California Cities Start Shutting Down Police Forces to Close Budget Gaps

[swag]

Source: Bloomberg

San Carlos, a Silicon Valley suburb that calls itself the City of Good Living, will hire contractors to maintain parks and negotiate with county officials to take over policing, becoming the latest California community eliminating basic services to close budget deficits.

Measures passed by the City Council last night may save the community of 28,000 residents about $2.5 million a year, according to Mayor Randy Royce. San Carlos faces a $3.5 million deficit for the fiscal year that begins July 1, on a budget of $25.8 million.

About 70 percent of U.S. municipalities are cutting jobs to cope with declining tax revenue, according to a survey published last month by the National League of Cities in Washington. One in five communities cut public-safety spending and revised union contracts, and almost one-quarter reduced health care.

San Carlos’s council voted 4-1 to pursue discussions with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department on taking over the 32- member police force for the city located 24 miles (39 kilometers) south of San Francisco, according to Royce.


Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/california-cities-start-shutting-down-police-forces-to-close-budget-gaps.html

[Demeter]

1. That's not going without police

that's just going without local accountability for the police.

I always thought California could do with a thinning of the thin blue line--especially in LA. This is not what will help end police brutality.

[XemaSab]

2. Cops who are running around all day putting out fires (so to speak)

are more likely to get ugly and beat or shoot someone.

Thinning the force is not the way to increase the peace of mind for the cops.

[DBoon]

5. that's exactly the problem with the LAPD

in proportion to the population, LA has far fewer police per resident than just about any US city of similar size

When police don't have the numbers to cope with crime, they tend to resort to brutality to compensate

We have seen abundant evidence of this in past decades

[Xipe Totec]

3. Now watch their insurance premiums go up nt

[Bragi]

4. Yaay Prop 13

No taxes is the way to go! Just ask most Americans.

[KansDem]

7. My thoughts exactly...

All those pro-Prop13ers who enjoyed artificially-low taxes all those decades will now reap what they sowed. Unless they sold their house for 20 times what they paid for it and moved to Idaho.

I was in California during Prop13. I knew a couple who swore up and down they would have to move out of California if Prop 13 didn't pass. Well, it passed and this couple went out and bought a second home in Big Bear Lake.

They must have confused entitlement with need...

[slackmaster]

19. As a middle-class working Californian, I am appalled when someone says we have "low taxes"

You have no idea what you're talking about. Our income taxes are very progressive and close to the top among states. Sales tax over 8%. Fuel and corporate taxes are among the highest in the nation. Property taxes are about in the middle.

[KansDem]

20. I lived in California from 1954 to 1979...

I was there for Prop. 13 and the "Jarvis Revolution." I know folks who voted for Prop. 13 so they would have artificially low property taxes. I know their home values skyrocketed while their property taxes were limited to 2% of the previous year.

Proposition 13 Tax Reform
Under Proposition 13 tax reform, property tax value was rolled back and frozen at the
1976 assessed value level. Property tax increases on any given property were limited
to no more than 2% per year as long as the property was not sold. Once sold, the
property was reassessed at 1% of the sale price, and the 2% yearly cap became
applicable to future years. This allowed property owners to finally be able to estimate
the amount of future property taxes, and determine.

I heard folks who swore up and down they'd have to move out of the state if Prop. 13 didn't pass, only to buy a second house when it did (Need? not really).

And I heard these same folks who moved out of state in the last five years bragging about how much more they sold their house for (due to the booming real estate market), while paying much, much less in property taxes than their neighbor who bought a similar house next door only a few years earlier.

The inequality in property taxes causes so much confusion that even the Jarvis site has an "explanation:"

Q. I recently purchased a house, and I'm paying much higher property taxes than my neighbor. How can that be fair?

A. This is a common criticism — and misunderstanding.

Because Proposition 13 uses acquisition value (usually what the owner paid for the home) rather than the current market value as a basis of taxation, it is possible for owners of identical side-by-side properties to have significantly different tax bills. Those who have owned their property longer, often see that the current market value is much greater than the taxable value, which is limited to a 2% annual increase under Proposition 13.

