[img]1305|right|Andy Weissman||no_popup[/img]City Councilman Andy Weissman said this morning that just because three members agreed in mid-summer to put a discussion of a massive reconstruction of Prop. 13 on last evening’s agenda “certainly did not mean we were sympathetic or supportive.
“It was just giving people an opportunity to be heard, to have their proposal evaluated.”
Since 2010, Evolve, a Bay Area-headquartered young adult group, roughly post-college age, has been traveling throughout California to win support for its plan to subtract commercial properties from the Prop. 13 calculation.
Their progress has been modest. A spokesperson in Council Chambers said Evolve had won acknowledgements from 96 city councils and school boards. Legislatively, however, they have been stymied, winning only scattered sorties.
Mr. Weissman, as the only Council member who spoke on the subject outside of supporter Mayor Meghan Sahli Wells, said Evolve’s scheme was far too vague to gain his backing.
He delivered a 230-word prepared statement that did not leave a doubt about his position.
The Evolve approach is directed entirely toward commercial property.
It asks that Culver City support commercial property tax reform that will require non-residential commercial property to be reassessed while maintaining Prop. 13 protections for residential property and small business owners.
Frankly, I don’t know what that means.
What does “reassessed regularly” mean?
What Prop. 13 protections for residential property and small business owners are to be maintained?
How will small business owners be protected in the event of re-assessment and resulting real property tax increases on the properties they rent?
Evolve says reform won’t change for residential properties, renters, apartment owners or small business. But we don’t hear how that will be the case.
The devil always is in the details. But I don’t favor selectivity.
Prop. 13 reform is a legitimate concern.
Inequities exist elsewhere as a consequence, intended or otherwise, from Prop. 13 that ought to be evaluated in the context of reform.
I don’t favor piecemeal or selective reform. We are not looking at an actual bill.
We are not being asked to support or oppose a particular piece of legislation.
Until we have an actual piece of legislation to consider, this seems to me to be very much the cart before the horse.
I don’t believe it is appropriate for a vote by the City Council supporting reform before we know what the reform is.
