The California Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 197576 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%.

The California Constitution, until February 15, 2021, excluded from classification as a purchase or change in ownership the purchase or transfer of a principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, in the case of a purchase or transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, except as provided.

At the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, the voters approved Proposition 19. Pursuant to Proposition 19, the California Constitution, on and after February 16, 2021, removes the above-described exclusion from classification as a purchase and change in ownership requiring reappraisal, and instead excludes from classification as a purchase and change in ownership the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, if the property continues as the family home or family farm of the transferee, as specified.

This measure would end the operation of the above-described provisions of Proposition 19 on January 1, 2025. The measure would reinstate, on January 1, 2025, the prior rule excluding from classification as a purchase or change in ownership the purchase or transfer of a principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, in the case of a purchase or transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased.

This measure would require the Legislature to provide in statute that the above-described changes are publicized and to ensure that the publicity reaches minority communities. The measure would require a liberal interpretation and broad application of these changes that effectuates their purpose.

The California Constitution limits the amount of ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property, defined as the county assessors valuation of real property as shown on the 197576 tax bill and, thereafter, the appraised value of the real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership occurs after the 1975 assessment, subject to an annual inflation adjustment not to exceed 2%.

The California Constitution, until February 15, 2021, excluded from classification as a purchase or change in ownership the purchase or transfer of a principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, in the case of a purchase or transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, except as provided.

At the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, the voters approved Proposition 19. Pursuant to Proposition 19, the California Constitution, on and after February 16, 2021, removes the above-described exclusion from classification as a purchase and change in ownership requiring reappraisal, and instead excludes from classification as a purchase and change in ownership the purchase or transfer of a family home or family farm, as those terms are defined, of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased, if the property continues as the family home or family farm of the transferee, as specified.

This measure would end the operation of the above-described provisions of Proposition 19 on January 1, 2025. The measure would reinstate, on January 1, 2025, the prior rule excluding from classification as a purchase or change in ownership the purchase or transfer of a principal residence, and the first $1,000,000 of other real property, in the case of a purchase or transfer between parents and their children, or between grandparents and their grandchildren if all the parents of those grandchildren are deceased.

This measure would require the Legislature to provide in statute that the above-described changes are publicized and to ensure that the publicity reaches minority communities. The measure would require a liberal interpretation and broad application of these changes that effectuates their purpose.

WHEREAS, The Legislature finds and declares both of the following:

(a)In 2021, California Californians lost a constitutional right they had for nearly 35 years to transfer their home and a limited amount of other property to and from their children without triggering reassessment to current market value and higher property tax bills.

(b)The purpose of ending the operation of subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 2.1 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and resuming the operation of subdivision (h) of Section 2 of that same article is to restore that right.

Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 202324 Regular Session commencing on the fifth day of December 2022, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

(a)Limitation on Property Tax Increases on Primary Residences for Seniors, the Severely Disabled, Wildfire and Natural Disaster Victims, and Families. It is the intent of the Legislature in proposing, and the people in adopting, this section to do both of the following:

(1)Limit property tax increases on primary residences by removing unfair location restrictions on homeowners who are severely disabled, victims of wildfires or other natural disasters, or seniors over 55 years of age that need to move closer to family or medical care, downsize, find a home that better fits their needs, or replace a damaged home and limit damage from wildfires on homes through dedicated funding for fire protection and emergency response.

(2)Limit property tax increases on family homes used as a primary residence by protecting the right of parents and grandparents to pass on their family home to their children and grandchildren for continued use as a primary residence, while eliminating unfair tax loopholes used by East Coast investors, celebrities, wealthy non-California residents, and trust fund heirs to avoid paying a fair share of property taxes on vacation homes, income properties, and beachfront rentals they own in California.

(b)Property Tax Fairness for Seniors, the Severely Disabled, and Victims of Wildfire and Natural Disasters. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or any other law, beginning on and after April 1, 2021, the following shall apply:

(1)Subject to applicable procedures and definitions as provided by statute, an owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster may transfer the taxable value of their primary residence to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in this state, regardless of the location or value of the replacement primary residence, that is purchased or newly constructed as that persons principal residence within two years of the sale of the original primary residence.

(2)For purposes of this subdivision:

(A)For any transfer of taxable value to a replacement primary residence of equal or lesser value than the original primary residence, the taxable value of the replacement primary residence shall be deemed to be the taxable value of the original primary residence.

(B)For any transfer of taxable value to a replacement primary residence of greater value than the original primary residence, the taxable value of the replacement primary residence shall be calculated by adding the difference between the full cash value of the original primary residence and the full cash value of the replacement primary residence to the taxable value of the original primary residence.

(3)An owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age or severely disabled shall not be allowed to transfer the taxable value of a primary residence more than three times pursuant to this subdivision.

(4)Any person who seeks to transfer the taxable value of their primary residence pursuant to this subdivision shall file an application with the assessor of the county in which the replacement primary residence is located. The application shall, at minimum, include information comparable to that identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 69.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as that section read on January 1, 2020.

(c)Property Tax Fairness for Family Homes. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or any other law, beginning on and after February 16, 2021, to December 31, 2024, inclusive, the following shall apply:

(1)For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 2, the terms purchased and change in ownership do not include the purchase or transfer of a family home of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, as defined by the Legislature, if the property continues as the family home of the transferee. This subdivision shall apply to both voluntary transfers and transfers resulting from a court order or judicial decree. The new taxable value of the family home of the transferee shall be the sum of both of the following:

(A)The taxable value of the family home, subject to adjustment as authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2, determined as of the date immediately prior to the date of the purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee.

(B)The applicable of the following amounts:

(i)If the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee is less than the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) plus one million dollars ($1,000,000), then zero dollars ($0).

