Sheldon to Reintroduce Property Tax Relief Bill
December 8th, 2008 by Steven GardnerLegislators are filing bills in anticipation of the 2009 session and state Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch has brought back a regular. Sheldon’s bill would cap property tax increases on individual properties for owner-occupied dwellings at 1 percent per year until the property is sold or otherwise transferred.
Sheldon said he began introducing the bill when he was a member of the House and has reintroduced it each session.
Currently, governments increase their overall take on property taxes by 1 percent, but individual property owners can see their taxes go higher if their valuation goes up higher in proportion to other residents in the county. This bill would cap any single year’s tax increase to 1 percent.
Because it’s a change to the state’s constitution, there is a second bill accompanying it that would put the measure before voters.
Sheldon, who is also a Mason County commissioner, said property tax increases are “by far” the biggest source of complaints he gets. For seniors and others on fixed incomes, it’s especially challenging, he said.
“It gives the homeowner some stability,” Sheldon said. “I think people need piece of mind and to know they can live in a home that’s not going to escalate in property taxes”
Opposition in the past has come from assessors and those who believe it could bankrupt governments, he said. Sheldon said the most current real estate slump and overall economic recession is having people see their homes as places to live rather than investments.
With stabilized property tax increases, he said, it could stabilize the real estate market overall.
I may expound on this for a story in print edition. If nothing else, I’d like to speak to someone who opposes this idea.
The concept is the formula behind California’s Proposition 13. Sheldon said that measure didn’t bankrupt that state and that California’s current financial mess is the result of a combination of factors, not solely limits imposed by the law approved by voters in the late 1970s.
Loading ...
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
December 8th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
The “filing bills” link in the first sentence doesn’t work.
This is the online page for all “prefiled bills”:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/prefiled.aspx?year=2009
Sen. Sheldon’s bill is SB 5000. SJR 8200 farther down on the list is a constitutional amendment which would make this change to our property tax laws possible.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I almost forgot: I think Sen. Sheldon’s idea stinks, even though it would not apparently increase my property taxes and would probably decrease them by making someone else pay part of my share. I expect to pay my own way, not to have someone else pay part of my share just because he bought a house more recently than I did.
It might “stabilize” the housing market, but the only way I can see that happening is that people would be more reluctant to sell an existing home and buy another — their tax bill would immediately jump in the new home.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Fixed the glitch in the link. That’s for letting us know.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I bought a house in California three years before Prop 13. In that three years my monthly house payments went up two and one half times. Prop 13 reversed that and gave me a stable forward look. I realize we do not have as serious a problem here. My wife has lived in this house for nearly 65 years and we now pay in property taxes each year what the house and property cost when it was built. I know about inflation but it is wrong.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
This is fiscally scuicidal voodoo ecconomics. I look forward to watching this bill crash and burn.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Wow, I know our people, voters and taxpayers have really been out of the loop, but this is ridiculous.
And me? Well, this is the first time that I received any notice that such bills exist.
Shall we start an initiative that incorporates SJR 8200 into the initiative?
Here’s what I’m thinking for the title – Homeowner’s Protection Initiative.
Whatdya think?
December 10th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
You cannot amend the state constitution through the initiative process. If this change is to be made, it has to come from the legislature to us.
From a quick read of the accompanying bill that would implement the constitutional amendment, I don’t see anything that indicates the “relief” from increases in assessed value would benefit renters. It seems to apply only to owner-occupied residences. If that’s true, it stinks even more than I thought at first.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Would the constitutional limit on aggregate regular property taxes (that is, no more than one percent of total assessed valuation) be based on the “adjusted value” contained in the bill or on the actual value?
If the “adjusted values” determine the amount of aggregate property taxes under the one-percent limit now in place, it seems that the cap on regular levies would be less over the long term. If the actual value were still used to determine the cap, then there is simply a shift of tax burden from earlier home purchasers to taxpayers who are unfortunately later in their home purchases than the people who enjoy shifting their tax burden to those others.
What is the intent of section 2(2)(b) of the bill? It says the adjusted value part wouldn’t apply to “special levies” or lid lifts authorized under RCW 84.55.050. In other words, the limit on increases in assessed value wouldn’t apply to “special levies” and higher taxes authorized by a voter-approved lid lift.
Would the assessor keep a “shadow assessment roll” with the actual values so lid lifts would apply to the higher actual values? What are “special levies,” and what would be the assessed values used to collect them?
December 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Bob,
Thanks for the info.
You confirmed my hunch that our state constitution can’t be amended by a direct initiative of the people, voters and taxpayers.
I see assessors would use a value for each parcel, established as say assessment year 2005. Thereafter, individual parcel taxation would not increase except by its automatic yearly 1 percent increase and voter approved leveies.
I understand the stink of such limitation offends us, but the stench of our taxes rising mostly because our neighbors’ sell their property is more offensive to some of us, if not most of us.