Wednesday, July 28, 2004 | 8:37 a.m.
If the state government does nothing about rising property values affecting Clark County, three other other counties and Carson City, the July 2005 tax bills arriving at homes and businesses in these areas will be higher by at least 20 percent and, possibly, by as much as 50 percent. Clark County Assessor Mark Schofield draws upon his 30 years of experience in predicting what will happen then. "If there is not a cap, you're going to see a revolution that will begin in this county that will dwarf what happened in California."
He was referring to the 1978 initiative petition known as Proposition 13, passed by 65 percent of California voters. By fixing property taxes at 1 percent of the owner's purchase price, the constitutional amendment lowered an owner's tax bill, on average, by 57 percent. Voters approved the amendment because market forces were propelling their property values sky high. As property taxes are proportional to property worth, the taxes also went sky high. The state government did nothing except reap the windfall, motivating people to take action themselves. Proposition 13 has since taken much of the blame for California's financial crisis.
Clark, Washoe, Lyon, and Douglas counties, along with Carson City, are areas in Nevada that are now experiencing the same sort of rise in property values that led to Proposition 13. Schofield, seeking to save Nevada from California's fate, has suggested a proactive solution -- a law placing a 6 percent cap on property tax increases. This percentage would not harm the revenue flow required by school districts and local governments, and would save taxpayers from "gargantuan" increases, Schofield said.
We agree with Schofield that a cap is necessary and agree it should be 6 percent or close to it. Individuals and businesses should be protected against unstable tax bills that could force them to lose their homes or close their doors. Extreme increases in property taxes would galvanize taxpayers and eventually lead to our own version of Prop. 13, which very likely would reverse the small gains the state has made recently in its ability to provide adequate services.
We do not agree, however, that the governor should call a special session of the Legislature this year to vote on a cap, as is being suggested by three Republican lawmakers. Schofield says his office could process the cap in time for next year's tax bills if the 2005 Legislature passes a law and the governor signs it by the end of March. An unnecessary and expensive special session called before the election would likely see many legislators playing politics by arguing for a cap of zero percent or thereabouts, putting their own political futures ahead of the state's future. The Legislature convenes Feb. 7 and should vote on a bill to cap property tax increases by no later than the end of that month.
archive