(ii)If the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee is equal to or more than the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) plus one million dollars ($1,000,000), an amount equal to the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee, minus the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) and one million dollars ($1,000,000).

(2)Paragraph (1) shall also apply to a purchase or transfer of the family home between grandparents and their grandchildren if all of the parents of those grandchildren, who qualify as children of the grandparents, are deceased as of the date of the purchase or transfer.

(3)Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall also apply to the purchase or transfer of a family farm. For purposes of this paragraph, any reference to a family home in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be deemed to instead refer to a family farm.

(4)Beginning on February 16, 2023, and every other February 16 thereafter, the State Board of Equalization shall adjust the one million dollar ($1,000,000) amount described in paragraph (1) for inflation to reflect the percentage change in the House Price Index for California for the prior calendar year, as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The State Board of Equalization shall calculate and publish the adjustments required by this paragraph.

(5)(A)Subject to subparagraph (B), in order to receive the property tax benefit provided by this section for the purchase or transfer of a family home, the transferee shall claim the homeowners exemption or disabled veterans exemption at the time of the purchase or transfer of the family home.

(B)A transferee who fails to claim the homeowners exemption or disabled veterans exemption at the time of the purchase or transfer of the family home may receive the property tax benefit provided by this section by claiming the homeowners exemption or disabled veterans exemption within one year of the purchase or transfer of the family home and shall be entitled to a refund of taxes previously owed or paid between the date of the transfer and the date the transferee claims the homeowner's exemption or disabled veterans exemption.

(d)(1)Subdivision (h) of Section 2 shall apply to any purchase or transfer that occurs on or before February 15, 2021, but shall not apply to any purchase or transfer occurring after that date until January 1, 2025. Subdivision (h) of Section 2 shall be inoperative as of February 16, 2021, and shall thereafter become operative on January 1, 2025.

(2)Notwithstanding any law, the Legislature shall provide in statute that the end date for the operation of subdivision (c) of this section and the date for the resumed operation of subdivision (h) of Section 2 pursuant to the amendments made by the measure adding this paragraph are publicized and that the publicity is ensured to reach minority communities.

(3)Notwithstanding any law, every statute, regulation, and judicial interpretation of the amendments made by the measure adding this paragraph shall be consistent with a liberal interpretation of those amendments, and with a broad application of the tax benefit under subdivision (h) of Section 2, that effectuates their purpose.

(4)The amendments made by the measure adding this paragraph are severable. If any provision of the amendments made by the measure adding this paragraph or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect amendments or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

(e)For purposes of this section:

(1)Disabled veterans exemption means the exemption authorized by subdivision (a) of Section 4 of Article XIII.

(2)Family farm means any real property which is under cultivation or which is being used for pasture or grazing, or that is used to produce any agricultural commodity, as that term is defined in Section 51201 of the Government Code as that section read on January 1, 2020.

(3)Family home has the same meaning as principal residence, as that term is used in subdivision (k) of Section 3 of Article XIII.

(4)Full cash value has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2.

(5)Homeowners exemption means the exemption provided by subdivision (k) of Section 3 of Article XIII.

(6)Natural disaster means the existence, as declared by the Governor, of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons or property within the affected area caused by conditions such as fire, flood, drought, storm, mudslide, earthquake, civil disorder, foreign invasion, or volcanic eruption.

(7)Primary residence means a residence eligible for either of the following:

(A)The homeowners exemption.

(B)The disabled veterans exemption.

(8)Principal residence as used in subdivision (b) has the same meaning as that term is used in subdivision (a) of Section 2.

(9)Replacement primary residence has the same meaning as replacement dwelling, as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2.

(10)Taxable value means the base year value determined in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 2 plus any adjustment authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2.

(11)Victim of a wildfire or natural disaster means the owner of a primary residence that has been substantially damaged as a result of a wildfire or natural disaster that amounts to more than 50 percent of the improvement value of the primary residence immediately before the wildfire or natural disaster. For purposes of this paragraph, damage includes a diminution in the value of the primary residence as a result of restricted access caused by the wildfire or natural disaster.

(12)Wildfire has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 51177 of the Government Code, as that section read on January 1, 2020.

WHEREAS, The Legislature finds and declares both of the following:

(a)In 2021, California lost a constitutional right they had for nearly 35 years to transfer their home and a limited amount of other property to and from their children without triggering reassessment to current market value and higher property tax bills.

(b)The purpose of ending the operation of subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 2.1 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and resuming the operation of subdivision (h) of Section 2 of that same article is to restore that right.

Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 202324 Regular Session commencing on the fifth day of December 2022, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:

(a)Limitation on Property Tax Increases on Primary Residences for Seniors, the Severely Disabled, Wildfire and Natural Disaster Victims, and Families. It is the intent of the Legislature in proposing, and the people in adopting, this section to do both of the following:

(1)Limit property tax increases on primary residences by removing unfair location restrictions on homeowners who are severely disabled, victims of wildfires or other natural disasters, or seniors over 55 years of age that need to move closer to family or medical care, downsize, find a home that better fits their needs, or replace a damaged home and limit damage from wildfires on homes through dedicated funding for fire protection and emergency response.

(2)Limit property tax increases on family homes used as a primary residence by protecting the right of parents and grandparents to pass on their family home to their children and grandchildren for continued use as a primary residence, while eliminating unfair tax loopholes used by East Coast investors, celebrities, wealthy non-California residents, and trust fund heirs to avoid paying a fair share of property taxes on vacation homes, income properties, and beachfront rentals they own in California.

(b)Property Tax Fairness for Seniors, the Severely Disabled, and Victims of Wildfire and Natural Disasters. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or any other law, beginning on and after April 1, 2021, the following shall apply:

(1)Subject to applicable procedures and definitions as provided by statute, an owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster may transfer the taxable value of their primary residence to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in this state, regardless of the location or value of the replacement primary residence, that is purchased or newly constructed as that persons principal residence within two years of the sale of the original primary residence.

