The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 was a watershed event that ushered in both a new era and a new fiscal regime for California’s local governments. The authors argue that in the wake of follow-on initiatives, a protracted recessionary period, and the state’s use of newly authorized revenue-transfer powers, this still-evolving regime entered a new phase in the 1990s. This article analyzes the primary impacts of and responses to the changes in California’s post-Proposition 13 fiscal regime in the 1990s in five local jurisdictions. The results reveal that the most significant long-term impacts of this regime have been an altered fiscal structure and an unintended decrease in local home rule. These impacts, in turn, have led to cuts in nonessential services, the expansion of sales tax-generating redevelopment efforts, implementation of new taxes and user service fees, and increased reliance on one-time fiscal measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baldassare, M.
(1998). When government fails: The Orange County bankruptcy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
Baldassare, M.
, Hoene, C. W., Shires, M., & Koffman, A. (2000). Risky business: Providing local public services in Los Angeles County. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
3.
California Constitution Revision Commission
. (1996). Issues before the Senate Local Government Committee. Sacramento, CA.
4.
Chapman, J.
(1998). Local government fiscal autonomy and state and voter imposed fiscal stress: A case study of California. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
5.
Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Commission
. (1996). Los Angeles County strategy to address the state-local relationship and the restructuring of local government. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
6.
Citrin, J.
(1979). Do people want something for nothing?National Tax Journal, 32, 113-130.
7.
Citrin, J.
, & Levy, F. (1981). From 13 to 4 and beyond: The political meaning of the ongoing tax revolt in California. In G. Kaufman & K. Rosen (Eds.), The property tax revolt (pp. 1-30). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
8.
City Administrative Officer, City of Los Angeles
. (1997). Supporting information for the ad hoc committee on the city budget, 1997-98. Los Angeles: Author.
9.
City of Covina
. (1990). Annual budget, FY 1990-91. Covina, CA: Author.
10.
City of Covina
. (1996). Annual budget, FY 1996-97. Covina, CA: Author.
11.
City of Los Angeles
. (1990). Annual budget, FY 1990-91. Los Angeles: Author.
12.
City of Los Angeles
. (1996). Annual budget, FY 1996-97. Los Angeles: Author.
13.
City of Los Angeles
. (1997). Annual budget, FY 1997-98. Los Angeles: Author.
14.
City of Los Angeles
. (1998). City of Los Angeles Economic and Demographic Information [Home page]. Available: http://www.cityofla.org/CAO/econdemo.htm
15.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
. (1990). Annual budget, FY 1990-91. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: Author.
16.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
. (1991). Comprehensive annual financial report, FY 1990-91. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: Author.
17.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
. (1996). Annual budget, FY 1996-97. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: Author.
18.
City of Torrance
. (1990). Proposed budget 1990. Torrance, CA: Author.
19.
City of Torrance
. (1991). Comprehensive annual financial report, 1991. Torrance, CA: Author.
20.
City of Torrance
. (1995a). Budget message. Torrance, CA: Author.
21.
City of Torrance
. (1995b). Comprehensive annual financial report, 1995. Torrance, CA: Author.
22.
City of Torrance
. (1996). Comprehensive annual financial report, 1996. Torrance, CA: Author.
23.
City of Torrance
. (1997). Proposed budget, 1997-99. Torrance, CA: Author.
24.
City of Torrance
. (1999). Comprehensive annual financial report, 1997-99. Torrance, CA: Author.
25.
County of Los Angeles
. (1996). Comprehensive annual financial report, 1995-96. Los Angeles: Author.
26.
County of Los Angeles
. (1997). 1997-98 Los Angeles County proposed budget. Los Angeles: Author.
27.
Dardia, M.
(1998). Subsidizing redevelopment in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
28.
Hoene, C. W.
(2000, August 31-September 3). Growth, politics, and municipal finance: Proposition 13 revisited. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
29.
Johnson, C.
, & Kriz, K. (2001, July 19-20). Fiscal institutions, borrowing costs, and infrastructure finance. Paper presented at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Conference on Tax and Spending Limits in the States, Denver, Colorado.
30.
Joyce, P. G.
, & Mullins, D. R. (1991). The changing fiscal structure of the state and local public sector: The impact of tax and expenditure limitations. Public Administration Review, 51, 240-253.
31.
Kirlin, J.
(2000). State-local adaptations to fiscal limits and growth: Two decades of experience in California. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indianapolis.
32.
Levy, F.
(1979). On understanding Proposition 13. The Public Interest, 56, 66-89.
33.
Lewis, P.
, & Barbour, E. (1999). California cities and the local sales tax. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
34.
Logan, J. R.
, & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
Lyon, D.
(2000). From home rule to fiscal rule in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
36.
Muir, F. M.
, Rabin, J. L., & Simon, R. (1995, June 25). County budget finally forced to face reality. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
37.
Mullins, D. R.
, & Joyce, P. G. (1996). Tax and expenditure limitations and state and local fiscal structure: An empirical assessment. Public Budgeting and Finance, 16, 75-101.
38.
Oakland, W.
(1979). Proposition 13: Genesis and consequences. National Tax Journal, 32, 387-409.
39.
O’Sullivan, A.
, Sexton, T. A., & Sheffrin, S. M. (1993). The future of Proposition 13 in California. California Policy Seminar Report. California Policy Research Center. University of California.
40.
O’Sullivan, A.
, Sexton, T. A., & Sheffrin, S. M. (1995). Property taxes and tax revolts: The legacy of Proposition 13. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Poterba, J.
, & Rueben, K. S. (1999). Fiscal rules and state borrowing costs: Evidence from California and other states. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
42.
Reid, G.
(1988). How cities in California have responded to fiscal pressures since Proposition 13. Public Budgeting and Finance, 8, 20-37.
43.
Schreiner, T.
(1991, June 6). “Great Depression” in cities, counties. The San Francisco Chronicle, p.A1.
44.
Shadbegian, R. J.
(1999). The effect of tax and expenditure limitations on the revenue structure of local government. National Tax Journal, 52, 221-235.
45.
Shires, M.
(1998). Patterns in California government revenues since Proposition 13. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
46.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
. (1979). Government finances: 1977. Washington, DC: Author.
47.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
. (2000). Government finances: 1997. Washington, DC. Author.
