We could have gone down the path of better education, arts and health in our schools. I recall Howard Jarvis telling a child that Prop. 13 would not hurt the student’s education.

Today we know that 1978 was a turning point. We found that schools became only shells of what they had been and Jarvis’ vision of a better education only involved a voucher system, which never took hold.

Today I am afraid that we will not only hurt California’s schools further, but that we will also lose the future educators who are thinking of investing years of a college education to become a teacher.

Respect for education, a vision for our children and society involve a strong education. We are being told that the mantra of “No new taxes.� Will carry our country forward. It has not and will hurt generations of Americans while we still fight the idea that the only good future of education is by teaching the elite by giving vouchers to those who can already afford a private education.

I will be wearing pink on Friday and I will be at the rally.

Prop 13 took away one of the two only stable tax bases the state had. The other damaging act was the reduction in the Vehicle License Fee which was stable at 2% of the vehicles value for fifty years until Republican Pete Wilson reduced it during the tech boom of the 1990s. This switched the burden of revenue generation to the Income and other taxes that fluctuate wildly depending on the economy. Today the VLF is at .65% of the cars value. When the bubble burst and Davis tried to return the VLF to what it had been for FIFTY YEARS he was recalled by people who drive BMWS and Mercedes but didn't want to pay for that luxury. I am currently about to buy a BMW and would be glad to pay a 2% VLF.

CA had surpluses after Prop 13 was enacted. It seems the problem in CA, whether you support or oppose taxes, is that the voters want to keep spending but refuse to pay the bills.

Case in point: I just passed the work being done along the 118 Frwy. A $300/hr plus trenching machine was digging a ditch that I could have dug in an hour or two. Any wonder that each year CalTrans has over $10B in highway maintenance(not new construction) in it's budget? Yet voters keep approving more freeways, more improvements, more state parks, more infrastructure, more services. Yet when the bill comes those same voters whine that it all costs too much so they either borrow more money to pay for all these illusory things or cut their investment in those things that pay dividends.

Education is one of those "investments" that pays great dividends and made CA a world class place to do business in the past. But somewhere along the line the Craven & the Shortsighted grabbed the dialogue and convinced voters to call it "spending". Once that happened voters allowed the C&S to start cutting our investment in education until we end up with an electorate that can't figure out that 29.9% interest costs a hell of a lot more than the 10% sales price savings of that flat screen TV.

The solution to CA's budget mess is to tighten the belt and pay off the bills...just like every CA family needs to do. Go aheda and reduce the state's spending and taxes in the future but get those debts paid now.

The problem is that California only gets back 80 cents for every dollar we send Washington D.C. That is because under Bush Democratic states like California were forced to give welfare to failing Republican states likes Mississippi and Utah.

I think it's .78 per 1.00 sent to DC but that's not a partisan policy and its been happening for decades. The bottom line is that states like CA, NY, MA, NJ, PA and others have been subsidizing the rest of the country in terms of hundreds of billions of $$$ each year.

With the economy in such a mess this continuing welfare windfall for the lesser states is draining needed resources that the more productive states should be putting back into their own economies, at least over the short term. After all, it's these productive states that drive the Nation's economy and to deprive these engines of the capital needed to push us out of this mess is counter productive.

Maybe Sacramento can get together on this one issue: to make every state live within its means until we start to see meaningful recovery.

A Beamer, eh, Leshon? Nice. You limousine liberals crack me up.

Love to lecture everyone about we need to pay more taxes and decry the drivers of BMW's & Mercedes's for recalling Gray Davis as you get in line for a Beamer.

What a hypocrite!

Why is it hypocritical for someone who wants to drive a Beemer to also be willing to pay more taxes for that privilege? I don't get it. He sounds like a paragon of responsibility to me.

Seems to me its the Beemer owners who defer the cost of their own tax to their children who are the hypocrites. Or am I missing something?

On the one hand, he is criticizing people who own luxury cars and then, in the same breath, proclaims himself a luxury car owner to be. Do the math.

I did the math. He isn't a hypocrite at all. He was critical of people like him that drive nice cars but didn't want to pay the tax. Not once did he say anything was wrong with driving a nice car.

You don't need to do the math, you need a dictionary.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say about education:

"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."

"The boys of the rising generation are to be the men of the next, and the sole guardians of the principles we deliver over to them."