(2)For purposes of this subdivision:

(A)For any transfer of taxable value to a replacement primary residence of equal or lesser value than the original primary residence, the taxable value of the replacement primary residence shall be deemed to be the taxable value of the original primary residence.

(B)For any transfer of taxable value to a replacement primary residence of greater value than the original primary residence, the taxable value of the replacement primary residence shall be calculated by adding the difference between the full cash value of the original primary residence and the full cash value of the replacement primary residence to the taxable value of the original primary residence.

(3)An owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age or severely disabled shall not be allowed to transfer the taxable value of a primary residence more than three times pursuant to this subdivision.

(4)Any person who seeks to transfer the taxable value of their primary residence pursuant to this subdivision shall file an application with the assessor of the county in which the replacement primary residence is located. The application shall, at minimum, include information comparable to that identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 69.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as that section read on January 1, 2020.

(c)Property Tax Fairness for Family Homes. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or any other law, beginning on and after February 16, 2021, to December 31, 2024, inclusive, the following shall apply:

(1)For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 2, the terms purchased and change in ownership do not include the purchase or transfer of a family home of the transferor in the case of a transfer between parents and their children, as defined by the Legislature, if the property continues as the family home of the transferee. This subdivision shall apply to both voluntary transfers and transfers resulting from a court order or judicial decree. The new taxable value of the family home of the transferee shall be the sum of both of the following:

(A)The taxable value of the family home, subject to adjustment as authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2, determined as of the date immediately prior to the date of the purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee.

(B)The applicable of the following amounts:

(i)If the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee is less than the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) plus one million dollars ($1,000,000), then zero dollars ($0).

(ii)If the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee is equal to or more than the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) plus one million dollars ($1,000,000), an amount equal to the assessed value of the family home upon purchase by, or transfer to, the transferee, minus the sum of the taxable value described in subparagraph (A) and one million dollars ($1,000,000).

(2)Paragraph (1) shall also apply to a purchase or transfer of the family home between grandparents and their grandchildren if all of the parents of those grandchildren, who qualify as children of the grandparents, are deceased as of the date of the purchase or transfer.

(3)Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall also apply to the purchase or transfer of a family farm. For purposes of this paragraph, any reference to a family home in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be deemed to instead refer to a family farm.

(4)Beginning on February 16, 2023, and every other February 16 thereafter, the State Board of Equalization shall adjust the one million dollar ($1,000,000) amount described in paragraph (1) for inflation to reflect the percentage change in the House Price Index for California for the prior calendar year, as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The State Board of Equalization shall calculate and publish the adjustments required by this paragraph.

(5)(A)Subject to subparagraph (B), in order to receive the property tax benefit provided by this section for the purchase or transfer of a family home, the transferee shall claim the homeowners exemption or disabled veterans exemption at the time of the purchase or transfer of the family home.

(B)A transferee who fails to claim the homeowners exemption or disabled veterans exemption at the time of the purchase or transfer of the family home may receive the property tax benefit provided by this section by claiming the homeowners exemption or disabled veterans exemption within one year of the purchase or transfer of the family home and shall be entitled to a refund of taxes previously owed or paid between the date of the transfer and the date the transferee claims the homeowner's exemption or disabled veterans exemption.

(d)(1)Subdivision (h) of Section 2 shall apply to any purchase or transfer that occurs on or before February 15, 2021, but shall not apply to any purchase or transfer occurring after that date. date until January 1, 2025. Subdivision (h) of Section 2 shall be inoperative as of February 16, 2021. 2021, and shall thereafter become operative on January 1, 2025.

(e)For purposes of this section:

(1)Disabled veterans exemption means the exemption authorized by subdivision (a) of Section 4 of Article XIII.

(2)Family farm means any real property which is under cultivation or which is being used for pasture or grazing, or that is used to produce any agricultural commodity, as that term is defined in Section 51201 of the Government Code as that section read on January 1, 2020.

(3)Family home has the same meaning as principal residence, as that term is used in subdivision (k) of Section 3 of Article XIII.

(4)Full cash value has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2.

(5)Homeowners exemption means the exemption provided by subdivision (k) of Section 3 of Article XIII.

(6)Natural disaster means the existence, as declared by the Governor, of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons or property within the affected area caused by conditions such as fire, flood, drought, storm, mudslide, earthquake, civil disorder, foreign invasion, or volcanic eruption.

(7)Primary residence means a residence eligible for either of the following:

(A)The homeowners exemption.

(B)The disabled veterans exemption.

(8)Principal residence as used in subdivision (b) has the same meaning as that term is used in subdivision (a) of Section 2.

(9)Replacement primary residence has the same meaning as replacement dwelling, as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 2.

(10)Taxable value means the base year value determined in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 2 plus any adjustment authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2.

(11)Victim of a wildfire or natural disaster means the owner of a primary residence that has been substantially damaged as a result of a wildfire or natural disaster that amounts to more than 50 percent of the improvement value of the primary residence immediately before the wildfire or natural disaster. For purposes of this paragraph, damage includes a diminution in the value of the primary residence as a result of restricted access caused by the wildfire or natural disaster.

(12)Wildfire has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (j) of Section 51177 of the Government Code, as that section read on January 1, 2020.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Property taxation: principal residence and family home transfers

Reinstates Proposition 58 and 193 change in ownership exclusions for intergenerational transfers that were limited or repealed by Proposition 19 (2020).

Background

Article XIII of the California Constitution provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law. Article XIIIA of the Constitution limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of full cash value, and directs assessors to set assessed values at 1975 market value levels and only reappraise property thereafter if there is a change in ownership (Proposition 13, 1978).

