Proposition 13, passed overwhelmingly by California voters in 1978 to stem steeply rising property taxes, has yielded great benefits for “elite social and country clubs,” wrote columnist Jim Newton. While noting there was nothing “illegal or even improper” about the situation, Newton, who specifically cited the tax situations of Wilshire CC, The California Club and the Jonathan Club, called for possible amendment of the statute to rectify club-related inequities.
In his weekly column for the Op-Ed page of the Los Angeles Times on “the policy and politics of Southern California,” Jim Newton, editor at large for the Times, cited inequities in California’s Proposition 13 property-tax law that have, in his opinion, provided inequitable benefits to “elite social and country clubs” for 36 years. To make his case, Newton specifically cited the tax situations of Wilshire Country Club, The California Club and the Jonathan Club.
“When California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13 in 1978, they were responding to a populist outcry over steeply rising property taxes, which especially hurt older homeowners living on fixed incomes,” Newton wrote.
“Proposition 13 dictated that property could be taxed at a maximum rate of 1% of its assessed value, and that assessments would be rolled back to their 1975 levels,” he continued. “Increases in those assessments would be capped at 2% a year until a property was sold, at which time the sale price would become its new assessed value.
“The result has been stable and predictable property taxes for longtime homeowners, exactly as proponents suggested. But that’s not the whole story,” Newton wrote. “In fact, among those who have most benefited from the populist energy behind Proposition 13 are elite social and country clubs.
“Take the Wilshire Country Club,” he continued. “It sits on 110 acres of staggeringly valuable real estate, and has a handsome clubhouse. And because the club hasn’t changed hands since 1978, it still enjoys its 1975 assessed value (plus the 2% annual increases). The result is that on the tax rolls, it’s assessed at a little less than $10 million. Its property tax bill last year was about $146,000, according to county records, including various fees and assessments.
“Just down the block, records show, a condominium complex with 65 units sold in 2012 for $29.5 million, so its owners pay north of $295,000 in property taxes — more than twice as much as the sprawling club,” Newton noted.
“Similar disparities abound,” he continued. “In Santa Monica, the Jonathan Club’s beach property is valued at roughly $3.5 million, even though it sits on one of the most desirable stretches of oceanfront in the world. The club pays less than $47,000 a year in property taxes, according to records from the Los Angeles County assessor’s office. Less than 500 feet away, a senior citizens’ center last year went for $7.1 million, so its owners pay twice what the club pays.
“Downtown, the California Club is valued at not quite $13 million, records show; around the corner, a 99-unit apartment building sold in 2012 for $35.5 million, and a nearby office building went for $80 million this year.
“No one is suggesting that there’s anything illegal or even improper with any of this,” Newton continued. “The clubs historically have been reluctant to discuss their business publicly, and phone calls to each of the clubs were not returned Friday. But were voters trying to protect country clubs when they approved Proposition 13?
Newton then reported that when he posed that question to Raphael Sonenshein, Executive Director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A., Sonenshein’s response was to laugh and say, “Are you kidding me?” Sonenshein then called the benefit a classic example of the “unanticipated consequences of certain decisions,” Newton reported.
“The tax break enjoyed by country clubs,” Newton wrote. “also undermines an essential aspect of Proposition 13’s fairness—the notion that the rich, who can afford it, bear the larger share of the property tax burden because they tend to own more valuable homes. In this case, wealthy club members enjoy lower dues because the clubs pay lower taxes than their neighbors.”
Newtown also contacted Joel Fox, former head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., for comment on the situation. Fox “acknowledged the disparity,” Newton reported, “but warned against trying to undo it.”
Classifying different types of property, Fox told Newton, “would invite lobbyists to carve out exceptions for their clients, a kind of free-for-all that Proposition 13 supporters have always feared. Moreover, sharply increasing taxes on clubs might cause members to quit and employees to lose jobs.”
Fox has been defending Proposition 13 for a couple of generations now, Newton wrote, and knows that it remains a pillar of California civic life—polling typically reveals that 60% or more of Californians believe the measure has helped the state overall.
“And he’s brought me around over the years,” Newton continued. “Even if it were remotely feasible politically to eliminate Proposition 13 — and it’s not — it would be a mistake, in my view, to do so.
“But although scrapping it may not be in order, amending it surely is,” Newton wrote. “Perversely, California homeowners today actually bear a larger percentage of the property tax burden compared to businesses than before Proposition 13 was enacted. That’s because businesses change hands less frequently than homes, and often structure deals to avoid a reassessment.
“The result: In 1975, commercial industrial property represented 46.6% of the value of California property; as of last year, that percentage was 30.2%. Before Proposition 13, homeowners carried about 40% of the tax burden; today, it’s nearly 60%. That’s hardly homeowner protection,” he noted.
“And as for protecting country clubs: Are you kidding me?” he added.
Tell Us What You Think!
You must be logged in to post a comment.