Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

News
Oct. 05, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Property tax cap efforts scrapped

Petition to amend constitution pulled

By ED VOGEL
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

Sharron Angle
Former Assembly member won't circulate petition in its present form

CARSON CITY -- Former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, R-Reno, on Thursday withdrew her petition to amend the state constitution and limit property tax increases to 2 percent a year.

Angle pulled the petition just six days before a scheduled court hearing in Carson City at which the AFL-CIO was prepared to challenge the petition's constitutionality.

In a terse message to Secretary of State Ross Miller, Angle said only that her We The People Nevada organization would not circulate the Proposition 13-style petition in its present form. She said the political action committee "may" circulate another petition in the future.

Angle failed in 2004 and 2006 to collect enough signatures to put an identical petition on election ballots.

Most Popular Stories
  • MOUNT CHARLESTON: Four die in plane crash
  • Two couples died in crash
  • NORM: Steve Wynn goes for mega-yacht
  • FAMILY SERVICES: Three visits preceded boy's death
  • NORM: Kirshner works on big Vegas project
  • NORM: Playboy models in state spotlight
  • Body of diver who jumped off 90-foot Lake Mead cliff found
  • NORM: Playboy 'coed': Dad's OK with it
  • NORM: Elvis fan club will have star its way
  • NORM: Curtain falling on Stage Deli



    • She would need to collect 58,000 valid signatures by next May 20 to place it on the November 2008 ballot.

    Angle's petition is based entirely on Proposition 13, the initiative California voters approved in 1978 that limits property tax increases to 2 percent a year. In the 1992 Nordlinger v. Hahn case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 13 on an 8-1 vote.

    Angle said she had to withdraw the petition because the word "transferee" was mistakenly used on the petition instead of "transferor." The AFL-CIO would have challenged the proposal because of that error, she said.

    "They're nitpicking us to death," she said. "We don't want it thrown out on a technicality."

    Lawyers for We The People Nevada are going through the petition and will file a corrected petition at a later date.

    Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Matt Griffin said Angle's petition had typographical errors, and she also didn't add phrasing indicating the petition would amend the constitution.

    Last week, Angle complained that the AFL-CIO was forcing her to drain her organization's funds by hiring lawyers to fight a frivolous lawsuit instead of spending the money to hire petition circulators.

    While Angle has said she raised $250,000 to circulate the petitions, she admitted last month that $200,000 comes from a private donor who stipulated the money was a matching grant. He would not contribute the money unless she raised $200,000 from other sources.

    State AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Danny Thompson said he was prepared to challenge any petition, now or later, that Angle decides to circulate.

    "The whole thing is misleading," Thompson said.

    Unless one examines the wording in the petition at great length, Thompson said, it appears the petition calls for prohibiting state income taxes and inheritance taxes. Those taxes already are banned in Nevada.

    But people looking at the petition might be persuaded to sign it because they think it bans those two other taxes, Thompson said.

    "If someone standing in front of Wal-Mart hands you a petition and you see it does away with inheritance and personal income taxes, and you don't already know that is the case, then you will be more willing to sign it," Thompson said. "People will sign it not knowing what they are signing onto."

    Thompson also challenged the constitutionality of Angle's lawsuit on the grounds it violates the "uniform and equal" tax provision in the state constitution.

    Two homeowners with identical homes in the same neighborhood could pay widely different amounts of property taxes, he said. Under Proposition 13, the buyer of a home would be taxed at the rate of 1 percent of the full cash value of the home or business. In other words, if a home sells for $500,000, the tax would be $5,000 per year.

    That could be several times what the existing homeowner is paying.

    Thompson noted a 2005 law passed by the Legislature caps property taxes on owner-occupied residential property at 3 percent a year and 8 percent a year on other properties. But unlike Proposition 13, properties are not reassessed at full cash value when someone buys them under the state law.

    "Her petition would make property taxes higher for a lot of people," Thompson said. "Our property taxes rates are not out of whack. People think this will lower their property taxes, but see what happens if you sell a house. We will continue to fight this thing."

    Angle was the only legislator to vote against the law capping property taxes in 2005.

    She noted in an interview last week that home buyers might pay higher taxes than their neighbors, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that plan in its 1992 decision.