This cap on increases protects all owners from being taxed on "paper profits," the higher market value of a home from which the owner receives no benefit. Many homeowners who bought their property just ten years ago could not afford to buy their own homes at today's prices!

The difference between actual value and taxable value disappears when the property changes hands. New buyers are taxed based on what they voluntarily agree to pay for their property. The real fairness in Proposition 13 is in how it works once a home is purchased. It controls taxes on all property by restricting the maximum rate (1%) and by limiting annual increases in assessed valuation (2% annually).

Some politicians continue to argue that this acquisition-value system is unfair, that everyone should pay based on current market value. If the value of a home increases by 15% in one year, taxes should increase the same amount. These arguments come from those seeking higher taxes on all property owners, not those who want to provide tax relief to new buyers.

Those who focus on the difference in taxable values of properties ignore the fact that property tax assessments prior to Proposition 13 showed an even wider divergence than under the current Proposition 13 system.

This points to another great unfairness of the old assessment system, when homeowners were at the mercy of the tax collectors — assessors who could arbitrarily increase assessed value and, with that, increase taxes. By using acquisition value, Proposition 13 links the property tax to ability to pay, an important standard of fairness in taxation.

Alternatives to Proposition 13 are also bad for homeowners. A recent California Policy Seminar showed that more than 90% of elderly property owners would be negatively impacted by any proposed diversion from Proposition 13. Suggested alternatives would also result in widespread tax increases. For one example, almost half of all Los Angeles County homeowners would be hit with tax hikes of more than 160%.

Under Proposition 13, all homeowners on the block share key benefits — they pay far less in property taxes than without Proposition 13, they pay far less than property owners in other states that don't have these kinds of protections, and they all have the absolute certainty as to what their tax bills will be in future years, without concern for skyrocketing property values or arbitrary assessors working for greedy local governments.

If you have just purchased your home and are still uncertain about the value of Proposition 13 to you, just wait until after three or four years of double-digit inflation in the housing market. When you realize that you are saving hundreds, even thousands of dollars a year on your property taxes, you will join the ranks of enthusiastic supporters of Proposition 13.

http://www.hjta.org/faq/#proptax_2

on edit: I wasn't clear when I said in my previous post about "artificially-low taxes." I meant, "artificially-low property taxes." Sorry for the confusion.

[slackmaster]

26. It's much more personal for me. My parents were among the "chosen ones" to get reassessed almost...

...every year. Their property tax payments QUINTUPLED between 1968 and 1977, and our family income did not keep pace with that and all the inflation, high fuel costs, etc.

The County of San Diego's tax assessor's office was abusing its power. It wasn't spreading the reassessments around fairly as the law required it to do. It was digging for gold, often from middle-income and retired, fixed-income people who could not afford the increases.

I voted for Prop. 13, and in spite of its well-known flaws I'd vote for it again.

[KansDem]

29. Hey, slackmaster! We've had this discussion before!

Paying for 911 calls in California

Calif (World's 8th Largest Economy) is Imploding "a catastrophe of unbelievable proportions"

:hi:

[slackmaster]

39. Yes, and neither of us has budged an inch

:hi:

[ProudDad]

31. The problem was NOT "property taxes" per se

but rather the commodification of housing in the early 1970s that caused the first of many housing bubbles.

You obviously didn't read the whole thing -- it's the 2/3 requirement, stupid. That little poison pill in Prop 13 is what has killed California...

And exempting "commercial property" by virtue of the fact that it rarely "changes hands"...

Drowned in the bathtub indeed, pre-norquist...

[slackmaster]

38. The Legislature acts like a bunch of undisciplined children when it comes to writing a budget

The 2/3 supermajority requirement was an effort to try to make them behave responsibly. They have not yet demonstrated that they would do so now, were that requirement removed.

The people of the state don't trust them. That's the bottom line.

And exempting "commercial property" by virtue of the fact that it rarely "changes hands"...

I actually agree with you on that. It's a bad loophole, but there is no will in Sacramento to change just that. Nobody is talking about fixing that flaw. A vocal minority, including you, keep calling for the whole thing to be repealed. That would put us back in the unacceptable situation that existed before Proposition 13.

[ProudDad]

45. You mean this unacceptable situation?

The best system of education in the country, the most vibrant economy in the country - thanks in great part to Pat Brown's "spending". And yes, I WAS THERE...from 1966 until 2007...

As far as property taxes are concerned, prop 13 caused the GREAT DIVIDE -- separate and unequal. There are doubtless many better ways to protect grandma's home without fucking up a Progressive State...

The 2/3 supermajority was designed to GIVE THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS A PERMANENT VETO IN THE LEGISLATURE... Anyone who thinks differently is seriously deluded!

The sheeple of the state "don't trust them" because you have been brainwashed by the right-wing into that self-fulfilling prophecy.

"A major contributing factor to passage of Prop 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes. In fact, the proposition's unintended consequences have introduced inequity and inefficiency into the state's tax structure, and have hurt California property owners of every age by diminishing the state they call home.

It's frightening to see fear and greed pitting communities against each other, and divisive tactics promoting self-interest over the common good. As an ethical and moral imperative, the common good is central to the enduring success of society, and can be succinctly described by the Golden Rule -- doing unto others as we would wish done unto ourselves.

It's time to stop kidding ourselves and support a community dialogue to amend and correct Prop 13. Options to be explored include:

1. Returning to a modified market value system for property tax assessment, eliminating the inequity between short and long-term property owners.
2. Introducing a "split roll" that would keep tax rates the same for individual homeowners, but would close the business loophole.
3. Instituting a phased property tax increase of one-tenth of one-percent annually for 15 years, at the end of which property taxes will be back to 1.5%--but without sudden, shocking results."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-bohnett/on-prop-13----time-to-ame_b_566685.html


You can keep your head firmly encased in sand if you wish...

You can also try to consider the possibility that those of us who call for "repealing prop 13" mean passing laws that repair the damage that most of the provisions of prop 13 have caused...hmmmmm?

You don't seem to remember that it was a far-right-wing nutball named Jarvis that pushed that POS, do you? Didn't the unfettered reign of right-wing bullshit from 2001 through 2007 teach you anything?

[slackmaster]

47. The legislature fucked itself...

...There are doubtless many better ways to protect grandma's home without fucking up a Progressive State...

Then why didn't they do so when it was abundantly clear that counties were abusing the power to tax property ownership?

They had plenty of time to fix the problem.

They didn't fix it, and they got spanked by the people.

[slackmaster]

18. California property taxes are about in the middle among the states

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/PropertyTaxesWhereDoesYourStateRank.aspx

[DBoon]

6. What is that muffled cry I hear?

is it the sound of government drowning in a bathtub?

[w4rma]

8. If they won't raise taxes on the wealthy, might as well not protect the wealthy from the masses.(nt)

[OnlinePoker]

23. Are you talking wealthy as in fiscal wealth or asset wealth?

There was a story in the paper here a couple of years ago about an old pensioner that had lived in his house since the '50s and had no desire to sell. Because the house is now in a highly sought after location, it's assessed value shot up over $1 million and his annual tax bill was over $20,000 and rising. This is a guy on a limited fixed income that may look wealthy on paper, but has no assets other than his house. Should he lose the house he and his wife have lived in for 60 years because he can no longer pay the taxes? Canada doesn't have capital gains taxes on housing that is your primary residence so if he sold out, he would be fiscally wealthy. How would you handle this?

[w4rma]

24. I'm talking income tax and the capital gains tax. That won't affect him. (nt)

[Doremus]

9. But do they still have a city hall filled with office staff and administrators?

Our small town has a fancy new multi-million dollar city hall/fire/police building that's filled to capacity with department heads, secretaries and administrators of one kind or another who are well-paid and receive full pensions (for free) and full medical (for free).

During the last levy campaign they threatened to fire some police and fire staff because they said the city couldn't afford them. The threat worked; residents voted to accept a PERMANENT 8.9 mil levy. :mad:

[Bragi]

10. Great, you can look forward to poorer public services

Far as I'm concerned, people who support artificially low taxes have nothing to complain about when their schools, libraries, hospitals, etc. are shut down.

