Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 13, Seismic Retrofitting (June 2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Election results)
m (Text replace - ""." to "."")
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
''This article is about a [[California 2010 ballot propositions|2010 ballot proposition]] in [[California]]. For other measures with a similar title, see [[Proposition 13]].<hr>
 
''This article is about a [[California 2010 ballot propositions|2010 ballot proposition]] in [[California]]. For other measures with a similar title, see [[Proposition 13]].<hr>
{{tnr}}'''California Proposition 13''', the '''Seismic Retrofitting Amendment''', is on the [[California 2010 ballot propositions|June 8, 2010 ballot]] in [[California]] as a {{lrcafull}}.
+
{{tnr}}'''California Proposition 13''', the '''Seismic Retrofitting Amendment''', was on the [[California 2010 ballot propositions#On the June 8 ballot|June 8, 2010 ballot]] in [[California]] as a {{lrcafull}}, where it was '''overwhelmingly approved.'''
  
Proposition 13, if approved by the state's voters, will prohibit tax assessors from re-evaluating new construction for [[property tax]] purposes when the point of the new construction is to seismically retrofit an existing building.  If successful, it will amend [[Article XIII A, California Constitution#Section 2|Section 2 of Article XIII A]] of the [[California Constitution]].
+
Proposition 13 prohibits tax assessors from re-evaluating new construction for [[property tax]] purposes when the point of the new construction is to seismically retrofit an existing building.  It amends [[Article XIII A, California Constitution#Section 2|Section 2 of Article XIII A]] of the [[California Constitution]].
  
[[Roy Ashburn|California state senator Roy Ashburn]] is the amendment's primary sponsor.
+
[[Roy Ashburn|California state senator Roy Ashburn]] was the amendment's primary sponsor.
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
  
In early returns, with 8.6% of precincts reporting, Proposition 13 is well ahead.
+
{{Short outcome
 
+
| title = California Proposition 13 (June 2010) (Seismic Retrofitting)
{{Outcome
+
| yes = 4,471,249
| title = Proposition 13, Seismic Retrofitting
+
| yespct = 84.97
| yes = 716,848
+
| no = 790,899
| yespct = 85.9
+
| nopct = 15.03
| no = 117,060
+
| total = 5,262,148
| nopct = 14.1
+
| total =  
+
 
| turnoutpct =
 
| turnoutpct =
 
}}
 
}}
 
+
These final election results are from the [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/125-props.pdf California Secretary of State June 8, 2010 results page].
Results from [http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/59.htm California Secretary of State results page]
+
  
 
==Ballot label details==
 
==Ballot label details==
Line 34: Line 31:
 
:: ''See also: [[Amending state constitutions#California|Amending the California Constitution]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[Amending state constitutions#California|Amending the California Constitution]]''
  
SCA 4 would amend [[Article XIII A, California Constitution|Section 2 of Article XIII A]] of the [[California Constitution]].
+
SCA 4 amended [[Article XIII A, California Constitution|Section 2 of Article XIII A]] of the [[California Constitution]].
  
The constitution currently limits taxes on property to 1% of the full cash value of the property.  "Full cash value" means the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change of ownership has occurred.
+
Before the approval of Proposition 13, the constitution limited taxes on property to 1% of the full cash value of the property.  "Full cash value" is defined in the constitution as the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change of ownership has occurred.
  
The California Constitution excludes from classification as “newly constructed” the cost of re-constructing or improving a building to comply with any local ordinances that relate to earthquake safety. The California Constitution also authorizes the Legislature to exclude from classification as “newly constructed” the construction or installation in existing buildings of certain seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements utilizing earthquake hazard mitigation technologies.
+
The [[California Constitution]] excluded from classification as “newly constructed” the cost of re-constructing or improving a building to comply with any local ordinances that related to earthquake safety. The California Constitution also authorized the Legislature to exclude from classification as “newly constructed” the construction or installation in existing buildings of certain seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements utilizing earthquake hazard mitigation technologies.
  
