A public hearing will be held on Tuesday to discuss a proposed county fee that would pay for clean water programs.
The Clean Water, Clean Beaches measure would impose an annual fee of about $54 on the average single-family owner, and $34 on the typical condo owner. About 90 percent of parcel owners would pay less than $100 a year, but commercial property owners could be liable for thousands of dollars.
If the measure is approved, it would raise about $295 million for the county to cover costs associated with improving water quality and reducing stormwater pollution.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that L.A. County is not responsible for cleaning contaminated water before it is discharged into the ocean. Environmental groups had hoped that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District would be held liable for treating pollutants, such as copper, lead, cyanide and aluminum among others.
The Flood District estimates it spent about $340 million to control contaminants in the 2010-2011 fiscal year, and the proposed fees would help to offset the cost. The $295 million would be split annually between the Flood District, nine watershed areas that manage clean-up projects and the cities in L.A. County.
The hearing will take place Tuesday at 11 a.m. in the Board Hearing Room at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, located at 500 West Temple St. in Los Angeles.
The "trickle down" economics of tax subsidies for the rich has just got to stop. And the huff-and-puff-and-move-to-Arizona gambit has been around since I was a little boy in the 1960s. The so-called job creators are being more and more subsidized in California by the residential property tax payers - both landlords and tenants. Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times: "Of all the ways in which California residents have slit their fiscal throats over the last 30 years, surely the most inexplicable is the bestowal of a gaping tax loophole on commercial and industrial property owners. The culprit, no surprise, is that 31-year-old wolf in sheep's clothing, Proposition 13, which prohibits the reassessment of any property except at the time of a change in ownership. A sale is a pretty straightforward transaction for a home. That's not the case for commercial or industrial property, where a sale can be disguised in an almost infinite number of ways. "The whole system is completely unenforceable," says Lenny Goldberg, a Sacramento lobbyist who, as director of the California Tax Reform Assn., has been pressing for years to institute a "split roll" -- that is, to tax commercial and industrial property differently from residential. The idea is to reverse what has been a shift in California's property tax burden onto homeowners from business owners under Proposition 13.
The people and their corporations (who are people my friend) who invested in commercial land years ago, and who "create jobs" by collecting the rent (an honorable profession, don't get me wrong),. would have a fit.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/massive-exodus-out-of-california/#PkLRq3wh51PVhLQE.99
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UPH-RvJtxm0
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/massive-exodus-out-of-california/#WBg2dClXyJ7z043y.99
I guess I'm all for it, as long as they have a real plan to clean up the aqueducts and stormwater management system and drastically reduce the amount of trash, debris, plastics, contaminates, etc. The comprehensive approach should develop a plan to recapture contaminated stormwater and convert it into usable water to address the water shortage. If we all get sick less, during the year, after going into the ocean, the costs be will worth it. I know the aquatic life in the Santa Monica Bay would appreciate it.
The way this stands now, there is no true oversite because the members of the oversite board are appointed by the board of supervisors. The amount of money needed (300 hundred million ) was based upon, in part, but substantially from the requirement that was adopted by the regional board and pushed by the advocacy groups that required the county and municipalities to remove all bacteria including natural bacteria or be subject to lawsuits. This is not what the clean water act was based on. Even if the agencies that advocated for this were to completely clean all of the pollution, they would still receive part of the 300 million per year, forever.
"Overtaxed? Check numbers SACRAMENTO — The Republican mantra in the Capitol is that Californians already are overtaxed and especially should not be taxed higher during a recession. Yes, but -- California's state and local tax burden ranks sixth in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C. The burden has bounced around that No. 6 mark most of this decade after hitting No. 2 in 2001. It was No. 9 in both 1990 and 1980. So not a lot has changed over the years. But viewed from a different angle, California's state and local tax burden is closer to average nationally. We rank 18th in total taxes and fees based on a percentage of personal income, according to the nonpartisan California Budget Project in Sacramento. The tax and fee bite is 16.5%. For solely taxes, it's 11.2%. On that, we rank No. 16 among the states. Basing the rankings on personal income "reflects the ability of the state as a whole to pay," contends Jean Ross, executive director of the organization.
