The “Save Prop 13 Initiative” campaign, initiated by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) to oppose excessive government property tax collection, has now gathered 500,000 original signatures. The HJTA recently published an article criticizing the California courts for opening the floodgates to increase local special taxes.
The initiative, known as the “Save Prop 13 Initiative” or the “Local Taxpayer Protection Act,” aims to reaffirm the principles of Proposition 13: to eliminate all real estate transfer taxes above 0.11% and require a 2/3 majority voter support for the levy of all local special taxes. This initiative needs to reach the threshold of 874,641 valid signatures by March 18 to be included on the 2026 ballot as a referendum.
Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, California voters have been trying to protect homes and businesses from being overtaxed. The HJTA, established in the same year, has always believed that it should be the people who decide whether to raise taxes – regardless of the type of taxation.
The article argues that the California courts have sided with the government and special interests, creating loopholes that greatly weaken these protective measures. The worst loophole was created by the California Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of “California Cannabis Alliance v. City of Upland” in 2017: since then, Californians have been subjected to various unconstitutional taxes, resulting in billions of dollars in losses. If Proposition 13 were followed, these local taxes could have been exempted.
The article specifically mentions the ULA tax wrongly labeled as the “mansion tax”: the ULA ordinance in Los Angeles, which took effect in April 2023, imposes a 4% tax on real estate transactions above $5 million and a 5.5% tax on transactions exceeding $10 million, with certain transactions involving affordable housing being tax-exempt. However, the ULA tax is not limited to residential transactions but also covers apartments, commercial, and industrial properties.
The HJTA criticizes that while the tax revenue is supposedly earmarked for homeless assistance programs, coincidentally, these programs are provided by the same group that originally submitted the ULA proposal for a public vote.
The article points out that the ULA tax violates the provisions of Proposition 13 by increasing this local special tax through a simple majority vote, rather than requiring a 2/3 majority, and the appellate court upholding the implementation of this tax clears the way for other California counties to levy real estate transfer taxes – simply by submitting it for a “citizen initiative” vote, making the taxation legally permissible.
The HJTA also believes that the appellate court’s decision may encourage the imposition of property taxes exceeding the 1% limit set by Proposition 13; setting different tax rates based on property use will effectively create a tiered tax system.
The organization warns homeowners that property taxes are on the rise and they should be prepared; for commercial property owners, the increase in property taxes may bring even heavier blows.