Base year value transfers. State law implementing Proposition 13 generally sets a property’s value as its sales price when purchased or, when there is no sales price, at its fair market value when ownership changes (base year value). Thereafter, the law requires an annual inflation adjustment to that value that cannot exceed 2% (factored base year value). An acquisition-value based system like California’s can cause a reduction in mobility, known as a “moving penalty” or ‘lock-in effect,’ because property owners must pay tax based on any new residence’s full market value that can be much higher than the factored base year value of their current home.

In response, voters have approved base year value transfers as exceptions to Proposition 13’s requirement to reassess property upon change of ownership in the following cases:

• In June 1986, voters enacted Proposition 50 to allow a taxpayer to transfer their base year value when their property is damaged by a major misfortune or calamity and located in an area the Governor declared to be in a state of disaster.
• In November 1986, voters approved Proposition 60 to let a homeowner over the age of 55 transfer their base year value to a replacement home of equal or lesser value within the same county under specified circumstances.
• In November 1988, voters expanded base year value transfer availability to allow transfers to counties that adopt ordinances allowing the transfer (intercounty transfers).
• In June 1990, voters approved Proposition 110 to allow disabled individuals regardless of age to transfer base year values to a purchased or newly constructed replacement property.
• In November 1998, voters approved Proposition 1, which allows a base year value transfer for qualified contaminated property to a replacement or newly constructed property of equal or lesser value than the value of the contaminated property if that property was not contaminated.

Base year value transfers allow a taxpayer to continue to pay property taxes at the factored base year value of their previous home (or other property types where the law allows) and not on the value of their newly purchased or constructed home, often resulting in tax savings. For example, a taxpayer who purchased their residence for $100,000 in 1975 now has a base year value under Proposition 13 that cannot exceed $259,000 under the 2% cap in annual inflationary growth, regardless of its market value. If that taxpayer sold their residence for $500,000 and purchased a new one for the same amount, a base year value transfer allows them to continue to pay property taxes based on the $259,000 value, not $500,000, which at the 1% rate results in $2,410 in annual tax savings ($500,000 - $259,000 = $241,000 x 1% = $2,410).

Change in ownership exclusions. A change in ownership exclusion allows the new owners of a property to continue paying property based on its factored base year value, and stall any reassessment to fair market value until the property is purchased in a transaction where an exclusion does not apply. The Legislature enacted, and voters approved, two changes in ownership exclusions for transfers of property from one generation to the next. Proposition 58 (1986) exempted from change in ownership transfers of property from parents to children (ACA 2, Hannigan), which voters extended to grandchildren ten years later, so long as the grandparent is deceased (Proposition 193, 1996; ACA 17, Knowles). These exclusions applied to all inherited primary residences, regardless of value or number of transfers. They also applied to up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property, such as second homes or business properties.

ACA 11/Proposition 19. In 2020, the Legislature placed on the ballot, and voters approved as Proposition 19, the Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act (ACA 11, Mullin). Among other provisions, the Act created a new section of the California Constitution to allow base year value transfers for disabled taxpayers and those over the age of 55, as well as a victim of a wildfire or other natural disaster. Proposition 19 allowed taxpayers to transfer base year values to properties of greater value and across county lines regardless of whether the accepting county enacted an ordinance, so long as the replacement property is purchased or constructed within two years of the date the original property is sold, or damaged or destroyed by a disaster.

To implement its base year value transfer provisions, the measure:

• Provides that if the replacement property is of equal or lesser value of the original property, its taxable value is equal to that of the original property.
• States that if the replacement property is of greater value of the original property, its taxable value is equal to that of the replacement property, plus the difference in value between the sales price of the original property and the sales price of the replacement property is subsequently added to the base year value. For example, if the original property has a base year value of $230,000 sells for $500,000, and the taxpayer purchases a $750,000 replacement property, its new base year value is $480,000 ($750,000 – $500,000 = $250,000 + $230,000 = $480,000).
• Allows disabled taxpayers or those over 55 three transfers.
• Requires taxpayers to file an application with the assessor to claim a transfer with contents identical to the application for current transfers.
• Applies beginning April 1, 2021.

To offset potential property tax revenue losses resulting from its new base year value transfer benefits, the Act created a new section of the California Constitution to limit the parent-child and grandparent-grandchild exclusion from change in ownership of a principal residence only if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee. The Act further repeals the parent-child, grandparent-grandchild exclusion for up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property that is not the principal residence entirely. The new section also:

• Provides that even if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee, the exclusion can only reduce assessed value by $1 million.
• Directs the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to adjust the $1 million exclusion amount annually for inflation beginning on February 16, 2023.
• Provides that the capped exclusion applies to family farms, as defined.
• Requires the transferee to claim the homeowners’ or disabled veterans’ exemption at the time of transfer to apply the exclusion. However, a transferee can file a claim to apply the exclusion up to one year after the purchase or transfer, and receive a refund of previous taxes paid or owed between the transfer date and the date they file the claim.
• Applies to transfers beginning February 15, 2021.

Additionally, the Act created a new section of the California Constitution to allocate any additional revenues or savings to the state to the California Fire Response Fund and the County Revenue Protection Fund, and continuously appropriate moneys to those purposes, as specified. The new section implements these provisions by:

• Requiring the Director of Finance to calculate additional revenues and net savings to the state resulting from the measure during the preceding fiscal year each September 1st between 2022 and 2027 using the best data or available estimates if data is not available.
• Directing the Controller to transfer 75% of the amount certified by the Director of Finance for the applicable year to the California Fire Response Fund.
• Directing the Controller to transfer 15% of the amount to the County Revenue Protection Fund to reimburse counties with “negative gain.”
• Specifying that funds in the California Fire Response Fund are subject to appropriation by the Legislature according to a specified methodology, which states funds must be used to expand fire suppression staffing in underfunded special districts that provide fire suppression staffing, and must not supplant existing state or local funds utilized for those purposes, and further:
  • Allocates 20% to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to fund fire suppression staffing.
  • Sends 80% to the Special District Fire Response Fund, for districts that provide fire protection services according to specified criteria.

