Monday, May 31, 2010
Flags in Palo Cedro, CA
Palo Cedro Flags....I am proud to be part of the Palo Cedro Post of the American Legion for their flags on display along Deschutes Road. All credit goes to Bob Wagner and the committee for a great job on this. Very impressive in our rural community. Thanks to all of the volunteers that made this happen, and check it out in beautiful Palo Cedro, as you cannot miss the flags.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Flags in Redding, CA
Last Tuesday our campaign team started putting small American flags on each of our larger signs in the Redding area as our tribute to Memorial Day….being a little creative to call attention to the fact that many have died for our country over the years to keep us a free nation.
Today, my opponent for the position of Shasta County Assessor Recorder in the June 8th election, “followed the leader” and started putting out their flags on their signs….and we appreciate their efforts to also call attention to this great national holiday.
Hopefully, all that see the flags will remember those that went before us…as this is our effort to recognize not only those that are gone, but also to recognize all of the veterans and active duty military that are in various locations throughout the world serving their country. And, from one veteran to another, thanks for your great service.
Happy Memorial Day weekend to all….and don’t forget to vote on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
“Proven leadership in business and management…the right choice for voters for Shasta County Assessor Recorder”
Today, my opponent for the position of Shasta County Assessor Recorder in the June 8th election, “followed the leader” and started putting out their flags on their signs….and we appreciate their efforts to also call attention to this great national holiday.
Hopefully, all that see the flags will remember those that went before us…as this is our effort to recognize not only those that are gone, but also to recognize all of the veterans and active duty military that are in various locations throughout the world serving their country. And, from one veteran to another, thanks for your great service.
Happy Memorial Day weekend to all….and don’t forget to vote on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
“Proven leadership in business and management…the right choice for voters for Shasta County Assessor Recorder”
Monday, May 17, 2010
This Sunday at Anselmo Vineyards in Inwood
Please join us this Sunday, May 23rd, at the Anselmo Vineyards in Inwood near Shingletown, CA in the foothills of Lassen National Park. Please check out this gorgeous 2200 ranch at www.bar7h.com and you will see what I mean.
This is a fund raising activity for my campaign for Shasta County Assessor Recorder, and a per cent of the proceeds for food and drink and the drawing will go to the campaign.
Doors open at 11 AM and we will go until 4 PM…with music and a full schedule….and still plenty of time to eat whether it is brunch or dinner…or wine and cheese.
This is one of the most beautiful destinations in Northern California, as the web page shows…so join us for the day and see why we all love living in Northern California.
See you at Anselmo.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
This is a fund raising activity for my campaign for Shasta County Assessor Recorder, and a per cent of the proceeds for food and drink and the drawing will go to the campaign.
Doors open at 11 AM and we will go until 4 PM…with music and a full schedule….and still plenty of time to eat whether it is brunch or dinner…or wine and cheese.
This is one of the most beautiful destinations in Northern California, as the web page shows…so join us for the day and see why we all love living in Northern California.
See you at Anselmo.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Senior Exemptions and California Property Taxes
Earlier tonight, at a Candidates Night, I was asked the question “what are you telling the taxpayers about Senior exemptions”. My answer was “call the Assessors Office…. that the office can only do what is allowed by law, but some of the exemptions might apply to you”. And, the following is the law in California:
1.What are Propositions 58 and 193? Proposition 58 provides for an exclusion from reassessment real property transfers between parents and children. Proposition 193 expands this tax relief to include certain transfers from grandparents to their grandchildren (transfers from grandchildren to grandparents are not eligible). Specific requirements must be met.
Reference: Section 2(h) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 63.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
1.What are Propositions 60 and 90?Propositions 60 and 90 allow senior citizens to transfer the adjusted base year value from their current home to a replacement dwelling. Certain requirements must be met.
In general, if you or your spouse is age 55 or older, you or your spouse may buy or construct a new home of equal or lesser value than your existing home and transfer the adjusted base year value of your existing home to your new home if certain requirements are met. This is a one-time-only benefit. Thus, once you have filed and received this tax relief, neither you nor your spouse (if your spouse is a record owner of the replacement dwelling) can ever be granted this benefit again. The only exception is if you or your spouse becomes disabled after receiving this tax relief for age. If this happens, you or your spouse may transfer the base year value a second time based upon the disability. The relief for disability involves a different claim form.
Reference: Section 2(a) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 69.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
2.What is the difference between Proposition 60 and Proposition 90?Proposition 60 relates to transfers of base year values between properties located within the same county. Proposition 90 relates to transfers of base year values from an original property in one county to a replacement property in another county within California. For a transfer to be eligible under Proposition 90, the county in which the replacement property is located must have adopted an ordinance that allows such transfers. Currently, the following seven counties have passed ordinances authorizing these intercounty transfers:
Alameda Orange San Mateo Ventura
Los Angeles San Diego Santa Clara
This list may change at any given time. Please call your county assessor’s office to check if your county has passed such an ordinance.
3.What is Proposition 110?Proposition 110 extends the benefits of Propositions 60/90 to qualified disabled homeowners of any age. Other than the age factor, the same requirements under Propositions 60/90 must be met. Effective September 25, 1996, qualified persons who had prior claims based on age may file a second claim based on disability. However, once a person qualifies due to disability, he or she may not receive the base year value transfer benefit due to age.
Reference: Section 2(a) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 69.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
Our obligation, as the Assessor Recorder, is to explain fully these Propositions, which is one of my goals.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
1.What are Propositions 58 and 193? Proposition 58 provides for an exclusion from reassessment real property transfers between parents and children. Proposition 193 expands this tax relief to include certain transfers from grandparents to their grandchildren (transfers from grandchildren to grandparents are not eligible). Specific requirements must be met.
Reference: Section 2(h) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 63.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
1.What are Propositions 60 and 90?Propositions 60 and 90 allow senior citizens to transfer the adjusted base year value from their current home to a replacement dwelling. Certain requirements must be met.
In general, if you or your spouse is age 55 or older, you or your spouse may buy or construct a new home of equal or lesser value than your existing home and transfer the adjusted base year value of your existing home to your new home if certain requirements are met. This is a one-time-only benefit. Thus, once you have filed and received this tax relief, neither you nor your spouse (if your spouse is a record owner of the replacement dwelling) can ever be granted this benefit again. The only exception is if you or your spouse becomes disabled after receiving this tax relief for age. If this happens, you or your spouse may transfer the base year value a second time based upon the disability. The relief for disability involves a different claim form.
Reference: Section 2(a) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 69.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
2.What is the difference between Proposition 60 and Proposition 90?Proposition 60 relates to transfers of base year values between properties located within the same county. Proposition 90 relates to transfers of base year values from an original property in one county to a replacement property in another county within California. For a transfer to be eligible under Proposition 90, the county in which the replacement property is located must have adopted an ordinance that allows such transfers. Currently, the following seven counties have passed ordinances authorizing these intercounty transfers:
Alameda Orange San Mateo Ventura
Los Angeles San Diego Santa Clara
This list may change at any given time. Please call your county assessor’s office to check if your county has passed such an ordinance.
3.What is Proposition 110?Proposition 110 extends the benefits of Propositions 60/90 to qualified disabled homeowners of any age. Other than the age factor, the same requirements under Propositions 60/90 must be met. Effective September 25, 1996, qualified persons who had prior claims based on age may file a second claim based on disability. However, once a person qualifies due to disability, he or she may not receive the base year value transfer benefit due to age.
Reference: Section 2(a) of Article XIII A of the California Constitution and section 69.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
Our obligation, as the Assessor Recorder, is to explain fully these Propositions, which is one of my goals.
