California Proposition 88, Statewide $50 Parcel Tax Initiative (2006)
| California Proposition 88 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 7, 2006 | |
| Topic California parcel tax and Education | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Amendment & Statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 88 was on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute in California on November 7, 2006. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported levying a $50 statewide parcel tax with funding dedicated to fund K-12 public class size reduction, instructional material, school safety, facility grants, and data systems. |
A "no" vote opposed levying a $50 statewide parcel tax with funding dedicated to fund K-12 public class size reduction, instructional material, school safety, facility grants, and data systems. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 88 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 1,947,312 | 23.34% | ||
|
|
6,396,956 | 76.66% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 88 would have added a new section to the California Constitution to impose an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land in California. According to the California Legislative Analyst's Office, the new tax would have raised about $450 million each year. The money would have been allocated to individual school districts across the state for K-12 public class size reduction, instructional material, school safety, facility grants, and data systems.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 88 was as follows:
| “ | Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Provides additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12. • Funded by $50 tax on each real property parcel. • Exempts certain elderly and disabled homeowners. • Funds must be used for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety, Academic Success facility grants, and data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness. • Provides for reimbursement to General Fund to offset anticipated decrease in income tax revenues due to increased deductions attributable to new parcel tax. • Requires school district audits, penalties for fund misuse. • Revenue excluded from minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Constitutional changes
If Proposition 88 had been approved, it would have added four entirely new sections to four different articles of the California Constitution.
Specifically, it would have:
- Added a new Section 6.2 to Article IX of the California Constitution.
- Added a new Section 21.5 to Article XIII A of the California Constitution.
- Added a new Section 14 to Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
- Added a new Section 8.3 to Article XVI of the California Constitution.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ | State parcel tax revenue of roughly $450 million annually, allocated to school districts for specified education programs.[2] | ” |
Support
Yes on 88 led the campaign in support of Proposition 88.
Supporters
- Reed Hastings, chief executive officer of Netflix[1]
- Jack O'Connell, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction[1]
- Shelbi Wilson, California Teacher of the Year, 2006[1]
- Russell "Rusty" Hammer, former Chamber of Commerce Executive[1]
- Stephanie Pridmore, Local PTA President[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 88 were signed by Reed Hastings, chief executive officer of Netflix, and Jack O'Connell, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction:[1]
| “ |
PROPOSITION 88: A SMART INVESTMENT FOR OUR SCHOOLS, OUR STUDENTS, AND CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE Consider:
environment and our state’s economic prosperity. PROP. 88: LOCAL CONTROL OF DOLLARS FOR CLASSROOMS The education needs of communities and schools are not all the same. Prop. 88 provides needed funding directly to local schools and school districts so that they, not the Legislature, decide where to spend the funds. Prop. 88 will provide dedicated funding to:
PROP. 88: A PRUDENT AND FAIR INVESTMENT Prop. 88 will put over $500 million a year directly into our local schools through a nominal (about 14¢ per day/$50 per year) property parcel assessment. Funds from Prop. 88 will be used to invest in our teachers and students, providing local schools with needed resources, like textbooks, computers, and other materials. TEACHERS SHOULDN’T HAVE TO DIP INTO THEIR OWN POCKETS TO PAY FOR CLASSROOM MATERIALS. To protect those on fixed incomes, PROP. 88 EXEMPTS SENIOR AND DISABLED HOMEOWNERS [SECTION 21.5(b)]. PROP. 88: STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND ANNUAL AUDITS Funds from Prop. 88 are prohibited from being used for administrative overhead and the Legislature cannot redirect the money to other programs [Section 6.2]. To ensure that funds go to classrooms and student learning, Prop. 88 requires annual independent audits [Section 6.2.(5)c] and penalties for misuse. With Prop. 88, we know exactly where the money goes and we can make sure it is spent wisely. PROP. 88: THE NEXT STEP IN IMPROVING OUR K–12 EDUCATION SYSTEM Taxpayers have invested in our school system by approving local and state bonds to build new classrooms and remodel out-of-date facilities. But bonds don’t pay for teachers, textbooks, or other learning materials and supplies. Prop. 88 puts funds in our classrooms and allows local educators to use the funds where they are most needed. PROP. 88: A VOTE FOR TEACHERS AND OUR KIDS Teachers have one of the most important jobs. Yet their jobs are made difficult because of overcrowded classrooms and a lack of basic supplies. YES on Prop. 88 will help provide teachers the resources they need to teach our children and give children the attention they need and deserve. READ PROP. 88 FOR YOURSELF. IT’S A SMALL INVESTMENT NOW THAT CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE FOR OUR FUTURE. Vote YES on 88: More Textbooks and Learning Materials, Smaller Classes, and Safer Schools![2] |
” |
Opposition
No on 88 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 88.
Opponents
- Dr. Tom Bogetich, retired executive director, California State Board of Education[1]
- Jon Coupal, president, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[1]
- Joel Fox, president, Small Business Action Committee[1]
- Clifford Corigliano, Sr. Teacher of the Year, 2003[1]
- Art Pedroza, member, California and American Federations of Teachers, AFL-CIO[1]
- Lorie McCann, Parent-Teachers Association Local President[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 88 were signed by Dr. Tom Bogetich, retired executive director of California State Board of Education; Jon Coupal, president of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; and Joel Fox, president of Small Business Action Committee:[1]
| “ |
All Californians want better schools, but the promoters of Proposition 88 have taken the wrong approach. Concerned teachers and parents have joined with taxpayer groups and small business organizations to oppose Proposition 88. Here’s why:
locally and are used for local services, such as improving your local schools, reducing traffic congestion, improving health care, and increasing firefighting, paramedic, and law enforcement capabilities. The Prop. 88 property parcel tax goes to the State first.
taxes. Proposition 13 requires a two-thirds voter approval to impose a local property parcel tax. Proposition 88 would impose a new statewide property parcel tax with only a simple majority vote. As a result, it is much easier to impose new statewide parcel taxes than a local parcel tax. This is another good reason to stop statewide property parcel taxes now before we are flooded with property parcel tax propositions. People concerned about our kids and schools say: 'As a public school teacher, nothing is more important to me than the quality of our schools. Proposition 88 is poorly drafted, it will result in tax money raised in our community being spent by the State Legislature anywhere in the state.' —Lillian T. Perry, Middle School Teacher Teacher of the Year 2002 'We are the parents of two children in public schools and are active in our PTA. We are very concerned about the impact of Proposition 88 on our local schools and are voting NO.' —Paul and Susanna Fong El Dorado Hills 'Most of the school teachers I know are voting No on Proposition 88. It’s bad for our schools and bad for our kids.' —Kate McGowan-Otto, 4th Grade Teacher Winner, Honorary Service Award, 2005 Proposition 88 doesn’t solve problems; it creates new ones. That’s why Parents and Teachers agree with Taxpayers and Small Business Owners. Vote NO on Proposition 88. For more information visit: www.noprop88.com[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2006, at least 598,105 valid signatures were required.
National Petition Management was paid to conduct the petition drive to collect the signatures. They were paid $4,226,620.85.[3]
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Pamphlet
- Archive of voter guides for California propositions
- Full text of Proposition 88
- Summary of donors to and against 88 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 88 from Follow The Money
- Official declaration of the November 7, 2006 results on ballot propositions
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed March 22, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Expenditure detail for the Yes on 88 committee"
