Guest EDITORIAL

PROPOSITION 13 OUTCOME UNSURE

(Editor's Note: This editorial first appeared in the June 12, 1978 issue of the Daily Herald. Reprinted with permission from Paddock Publications, Arlington Heights.

Howard Jarvis and Proposition 13 are threatening to bring the State of California to its knees.

Jarvis, a 75-year-old political crackpot, timed his tax-slashing amendment the way a surfer times a wave; he is riding the crest of public outrage of taxes of every description in this country.

He has stopped California Gov. Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown dead in his tracks.

He has triggered the predicted layoff of 10,000 public employees in Los Angeles County alone, including nearly 2,000 police officers.

He has sent out a shock wave that is rattling the confidence of government officials in almost every state.

But before every politician desperate to save his political hide jumps on the Jarvis bandwagon, it would be wise to pause just a moment to see just what Jarvis, Proposition 13 and California voters have wrought. Will Californians really reap a dividend by slashing their property taxes 57 percent? It is too soon to say.

On the one hand, predictions of cutbacks in government service sound catastrophic. No summer school for 1.5 million students who planned to attend. As many as 75,000 government employees thrown out of work. Schools that may not re-open. Fire calls that will go unanswered. A state and municipal bond market that not even Las Vegas odds-makers would rate.

But there also are early indications California may pull through the radical amputation of $7 billion in property tax revenue. For the moment, there is a $5 billion state surplus that Brown has suggested be distributed to local governments on a simple pro rata formula.

What happens after the surplus is gone is anybody's guess. Some have suggested that other taxes, such as the state income tax, will have to be raised to make up for the lost property tax revenue. Others speculate that California voters, satisfied with having made a point, can repeal Proposition 13 in favor of a more temperate tax limitation rule. Or the state may just limp along, taxing property at 1 percent of its fair market value and limiting assessment increases to just 2 percent a year.

There is a message in the ratification of Proposition 13 and one that needed to be sent, especially in California where real estate prices and property taxes have run wild in recent years. But the lesson for other states like Illinois may be to listen and learn, not imitate.

It's foolish to use a meat axe to hack away at excess government when a well-whetted knife can get rid of the fat without cutting into the muscle.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 11 November/December, 1978