SCA 4 would change the law by excluding from the definition of “newly constructed” the portion of an existing structure that consists of the
+
SCA 4 (Proposition 13) changed the law by excluding from the definition of “newly constructed” the portion of an existing structure that consists of the construction or reconstruction of seismic retrofitting components, as defined by the Legislature. Proposition 13 deleted the previous exclusion for structures constructed of unreinforced masonry bearing wall construction, and the existing grant of authority to the Legislature to exclude certain seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements utilizing earthquake hazard mitigation technologies.
construction or reconstruction of seismic retrofitting components, as defined by the Legislature. This measure would delete the existing exclusion for
+
structures constructed of unreinforced masonry bearing wall construction, and the existing grant of authority to the Legislature to exclude certain
+
seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements utilizing earthquake hazard mitigation technologies.
+
  
 
==Supporters==
 
==Supporters==
  
Key supporters of Proposition 13 include [[Roy Ashburn]], Tom Bordonaro and Barbara Alby.  Bordonaro, who is the county assessor for {{san luis obispo}} and Alby, who is the Chief-Deputy Board Member for District 2 of the Board of Equalization, signed the official voter's guide arguments in favor of Proposition 13, along with Senator Ashburn.
+
Key supporters of Proposition 13 included [[Roy Ashburn]], Tom Bordonaro and Barbara Alby.  Bordonaro, who is the county assessor for {{san luis obispo}} and Alby, who is the Chief-Deputy Board Member for District 2 of the Board of Equalization, signed the official voter's guide arguments in favor of Proposition 13, along with Senator Ashburn.
  
Other supporters include:
+
Other supporters included:
  
* The [[California Democratic Party]]<ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/04/california-democratic-party-convention-wrapup.html ''Los Angeles Times'', "California Democratic Party convention wrap-up", April 19, 2010]</ref>
+
* The [[California Democratic Party]]<ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/04/california-democratic-party-convention-wrapup.html ''Los Angeles Times'', "California Democratic Party convention wrap-up," April 19, 2010]</ref>
  
 
* [[AFSCME]].<ref name=credo>[http://act.credoaction.com/june2010download/?r=5560&id=9119-1878668-cN_lZ_x ''CREDO Action'', "June 2010 Progressive Voter Guide"]</ref>
 
* [[AFSCME]].<ref name=credo>[http://act.credoaction.com/june2010download/?r=5560&id=9119-1878668-cN_lZ_x ''CREDO Action'', "June 2010 Progressive Voter Guide"]</ref>
  
 
==Opponents==
 
==Opponents==
 +
{{cal2010vertical}}
 +
* The [[California Nurses Association]] endorsed a "no" vote on Proposition 13.<ref>[http://www.calnurses.org/legislative_advocacy/endorsements.html ''California Nurses Association'', "June 8, 2010, Statewide Direct Primary Election Qualified Measures"]</ref>
  
* The [[California Nurses Association]] endorses a "no" vote on Proposition 13.<ref>[http://www.calnurses.org/legislative_advocacy/endorsements.html ''California Nurses Association'', "June 8, 2010, Statewide Direct Primary Election Qualified Measures"]</ref>
+
* The [http://www.acgreens.org Green Party of Alameda County] recommended[http://acgreens.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gpac-vg-0610.pdf] a "no" vote on Proposition 13, saying that they don't trust its only listed sponsor, conservative Republican State Senator Ray Ashburn, that its primary purpose may be to provide a tax break to corporate property owners who did seismic retrofits more than 15 years ago, and that the measure is too complex to understand its effects.
 
+
* The Green Party of Alameda County[http://www.acgreens.org] recommends[http://acgreens.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gpac-vg-0610.pdf] a "no" vote on Proposition 13, saying that they don't trust its only listed sponsor, conservative Republican State Senator Ray Ashburn, that its primary purpose may be to provide a tax break to corporate property owners who did seismic retrofits more than 15 years ago, and that the measure is too complex to understand its effects.
+
  
 
* No opponents submitted arguments to the [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]] opposing the measure.
 
