California Higher Property Taxes on Commercial Real Estate (2012)
|Not on Ballot|
| This measure did not or |
will not appear on a ballot
Its sponsors, however, did not submit any signatures to election officials by the deadline.
If the initiative had qualified for the ballot and been approved by the state's voters, it would have:
- Changed California law to require that commercial property be assessed at fair market value at least once every three years
- This change would not have applied to residential or agricultural property.
- Any increased revenue received by the state would have been subject to the provisions of 1988's Proposition 98.
- Doubled the current homeowners' tax exemption and renters' credit.
- Excluded from taxation the first $1 million in tangible personal property
Margaret R. Prinzing, who called the measure the "Protect Homeowners and Close Corporate Tax Loopholes Act," submitted a letter requesting a ballot title on November 28, 2011.
Text of measure
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
- "Changes existing law to require that commercial property be assessed at fair market value at least once every three years. Excludes residential and agricultural property. Increased revenue is subject to Proposition 98, governing education funding. Doubles homeowners' tax exemption and renters' credit. Excludes from taxation the first $1 million in tangible personal property."
Summary of estimated fiscal impact:
(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)
- "Annual state revenue increase of about $4 billion from higher property tax assessments on commercial and industrial property. New revenues used in part to increase state funding for schools and community colleges ($2 billion) and provide tax relief to homeowners and businesses ($1 billion). Annual local government revenue increase of about $450 million from higher property tax assessments on commercial and industrial property."
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- Margaret R. Prinzing submitted a letter requesting a ballot title on November 28, 2011.
- The ballot title and ballot summary were issued by the Attorney General of California's office on January 23, 2012.
- Sponsors of #11-0087 had until June 21, 2012 to collect 807,615 signatures to qualify the proposed initiative for the ballot.
- No signatures were filed by the filing deadline.
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |