Anthony wrote on July 31, 2007 09:11 PM: I'm more interested in wondering why my property taxes keep going up, despite the fact that my house is worth exactly the same as it was when I bought it (it went up, then slid back a little the last few months). I got my CC assessors card and saw yet another increase. WTF?

Herb wrote on July 31, 2007 11:17 AM: I only have 5 years left to pay off my house and I look forward to retiring in it. Already the property taxes are more than the house payment and I worry that If things keep going the way they have with property taxes I'll have to sell my house and move. The problem is, with property prices where they are, how can I afford a place as nice as the one I have now. I don't want property taxes to eat up all my retirement savings and I don't want to be living on the street at 75! When my wife and I bought the house decades ago we had no idea that that could happen. I say Prop. 13 is a good thing, go for it.

fj wrote on July 31, 2007 11:02 AM: C'mon people, if the Democrat B.B. is against it, it must be good! Why do politicians like Buckley always say it's for the children? What taxes are for B.Buckley, is for you and your colleagues to pillage and plunder!

fj wrote on July 31, 2007 11:00 AM: C'mon people, if the Democrat B.B. is against it, it must be good! Why do politicians like Buckey always say it's for the children? What taxes are for B.Buckey, is for you and your colleagues to pillage and plunder!

RANDY wrote on July 31, 2007 10:59 AM: I FIND IT VERY STRANGE THAT WE CAN'T WRITE A BALLOT QUESTION IN PLAIN ENGLISH ABOUT TAXES. HOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE, NO RAISING TAXES WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. GOVERNMENT MUST STAY WITHIN BUDGET. GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT WASTE OUR TAX DOLLARS. ANY COST OVERRUNS MUST BE JUSTIFIED DO TO AN EMERGENCY.AN EMERGENCY IS DEFINED AS A NATURAL DISASTER IN WHICH LIFE AND PROPERTY ARE SERIOUSLY DISRUPTED DUE TO FLOOD,EARTHQUAKE,WAR,OR DISEASE OUTBREAK.

J. C. wrote on July 31, 2007 09:18 AM: I lived through California's prop 13. What caused the revolt was the inability of the California government to live within its means. The legisgature kept passing laws benefiting special interest groups and raising taxes to make up the shortfall. Rising property prices then caused more property tax and people couldn't afford to keep their homes. Nevada is headed down the same road and It won't be long before the current cap on property tax is lost because the state is engaged in tax and spend politics.

Don Reynolds wrote on July 31, 2007 06:59 AM: How is it legal for them to accept an anonymous $200,000 donation? Why won't they reveal the donor? Is it drug money? Is it from Mexico? How we do even know that its only 200,000 and not, as I've heard, a million?

Not worth looking into Mr. Whalen?

James wrote on July 31, 2007 06:49 AM: I paid $150,000 for my home 21 years ago. My property taxes today are $3,200. My home today is worth $750,000. (I'm house rich and cash poor!) Using today's value my taxes would be $7,500. JUST WHAT YEAR ARE THE PROPONENTS PLANNING TO ROLL TAXES BACK TO IN ORDER FOR MY PROPERTY TAXES TO BE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN WHAT I PAY TODAY? EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO? FIFTEEN YEARS AGO? HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL VALUE THAT FAR BACK?

James:  Since you are an existing homeowner your taxes would be based on 1% of your taxable value. If you have your July 1 tax bill handy you can figure and compare by using the following method:  Assessed value divided by .35 equals the taxable value.  Taxable value times 1% equals the amount of tax you would pay this year if the initiative provisions were in place now.   If you want a more detailed comparison of your property under the initiative with a roll back, please e-mail me at sharron@sharronangle.com with your parcel number.   When you calculate your savings, you could donate to our cause at www.wethepeoplenevada.org The measure restores and ensures predictability for property owners and tenants, both commercial and residential, as to what they will have to pay in taxes each year - a maximum of 2% more than the previous year.

Don: Watch the spin.  I did not say that our donor lived out of state, Buckley did and she doesn't know who our donor is so it was a spin statement to deflect your attention from the real issue.  In the last cycle in-state donors lost their jobs and donor businesses were hurt by harassment. Anonymous means safety!

JC, Randy, FJ and Herb: Well said!
Taxes will now be based on the acquisition value. This largely eliminates the disputes and controversy resulting from arbitrary and subjective appraisal practices of assessors. The measure corrects unconstitutional assessment, assures predictability and stability in taxes, and balances the need for homeowner protection with governments need for reasonable revenue growth. If there is any initial pain to government, it will be far outweighed by the benefits of the measure.  As for revenue growth, despite the initial rollback, the initiative actually generates substantially more revenue for government on an ongoing basis, resulting from the increase to market value assessment after property is sold, new construction, etc. Growth paying for itself-a novel idea.  The 2003 split roll (3% and 8%) tax cap legislation is unconstitutional because it treats different types of property unequally. It can be rescinded at any time, either by the courts or by the legislature itself. The initiative corrects the unconstitutional inequity of the tax cap and extends taxpayer protection against the whims of the legislature and its tax hungry government lobbyists behind the fence of the Nevada Constitution.