If voters’ Prop 13 protections are clearly under threat, they’ll push back, says HJTA Comms VP Susan Shelley. In this Opp Now exclusive Q&A, she recalls how Prop 5’s proponents claimed it wasn’t a tax, and they were “just asking questions”—but, she says, voters saw right through that tangled, deceptive messaging: although outspent, HJTA’s “shoestring” campaign helped safeguard communities across the state from gov’t overreach.
Opportunity Now: Last time we spoke, you said the fight against Prop 5 was a government-versus-the-taxpayer issue. How’s the scoreboard looking for the taxpayer?
Susan Shelley: We’re extremely gratified that voters rejected Proposition 5. That’s a tremendous victory for taxpayers. People who don’t even know what a victory this is are going to be enjoying the benefits; they won’t be seeing property tax increase after property tax increase due to bonds passing more easily on their ballots.Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles. Click HERE.
ON: It’s too bad that they won’t know.
SS: Well, we’ll try to tell them. We always try to educate the voters about the benefits of Prop 13 and taxpayer protections.
ON: I thought it might be a nailbiter, but Prop 5 actually lost by a 10-point margin. What explains that?
SS: We relied on a radio campaign statewide communicating to voters what Prop 5 would really do. We also did billboards and a grassroots effort with door hangers and yard signs in neighborhoods that get people talking. And we started early.
ON: Weren’t you outspent by the Yes on Prop 5 campaign?
SS: We really did this on a shoestring.
That’s significant because Proposition 13 has wide support, something like two-thirds of the state in every poll since 1978. When you inform people that somebody is attacking Prop 13 protections, they hear it the first time you say it. And that makes it possible to do a very effective campaign to protect Prop 13 on a much lower budget than it takes to attack Prop 13.
ON: And what did the campaign for Prop 5 do wrong?
SS: They were trying to fool the voters, and that’s never a good idea. They said this was not a tax increase. In reality, it was an engine to enable more and more tax increases in the future. So that was misleading. They tangled their message trying not to say the central part, that Prop 5 would make it easier to raise property taxes.
They also said it’s not an attack on Prop 13, that it’s “just asking the question” about whether voters want to ease the requirement to invest in their communities. Well, the answer has been given by the voters. They do not want it to be easier to raise taxes in California.
ON: People seem to think bonds are necessary to invest in affordable housing.
SS: The problem in California is never going to be solved by taxing property owners to build government-funded housing. That is never going to add up. What has to be done is more private sector housing construction, and the government has to get out of the way.
They won’t get out of the way because they’re convinced that commuting causes climate change, and therefore building housing in areas where the land is more affordable is bad for the planet. The laws in California discourage that or make it impossible. Why are we restricting new communities from developing?
ON: You’re talking about state regulations like the housing element and RHNA that lead to stack ‘n pack developments?
SS: Yes, why are we insisting on apartment buildings next to train tracks as the only form of housing construction? And apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods that people don’t want?
Why are we going down this density path instead of looking at all the other options for housing construction? Why are we leaning on landlords with more mandates and expenses while imposing rent control and other restrictions on them? Why are we trying to drive small landlords out of business so we can tear down their property and build government funded housing?
ON: You think the government is driving landlords out of business?
SS: If you drive around Los Angeles, you can see all these smaller, older apartment buildings that are mom-and-pop owned. They’re called dingbat buildings because they have an asterisk or some artistic character on the front of the building. People would buy an apartment building, live in one unit, and rent the others.
That was a great business. It isn’t anymore, because of the government. During the COVID pandemic in particular, there was almost an intentional effort to drive people out of business by refusing to allow them to collect rent or raise rent.
One city councilmember in Los Angeles even said that driving small hotels and small apartment owners out of business would create an opportunity for the government to buy land at fire sale prices and then put up whatever they wanted, or rehab the buildings to be homeless housing, or government-funded housing. That is quite a remarkable admission.
ON: There’s some good news up here in the Bay Area. Measure J in Fairfax, California was a road bond that would have cost taxpayers about $18 million to repay. It only got 60% but needed two-thirds. If Prop 5 passed, Measure J would have raised property taxes.
SS: There were a number of bonds on the ballot that would have passed with 55% if Prop 5 had passed. The proponents created this sort of instant retroactivity.
So it’s very, very important that Prop 5 did not pass. It would have been incredibly expensive for the people of California, year after year after year, to have bonds passed more easily. It would have incentivized local governments and the various special districts and agencies to be less cautious in what they ask for, less responsive to the economic situation that their residents are in.