberal that one could damage their career by disagreeing with them publicly. That is why I think it’s such a joke when ALA publishes all these articles regarding censorship then proceeds to only show one sided views in their columns.

And regarding public sector unions. They shouldn’t exist period. No one who elects their “bosses” should be allowed to collectively bargain. Because their “bosses” are beholden to them. By their very nature public sector services/unions cannot go “out of business” if they demand too much. Their excesses are eventually passed on to tax payers as increased burdens for services that are needed (firemen, policemen). By threatening to strike they can hold cities or people’s children hostage till demands are met (teachers unions).

Even FDR doubted whether public sector employees should be allowed to unionize.

The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt wrote in 1937. “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government.”

wrong hill to fight on

Unbelievable that that a senior editor from a professional journal would espouse this backward view. Keep wishing for the good old days, back when the public had no say in the budgets of municipal entities. Next you will be bemoaning union losses in the public sector, and the reduction of public sector pensions. Librarians need to be open minded to the “new normal” ( long periods of slow growth due to global balance sheet deficits). Once that revelation is achieved we can begin advocating for libraries in a a more reasonable fashion. To continue to tow the old line will only marginalize us even more in the eyes of those who pay for our services.

Wrong hill to fight on

Unbelievable that someone would comment thusly and not have the basic intergrity to sign it. Maybe anonymous comments are the stuff of the “new normal”.

practical realities

As I and other posters have stated in the past - to espouse a view that is divergent from the liberal mass is a quick path to career destruction. This is of of course very disappointing coming from an organization that promises intellectual freedom and that libraries should present information and views from all points of view. until things change or until I am retired - I will continue to post as anon.

I lived in California during

I lived in California during the Prop 13 vote. What you and Cody White fail to note is that at the time of Prop 13, local governments in California were raising property taxes constantly and revaluing people’s homes annually in some communities - to values that no one could have actually gotten for their houses. What resonated with California voters was that we looked at our tax bills and saw that we were paying more in taxes than our mortgage payments and home insurance combined. People were literally losing their homes because their property taxes were so high they couldn’t keep up the payments. 34 years ago I was paying over $400 a month in property taxes on a modest 3-bedroom tract house. Things were out of control and people had to step in because the politicians wouldn’t. Oh, and as for library services - my local librarian who was paid with that $400 a month tax bill refused to check a book out to my daughter for her science fair project “because some other person might need it and it was the only one in the system”. I will never forget that woman. I wrote down the ISBN, bought the book from the publisher, and voted for Prop 13, because who needs to pay that much for that kind of service? And I later got an MLS and became a librarian because libraries deserve better than that.

Thank goodness for balanced

Thank goodness for balanced messures such as prop 13. If it were not for legislative measures such as prop 13 California would be in even more fiscal trouble. Libraries and all municipal entities need to re-prioritize to ensure they offer world class service while also not burdening local tax payers. This should be obvious based on the results of the Wisc recall results and the fact that state public pension funds are underfunded by tens of billions

Prop 13

Anonymous’ reply is a short sighted view of how society functions. The telling sentence in the article is Jarvis’ ability of “decoupling the burden of paying taxes from the benefits taxpayers receive for contributing to the public welfare.” In essence he managed to ask the question, “Why should I have to pay for public education if I’m an 80 years old man? I don’t go to school.”
Besiddes the fact that a healthy public education system helps everyone in the long run, (look at what’s happened to the once renown California Higher Ed system) when the fellow in his 80s needs services that he may not be able to pay for he too should have a safety net. Prop 13 has created a gridlock on creative funding and prudent fiscal policies because of its super majority mandate.
It benefits society to help each other in ways that may not be readily appearent or directly pocketable. It’s basically a choice one has to make, what kind of society do you want to live in, one that creates an environment of “what’s in it for me” or one that elevates the common good of all.

I went to school in

I went to school in California from 2nd grade through undergraduate school. The education system did not crash because of Prop 13. Its decline can be laid squarely at the doorstep of then Governor Reagan who cut funding to schools long before Prop 13 came along. After that, the educational system never recovered as every successive administration looted it a little more.

Same old Republicans bad

Same old Republicans bad Democrats good. Wake up and smell the coffee, it really is about liberty and how American’s have handed power over without a second though. Time to free your mind of the mental slavery of the two party system.

What's wrong with Prop 13?

As someone who grew up in NY and has lived in CA for the past 5 years, I’ve always thought Prop 13 was a good thing for CA residents. Why should property owners be forced to pay ever increasing taxes as property values skyrocket around them (as in NY)? It is my understanding the Prop 13 allows for modest annual tax increases. Why is this so crippling for local governments which still get the advantage of high property values on new sales? I’m a strong supporter of public services, but I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why Prop 13 is so bad for the community.

Individual liberty versus collectivism

one might take your ” what’s in it for me” reply and reform it into the idea of maximizing individual freedoms and liberties, best illustrated via Milton Friedman’s idea:

You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
You can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.
I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!
I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.

Most public servants I know,

Most public servants I know, myself included, are extremely conscious of how the public is affected by our work and how much $$ it costs to provide the services we provide. That’s why I went into public service in the first place, because it is fulfilling to me to help people on their road to improving their lives. I didn’t get into this to recklessly spend, spend, spend and not care about the benefits to my community. I, and most of the people I work with and have networked with over the years, continue to care deeply about both our beneficiary and our fiduciary impact on our communities. If you don’t, then please make it clear you are speaking for yourself. And while you’re at it, please read the book “Drive: the surprising truth about what motivates us,” by Daniel H. Pink.

It is really a question of

It is really a question of reasonable cost controls, and the idea that stakeholders have a say. Private sector growth is reined in by the ability of a company to maximize profit. When profits are low then expenses must be reduced, when profits expand then the spending takes off. Why then is so hard to see the “relative” value of things like Prop 13 or Tax caps? Once a municipal institution (staff, administration, board, patrons, and residents) knows the rules; like keeping increase in budgets/levies consistent with inflation, then it is up to that organization to make the correct decisions to live within their means. Once a balance is achieved between quality and value you might just find that the public you serve has a very high opinion of your institute. And yes I do speak for the profession - having over 28 years experience from page to administration.