Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
California Proposition 90, Transfer of Assessed Valuation of Replacement Dwellings Amendment (1988)
| California Proposition 90 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 1988 | |
| Topic Taxes and Property | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 90 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 8, 1988. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to authorize homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer the assessed value of their home to a replacement dwelling in a participating county. |
A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to authorize homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer the assessed value of their home to a replacement dwelling in a participating county, thereby maintaining that the transfer can only occur in the same county as the original home. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 90 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
6,080,268 | 69.12% | ||
| No | 2,716,732 | 30.88% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 90 was as follows:
| “ | Assessed valuation. Replacement dwellings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | Currently, homeowners over the age of 55 may, under certain conditions, transfer the current assessed value of their home to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county. This authorizes the Legislature to permit the transfer of assessed valuation to replacement dwellings located in different counties if the county of the replacement dwelling adopts an ordinance participating in the program. Applies to replacement dwellings acquired on or after a county ordinance is adopted, but not before November 9, 1988. Contains provisions concerning the effective date of amendments. | ” |
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ | By itself, this measure would have no direct fiscal effect because it merely authorizes legislative action. If implemented, it would reduce property tax collections in an amount which would depend on the extent of county participation, number of qualifying homeowners, and value of dwellings involved. The property tax revenue loss would not exceed $20 million in the first year if all counties participated and could be substantially less. The revenue loss would increase annually. Sixty percent of the loss would be borne by the cities, counties, and special districts. The remainder would affect school districts and community college districts. Under existing law, the State General Fund would offset the schools' losses beginning in 1989-90.[2] | ” |
Path to the ballot
A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 90 on the ballot via Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (Statutes of 1988, Resolution Chapter 64).[1]
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 77 | 1 |
| Senate | 36 | 0 |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed December 20, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