* No opponents submitted arguments to the [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]] opposing the measure.
Line 67: Line 61:
 
==="Vote Yes"===
 
==="Vote Yes"===
  
* The editorial board of the '''Contra Costa Times''' has encouraged its readers to vote "yes" on Proposition 13, writing, "Proposition 13 on the June 8 ballot is a technical, but important correction to assessments of properties that are retrofitted to make them more resistant to earthquakes."<ref>[http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_14749114 ''Contra Costa Times'', "Contra Costa Times editorial: California voters should vote yes on Proposition 13", March 25, 2010]</ref>
+
* The editorial board of the '''Contra Costa Times''' encouraged its readers to vote "yes" on Proposition 13, writing, "Proposition 13 on the June 8 ballot is a technical, but important correction to assessments of properties that are retrofitted to make them more resistant to earthquakes."<ref>[http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_14749114 ''Contra Costa Times'', "Contra Costa Times editorial: California voters should vote yes on Proposition 13," March 25, 2010]</ref>
  
* The editorial board of the '''San Luis Obispo Tribune''' endorses a "yes" vote, saying, "We wish the state could provide more financial incentives to make retrofitting less burdensome, but in this awful economy, that’s simply not possible. Proposition 13 would at least provide some long-term tax relief for property owners who are trying to do the right thing by making their buildings safer. We strongly urge a yes vote on the measure.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/03/31/1087448/editorial-prop-13-would-ease-retrofit.html ''San Luis Obispo Tribune'', "Prop. 13 would ease retrofit costs", April 1, 2010]</ref>
+
* The editorial board of the '''San Luis Obispo Tribune''' endorsed a "yes" vote, saying, "We wish the state could provide more financial incentives to make retrofitting less burdensome, but in this awful economy, that’s simply not possible. Proposition 13 would at least provide some long-term tax relief for property owners who are trying to do the right thing by making their buildings safer. We strongly urge a yes vote on the measure.<ref>[http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/03/31/1087448/editorial-prop-13-would-ease-retrofit.html ''San Luis Obispo Tribune'', "Proposition 13 would ease retrofit costs," April 1, 2010]</ref>
  
* The [[San Francisco Chronicle]]'s editorial board is in favor, saying, "In California's divisive politics, it's a miracle to find a ballot measure that has broad support, clear benefits and no identifiable opposition. That's the case for state Proposition 13, a measure that encourages seismic upgrades to quake-prone buildings by canceling the risk of increased property taxes."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/21/ED9C1D1L3J.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Vote yes on tax break for seismic work", April 22, 2010]</ref>
+
* The [[San Francisco Chronicle]]'s editorial board was in favor, saying, "In California's divisive politics, it's a miracle to find a ballot measure that has broad support, clear benefits and no identifiable opposition. That's the case for state Proposition 13, a measure that encourages seismic upgrades to quake-prone buildings by canceling the risk of increased property taxes."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/21/ED9C1D1L3J.DTL ''San Francisco Chronicle'', "Vote yes on tax break for seismic work," April 22, 2010]</ref>
  
* The [[Los Angeles Times]] is in favor, saying, "With these thorny questions down the ballot, voters can feel some sense of relief that the first measure they'll be confronted with is straightforward and easy to support...It's as close as a California ballot measure comes to being a no-brainer."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/21/2696160/analysis-recent-california-newspaper.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Recent California newspaper editorials", April 21, 2010]</ref>
+
* The [[Los Angeles Times]] was in favor, saying, "With these thorny questions down the ballot, voters can feel some sense of relief that the first measure they'll be confronted with is straightforward and easy to support...It's as close as a California ballot measure comes to being a no-brainer."<ref>[http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/21/2696160/analysis-recent-california-newspaper.html ''Sacramento Bee'', "Recent California newspaper editorials," April 21, 2010]</ref>
  
* The '''Orange County Register''' is in favor, saying, "Recent earthquakes killing many people in Haiti and Chile – and that 7.2-magnitude quake in Baja on April 4 that also shook Orange County – are reminders of the need for strong buildings. It doesn't make sense to punish homeowners and businesses that want to improve their buildings' quality."<ref>[http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/prop-245015-original-tax.html ''Orange County Register'', "Prop. 13: Quake upgrades should be encouraged", April 20, 2010]</ref>
+
* The '''Orange County Register''' was in favor, saying, "Recent earthquakes killing many people in Haiti and Chile – and that 7.2-magnitude quake in Baja on April 4 that also shook Orange County – are reminders of the need for strong buildings. It doesn't make sense to punish homeowners and businesses that want to improve their buildings' quality."<ref>[http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/prop-245015-original-tax.html ''Orange County Register'', "Proposition 13: Quake upgrades should be encouraged," April 20, 2010]</ref>
  