"If the condition of man is to be progressively ameliorated, as we fondly hope and believe, education is to be the chief instrument in effecting it."

I will overcome my strong dislike for the color pink and wear it proudly on Friday. Is there any chance that President Obama will wear pink on Friday? After all, his major education announcement today is not going to mean a thing unless it is funded by the states like California.

Here are statistics from the nations you site as examples of "well-paid" teachers and longer school schedules.

Country/Region Monthly Gross Yearly (12 month year)
US Avg 5,266 63,192 **
Ventura Unf 4,167 - 5,000 50,000 - 60,000 per Marie Lakin

Ventura Unf 5,322 63,863 *
Simi Valley 5,411 64,940 *
Japan 3,968 47,616 **
Korea 1,595 19,140 **
France 2,401 28,812 **

* http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
** http://www.worldsalaries.org/teacher.shtml

I'm sure all our Ventura county teachers would love to teach in Korea for $1600/ month or Japan, a country that is even more expensive to live in than L.A. or SF at $4,000 / month
But you're right, in Europe they go to school 6 days a week, and students have to pass exams to be promoted to the next grade starting in 6th (at least in Greece)

I hate teachers getting pink slips, but they're not "real" pink slips yet - the 200 temp employees that the company I work stopped contracting (out of a 500 person work force) - they got "real" pink slips.

Every year it seems that districts hand out warnings of impending doom and mass layoffs, yet end up giving pay raises instead when money is somehow "found". I hate this cat and mouse game every year - do you think it might actually happen this year?

Will teachers take a "real" pay-cut instead of a decrease in their increase in order to keep their jobs?

Mind you, I don't want a single teacher let go from any district. I have many friends that teach and still have a kid in HS.

Oh and as for prop 13 Mr. Dennis - how do you explain away the fact that California state revenues have increased at least in proportion to inflation and population increases (some studies say it has exceeded inflation and population) and yet you decry that the state has no money. Where did all that money go?

Good at Math, Bad at Reading:

Leshon said, "When the bubble burst and Davis tried to return the VLF to what it had been for FIFTY YEARS he was recalled by people who drive BMWS and Mercedes but didn't want to pay for that luxury."

The implication being that rich people recalled Davis because they felt they were being overtaxed, which, of course, they were (as were all Californians).

KoeJos,

I explain things to people who place their real name behind their statements and expertise.

As a political science allumni I would like too add also that it is my most greatest honor to be here talking to you live as well from my newly built capacana space 12 desktop
Congrats to the State for messing up the only thing that makes us American

KoeJoes,

When was the last time you saw teachers in your district get a raise?

Do you think teachers are overpaid?

Denis,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.

As a teacher I appreciate your support for the profession too.

As far as proposition 13 goes would you support lowering many other taxes if property taxes were raised?

Brain,
Thank you for your work. I believe in pay as you go. Taxes are the responsibility of the citizens to take control of our government. Taxes should meet the needs of the demands we place on our representatives without long-term debt. Taxes should be spent in a manner as to allow our country to progress within our means.

I believe that we as a country have replaced the argument to keep as much of our own money as possible for the political gain of the Republican Party ahead of our needs as a nation. Small government sounds good, but we as a nation never discussed the proposal of hitting social services, securities, infrastructure and education as evils that were to be decreased in obtaining that smaller government.

To answer your good question: I believe that taxes should be balanced. Property owners should be able to afford their share of responsible spending more than the family trying to put food on the table. Some taxes should be decreased to allow for a stable middle class and a shrinking lower class.

Prop 13 should be repealed and replaced with restrictions that will prevent the property tax increases that prompted the "tax revolt" of 1978.

I can only speak for myself, and you may already know that I don’t try to impress others claiming to be an expert. With that said, I believe that we have taken from the middle class to inflate the gross profit to the elite upper class. Taxes should allow for a stable society along with the demands we place on our government.

Read for Comprehension

What I was getting at was that a Republican Governor behaved in a financially irresponsible manner, nothing new, by lowering a fee that was fair and in place for fifty years and when the ramifications of his act came home to roost the wealthy whined about not wanting to pay their fair share to maintain the infrastructure.