If you broaden your horizons a little bit above World Net Daily, John, you will see that this is a pattern dating back to WW2.
You know full well that libs like me are talking about ending the enormous loophole that commercial landowners take advantage of WHEN THEY SELL. Right now, if Laetz Inc. sells its strip mall to Mazza LLC, we don't transfer title to the property. I simply sell my holding subsidiary company to Mazza LLC. Perfectly legal tax dodge. But if Mr. Laetz sells his house to Mr. Mazza, there is a property tax increase. Don't you think that commercial property owners should have the same obligations as homeowners? Of course you don't, because you're counting on a big fat capital gain when you sell to a buyer who knows he will get the tax loophole. You're also banking on that taxpayer-subsidized "profit" to be taxed at just 15 percent because you're a "job creator", not the 35-39 percent tax levied on mere honest wages. Nice fat property tax subsidy in your pocket, John. That doesn't affect the rent you charge your tenants now. So that little bit of patriotic bluster is worthless. Yes, John, I've been to City Hall in the afternoon, and I don't share your assessment at all.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_22277585/california-democrats-signal-they-want-reform-proposition-13 http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/ab-2492-state-would-close-75-billion-annual-corporate-tax-loophole http://www.calbuzz.com/2011/06/fight-looms-over-prop-13s-biggest-scam/
"The system by which commercial property is assessed is irrational, loophole-ridden, complex, increases assessment on some properties while allowing others to escape reassessment, and generally is incapable of being defended as rational public policy. While business groups defend the outcome—very low property taxes for many businesses—we challenge anyone to defend the confused and confusing system which treats similar commercial properties very differently, depending on how they are organized. "For commercial property, the system often fails to capture actual changes in ownership. The basic problem is that the law does not fit the reality of property ownership: commercial property is held in many complex forms which make “a change of ownership” difficult to determine. These forms include limited partnerships, limited liability companies, subchapter S corporations, family trusts, publicly-traded corporations, private equity holdings, real estate investment trusts, and others. Many properties are also structured to avoid change of ownership, particularly the many properties held in trusts."
In 2009, the "spread" had grown to 39 percentage points, with residential property at 69% and commercial property paying just 30%. Source:Caltaxreform.org .
As for your last-minute deal, congratulations on beating the millionaire's tax increase. I am sure all the other G.O.P. donors like yourself were busy scurrying around at the last minute, having lost their best chance to restore Gov. Romney's proposed millionaire's tax breaks at the expense of the rest of us. Obviously, you and the clever people at Urth found mutually-beneficial terms. Your partial disclosure of the deal sheds absolutely no light on the corporate loopholes that Urth utilized, assuming they properly exercised their fiduciary duties to their shareholders. Nothing illegal about that, that's how the system is ginned. But it doesn't change the fact that commercial landowners in California, as a class, have reaped far more benefits from Proposition 13 than residential homeowners and renters. We're going to fix that.
You're exactly right. The big businesses behind the California Chamber of Commerce, California Manufacturers Assoc., the landlords association, etc were very clever. They gamed the system with Proposition 13, which had great immediate relief for residential taxpayers, but then screwed them well over the years. The big guns hired Jon Coupal and Howard Jarvis to carry their water for them under the name of "fighting for the little guy." Follow the money, just who do you think paid for those lobbyists?
Good night.
You mean, people who swim, surf or fish in the ocean? The taxpayers who pay to shovel tons of trash out of the bays after each storm? The insurance companies and emergency rooms that treat sickened people (oh, yeah, people get very sick from your garbage)? The people who rely on clean oceans for the billions of dollars of tourism dollars, which are dependent on clean beaches? Those people, are sticking it to you, for asking for a modest tax to clean up the problem upstream? Just who is sticking it to whom here?