Front Page  »  

SLO County supervisors argue over Proposition 13 protections

September 13, 2023

By KAREN VELIE

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 on Tuesday to no longer support the two-thirds majority vote to raise taxes in its state legislative platform, while arguing over the meaning of Proposition 13.

Before the supervisors discussed the proposed changes, 20 members of the public asked the board to support the Proposition 13 taxpayer protections listed as platform items 14 and 15. In addition, several speakers accused supervisors Bruce Gibson and Jimmy Paulding of bullying Supervisor Dawn Ortiz-Legg to vote in lockstep with them.

Gibson voiced his support of taking both taxpayer protections off the platform, while accidentally referring to one as item 13. Gibson argued that lowering the votes necessary to raise taxes to a simple majority was more democratic.

Before discussing the issues, Paulding chastised community members for what he determined was uncivil behavior. During public comment, multiple people criticized Paulding for wanting to raise taxes and fees while many members of the community are having trouble paying their bills.

Noting he is a strong supporter of Proposition 13, Paulding made a conflicting motion which included removing support for the two-thirds majority vote required to raise taxes (which is part of Proposition 13), while also including a statement against any modification of Proposition 13.

Supervisor Debbie Arnold then informed Paulding that Proposition 13 not only protects the public from property tax increases of more than 2% a year, it also includes language requiring a two-thirds majority vote to raise taxes.

Paulding argued that his motion didn’t “remotely touch Proposition 13.”

Ortiz-Legg said she supported eliminating the two-thirds vote required to raise taxes because of funding needed for infrastructure. However, she suggested a rewording of Paulding’s motion to remove the conflicting content.

Instead of addressing her concern, Gibson chastised Ortiz-Legg for referring to item 15 as item 14, and she dropped her request.

Gibson, Paulding and Ortiz-Legg than voted in favor of Paulding’s motion. Peschong voted “Hell no,” and Arnold said, “The biggest no I have ever given.” Paulding’s motion passed 3-2.

Sign up for breaking news, alerts and updates with Cal Coast News Top Stories.


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Jimmy”? A grown-a** man that still goes by “Jimmy” is lacking something.


1

It’s clear to me what is going on. In 2020, Prop 15 was narrowly defeated by Californians (52% to 48%). Prop 15 required commercial properties worth $3 million or more to be taxed at fair market value—not purchase price. The defeat was close. Close enough to propose ACA1. ACA1 would lower the voter approval threshold to increase taxes from Prop 13’s current 2/3rds requirement to just 55% making it easier to impose new taxes on homeowners and businesses. The left will throw millions into campaigning for this law and present it with a title like “Equitable Housing for All Californians”, and boom we are screwed again.


9

Look at Little Jimmy sitting there like an emperor. When are voters going to wise up and see he represents public employees, their crazy pensions, and nothing else?


14

Jimmy really isn’t bright enough to represent anyone. He’s there to do Gibson’s bidding, be Gibson’s lap dog, and nothing else. Jimmy didn’t write any motions, he probably doesn’t know what one is; he’s just the front man on this issue for Gibson and the democrat central committee.


4

How in the world has Bruce Gibson continued to be elected? What is wrong with voters? Do you not understand who you’re voting for? Prop 13 MUST STAY!! If a 50% vote to overturn goes into effect, other than the very rich, all homeowners who have owned their homes over 15 years will need to leave the state. Including me.


40

A mild mannered new talent on the county scene, Bruce Jones, only lost by 13 votes. Sadly there are many that will just do their goose walk to the voting poll and supported Bruce Gibson, just because. Because what? Yes, we needed the new Bruce but it may be that bad habits are hard to change.


15

If you are going to try and raise more revenue via the tax payers… why in the world would you do it when people can barely get by each month?….

That is either completely out of touch with the people in this county or its just evil….


44

Likely both, and they don’t care, if the BOS feels they need more money they just raise their own salary, which they just did, and to get support they raise admin compensation throughout the county.


40
1 2