Paying for 911 calls in California.

[dgibby]

According to CNN:

"How much does it cost to save a life? For people living in Tracy, California it’s $300. Residents will pay $300 for some 911 calls, while non-residents can expect to pay $400. The new fees will help the city generate extra revenue while it suffers a $9 million budget deficit. Residents can opt to pay an annual membership fee of $48."


Grover Norquist must be dancing in the streets right now.

[heli]

1. Don't forget the bill for the ambulance

with or without insurance.

[kestrel91316]

2. I hope the people who run Tracy are proud of themselves.

[KansDem]

3. Hey! Prop. 13 comes at a price...

How many of you "If Prop. 13 doesn't pass, we'll have to move out of California!"-types really thought you could live la dolce vita with artificially low property taxes and not pay for it in the end?

[Iggo]

5. I was in high school when they passed Prop 13, and I'm not that young.

You're mad at old people.

[KansDem]

8. Hey! I don't have to pay $300 if I call 911!

Those "old people" should have realized that this would be the end result of their confusing "entitlement" with "need."

I lived in southern California from 1954 to 1979. I knew a couple who swore up and down that they would "have to move out of California if Prop. 13 didn't pass." They bought the Jarvis line. Prop. 13 passed, and the first thing this couple did was buy a second home in Big Bear. Again, they were confusing "entitlement" with "need."

(And rents didn't go down as was part of the campaign rhetoric...)

[happynewyear]

13. that is sure true

mad at old people indeed. This is the only group of people that are paying the low property taxes. We won't ask about how much people that bought property during the past 5+ or so years are paying will we? It is a lot, that is for sure. Without Prop. 13 these people would be foreclosing now as well because they would be able to afford more than the already astronomical property taxes they are already paying on that crappy house they paid 1/2 million+++ $ for not too long ago.

Property taxes do go up every year in California by about 1-2% depending upon where you live.

Being hateful towards those that have lived in the same house for over 30 years is a disgrace. Shame on people that think this way, shame on them!

[Donnachaidh]

14. so have any of you *young people* made any attempts to get prop 13 repealed?

The old guys may have had it put in, but we can assume there are a LOT of young voting aged people NOW who could be doing something about it, yes?

[happynewyear]

19. why would *young people* do this

they are the ones that bought the 1/2 million dollar homes and are already paying probably close to $6 or $7 thousand dollars a year in property taxes.

Maybe they should have they homes reassessed and if they really believe that Prop. 13 should be repealed. They'll be underwater and then some. :(

Not a good idea on any level. Many people bought and paid the big prices the past several years in California counting on Prop. 13 to be in place.

It will remain in place unless it is repealed via a statewide election which I do not see happening any time soon.

[slackmaster]

25. I voted for it, and I'd vote for it again

Old person reporting in.

[Iggo]

28. Had I been born 2 years earlier, I'd be the "old people" I referred to.

Bad choice of words. I was trying to help the person I was responding to get a feel for how long ago this was and who he's yelling at when he says "you people", and I failed. Turns out he was there at the time...so double fail!

:rofl:

[slackmaster]

29. Thanks. My family home was in an area that got reassessed almost every year

I remember my parents complaining that their property tax quintupled in about seven years.

It was a travesty. The counties were treating people who happened to live in desirable areas as cash cows, while a massive influx of people from the Northeast and other countries pushed property values up way beyond any reasonable level.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. One out of every sixty-five residences in Tracy is in foreclosure.

With or without Prop. 13 Tracy is screwed. The majority of housing units in Tracy came on line after 1978 with many of them coming on line in the most recent 10 years. Those units were assessed at the high market values of the mortgage boom.

[KansDem]

9. Let me ask this...

The majority of housing units in Tracy came on line after 1978...

Could the post-1978 assessment of those housing units be a little less traumatic if Prop. 13 didn't pass and the tax bill was shared more fairly by all home owners?

[Gormy Cuss]

16. Prop 13 caused a lot of problems, but not every problem can be laid at the feet of it.

As for "fairness" of sharing the tax bills, the bigger culprit under Prop. 13 is the way transfer of ownership rules depress commercial real estate tax bills, not residences. But to get back to Tracy specifically. I can't put my hands on a reference for population in 1978 but it was essentially a small town in the heart of a farming area. Now it's got 80,000 residents (17,000+ households) and is in essence a suburban community. A third of that population is under age 18 and less than 10% of the population is over age 65. Using that latter stat, it's doubtful that there are many housing units taxed based on pre-1978 bases, or even 1980s bases. FWIW, even statewide the number of housing units taxed on a pre-Prop.13 basis is very low.