The Act added four new sections to the California Constitution, but was not accompanied by a legislative bill that set forth the statutory guidance necessary for the BOE and assessors to implement its provisions uniformly across the state. Many of the Act’s terms and requirements were unclear, or conflicted with other parts of state law. In response, the BOE initiated a process to provide guidance and initiate rulemaking, resulting in several letters to assessors, new and updated property tax rules, and chief counsel memos to advise taxpayers and promote uniform implementation of Proposition 19’s changes. The Legislature also enacted SB 539 (Hertzberg), which created two new sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code that provided further statutory detail to guide assessors and taxpayers claiming base year value transfers of change in ownership exclusions.

As noted above, Proposition 19 enacted some of the most significant and complex changes to California property taxes since Proposition 13. The initiative’s provisions also went into effect quickly, especially its limitation and elimination of parent-child, and grandparent-grandchild exclusions, which became effective on February 15^th 2021, catching many taxpayers unaware. Arguing that voters may want to revisit Proposition 19’s changes to the exclusions, the author wants to place a constitutional amendment before voters reenacting them.

Proposed Law

Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 places a measure before voters that repeals Proposition 19’s limitation on the parent-child and grandparent-grandchild exclusion from change in ownership of a principal residence to apply only if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee. SCA 4 also reinstates the parent-child, grandparent-grandchild exclusion for up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property that is not the principal residence. Under the measure, both changes become effective on January 1, 2025, if approved by voters.

SCA 4 directs the Legislature to provide in statute that the end date for the operation of its repeal of Proposition 19’s changes, and reinstatement of the exclusions as they existed before Proposition 19 became effective, are publicized and that the publicity is ensured to reach minority communities. The measure states that every statute, regulation, and judicial interpretation of its changes must be consistent with a liberal interpretation, and with a broad application of the tax benefit. The measure also includes a severability clause.

State Revenue Impact

According to BOE, the revenue impact of SCA 4 is indeterminable.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “California’s median home value is now passing $716,000 and expected to only climb. Family ranches, businesses, and homes are quickly surpassing the million dollar cap, forcing the younger generations to sell their family homes and businesses due to the reevaluation and increased tax base for their childhood homes. Families whose greatest potential for economic mobility is only achieved through home ownership. SCA 4 would allow voters to decide on the ballot to reinstate Proposition 58 and Proposition 193, restoring what was recently taken away through the hidden provisions in Prop 19: the constitutional exclusion from reassessment when certain property is transferred between parents and children or grandparents and grandchildren.”

2. Good deal. The combination of the Proposition 13 method of property taxation and the grandparent-grandchild/parent-child exclusion can be highly financially beneficial. The exclusion can be applied to the same property an infinite number of times, providing a tax benefit that increases the more the value of the property grows and the longer the same family holds it, which reduces the tax burden on accrued lineal wealth. While Proposition 19 eliminated the intergenerational transfer exclusion for up to $1 million in property that isn’t the transferee’s principal place of residence, it continued the exclusion for principal residences, but only when the transferee continues to reside in the family home. Proposition 19 meant that many children or grandchildren had to leave or sell their current home and take up residence in their parents’ or grandparents’ old one to maintain its factored base year value. If not, they could either sell the parents’ or grandparents’ home, or pay taxes based on its fair market value as of the date of transfer. SCA 4 would restore the tax incentive for families to rent out these residences, at the cost of incremental property tax revenues, and any increase in supply of homes on the sales market resulting from Proposition 19. The Committee may wish to consider the fairness of restoring intergenerational transfers, and whether doing so would affect the supply of homes for sale in the state.

3. Bad deal. SCA 4 proponents argue that Proposition 19’s significant changes and effective dates only months after voters approved the initiative caught many taxpayers unaware, upset estate planning, and forced many taxpayers to sell homes. Many affected taxpayers only became aware of Proposition 19’s changes while grieving the death of a parent or grandparent that resulted in an inheritance of property. Proponents add that voters approved the initiative narrowly (51.1% to 48.9%), based on a campaign that emphasized the initiative’s benefits to seniors, wildfire victims, and disabled homeowners. SCA 4 gives voters the opportunity to reinstate tax benefits that had been in place for many years before limited or eliminated by Proposition 19. However, even if the Legislature enacts and voters approve SCA 4’s changes, its reinstated tax benefits would only apply to transfers beginning on January 1, 2025; transfers before that date but after February 15, 2021, would still be subject to Proposition 19’s rules.

4. LAO Review. In 2017, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) published “the Property Tax Inheritance Exclusion,” which reviewed the intergenerational transfers before they were amended by Proposition 19. The report states:

• Each year, the exclusion applied to between 60,000 and 80,000 inherited properties statewide, and around 650,000 properties—roughly 5 percent of all properties in the state—in the last decade.
• The vast majority of properties receiving the inheritance exclusion are single‑family homes.
• The longer a home is owned, the higher the property tax increase at the time of a transfer. As a result, the tax break provided to children by allowing them to avoid reassessment often is large. The typical home inherited in Los Angeles County during the past decade reduced the child’s property tax bill by $3,000 to $4,000 per year.
• Parent‑to‑child exclusions reduced statewide property tax revenues by around $1.5 billion from what they would be in the absence of the exclusion, about 2.5 percent of total statewide property tax revenue. This share is higher in some counties, such as Mendocino (9 percent), San Luis Obispo (7 percent), El Dorado (6 percent), Sonoma (6 percent), and Santa Barbara (5 percent).
• Inheritance exclusions appear to be encouraging children to hold on to their parents’ homes to use as rentals or other purposes instead of putting them on the for sale market. Before inheritance, about 70 percent of homes in Los Angeles County in the last ten years claimed the homeowner’s exemption, compared to about 40 percent after inheritance.
• The conversion of inherited properties from primary residences to other uses could be exacerbating challenges for home buyers created by the state’s tight housing markets, but could put downward pressure on rents, although the shift of homes from the for‑sale market to the rental market likely results in fewer Californians being homeowners and more being renters.

5. Dry well. Proposition 19 added provisions to the Constitution that required the Department of Finance (DOF) to calculate additional revenues and net savings to the state resulting from the measure. The measure identified reductions in the state’s funding obligation under Proposition 98 due to increased local property tax revenues resulting from limiting or eliminating intergenerational transfer exclusions as one possible source. ACA 11 then directed 75% of any revenues and savings calculated by DOF to the California Fire Response Fund, which the Legislature would appropriate for various firefighting purposes, and 15% to the County Revenue Protection Fund, to potentially reimburse counties for revenue losses resulting from the measure. However, on September 2, 2022, the DOF wrote to legislative leaders and the State Controller that there were no additional revenues or savings to the state, so the Controller would not transfer any moneys to either fund in 2021-22. DOF stated that local property tax revenue will increase as a result of Proposition 19, but so would income tax deductions for local property taxes paid, resulting in no additional state revenue. DOF added that any changes in local funding from property tax revenue do not affect the state’s required contribution to the minimum funding guarantee because Test 1 of Proposition 98 was operative in 2021-22.

6. Double-referred. The Senate Rules Committee ordered a double referral for SCA 4, first to the Committee on Governance and Finance, and second to the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments.

Support and Opposition

(5/5/2023)

Support:
Honorable Jeff Prang, Los Angeles County Office of The Assessor 
Alameda County Taxpayers' Association, INC.
Apartment Owners Association of California Inc.
California Contractors Coalition
California Realtors Coalition
California Taxpayer Protection Committee
California Taxpayers Association
Californians for Better Government
Central Coast Taxpayers Association
Central Valley BizFed
Central Valley Taxpayers Association
Coalition of Labor Agriculture and Business Santa Barbara County
Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Family Business Association of California
Glendora Chamber of Commerce
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA)
Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County
Mission Street Neighbors
Monterey County Farm Bureau
Northeast Neighbors of Santa Monica
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Placer County Taxpayers Association
Pro Small Biz California
San Francisco Taxpayers Association
San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association
Solano County Taxpayers Association
Ventura County Taxpayers Association
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition
2047 Individuals

Opposition:
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Association of Realtors
California Professional Firefighters
California Teachers Association
Common Ground California

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Property taxation: principal residence and family home transfers

Reinstates Proposition 58 and 193 change in ownership exclusions for intergenerational transfers that were limited or repealed by Proposition 19 (2020).

Background

Article XIII of the California Constitution provides that all property is taxable unless explicitly exempted by the Constitution or federal law. Article XIIIA of the Constitution limits the maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property at 1% of full cash value, and directs assessors to set assessed values at 1975 market value levels and only reappraise property thereafter if there is a change in ownership (Proposition 13, 1978).

Base year value transfers. State law implementing Proposition 13 generally sets a property’s value as its sales price when purchased or, when there is no sales price, at its fair market value when ownership changes (base year value). Thereafter, the law requires an annual inflation adjustment to that value that cannot exceed 2% (factored base year value). An acquisition-value based system like California’s can cause a reduction in mobility, known as a “moving penalty” or ‘lock-in effect,’ because property owners must pay tax based on any new residence’s full market value that can be much higher than the factored base year value of their current home.

In response, voters have approved base year value transfers as exceptions to Proposition 13’s requirement to reassess property upon change of ownership in the following cases:

• In June 1986, voters enacted Proposition 50 to allow a taxpayer to transfer their base year value when their property is damaged by a major misfortune or calamity and located in an area the Governor declared to be in a state of disaster.
• In November 1986, voters approved Proposition 60 to let a homeowner over the age of 55 transfer their base year value to a replacement home of equal or lesser value within the same county under specified circumstances.
• In November 1988, voters expanded base year value transfer availability to allow transfers to counties that adopt ordinances allowing the transfer (intercounty transfers).
• In June 1990, voters approved Proposition 110 to allow disabled individuals regardless of age to transfer base year values to a purchased or newly constructed replacement property.
• In November 1998, voters approved Proposition 1, which allows a base year value transfer for qualified contaminated property to a replacement or newly constructed property of equal or lesser value than the value of the contaminated property if that property was not contaminated.

Base year value transfers allow a taxpayer to continue to pay property taxes at the factored base year value of their previous home (or other property types where the law allows) and not on the value of their newly purchased or constructed home, often resulting in tax savings. For example, a taxpayer who purchased their residence for $100,000 in 1975 now has a base year value under Proposition 13 that cannot exceed $259,000 under the 2% cap in annual inflationary growth, regardless of its market value. If that taxpayer sold their residence for $500,000 and purchased a new one for the same amount, a base year value transfer allows them to continue to pay property taxes based on the $259,000 value, not $500,000, which at the 1% rate results in $2,410 in annual tax savings ($500,000 - $259,000 = $241,000 x 1% = $2,410).

Change in ownership exclusions. A change in ownership exclusion allows the new owners of a property to continue paying property based on its factored base year value, and stall any reassessment to fair market value until the property is purchased in a transaction where an exclusion does not apply. The Legislature enacted, and voters approved, two changes in ownership exclusions for transfers of property from one generation to the next. Proposition 58 (1986) exempted from change in ownership transfers of property from parents to children (ACA 2, Hanigan), which voters extended to grandchildren ten years later, so long as the grandparent is deceased (Proposition 193, 1996; ACA 17, Knowles). These exclusions applied to all inherited primary residences, regardless of value or number of transfers. They also applied to up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property, such as second homes or business properties.