    Contact Review-Journal Capital Bureau chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or (775) 687-3901.



    Leave Your Comment 21 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Keith wrote on October 06, 2007 01:09 AM: Show me where the 16th amendment has been radified Argh. People like you ruin this nation with your communistic idealog, and I am going to move to another country if Hillary is elected, things are in order for such a move. There are much better places to live then America, research and you'll find them. See, the government doesn't want to change the tax laws due to fear of change and greed. Our nation is going broke and the high taxes that democrates purpose will collapse the economy along with the usless wasteful spending of money and uneven distribution of wealth as well.


    Argh wrote on October 05, 2007 09:53 PM:
    Jason/Keith: the right to create an income tax was added by constitutional amendment. The lame tax protestor arguments re: typos in versions of the amendments have been rejected by the Supreme Court and all other courts over and over again. Its the law. Deal with it or find another country.

    As for the Angel amendment, how incompetent is she and her team that they can't properly draft an initiative? The fact that basically only one person is giving any cash and she can't get signatures shows no one is interested in what she is selling. Thank god this twit didn't get elected to Congress.


    Greg wrote on October 05, 2007 05:50 PM: Prop 13 was a good deal in California. It saved my parents a lot of money, when it passed in the late 70's. They owned a nice home on an acre of land.At the time I was looking for a career in law enforcement. All state, county and local governments put on a hiring freeze after prop 13 passed. No one was sure about the tax money situation. The freeze lasted less than a year, and the money was found to fund police, fire, etc. I moved to Nevada anyway, because the job market was very good. It was a good move for me, and California's job market didn't dry up either. A prop 13, even though it is years later, would most likely be a good deal for the Nevada homeowner.


    td wrote on October 05, 2007 04:33 PM: Here's a fresh thought for our legislature, quit following California and come up with your own ideas. If they can't do that, I see a big potential tax cut .... Carson City!


    Nick wrote on October 05, 2007 03:07 PM: Linda –

    Who will pay for your roads?

    Who will pay for your fire calls?

    Who will pay for your police protection?

    Who will pay to manage your state-funded health care?

    Who will pay to educate your next doctor?

    People are dying on our insufficient roads. Children are being left behind in our schools. Police can't investigate crimes after they happen.

    Quit calling me a "tax hungry parasite" and tell me where the money will come from to pay for services we use? Or should we just stop having those services and all be shut-ins?


    linda wrote on October 05, 2007 02:52 PM: Lived and raised family in same home for 30 years...Retired...Fixed income for life,10,20,30 years...Property tax bills (along with every other tax)more than pension(forget social security)...Have to sell house,can't afford it anymore,even though it's paid for...This is why Californians voted for Prop 13, thats why I can't understand why we would even hesitate to vote for it here in Nevada...Taxes will never go down and we will all be retired and living on fixed income some day...


    Keith wrote on October 05, 2007 02:14 PM: sorry for the 3 posts, sometimes these don't show up right away or at all.


    Jason wrote on October 05, 2007 02:12 PM: Taxes, taxes, and more taxes, when is it ever enough. The tax system needs a major overhaul. I am still waiting for a so called "tax expert" to show me where I have to pay income taxes constituionally, I don't mind paying taxes, but not income and not overly high taxes either. It's sad that Russia has a better tax system then America. Unfortuantely this country has gotten so greedy that it doesn't care about the taxation of its civilians or the consequences of over taxation, case in point is Jay, I think another "Boston tea party" needs to be done, for those of you in public school(go to a libray or online search and look up Boston Tea Party).


    Jay wrote on October 05, 2007 12:35 PM: Yes, we need to cap property taxes to stop all this outragous spending. I am getting ready to move from California to Nevada because California is getting too expensice to live in. My property taxes on a 1300 foot home which I bought for 370,000 four years ago has a tax bill of 6500 in LA county. My state income tax is eating about 15
    % of my total income. food costs here are 2 times more than Nevada and gas is over $3.00 a gallon.

    Nevada is a bargain and it needs to stay that way!


    Mark wrote on October 05, 2007 11:19 AM: Nick must be one of those tax-hungry parasites. He is the enemy of decent people.


    Read All Comments