Do you believe SLO County Supervisor Paulding or the Supreme Court?

November 15, 2023

SLO County Supervisor Jimmy Paulding

Opinion by Andrea Seastrand and Chuck Bell

President of the Central Coast Taxpayers Association Andrea Seastrand and Chuck Bell, a board member and local lawyer who represents the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, provided the following response to San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Jimmy Paulding’s claim that the two-third vote requirement of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, enacted by voters in the iconic Proposition 13 in 1978, was not an “essential part” of Proposition 13’s taxpayer protections.

Jimmy Paulding is flat wrong to deny that the two-thirds vote requirement in Proposition 13 was not an “essential feature” of the measure. Paulding used his false assertion to reject the claim that he was not supporting the county’s Jan. 2023 legislative position in favor of Proposition 13 when the progressive board majority, on a 3-2 vote with Paulding’s support, reversed its previous support of Proposition 13 at its Sept. 12 meeting.

Here’s what the California Supreme Court held in 1978:

Proposition 13 had four distinct elements, two of which were two-thirds majority vote requirements applicable to measures that seek to increase state taxes and local ad valorem property taxes.

Here’s exactly the Supreme Court’s words:

“In 1978, California voters adopted an amendment to their Constitution making comprehensive changes to state and local taxation via Proposition 13—an “interlocking package” of tax reforms. (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 231 (“Amador Valley”).) These comprehensive reforms included four distinct elements,—establishing 1) a permanent property tax rate cap of 1% and a permanent cap of 2% on the annual increase of assessed value of such property; 2) a rollback and restriction on assessed real property values (retroactive to 1975 levels resulting in a substantial reduction of property tax revenue); 3) a supermajority requirement for the Legislature to adopt state taxes; and 4) a supermajority voter approval requirement for local special taxes.”

You can take it from the State Supreme Court or from Jimmy Paulding.


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

People who want the truth about Mr. Paulding‘s position on this and other issues should subscribe to his Internet newsletter, (its free) where he continually explains his positions, and what he believes to be the best course of action for our community. It’s the place to find out all the good things that Mr. Paulding is doing for our community. Thank you, Mr. Paulding!

What next Ms Seastrand; to much salt on MC fries, dogs walking against traffic on the sidewalk, you saw a alien in morro bay? your opinion is really a waste of time and interest very few people.

Beg your pardon? You don’t speak for me, nor should you speak for anyone else, no matter how “few”. For all you know, her opinion is of great interest to the majority of people.

However, it seems her opinion is of enough interest to waste YOUR time :)

When the B.O.S. weigh in on certain financial changes ($), there should be a requirement to have a super majority. Something like a 4/2 vote rather than a 3/2 vote, the sixth vote coming from a lawyer who represents the public, not the staff. This would be inline with why prop 13 was created.

I wouldn’t believe Jimmy, if he told me his name was Jimmy.

“I won’t do this to Oceano”…did it.

“I won’t vote for this tax increase”…voted for it.

“I will not accept a pay raise”…accepted it.

“I know all there is about Prop 13″…doesn’t.

Please, everyone. Be more careful about who you vote for.

2026 cant come soon enough.

What was Pauldings full quote? It seems only fair to present the full context of what he said if we are also going to fully cite the CA Supreme Court from 45 years ago.

Paulding does not say anything in a few words. First, Paulding demeaned Debbie Arnold claiming there is no two-third requirement in Prop. 13. He then claimed he was strengthening Prop. 13 and said repeatedly, that everyone else is lying about the contents of Prop. 13.


Which is it, is Paulding, a man in his early 30s, unaware of the content of Prop. 13 or is he lying to the public?

When did this interaction occur? There is a lot of Paulding Derangement Syndrome in these comments sections, so I like to check the original statement in context. Republican or Democrat, it’s important to hear the best version of someone’s argument, not two quoted words.

Thank you to Andrea Seastrand and Chuck Bell for pointing out little Jimmys’ indiscretions.