ACA 11/Proposition 19. In 2020, the Legislature placed on the ballot, and voters approved as Proposition 19, the Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act (ACA 11, Mullin). Among other provisions, the Act created a new section of the California Constitution to allow base year value transfers for disabled taxpayers and those over the age of 55, as well as a victim of a wildfire or other natural disaster. Proposition 19 allowed taxpayers to transfer base year values to properties of greater value and across county lines regardless of whether the accepting county enacted an ordinance, so long as the replacement property is purchased or constructed within two years of the date the original property is sold, or damaged or destroyed by a disaster.

To implement its base year value transfer provisions, the measure:

• Provides that if the replacement property is of equal or lesser value of the original property, its taxable value is equal to that of the original property.
• States that if the replacement property is of greater value of the original property, its taxable value is equal to that of the replacement property, plus the difference in value between the sales price of the original property and the sales price of the replacement property is subsequently added to the base year value. For example, if the original property has a base year value of $230,000 sells for $500,000, and the taxpayer purchases a $750,000 replacement property, its new base year value is $480,000 ($750,000 – $500,000 = $250,000 + $230,000 = $480,000).
• Allows disabled taxpayers or those over 55 three transfers.
• Requires taxpayers to file an application with the assessor to claim a transfer with contents identical to the application for current transfers.
• Applies beginning April 1, 2021.

To offset potential property tax revenue losses resulting from its new base year value transfer benefits, the Act created a new section of the California Constitution to limit the parent-child and grandparent-grandchild exclusion from change in ownership of a principal residence only if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee. The Act further repeals the parent-child, grandparent-grandchild exclusion for up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property that is not the principal residence entirely. The new section also:

• Provides that even if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee, the exclusion can only reduce assessed value by $1 million.
• Directs the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to adjust the $1 million exclusion amount annually for inflation beginning on February 16, 2023.
• Provides that the capped exclusion applies to family farms, as defined.
• Requires the transferee to claim the homeowners’ or disabled veterans’ exemption at the time of transfer to apply the exclusion. However, a transferee can file a claim to apply the exclusion up to one year after the purchase or transfer, and receive a refund of previous taxes paid or owed between the transfer date and the date they file the claim.
• Applies to transfers beginning February 15, 2021.

Additionally, the Act created a new section of the California Constitution to allocate any additional revenues or savings to the state to the California Fire Response Fund and the County Revenue Protection Fund, and continuously appropriate moneys to those purposes, as specified. The new section implements these provisions by:

• Requiring the Director of Finance to calculate additional revenues and net savings to the state resulting from the measure during the preceding fiscal year each September 1st between 2022 and 2027 using the best data or available estimates if data is not available.
• Directing the Controller to transfer 75% of the amount certified by the Director of Finance for the applicable year to the California Fire Response Fund.
• Directing the Controller to transfer 15% of the amount to the County Revenue Protection Fund to reimburse counties with “negative gain.”
• Specifying that funds in the California Fire Response Fund are subject to appropriation by the Legislature according to a specified methodology, which states funds must be used to expand fire suppression staffing in underfunded special districts that provide fire suppression staffing, and must not supplant existing state or local funds utilized for those purposes, and further:
  • Allocates 20% to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to fund fire suppression staffing.
  • Sends 80% to the Special District Fire Response Fund, for districts that provide fire protection services according to specified criteria.

The Act added four new sections to the California Constitution, but was not accompanied by a legislative bill that set forth the statutory guidance necessary for the BOE and assessors to implement its provisions uniformly across the state. Many of the Act’s terms and requirements were unclear, or conflicted with other parts of state law. In response, the BOE initiated a process to provide guidance and initiate rulemaking, resulting in several letters to assessors, new and updated property tax rules, and chief counsel memos to advise taxpayers and promote uniform implementation of Proposition 19’s changes. The Legislature also enacted SB 539 (Hertzberg), which created two new sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code that provided further statutory detail to guide assessors and taxpayers claiming base year value transfers of change in ownership exclusions.

As noted above, Proposition 19 enacted some of the most significant and complex changes to California property taxes since Proposition 13. The initiative’s provisions also went into effect quickly, especially its limitation and elimination of parent-child, and grandparent-grandchild exclusions, which became effective on February 15^th 2021, catching many taxpayers unaware. Arguing that voters may want to revisit Proposition 19’s changes to the exclusions, the author wants to place a constitutional amendment before voters reenacting them.

Proposed Law

Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 places a measure before voters that repeals Proposition 19’s limitation on the parent-child and grandparent-grandchild exclusion from change in ownership of a principal residence to apply only if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee. SCA 4 also reinstates the parent-child, grandparent-grandchild exclusion for up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property that is not the principal residence. Under the measure, both changes become effective on January 1, 2025, if approved by voters.

SCA 4 directs the Legislature to provide in statute that the end date for the operation of its repeal of Proposition 19’s changes, and reinstatement of the exclusions as they existed before Proposition 19 became effective, are publicized and that the publicity is ensured to reach minority communities. The measure states that every statute, regulation, and judicial interpretation of its changes must be consistent with a liberal interpretation, and with a broad application of the tax benefit. The measure also includes a severability clause.

State Revenue Impact

Pending.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “California’s median home value is now passing $716,000 and expected to only climb. Family ranches, businesses, and homes are quickly surpassing the million dollar cap, forcing the younger generations to sell their family homes and businesses due to the reevaluation and increased tax base for their childhood homes. Families whose greatest potential for economic mobility is only achieved through home ownership. SCA 4 would allow voters to decide on the ballot to reinstate Proposition 58 and Proposition 193, restoring what was recently taken away through the hidden provisions in Prop 19: the constitutional exclusion from reassessment when certain property is transferred between parents and children or grandparents and grandchildren.”