Brian D - Avg teacher salaries in Simi Valley have increased year over year Sept 2003 - 2004 1%, 2004-2005 1%, 2005-2006 1%, 2006-2007 6.2%, 2007-2008 4.7%
from $57282 in 2003-04 to $64940 in 2007-08. (click the link)

I don't think anyone that makes a regular salary is over-paid or under-paid. The market decides what you're worth for the most part. That's why ditch diggers make less than brain surgeons.

I do believe that the boards of directors of publicly traded company's that are losing money should be sued by their share-holders for some of the salaries and perks given to the company officers.

Brian L - The "governator" has not been good for Kalifornia. Do you think we would have been in less of a mess if Cruz had won the recall election?

You choose to ignore the increasing state revenues year-over-year in at least parity to increases in population and inflation even with the reduction in the VLF.

Should we tax more of "the rich" out of the state so they can pay their lower or "no" taxes to another state?

Do you believe Steve Jobs or Steve Balmer are overpaid? Do you think the CEO of Exxon is overpaid?

By the way Brian - what do you think about the cheating that Jan Britz did a few years back that cost the district $millions?

Can someone tell me why this was named Pink Friday? Sounds like a breast cancer rally.

If Cruz Bustamante had won we probably would have not gone on a borrowing spree the way Arnold has.

If the VLF had been left at the same rate it was for fifty years we would have more revenues and would not have had to raise other taxes that disproportionately affect the poor.

It's Pink Friday because of the Pink Slips/RIF notices the teachers are getting on Friday.

my mother is an elementary teacher in the alvord district and she has only been working there 4 or 5 years so she is in danger of losing her job. The horrible part about it is that she's already struggling because of the increase in her taxes. And its not like i can do anything about it. my sisters help her and my brothers do too, but im guessing its not enough. i honestly dont understand how it helps the economy, being how bad that it already is, to take jobs from even more people to help the ones who already didnt have jobs. if you take jobs from the people that ARE paying the taxes to help those who are losing homes, then how is that ACTUALLY helping. it is truly idiotic.

my mother is an elementary teacher in the alvord district and she has only been working there 4 or 5 years so she is in danger of losing her job. The horrible part about it is that she's already struggling because of the increase in her taxes. And its not like i can do anything about it. my sisters help her and my brothers do too, but im guessing its not enough. i honestly dont understand how it helps the economy, being how bad that it already is, to take jobs from even more people to help the ones who already didnt have jobs. if you take jobs from the people that ARE paying the taxes to help those who are losing homes, then how is that ACTUALLY helping. it is truly idiotic.

my mother is an elementary teacher in the alvord district and she has only been working there 4 or 5 years so she is in danger of losing her job. The horrible part about it is that she's already struggling because of the increase in her taxes. And its not like i can do anything about it. my sisters help her and my brothers do too, but im guessing its not enough. i honestly dont understand how it helps the economy, being how bad that it already is, to take jobs from even more people to help the ones who already didnt have jobs. if you take jobs from the people that ARE paying the taxes to help those who are losing homes, then how is that ACTUALLY helping. it is truly idiotic.

Yeah right, Leshon. Why is that? Because Bustamante is a Democrat? Makes no sense and lacks context.

Maybe instead of buying a Beemer you could donate the down payment to your favorite local charity to help those that will really be hurting now - thanks to the Democratic-controlled Legislature's taxing bonanza.

Read for Comprehension

No it is not because he is a Democrat. It is because Arnold borrowed money to pay the bills the same way Bush did and he wants to borrow from the Lottery now. I don't think Cruz would have done the same. Republican or Democrat borrowing to pay the bills is putting the cost on the children of this State and Nation and it is wrong.
I donate to many charities regularly. One of my favorites is Food Share who gets something from me and my wife every month. Bonnie Wiegel and her group are doing great work. The food banks in this county are under a lot of stress right now due to the current economy. Perhaps you might want to make a donation yourself. They prefer cash instead of the expired cans of food. That way they can get more food for the money to feed more people a nutritious diet.

Don't blame the Democrats for current economy it doesn't turn on a dime. It took years of mismanagement to achieve the economic state we are in. This is the handy work of Bush and the Republican policies of deregulation and greed.

Brian,

Isn't it fun to see a conservative engage in class warfare type talk?

Ooh, sounds like you're hedging a little there, Leshon. It doesn't sound like you're as cocky as all the awestruck lemmings that voted for Obama back in November when he was going to change the world with a rhetorical thrust and a wave of his mighty hand.

You're also being very speculative on what Bustamante would or wouldn't have done. Most likely, he would have done whatever it took to balance an out-of-control deficit budget that was caused by years of overspending and mismanagement by Democrats.

Read for Comprehension

I am not hedging. I prefer facts to being cocky, which really is more of a Republican trait. The budget busting comes from the removal of a steady tax base. Prop 13 and the lowering of the VLF caused a lot of the problems. The initiative process forces spending regardless of the economic situation and can not be adjusted and in the case of prop 13 took away an important tax base. Since he Cruz was not elected we can only guess how he would have acted but we know that Arnold borrowed like mad just like Bush and he wants to continue, a simple fact.

Leshon,

My guess is Bustamante would have raised taxes through the roof to deal with the budget crisis. That is a typical Democratic response and that too, my friend, is a simple fact.

I don't understand how you can keep blaming Prop. 13 for all the problems in the world though (another typical Democratic, knee-jerk response).

Prop. 13 has been in place since 1978. We have had over 30 years to deal with its effects. It passed overwhelmingly back then and it will stay on the books forever, let's face it. But, Democrats and liberals just don't seem to get it. People are tired of being taxed to death.

I don't agree with the endless borrowing by Arnold either. That's mortgaging our kids' future and it stinks.

You decry Republicans like Arnold and Bush for borrowing and deficit-spending, yet you give Obama a free pass for the pork-laden,
"economic stimulus" plan. The only thing that plan stimulates are those dependent on government to solve all their problems.

BL - how do you explain that state revenues have increased in at least, if not more than, inflation and population growth; yet the state continues to spend more than it receives?

KoeJoes,

Sorry I didn't answer your question earlier. I don't teach at the school site and I don't have any direct knowledge of what happened. Do you have a link to an article?

koejos

I have a chart in front of me prepared by Professor Scott Frisch of CSUCI. It's date rang is from 1985 to the present. Revenues in the state were 22 billion in 85 rising to 41 billion in 86. The dropped back to around 20 billion in 87 and remained flat until 95 when they started to rise peaking at 120 billion in 2000. They dropped back down to around 38 billion in 2002. Began to climb again to around 121 billion in 2007 and are now in free fall with projected revenues of 45 billion for this year.

I am aware that something had to be done about the rise in property taxes in the late 70s, many of my senior neighbors where I grew up were having to sell their homes. But budget by ballot box with no way to make adjustments in the future is not a smart way to do it.

The VLF was the same for Fifty years at 2% and now is at .65%.

These two tax bases were the only stable ones we had and with them gone the states revenues fluctuate wildly as proven by the numbers above.

Class Warfare is on the money.

Class Warfare is waged by Republicans daily and is the rallying cry they use to convince poor people to vote against their own best interests.

Class Warfare is on the money.

Class Warfare is waged by Republicans daily and is the rallying cry they use to convince poor people to vote against their own best interests.

koejos

I Definitely that Exxon CEO Lee Raymond was overpaid, especially his $400 million dollar parachute, while he was price gouging American motorists. Steve Jobs no, Steve Balmer not sure but Microsoft products are pretty dodgy.

Read for Comprehension

I don't think the stimulus package is loaded with pork. The whole idea is for the government to spend money to create some jobs which it will do much more than just tax cuts for the wealthy.

Now if you are talking about the Omnibus bill which is has been in the works since last October there is a lot of projects in it that could be pork or not depending on who you are and where you live. Forty percent of the earmarks come from Republicans which is proportionate to their numbers in the Senate and above their numbers in the house. Three of the top five earmarking senators are Republicans.

Republican Sen. Thad Cochran from Mississippi put in $470 million in earmarks Republican Roger Wicker put in $390 million and DC Madame Republican David Vitter of Louisiana came in fifth. Of the top 10, six are Republicans.

Our own Elton Gallegly made the hypocrisy list by putting in $14 million in earmarks for various projects and then voted against it.This was political grandstanding as he knew the bill would pass so voted against to remain a hero to his party. He also voted against the stimulus package twice and then tried to take credit for the $8 million it will bring the county.

Obama said that this bill was already in progress and needed to get done. Next time around he won't let this happen. If i does I will stand with you and complain.

I guess the bottom line for a free market purist like me is I don't believe the government should be in the bail-out business in the first place.

