California, 1978. For complex reasons, property taxes are skyrocketing, threatening to drive people with fixed incomes out of their homes. State government, paralized by partisan bickering (a shocker), fails to offer any relief. Enter Howard Jarvis, a California political mastermind described as "the last angry man," who succeeds in putting the (now infamous) Proposition 13 on the ballot. (California's constitution allows for "initiatives," a process by which proposed laws are voted upon by the people.) Proposition 13, an initiative calling for property tax values to be frozen at 1975 levels, passes into law with a simple majority vote, despite the protests of government, business, and consumer groups.
Was Proposition 13 a hard-won populist success or the work of an unchecked majority? Peter Schrag addresses this and other pertinent questions in his new analysis of recent political history, Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future.
Schrag has been observing Calfornia politics for the last 19 years, supervising the Editorial Page of the Sacramento Bee as well as studying and commenting on political trends with his easy, disarming intelligence. In a nutshell, he blames the deterioration of California and its social services on Prop. 13. By capping property taxes and preventing the reassessment of property value, the initative effectively blocked local government's main source of revenue. These limitations were not fully felt until the recession of the late 1980's, but it is now painfully clear that Calfornia's local governments lack the money to fund not only their schools but also their roads and public spaces. Calfornia's universities, once the pride of the nation, famed for being free (!) for residents, now must charge tution under an "Educational Fee" euphemism.
How could this happen? Schrag believes the blame lies in the initiative process. Jarvis was able to manipulate growing public panic to fuel the support for Prop. 13 - an easy task, since nothing is built into the initiative process that enables meaningful debate over the implications of a proposed initiative. No changes to a proposed initiative are allowed, no recourses available after the vote, and no process, short of another initiative, exists for adapting, changing, or revoking an initiative that has become law. It is hard to believe that Calfornia's voters would have voted for Prop. 13 if they knew the consequences of the path they were taking.
However, there is another factor at play here. Schrag points out that California's voters - mainly rich white folks - are increasingly disinterested in funding programs that they don't directly consume. Since two-thirds of the student population in public schools will be non-white by 2000, the trend of crumbling social services could continue until more minorities speak out and exercise their right to vote. One thing is certain: Prop. 13 has created a muddle of local, county, and state finances with no easy solution in sight.
So what does this spell for New Mexico? Well, some aspects of New Mexico's current (1998) political landscape eerily echo California's: Governer Gary Johnson is a direct descendent of the anti-tax ideology popularized by Jarvis. the legislative process is constantly gridlocked. And a property tax crisis may loom in New Mexico's future as more and more transplants find their way to the Land of Enchantment. Many other factors in New Mexico - the high percentage of Hispanic voters being the strongest - make more direct correlations difficult to make, but still interesting (and important!) to consider.
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Peter Schrag has done his part to educate people about California's mistakes. Let's hope people are listening - and reading this book.
This review originally appeared in The Weekly Alibi.
© Todd Meigs
Back to TGM's Musings