* The (Petaluma) '''Press Democrat''': "State measure offers incentive to prepare for an earthquake".<ref>[http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100505/OPINION/100509817/-1/WEATHER?p=2&tc=pg ''Press Democrat'', "For Prop. 13", May 5, 2010]</ref>
+
* The (Petaluma) '''Press Democrat''': "State measure offers incentive to prepare for an earthquake."<ref>[http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100505/OPINION/100509817/-1/WEATHER?p=2&tc=pg ''Press Democrat'', "For Proposition 13," May 5, 2010]</ref>
  
* The '''Marin Independent-Journal:''' "If it will help encourage owners to make their properties safer, the exemption is worth it."<ref>[http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_15055821 ''Marin Independent-Journal'', "IJ's choices for state propositions", May 10, 2010]</ref>
+
* The '''Marin Independent-Journal:''' "If it will help encourage owners to make their properties safer, the exemption is worth it."<ref>[http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_15055821 ''Marin Independent-Journal'', "IJ's choices for state propositions," May 10, 2010]</ref>
  
* The '''Lompoc Record:''' "We firmly believe property values should be evaluated on a regular basis, but if approving Prop. 13 increases the probability of getting buildings in better shape to withstand the forces of an earthquake, we are in favor of it."<ref>[http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_d456000e-5f18-11df-b834-001cc4c03286.html ''Lompoc Record'', "Initiatives, confusion in primary", May 14, 2010]</ref>
+
* The '''Lompoc Record:''' "We firmly believe property values should be evaluated on a regular basis, but if approving Proposition 13 increases the probability of getting buildings in better shape to withstand the forces of an earthquake, we are in favor of it."<ref>[http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_d456000e-5f18-11df-b834-001cc4c03286.html ''Lompoc Record'', "Initiatives, confusion in primary," May 14, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 
{{submit a link}}
 
{{submit a link}}
  
* [http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/13/ Official Voter Guide to Proposition 13]
+
* [http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2010/primary/propositions/13/ Official Voter Guide to Proposition 13]
 
* [http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/13-title-summ-analysis.pdf Proposition 13 ballot title, summary and analysis] as it appears in [[California Voter Guide (official)|California's official voter guide]]
 
* [http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/13-title-summ-analysis.pdf Proposition 13 ballot title, summary and analysis] as it appears in [[California Voter Guide (official)|California's official voter guide]]
 
* [http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/13-title-summ-analysis.pdf Proposition 13 arguments and rebuttals] as they appear in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]]
 
* [http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/13-title-summ-analysis.pdf Proposition 13 arguments and rebuttals] as they appear in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|state's official voter guide]]
Line 108: Line 102:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references/>
+
{{reflist}}
  
 
{{california}}
 
{{california}}
 
+
[[Category:California 2010 ballot measures, certified]]
[[Category:California 2010 ballot measures]]
+
[[Category:Taxes, California]]
[[category:Taxes, California]]
+
 
[[Category:Earthquakes, California]]
 
[[Category:Earthquakes, California]]
 
[[Category:Certified, earthquakes, 2010]]
 
[[Category:Certified, earthquakes, 2010]]
 
[[Category:Certified, taxes, 2010]]
 
[[Category:Certified, taxes, 2010]]
 
{{Certrefca2010}}
 
{{Certrefca2010}}

Latest revision as of 07:31, 25 March 2014

This article is about a 2010 ballot proposition in California. For other measures with a similar title, see Proposition 13.
California Proposition 13, the Seismic Retrofitting Amendment, was on the June 8, 2010 ballot in California as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was overwhelmingly approved.

Proposition 13 prohibits tax assessors from re-evaluating new construction for property tax purposes when the point of the new construction is to seismically retrofit an existing building. It amends Section 2 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution.

California state senator Roy Ashburn was the amendment's primary sponsor.

Election results

California Proposition 13 (June 2010) (Seismic Retrofitting)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 4,471,249 84.97%
No790,89915.03%

These final election results are from the California Secretary of State June 8, 2010 results page.

Ballot label details

Ballot title: Limits on Property Tax Assessment. Seismic retrofitting of existing buildings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Official summary: Provides that construction to seismically retrofit buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value. Sets statewide standard for seismic retrofit improvements that qualify.

Estimated fiscal impact: Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the assessment of earthquake upgrades.