A true free market system is based on businesses succeeding or failing on their own merits. Government interference should be at an absolute minimum. When businesses fail they should be allowed to go bankrupt. New businesses will come in behind and fulfill the demand from consumers. This is the way it used to work before the advent of corporate socialism in America.

I don't think the government should be bailing out the banks, the automakers, and, especially, companies like AIG.

Read for Comprehension

In better times I would agree with you about letting these companies either. I have been involved with the auto industry for more than two decades and have interviewed the heads of the Big Three automakers many times. These are some of the most arrogant, out of touch egotistical clowns on the planet.

If the Big three had managed to hold on to just a few more percent of market share they may have been able to ride this out without us paying for their stupidity. But there are just too man jobs at stake and many other manufacturers rely on the same part suppliers who have not blown it will be brought down.

There is no defense for the banks or AIG. Again, just too many jobs that would go down which would make this a full blown depression.

If this was like the recession of the early nineties I would say let them die and the two of us could stand side by side and shovel the dirt in on top of them.

But again, just too many jobs at this time.

Brian Leshon,
I’am confused, you claim that prop 13 removed a stable tax base from the state. But for as long as I have owned my house I have received a tax bill every year. Furthermore my tax bill has increased every year. Prop 13 has stabilized property taxes so that not only am I able to project my tax liability for years into the future but the state too can project property tax revenues into the future. Prop 13 is fair because my taxes are based on the price that I paid for my house, not on the price that some idiot with a sub prime loan was willing to pay for a house down the street.
Imagine how much worse the current budget mess would be if the state had been able to expand spending based real estate values that have now collapsed.

JimmyM

Prop 13 cut property taxes by an average of 57%. Property taxes are a more stable form of tax revenue than income taxes because incomes tend to vary. This meant that the State must get more of its revenue from other taxes that can vary widely and thus the revenue of the state became highly variable from year to year. This is not all that helpful from a budgeting perspective.

I don't understand why you think it is fair to pay your property tax based on what you paid for your house many years ago when the value has gone up, most likely a lot.

If we have to rely on sales tax we are increasing the cost of our system on those who can least afford it and in many cases use less services.

I own property, so I'm not unbiased in this matter but property tax is a relic of the ancient days, when a farmer could hide his goats, a merchant could melt down his silver and a manufacturer could have his goods hauled across the county line just before the assessor arrived. With such shifty tax avoidance run rampant it was only natural for the King to tax the only thing "nailed" to the ground: real estate.

Now that the mechanisms are available to collect taxes from a variety of areas, why should only the homeowner get taxed in such an oppressive fashion. Why shouldn't the community's tax responsibility be spread more equitably?

Note that since Prop 13 was implemented CA has had plenty of surpluses. We have a fiscal mess on our hands but it wasn't caused by a lack of property tax revenues. It was caused by voters wanting to have it all and keep their money, too.

Brian Leshon
Several people took out subprime loans that they could never hope to pay back. Then they used the proceeds from those loans to drive up the price homes in my neighborhood to a level far above their true value. So tell me, why should my taxes be based upon their incompetence?

I'm in agreement with gs once again - shocker of shockers!

Even after prop 13, revenues to the state have never gone down, not once - maybe they will in 2008 or 2009 - those numbers aren't in yet.

I agree with JimmyM - property tax revenues continued to be stable after prop 13, in fact, I would say they were more calculatable then before prop 13.

Brian Leshon and the party he represents doesn't believe people should get to keep their own property or money.

BL conveniently forgets the reason that prop 13 passed even though there was a strong anti-prop 13 ad barrage - people were being forced to sell their homes because they couldn't afford the continually increasing property tax rate.

They're on record supporting and in many cases implementing, in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, more and more taxes on everything, including increases in "sin" taxes, income tax surcharges, repeal of prop 13, etc.

He blames the governator and republicans for our situation even though the democrats have been in power in both the assembly and senate. But conveniently forgets the propositions that were defeated at the beginning of Arnold's term that might have mitigated much of our current crisis.

The props didn't pass mainly due to a barrage of union ads against them.

gs - if BL get's his way, you won't be owning your property in the future and neither will I.

JimmyM: excellent point!

Dont worry, KoeJos, there are still plenty of issues remaining that we wont agree on.

