This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The Tribune's Aug. 29 editorial "No on Prop. 13" mounted a largely correct argument against this type of taxpayer rebellion. Certainly, this measure in California had some unpleasant consequences. What the editorial did not report was that it could have been avoided!
I was a homeowner in San Jose during the Jarvis-Gann (Prop. 13) initiative battle. Housing inflation was out of control. Property taxes, as a consequence of reassessed valuations, skyrocketed. Low-cost rental housing disappeared as landlords raised rents to cover their tax bill. A retired (fixed income) family in San Diego living in a house purchased in the '50s for $14,500 were taxed at the market value of $125,000. The answer they got when they asked about tax relief was, "If you can't afford to live here, move."
That Prop. 13 passed was due, in my view, to the unbridled lust for additional tax revenue which was really not needed. California at that time had the sixth largest economy, trailing the gross national product of only five other nations. So I direct this letter not to the taxpayers of Utah but to our elected office holders: Correct the inequities that escalating property values impose, particularly on the less-affluent members of our community, and you can avoid a Utah "Prop. 13."
John A. Davison
Sandy