The problem, of course, is that in a society that is characterized by severe economic inequality and low taxes, the people who suffer from poor public services aren't the rich people whose benefit the most from low taxes.

But what the heck. Yay Prop 13! Boo taxes!

[Doremus]

30. Scuze please?

Apparently the reading comprehension is lacking.

The point of my post was to highlight the propensity of municipalities to 1) threaten the populace with the spectre of lowered security vis-a-vis fewer police and fire personnel; and 2) go after the unionized employees while ignoring the legions of dead wood and hangers-on skulking about taking paychecks in city hall.

"Artificially low taxes" is about as far away from my point as BP is from clean energy.

[ProudDad]

32. No they aren't

"full pensions (for free) and full medical (for free)"

They're covered under taxes...

But the real problem is the sheeple who constantly vote for regressive taxes...

[EFerrari]

11. The good people of San Carlos are not going to like the change

from their own police force, which knew what to kiss and when, and the SMC Sheriffs who have quite a reputation for being more, um, democratic in their responses. San Mateo Co. Sheriffs are already strapped. How the hell are they going to cover more territory?

I predict this will last a year or less.

[KamaAina]

12. One day soon one of these cities will hire Xe/Blackwater

:scared:

[superconnected]

13. The worst part is I've already head republicans blame California's financial problems on the

Mexicans and all the aid California supposedly has to give them. Seriously, that's what the Repugs are saying.

[calendargirl]

15. And seriously...

they have a point. The state of CA spends roughly $10 billion annually on health care, education, and incarceration of illegal immigrants, whose population is fast growing and economically draining. Are you going to argue that they don't contribute to California's financial problems? Seriously?

[taught_me_patience]

16. Cite your sources please.

[calendargirl]

17. Here...

http://www.humboldt.edu/~economic/econ104/immigrat/

Estimates of tax payer burden range from an annual surplus of $27 billion to a deficit of $40 billion depending on the assumptions made. A "reasonable" estimate of tax accounting provided by Borjas shows that immigrants received $23.8 billion in government entitlement and paid $85.4 billion in taxes. This statistic seems to suggest at first glance that immigrants are more than paying their way for welfare benefits. However, as Borjas points out, on average only 8.9 percent of taxes goes towards entitlement programs. Thus, only $7.6 billion (85.4 x 8.9 percent) of immigrant taxes went on average to entitlements. This results in a $16.2 billion fiscal burden on native taxpayers. Therefore, it is likely that immigrants impose a net burden on native taxpayers on the order of $16 billion annually.

[taught_me_patience]

25. Your article talks about LEGAL immigrants

Immigration is a contentious issue in the United States currently, and particularly in California. Why all the fuss? In the last few decades we have seen rising numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal. The massive inflow of immigrants, especially hispanics, has had profound impacts on our economic, social, and political systems. California recently passed Proposition 187 which essentially eliminated access to social services for most illegal immigrants. We will look at some of the facts of immigration and analyze immigrants' impact on the economy.



Yet your made up post talks about ILLEGAL immigrants.

[calendargirl]

27. The article discusses both legal and illegal immigrants.

But to be fair, here is another article citing statistics that concern the costs of illegal immigrants to the state of CA. 2004- $10.5 billion.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec

[ProudDad]

34. Nice cherry picking...

Why don't you post it ALL!!!??? Hmmmmm....

Conclusion

The cost-benefit analysis suggests that the costs ($60 billion) outweigh the benefits ($51 billion) by $9 billion annually. Therefore, current immigration policy is not as efficient as it could be, though the inefficiency is small.

What do we make of all this? First, immigration (legal and illegal) has become more costly in recent times because the number of immigrants has increased, and the relative skills of immigrants have decreased. Therefore, the economic burden of immigration has surely increased in the last two decades. Second, the "stealing of natives' jobs" is mostly a myth and simply does not happen on a large scale.

An important distinction must be made again between efficiency and equity. We have tentatively concluded that the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits by $9 billion annually. From an efficiency point of view, the solution is to reduce the number of immigrants until the benefits equal the costs. Another possibility is to only admit the more educated, wealthier immigrants. This is what some countries such as Canada has done. This lead to a more "efficient" immigration policy. But is such a policy fair?