What is happening in Tracy now is that it capitalize on the housing demand of the late 1990s and rapidly expanded its tax base with housing that only commuters could afford. When the crash happened in San Joaquin county it was a rapid plunge. Many of the newer housing units have market values of less than half of what they were when purchased. That not only precipitated the foreclosure rate but it means that even when these units are sold there will be much less revenue on taxes because of the corrected market value. For that matter, even the ones where there is no ownership change can have their tax assessment adjusted downward to reflect current market values. This leaves Tracy with the same number of people needing services and far less revenue to provide it. Tracy could try to pass a local sales tax but in this economic climate I doubt that it would pass.

[Xicano]

11. So are you suggesting...

...tax breaks for the rich, free trade outsourcing labor, mismanagement, wasteful spending and corruption, etc. Are not to blame, but, a 30yr old proposition is? What about the years of prosperity during those 30 years? Using your logic Prop. 13 will have to be given credit for that.

I am just saying....

[KansDem]

12. When you have such disparity among home owners...

Here, take a look at Howard Jarvis' website:

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).

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

A "misunderstanding?" One home owner pays much more than his neighbor? Why should both received the same services?

[Xicano]

23. Thank you for your response even though its non responsive to my questions.

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

Sounds like a good argument against our monetary system and its outrageous and continuous inflation of the money supply. In addition to speculators, the value of houses didn't go up so much as the amount of money to represent their value went up. Why should older home owners be made to pay when the problem is speculators and the federal reserve system?



Peace,
Xicano

[slackmaster]

26. Why should the tax I pay on a house I bought a long time ago have anything to do...

...with how much someone else paid for a different house at a different time?

I have NO CONTROL over market values, or over other peoples' financial decisions. It wouldn't be fair to me if my property tax for the last several years had been based on artificially high "bubble" property values.

As people get older, they generally go on fixed incomes. We need to have our expenses be somewhat predictable, otherwise it becomes impossible to run a household budget.

[my2sense]

4. Saw a similar story

about Colorado Springs last week.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473#ixzz0f7XTC91Y

Unfortunately, it feels like this is only the beginning.

[jody]

6. Obvious follow up question, why not privatize police and fire protection? Fire protection was

private in the early days of these United States.

[dgibby]

15. I suspect that will be coming to a PD/FD near you soon. n/t

[jody]

18. It's already here for PD because many communities have private security forces to protect against

burglaries a crime that in my area is almost never solved or even investigated.

[Donnachaidh]

17. so you'd basically be fine with a crew like Blackwater policing your area?

Because private *police* are nothing more than mercenaries. And the are would most likely be subject to HIGHER costs - because those people don't have a sense of civic duty -- it's ALL about the money.

[jody]

20. SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect a person and in one CA county the DA says don't

bother to report a crime unless it's a serious felony because he won't prosecute.

Add to that witnesses who are unwilling to testify and you have a lawless state.

[Donnachaidh]

22. no shit. Glad I moved out of that state.

:wow:

[Donnachaidh]

24. you didn't answer my question --

would YOU be willing to have an outfit like Blackwater *policing* your neighborhood?

[jody]

30. ROFL Have a great day. n/t

[jody]

31. ROFL Have a great day. n/t

[Not Me]

10. I already pay a special fee for 911

Take a look at your phone/cell bill.
My landline and cell each have a $3.50 a month charge which supposedly goes for 911 coverage.
That's $84 a month.

[eppur_se_muova]

21. You mean, per year? nt

[slackmaster]

27. Here's a link to more complete information - Residents will have the option of paying a $48 fee

...that allows them to make as many 911 calls as they need to; or they can opt for a $300 per-call fee.

TRACY, Calif. (CBS13) ―

Tracy residents will now have to pay every time they call 9-1-1 for a medical emergency.

But there are a couple of options. Residents can pay a $48 voluntary fee for the year which allows them to call 9-1-1 as many times as necessary.

Or, there's the option of not signing up for the annual fee. Instead, they will be charged $300 if they make a call for help...

It's basically blackmailing people into paying a "voluntary" tax for services. Sounds kind of stupid to me.

http://cbs13.com/local/tracy.911.calls.2.1502690.html