CA: Classroom measure can collect signatures (CTA/Rob Reiner Alert)

San Jose Mercury News ^ | 13 January 2004

[CounterCounterCulture]

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley on Monday gave backers of a proposed statewide education-funding initiative the go-ahead to begin gathering signatures to place the measure on the November ballot.

The measure, called the Improving Classroom Education Act, is being sponsored by a partnership of the California Teachers Association and Hollywood director Rob Reiner, who spearheaded the 1998 ballot initiative that uses cigarette taxes to fund early childhood development programs.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Be careful what you sign out there folks.

[CounterCounterCulture]

1024. (SA03RF0057, Amdt. #1-NS)

Funding for K-12 Education and Voluntary Universal Preschool Program. Commercial Property Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Summary Date: 01/08/04 Circulation Deadline: 06/07/04 Signatures Required: 598,105

Proponents: Barbara Kerr and Rob Reiner, c/o Robin B. Johansen (510) 346-6200

Provides additional funding for K-12 public education; establishes voluntary universal preschool program. Funds provided through additional taxes on real property and commercial residential rental property that produce income. Creates state fund and allocates monies: 2/3 for kindergarten through 12th grade, including class size reduction, textbooks, teacher salaries, benefits and training; 1/3 for voluntary universal preschool. Prohibits using funds for administrative costs as specified. Requires annual audits. Provides small business personal property tax exemption; reimburses state/local government to offset revenue decrease. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Additional property taxes on income-producing property of approximately $6 billion annually (net), beginning in 2005-06. These revenues would be used for state-funded universal preschool and specified K-12 education purposes.

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks for the Heads-Up Bump!!!

[Uncle Hal]

Folks this is a tax increase, plain and simple. Who do you think pays the property taxes on commercial property? The tenants and customers of the business that owns the property pay the taxes. So any real property tax increased is passed along. I hope Arnold comes out against this. These liberals are so sneaky.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Exactly. They think they can trick the public by not touching residential property taxes. Let's prove 'em wrong.

[onedoug]

NO

[CounterCounterCulture]

Here they go again

[Carry_Okie]

So much for equal protection. If I use my house as part of my business, does that mean it's taxable for this purpose? If so, we have a powerful constuency out there who won't be thrilled.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Excellent point

[So Cal Rocket]

Rob Reiner says to businesses in California, "You're not wanted here."

[So Cal Rocket]

Folks this is a tax increase, plain and simple. Who do you think pays the property taxes on commercial property? The tenants and customers of the business that owns the property pay the taxes

However, if the business competes against other businesses in other states (or other countries), they may not be able to raise their prices and maintain their market share. Their alternative is to go out of business or move out of state.

[goldstategop]

Normally, I'd agree. But many big business leaders are socialists who socked it to the taxpayers by backing a 55% vote for school bonds in Proposition 39 a few years ago. What goes around comes around. I see no reason for them to get off easy on tax increases while average folks are facing even higher bills in the future. They want big government, let them pay for it. Let them put their money where their mouths are. I can hardly wait to vote "YES" on Rob Reiner's measure to send the "Red Capitalists" of Silicon Valley a message.

[john_in_bh]

Not exactly,... prop 39 was supported by VERY FEW businesses, only by a handful of high high tech firms like Cisco Systems which have very little real estate interests. They supported it as a I scratch your back, you scratch mine in return for the hope of not getting internet (or other) taxes imposed on them. The majority of business was against/neutral on prop 39, so why would you want to punish them?

As far as the Reiner/CTA initiative, renters and consumers will be the ones to ultimately pay the price as the trickle down effect happens as business costs go up they are sooner or later past down to the end-user. No doubt that this will also hurt the VALUE of the real estate that the higher tax is imposed on. Sort of a double sided sword.