2. Good deal. The combination of the Proposition 13 method of property taxation and the grandparent-grandchild/parent-child exclusion can be highly financially beneficial. The exclusion can be applied to the same property an infinite number of times, providing a tax benefit that increases the more the value of the property grows and the longer the same family holds it, which reduces the tax burden on accrued lineal wealth. While Proposition 19 eliminated the intergenerational transfer exclusion for up to $1 million in property that isn’t the transferee’s principal place of residence, it continued the exclusion for principal residences, but only when the transferee continues to reside in the family home. Proposition 19 meant that many children or grandchildren had to leave or sell their current home and take up residence in their parents’ or grandparents’ old one to maintain its factored base year value. If not, they could either sell the parents’ or grandparents’ home, or pay taxes based on its fair market value as of the date of transfer. SCA 4 would restore the tax incentive for families to rent out these residences, at the cost of incremental property tax revenues, and any increase in supply of homes on the sales market resulting from Proposition 19. The Committee may wish to consider the fairness of restoring intergenerational transfers, and whether doing so would affect the supply of homes for sale in the state.

3. Bad deal. SCA 4 proponents argue that Proposition 19’s significant changes and effective dates only months after voters approved the initiative caught many taxpayers unaware, upset estate planning, and forced many taxpayers to sell homes. Many affected taxpayers only became aware of Proposition 19’s changes while grieving the death of a parent or grandparent that resulted in an inheritance of property. Proponents add that voters approved the initiative narrowly (51.1% to 48.9%), based on a campaign that emphasized the initiative’s benefits to seniors, wildfire victims, and disabled homeowners. SCA 4 gives voters the opportunity to reinstate tax benefits that had been in place for many years before limited or eliminated by Proposition 19. However, even if the Legislature enacts and voters approve SCA 4’s changes, its reinstated tax benefits would only apply to transfers beginning on January 1, 2025; transfers before that date but after February 15, 2021, would still be subject to Proposition 19’s rules.

4. LAO Review. In 2017, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) published “the Property Tax Inheritance Exclusion,” which reviewed the intergenerational transfers before they were amended by Proposition 19. The report states:

• Each year, the exclusion applied to between 60,000 and 80,000 inherited properties statewide, and around 650,000 properties—roughly 5 percent of all properties in the state—in the last decade.
• The vast majority of properties receiving the inheritance exclusion are single‑family homes.
• The longer a home is owned, the higher the property tax increase at the time of a transfer. As a result, the tax break provided to children by allowing them to avoid reassessment often is large. The typical home inherited in Los Angeles County during the past decade reduced the child’s property tax bill by $3,000 to $4,000 per year.
• Parent‑to‑child exclusions reduced statewide property tax revenues by around $1.5 billion from what they would be in the absence of the exclusion, about 2.5 percent of total statewide property tax revenue. This share is higher in some counties, such as Mendocino (9 percent), San Luis Obispo (7 percent), El Dorado (6 percent), Sonoma (6 percent), and Santa Barbara (5 percent).
• Inheritance exclusions appear to be encouraging children to hold on to their parents’ homes to use as rentals or other purposes instead of putting them on the for sale market. Before inheritance, about 70 percent of homes in Los Angeles County in the last ten years claimed the homeowner’s exemption, compared to about 40 percent after inheritance.
• The conversion of inherited properties from primary residences to other uses could be exacerbating challenges for home buyers created by the state’s tight housing markets, but could put downward pressure on rents, although the shift of homes from the for‑sale market to the rental market likely results in fewer Californians being homeowners and more being renters.

5. Dry well. Proposition 19 added provisions to the Constitution that required the Department of Finance (DOF) to calculate additional revenues and net savings to the state resulting from the measure. The measure identified reductions in the state’s funding obligation under Proposition 98 due to increased local property tax revenues resulting from limiting or eliminating intergenerational transfer exclusions as one possible source. ACA 11 then directed 75% of any revenues and savings calculated by DOF to the California Fire Response Fund, which the Legislature would appropriate for various firefighting purposes, and 15% to the County Revenue Protection Fund, to potentially reimburse counties for revenue losses resulting from the measure. However, on September 2, 2022, the DOF wrote to legislative leaders and the State Controller that there were no additional revenues or savings to the state, so the Controller would not transfer any moneys to either fund in 2021-22. DOF stated that local property tax revenue will increase as a result of Proposition 19, but so would income tax deductions for local property taxes paid, resulting in no additional state revenue. DOF added that any changes in local funding from property tax revenue do not affect the state’s required contribution to the minimum funding guarantee because Test 1 of Proposition 98 was operative in 2021-22.

6. Double-referred. The Senate Rules Committee ordered a double referral for SCA 4, first to the Committee on Governance and Finance, and second to the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments.

Support and Opposition

(4/14/23)

Support:
Honorable Jeff Prang, Los Angeles County Office of The Assessor
California Contractors Coalition
California Realtors Coalition
California Taxpayer Protection Committee
California Taxpayers Association
Californians for Better Government
Central Coast Taxpayers Association
Central Valley BizFed
Central Valley Taxpayers Association
Coalition of Labor Agriculture and Business Santa Barbara County
Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Glendora Chamber of Commerce
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA)
Mission Street Neighbors
Monterey County Farm Bureau
Northeast Neighbors of Santa Monica
Orange County Taxpayers Association
Placer County Taxpayers Association
San Francisco Taxpayers Association
Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association
Solano County Taxpayers Association
Ventura County Taxpayers Association
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
1547 Individuals

Opposition: California Association of Realtors
California Professional Firefighters

-- END --