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Flag of California.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVI
VIIVIIIIXXXA
XBXIXIIXIIIXIII A
XIII BXIII CXIII DXIVXVXVIXVIIIXIXXIX AXIX BXIX C
XXXXIXXII
XXXIVXXXV
See also: Amending the California Constitution

SCA 4 amended Section 2 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution.

Before the approval of Proposition 13, the constitution limited taxes on property to 1% of the full cash value of the property. "Full cash value" is defined in the constitution as the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change of ownership has occurred.

The California Constitution excluded from classification as “newly constructed” the cost of re-constructing or improving a building to comply with any local ordinances that related to earthquake safety. The California Constitution also authorized the Legislature to exclude from classification as “newly constructed” the construction or installation in existing buildings of certain seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements utilizing earthquake hazard mitigation technologies.

SCA 4 (Proposition 13) changed the law by excluding from the definition of “newly constructed” the portion of an existing structure that consists of the construction or reconstruction of seismic retrofitting components, as defined by the Legislature. Proposition 13 deleted the previous exclusion for structures constructed of unreinforced masonry bearing wall construction, and the existing grant of authority to the Legislature to exclude certain seismic retrofitting improvements or improvements utilizing earthquake hazard mitigation technologies.

Supporters

Key supporters of Proposition 13 included Roy Ashburn, Tom Bordonaro and Barbara Alby. Bordonaro, who is the county assessor for San Luis Obispo County and Alby, who is the Chief-Deputy Board Member for District 2 of the Board of Equalization, signed the official voter's guide arguments in favor of Proposition 13, along with Senator Ashburn.

Other supporters included:

Opponents

2010 propositions
Flag of California.png
June 8
Proposition 13
Proposition 14Text
Proposition 15Text
Proposition 16Text
Proposition 17Text
November 2
Proposition 19Text
Proposition 20Text
Proposition 21Text
Proposition 22Text
Proposition 23Text
Proposition 24Text
Proposition 25Text
Proposition 26Text
Proposition 27Text
DonationsVendors
Endorsements
Local measures
  • The Green Party of Alameda County recommended[1] a "no" vote on Proposition 13, saying that they don't trust its only listed sponsor, conservative Republican State Senator Ray Ashburn, that its primary purpose may be to provide a tax break to corporate property owners who did seismic retrofits more than 15 years ago, and that the measure is too complex to understand its effects.

Editorial opinion

"Vote Yes"

  • The editorial board of the Contra Costa Times encouraged its readers to vote "yes" on Proposition 13, writing, "Proposition 13 on the June 8 ballot is a technical, but important correction to assessments of properties that are retrofitted to make them more resistant to earthquakes."[4]
  • The editorial board of the San Luis Obispo Tribune endorsed a "yes" vote, saying, "We wish the state could provide more financial incentives to make retrofitting less burdensome, but in this awful economy, that’s simply not possible. Proposition 13 would at least provide some long-term tax relief for property owners who are trying to do the right thing by making their buildings safer. We strongly urge a yes vote on the measure.[5]
  • The San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board was in favor, saying, "In California's divisive politics, it's a miracle to find a ballot measure that has broad support, clear benefits and no identifiable opposition. That's the case for state Proposition 13, a measure that encourages seismic upgrades to quake-prone buildings by canceling the risk of increased property taxes."[6]
  • The Los Angeles Times was in favor, saying, "With these thorny questions down the ballot, voters can feel some sense of relief that the first measure they'll be confronted with is straightforward and easy to support...It's as close as a California ballot measure comes to being a no-brainer."[7]
  • The Orange County Register was in favor, saying, "Recent earthquakes killing many people in Haiti and Chile – and that 7.2-magnitude quake in Baja on April 4 that also shook Orange County – are reminders of the need for strong buildings. It doesn't make sense to punish homeowners and businesses that want to improve their buildings' quality."[8]
  • The (Petaluma) Press Democrat: "State measure offers incentive to prepare for an earthquake."[9]
  • The Marin Independent-Journal: "If it will help encourage owners to make their properties safer, the exemption is worth it."[10]
  • The Lompoc Record: "We firmly believe property values should be evaluated on a regular basis, but if approving Proposition 13 increases the probability of getting buildings in better shape to withstand the forces of an earthquake, we are in favor of it."[11]

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Smart Voter California explanation of Proposition 15

Additional reading

References