As for the Dems supporting whatever it is you think they're supporting. It's more likely that the Dems are responding to what the the people of CA demand. Its the voters who demand more parks, more facilities, low tuition for out-of-state students, health care for undocumented aliens, wider freeways, longer commutes, more utilities, more suburbs, a high speed train to Las Vegas & Sacramento, etc. I'm not judging the voters but I am laying the blame where it deserves to be: on the heads of the voters. Most times the voters are actually right in what they ask for and the Dems stand accused of being too quick to cater to their demands.

But increasingly the voters are also being bamboozled by unscrupulous politicians who are quick to confuse the issues and fast on the draw when it comes to lying to voters And one party's become masterful at bamboozling the voters: the GOP.

The crap that GOP leaders pulled on the car tax and electric rates in an effort to get Davis bounced & Schwarzenoggin into office was criminal and instantly placed CA in the red for decades to come.

And since then, the GOP's done NOTHING to raise revenues OR cut spending. Their two-fold solution is to do nothing and borrow more money from Wall Street(The GOP's last proposal would have added $2.5B in debt service payments to CA's budget problems).

JimmyM,

Aren't your taxes figured on the purchase price of your home, not the purchase price of houses that sold later?

GS,

Property taxes are paid for by property owners and others indirectly. Many renters for example end up paying higher rents based on the total cost paid by property owners. If taxes are too high it discourages people from building more rental units which diminishes supply and also raises prices.

Brian, I see you remember your econ 101.

...the point being that commercial property owners avoid the tax completely by passing it on to other consumers while homeowners...the most valuable asset in most communities...ends up footing an unequal burden?

How about we stop the double dipping by commercial property owners who both pass on the cost of taxes AND deduct them from their income taxes? I wonder how much money the state could raise under such a scenario.

Or maybe better yet, allow renters to deduct from their income taxes their portion of a property's taxes...thus putting Hundreds of $$$ into their pockets every year.

GS,

You want tax cuts? How would you offset them? Seems like it is the same game. raise taxes somewhere to cut them somewhere else.

I'm not advocating tax cuts...only maintaining the status quo on property taxes rather than raise revenue off the backs of JUST property owners.

GS,

If you include property owners and those that will indirectly pay the taxes eventually
(renters) then it isn't just but rather most of us. Do you want to alter Proposition 13 and how it treats commercial versus homeowner property? How would you classify an apartment complex that the owner lives in and manages?

Bubba,

I worked with Junior Achievement for years when I taught economics.

I also worked with an education group that John Stossel was putting together. I was going to be a consultant to bring challenging ideas to high school students before the company shifted direction and John Stossel was no longer involved. The group is now largely defunct but my students won awards for their essays on comparative economics. John Stossel actually bought us a class set of his books for a journalism class I taught. I used it with the book Fast Food Nation to teach advocacy journalism from two different viewpoints.

Did you see the interview with Tom Campbell? was surprised you didn't comment more on it. He studied under Milton Friedman, a man that opened up new ideas on how to help poor people. Many conservatives just want to shut down a debate by saying it isn't the proper function of government or that there will be unintended consequences, whereas Milton Friedman at his best was trying to find ways of getting to the same goals by using free market techniques.

Their worldview is best summed up today I feel in the magazine Reason.

Both of you:

Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog.

Brian, I was involved with Junior Achievement many years ago both as a student and later as a volunteer. It is a great organization.

I did not see the interview with Tom Campbell. Where can I find it? There are many different conservative perspectives on how best to serve the poor, but I do believe that it is in the best interests of our society to find ways to assist those in need. I do believe that there are often unintended consequences created through government programs, but that does not mean that all government programs for the needy have bad outcomes. But we should be able to have an honest discussion about which programs are successful and which ones are not, and the willingness to make changes, even radical changes, to make sure that programs are as effective as possible. Some things are best done by government, other things by private industry, and still others by non-profits and charities. Sometimes it involves all of the above. But success relies on understanding the advantages and limits of each, and the willingness to make changes when something doesn't work.

Here it is for you:

http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/dennert/archives/2009/02/live-interview.html#comments

Brian, I would alter Prop 13 to stop the double-dipping by commercial property owners or by giving renters the benefit of the property tax deduction AND I'd stop the use of the shell company loophole that allows transfers of properties while avoiding higher taxes.