California Insider

A Weblog by
Sacramento Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub

Back to California Insider home page

« Gov to Legislature: get a life | | Hospitals pull back from phone tax »

April 07, 2004

Foes start picking at split roll measure

Opponents of the split roll ballot initiative, which would raise taxes on commercial property by 55 percent to pay for universal pre-school, plan a press conference later this morning to highlight what they claim is a serious drafting error in the proposition. Based on their press release and my own reading of the text of the initiative, I am guessing that the alleged error is this: the measure specifically exempts owner-occupied homes from the tax increase, but not the property on which they sit. In California, land and the improvements on it are assessed separately. Here is the line exempting first homes:

“An owner-occupied single-family dwelling unit which is intended to be used and is used primarily as a permanent residence.”

Oddly, the next line of the measure, giving the same exemption to second homes, is much clearer, stating simply that the tax increase does not apply to:

“A second home and the land on which that dwelling unit is constructed.”

One could argue that the omission of any mention of the land on which first homes are built was probably unintended. It’s not certain that anyone would ever sue to press the point. And given that the campaign will state that the measure exempts owner-occupied homes and property from its provisions, a court might let it go anyway. But if nothing else this certainly seems likely to be fodder for campaign ads against the initiative.

UPDATE: They did hold the press conference as scheduled, and they did finger that provision. Keep your eye on this one.

SECOND UPDATE: The committee backing the initiative -- the Improving Classroom Education Act -- says the ballot measure would in no way affect property taxes paid by residential homeowners. The committee notes that the non-partisan legislative analyst concluded as much. But Jim Farrell, a spokesman for the committee, couldn't offer any reason why land wasn't specifically exempted for first-home owners in the initiative language the way it was for owners of second homes. "There's no need for it," Farrell told me. "When you talk about residential real property, it's perfectly clear you are talking about dwellings and land."