The following is a letter that Menlo Park resident Jennifer Bestor wrote to billionaire Warren Buffett concerning her research on the tax burden shift, favoring commercial property owners, resulting from the passage of California Proposition 13.
10 March 2010
Mr. Warren Buffett
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
3555 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68131
Dear Mr. Buffett,
In 2003 you advised Governor Schwarzenegger to review Prop 13 with an eye toward generating more revenue for California schools, cities, emergency services, and other local needs. The governor responded that Prop 13 is the "third rail" in California politics and that you would have to do 500 sit-ups if you mentioned it again.
Please let me know how I can help you with the sit-ups. We desperately need some energy from that third rail.
Looking around at my hometown and reviewing my homeowner's tax bill, I am torn between the realization that, for homeowners, Prop 13 has worked roughly the way that voters thought it would, while for commercial landlords, it's been an incredible windfall.
Prop 13 has allowed my neighbors – especially retirees – to live in their homes relying upon a predictable tax structure. Families have been able plan for the future. It may not be perfect, but it has basically worked as voters expected.
Commercial property tax, however, has evolved in a way that not even the direst opponents of Prop 13 envisioned. The majority of tax "savings" in 1978 went to commercial landlords -- AND those savings have increased disproportionately over the 31 years since. In 1978, commercial property owners and single-family homeowners each paid about half the total tax in San Mateo County. By 2008, homeowners were paying two-thirds and commercial property owners one-third.
Prop 13 – and then Prop 58 that made Prop 13 bases inheritable – has created economic inequities that are evident from simple on-line searches of the county assessor's database – and destroy any idea of a level business playing field. A quick trip around my town illustrates this.
The nondescript little gas station on El Camino near my house pays $30,148 a year in property tax for the privilege of selling me less expensive gasoline than the two Shell stations ($14,214; $17,214), the Union 76 ($15,920), and the Chevron ($20,388) down the street. Those big-name stations have service bays to increase revenue and are on major intersections. But the "new guy" in town (well, actually, there's been a station there since 1978 -- but the new competitor in the market) is the one who's paying $10,000 a year more for police, fire, road repair, education, parks and courts.
Flipping the equation around, the Trader Joe's property -- the "new" market in town -- contributes just $7,471 of general tax towards our local services (for two-thirds of an acre of prime commercial property) compared with Draeger's up the street at $66,585. It isn't Trader Joe's, of course, that's paying the tax -- if they'd bought the property when they moved in, that parcel would be contributing 500%+ more. Trader Joe's leases it from a family trust, descendants of the 1978 owner ... with an address on a leafy street in Cape Cod. Since landlords charge what the market will bear, it's fair to guess that the property tax savings are accruing to those folks in Massachusetts -- while the costs are borne by school kids and residents of Menlo Park.
Of course, if the Cape Codders visited, they would probably look across Curtis Street to the Walgreens (Unamas and Starbucks) building and point out that that whole complex is only paying $8,709 in general property tax ... without providing customer parking. In fact, the Walgreens building pays 51% more for sewer service ($13,181) than it does towards police, firefighters, courts, roads, and maintaining its free city parking ....
Do you wonder whether any commercial properties ARE contributing meaningfully towards our local services? Well, the Chase takeover of Washington Mutual appears to have triggered a reassessment of that property (WaMu's earlier absorption of Home Savings had not). So that's an additional $25,000 into the pot (up to $45,190). And a dry cleaner we use, Menlo Art, is in a building that pays $30,346. The dry cleaner only occupies 25% of the building, so their share is a mere $7,587 -- but compare that with the $944 paid by the much busier cleaner across Santa Cruz Avenue. (Hoot'n'Toot sits on yet another property whose sewer bill dwarfs their property tax contribution -- with an out-of-state owner on the possibly-less-leafy Leisure World Drive in Mesa, AZ.) I wish I could afford Tom Wing's jewelry ($21,687), but I do have pizza at Amici's ($32,809) whenever possible. And Kepler's, our doggedly independent bookstore, occupies about a sixth of a building that pays $220,395.