From an equity point of view, even if the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits, this tells us nothing about what type of immigration policy the United States should have. There are strong moral arguments for allowing immigrants into the US given our history. After all we are a nation of immigrants. Moreover, immigration to the United States has improved the lives of most that have arrived here. Do we have the right to shut that opportunity off to those who live in poorer countries? Most of our ancestors took advantage of that opportunity. Why can't others?

Finally, though the tax payer burden of supporting immigration may be $16 billion annually, this is about one percent of yearly federal tax revenue. Therefore, while immigration may certainly contribute to federal budget deficits, they are not the major source of the fiscal deficits in the US.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~economic/econ104/immigrat/

Oh, yeah. What's the cost of that wall and all those troops on the border enforcing xenophobia, hmmm?

[calendargirl]

40. Of course there are benefits...

but the OP suggested that some people erroneously blame part of California's fiscal crisis on the "Mexicans", and I provided you with a set of statistics to indicate that yes, illegal immigration from Mexico is costly to the state. The benefits and the arguments about whether the state should incarcerate, etc are irrelevant.

[KamaAina]

21. And are you going to argue they don't pay sales tax just like everyone else?

:shrug:

[calendargirl]

28. No n/t

[ProudDad]

33. And they derive a hell of lot more than that

in contributions from undocumented workers in the form of taxes and fees that those undocumented cannot cash in on!

The incarceration rate of undocumented is lower than the incarceration rate of documented persons... Check it out before spewing...

Education children of undocumented immigrants contribute MUCH more than the cost of that education -- and I thought you didn't like to pay for incarceration of undocumented folk... :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4447120#4447944

[superconnected]

37. Honestly, I don't/didn't know the dollar drain. I was paying too much attention to the incredibly

racists attitude that was coming out of them.

I do not however consider your post racist. I consider it informative. Thank you.

[thereismore]

14. ...and installing traffic cameras. Seems like they are everywhere. nt

[Taverner]

22. This might be the straw the broke the camel's back re: Prop 13

As in this might be what triggers a reversal

[ProudDad]

35. Repeal Prop 13...

http://open.salon.com/blog/jak/2009/05/22/californias_budget_crisis_and_the_need_to_repeal_prop_13

http://repealprop13.org/

http://www.freshsupercool.com/2009/05/21/governator-please-repeal-proposition-13/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/28/215925/995/197/689331

http://sacrag.com/2009/05/repeal-prop-13/

[slackmaster]

42. The only forseeable result would be higher taxes for working middle-class people

Followed by more spending and more unbalanced budgets, leading to even higher taxes on working Californians.

[ProudDad]

44. The only result foreseeable by you that is,

by those too ignorant to know all of the crap contained in prop 13...

Or those who don't have a clue as to how lawmaking can be done...

Or those who haven't the imagination to consider repealing the egregiously WRONG parts of it and craft a way to ACTUALLY protect people's homes equally...

A reasoned approach to repairing the awesome damage Prop 13 has done to California would NOT necessarily result in "more spending and more unbalanced budgets!"

You are using an unprovable fallacious assumption to paper over your fear based response to a vital need.

[slackmaster]

46. I asked several people yesterday if they would trust the legislature, with the 2/3 majority repealed

...to create a responsible budget and not tax the middle class excessively.

Their reactions ranged from a dirty look to hysterical laughter.

We don't trust them.

[Capn Sunshine]

36. So there's your free market ,recall the gov outsider stewardship

They've looted and crippled the 5th largest economy in the world, and now they want to auction the rest off with Meg Whitman at the helm.

People are pretty fucking stupid, at ground level.

[Psephos]

43. The looting and crippling has come from within. n/t

[Jkid]

41. Negotiating with county officials to take over policing

That could be a good thing, if the county police takes over the local police station, they can use the police station as a mini-jail instead of driving all the way to the central jail.

All police stations, even sheriffs, have custody suites. Please correct me if I'm wrong?

[lunatica]

48. Another domino goes down

When they blame it on thinning tax revenues they're talking about the 12% unemployed who no longer pay state taxes in their paychecks. I live in Oakland and I know it's going to get ugly.