Well, Mr. Buffett, I think you get the idea. People say that increasing taxes will make prices go up but, frankly, that requires the generous assumption that, in this totally unbalanced model, landlords aren't charging what the market will bear.
To make sure, I tested this. I took identical loads of my husband's laundry into each of the dry cleaners mentioned above (after a particularly depressing talk by our school superintendent -- spending per pupil is down this year over last, with only one new teacher hired for over 120 new kids, and 14 teachers due to be laid off in May) -- and found that cleaning three shirts, two khaki slacks and a cashmere sweater cost me $37.00 at the popular ($944) cleaner, while I paid $35.60 across the street ($7,587). Wherever the savings are going, it's not to customers.
And then there's the threat that Business Will Leave if commercial property taxes go up. Having spent twenty years in the corporate world before becoming a mom, forgive my skepticism. I sat in on many meetings at Apple Computer Inc. in the early 80's and 3Com Corp. in the early 90's discussing siting new sales and manufacturing operations. Property tax was never, to my best recollection, mentioned. Consolidated tax levels, yes, but in the broad context of the overall cost and relative ease of doing business. What attracted us? Locations with a level playing field (not one that discriminated against the new entrant); a highly skilled (educated) workforce; good road-, rail- and air-transportation; fair and efficient courts and public services; reliable infrastructure; and a community environment that made employees want to live there.
OK, out of fear of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we are now drowning him in it. So what change do we make and how and who?
First, let's cap Prop 13 benefits for commercial property at 20 years. Every twenty years, each non-residential property is reassessed at market value, then gets to enjoy another 20 years of tax relief.
Second, since understaffed assessors offices can't possibly reassess the roughly 40% of all commercial parcels with base years before 1989, why not say that, for the next five years, assessors will use the existing statewide Board of Equalization mark-up percentages gathered on commercial properties sold – which the BoE uses to assess utility property. A property owner who feels that this overstates his total assessed value could file the usual appeal with a private appraisal, which, if accepted, would provide the basis for the subsequent twenty years. By 2015, assessors would have ramped up to reassess commercial properties with 1975 - 1995 bases ... especially since absentee landlords may decide that losing a perpetual and growing tax advantage encourages them to sell to people for whom the property -- not the tax windfall -- is the asset.
It isn't perfect, but it will work. $10,000 a year more in property tax from just one Menlo City commercial parcel generates $1,700 for our four elementary schools, $1,590 for our high school, $690 for the three junior colleges, $1,610 to fight our fires, $1,220 for the City ($450 of which to the police, $171 to road and parking maintenance, $207 for parks and recreation, $68 to the library) ... OK, I'm being boring ... but you and I know that stopping the nonsense of "1978 + 2% forever" will make a difference. Perhaps more of our commercial landlords will be locals -- and maybe even occupy some of the space they owned? Like in 1978.
Who will do this? Would you? Would you ask our governor, once again, to look at Prop 13 for commercial property? Does he have anything to lose? The Republicans seem to hate him. The Democrats seem to hate him. It's just like a movie where the hero gets everything going in the first act, things fall apart in the second, and everyone's against him at the beginning of the third ... until ... he grabs the third-rail, does the right thing, champions a fix that will make a difference ... and saves California. Go and ask him, Mr. Buffett – please!
And the tagline to the eventual movie? "There's nothing more dangerous than a lame duck." Maybe the poster could show you and Arnold doing sit-ups together. I'll hold your feet.
With sincere good wishes,
Jennifer Bestor
Homeowner – stay-at-home Mom – erstwhile PTO treasurer – retired high-tech executive – native Californian – lifelong, fifth-generation Republican … in Menlo Park, California, 94025
P. S. If anyone other than Mr. Buffet is reading this, please don't just believe me – or those who might respond with old arguments. Restoring our local services – and regaining local control of these services – rides on this. Please do your own research! Go to www.sanmateocountytaxcollector.org and look up your neighborhood. Then, check out where you shop and eat, bank and work. (Assessors maps on www.smcare.org can help locate APNs, if an address doesn't match.) Who's paying? Who's lunching?
Share Investor Blog - Stockmarket & Business commentary
Discuss this topic @ Share Investor Forum - Register free
Download the 1977 - 2009 Warren Buffett Letter's to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders
Recommended Amazon Reading
 | The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America, Second Edition by Warren E. Buffett Buy new: $25.91 / Used from: $29.99 Usually ships in 24 hours |
 | The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder Buy new: $13.60 / Used from: $8.95 Usually ships in 24 hours |
2 comments:
This letter is ridiculous on several levels, but first let's expose the writer for what she is: a Democrat not a Republican as stated, so she purposely deceives. Go to OpenSecrets.org and look up her last name and zip code and you will see her only political donations are to a DNC branch, Kerry and Obama--not donations of a "life long Republican." She ignores that residential taxes surpass commercial taxes because of all the new houses built in 30 years increasing the parcels paying residential taxes. She ignores the sales taxes, business license fees and income taxes generated by the commercial properties that are not generated by the residential properties. She ignores the taxes on new commercial developments and cherry picks certain commercial parcels. Typical dishonest "facts" from liberals trying to raise taxes. If her city is losing money they should not have expanded their government when Prop 13 was pouring money into city coffers as the housing bubble expanded. The State of California doubled its budget and spending from 1998 to 2008 mainly due to exploding revenue due to Prop 13. Had they managed spending during the period California would be sitting on a surplus.
This letter is bogus, the writer a deceitful fraud who is obviously ignorant of the relationships between taxes, values, employment and most importantly spending.
I bet she hasn't voted for a Republican candidate in at least 5 elections.
Hey, Dennis, tell me how you really feel about me! (Actually, this is an odd place to blast lifelong Republicans who've found themselves supporting Democratic candidates of late!)
In three weeks of personal attacks, no one has yet come up with a reason why it's "good for business" to have a large group of commercial property owners contributing less than one-fifth of what their competitors are paying -- based merely on longevity or posterity. In LA County, 18% of commercial parcels have a 1975 base year; in Santa Clara County, it's 24%; here in Menlo Park, it's almost 40%.
And, locally in the Silicon Valley, it's the new names on the block that, if anything, are paying more of all those other taxes -- remember, Apple wasn't even founded in 1975! (Was Sergei Brin even alive then?)
Are you unaware that what a business's landlord pays in property tax has no bearing on what the business pays in income tax or local business fees -- and certainly has no bearing on what sales tax they pass through from their customers?
So, no, I wasn't so ignorant as to lump "business" into one great convenient bucket. (It helps to have spent 20+ years working for real companies to recognize an uneven, counterproductive playing field.)
And, interestingly, no, I didn't ignore all the new houses built in the last 30 years. Concern about that fact was what led me to analyze my school district parcel by parcel. And, watching commercial properties' contribution drop from 20% to 9% in the district, I saw that less than 2% of the drop was due to the (net) conversion of commercial to residential or exempt to residential (net because there was also conversion to commercial from residential and exempt). Another 2% was due to the drop in value of the $7K homeowners' exemption.
But, after that, we were left with the reality that commercial was (technically) turning over much more slowly than residential. It wasn't that the owners were staying the same, just that, the children and grandchildren of the 1978 owners had taken over ownership of smaller parcels, while larger parcels were owned by corporations, LLCs, partnerships, etc., which escape reassessment.
Is your suggestion that legacy landlords (their heirs and LLC assigns) deserve to be the great beneficiaries of Prop 13? That, as their share of local taxes slide towards zero, we should applaud them?
Is their contribution to keeping California spending per pupil well below the national average actually a noble quest? Will a generation of ill-educated kids provide a better workforce? A stronger local market?
Should we be grateful when we read that local businesses have closed because landlords (whose contribution to locally-controlled local services has been capped at 2% growth per year) have doubled their rents? Like our local mortuary or old hardware store?
And, while long-term commercial landlords are quietly pocketing $2-6B/year in Prop 13 benefits, why haven't we been hearing from them at city council meetings -- except, of course, to grab their "fair share" of any surplus for downtown visioning, business district improvements, improved parking, and the like?
No, Dennis, my letter may have been amusing, but it wasn't ridiculous.
Post a Comment