Ron Largent for Shasta County Assessor Recorder on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Letter to the Editor on Numbers and Philosophy
Letter to the Editor
May 10, 2010
In your editorial of April 4, 2010, you challenged me to “prove” the statistical facts pertaining to property assessments in Shasta County since the incumbent Assessor-Recorder took office in January of 2007. The factual information and official data from the Assessor-Recorder’s Office and from the California State Board of Equalization indicates the following:
• January 1, 2009: Of the 96,000 properties in Shasta County, 16,400 were re-assessed to a lower value because of the real estate value down turn under the provisions of Proposition 8, representing only 17% of all properties on the secured roll.
• Shasta County, with only 17% of all secured roll properties enrolled with a Prop 8 assessment is significantly lower than the California State Wide Average of Proposition 8 reassessments, which was estimated to be 30%.
• California Law requires the Assessor to annually enroll either a property’s adjusted base year value (Prop 13 value) or its current market value (Prop 8 value), whichever is less.
• On January 1st, 2007 (the tax lien date), even with the market dropping in the last half of 2006, the actual number of Prop 8 assessments dropped from 1,318 for 1-1-2006 to 1,205 for 1-1-2007.
• For 1-1-2008, the actual Prop 8 assessments rose to only 5,496 when property transfers with Prop 13 values set during 2005 and 2006 exceeded 15,000 properties that may have been eligible for Prop 8 reductions.
These are the numbers. My job as a candidate for Assessor-Recorder is to identify and clarify for the public the reasons I am running for this office. The numbers clearly show that more properties in Shasta County should have had a Prop 8 reassessment sooner than they did. My immediate goal, when elected, is to enroll 100% of eligible properties for reassessment and to correct any prior year reassessments that were missed to the extent allowed by law.
Leadership in an office is critical, and this is where I am clearly different than my opposition. I come to the campaign with a significant difference in philosophy of the office and the job. I believe in small government versus large. I believe a public servant job exists for the benefit of the taxpayer, not the other way around. I believe that when we see a market value decline of 40% over the past two years, we have an obligation to the entire population to recognize this decline as quickly as possible. We must reassess their property according to State law. An elected official must be proactive, not waiting for the public to react. Many taxpayers just “do not know the process”, which in itself is somewhat difficult at times. The Assessor-Recorder’s job is to help the voter understand this provision of the law that can actually save them tax dollars. Over assessment is over taxation. Call it what you want, this is not right, not fair and should be addressed aggressively and immediately. The question for the voters is, do they want the status quo or do they want to be part of a new approach that will aggressively address property tax reassessments in this on-going real estate market downturn.
This is not a personality contest. This is a contest of differing philosophies on the role of the government servant. I am coming as a small business taxpaying citizen without government background or experience. This is clearly different than the incumbent. The voter will decide which they prefer on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
May 10, 2010
In your editorial of April 4, 2010, you challenged me to “prove” the statistical facts pertaining to property assessments in Shasta County since the incumbent Assessor-Recorder took office in January of 2007. The factual information and official data from the Assessor-Recorder’s Office and from the California State Board of Equalization indicates the following:
• January 1, 2009: Of the 96,000 properties in Shasta County, 16,400 were re-assessed to a lower value because of the real estate value down turn under the provisions of Proposition 8, representing only 17% of all properties on the secured roll.
• Shasta County, with only 17% of all secured roll properties enrolled with a Prop 8 assessment is significantly lower than the California State Wide Average of Proposition 8 reassessments, which was estimated to be 30%.
• California Law requires the Assessor to annually enroll either a property’s adjusted base year value (Prop 13 value) or its current market value (Prop 8 value), whichever is less.
• On January 1st, 2007 (the tax lien date), even with the market dropping in the last half of 2006, the actual number of Prop 8 assessments dropped from 1,318 for 1-1-2006 to 1,205 for 1-1-2007.
• For 1-1-2008, the actual Prop 8 assessments rose to only 5,496 when property transfers with Prop 13 values set during 2005 and 2006 exceeded 15,000 properties that may have been eligible for Prop 8 reductions.
These are the numbers. My job as a candidate for Assessor-Recorder is to identify and clarify for the public the reasons I am running for this office. The numbers clearly show that more properties in Shasta County should have had a Prop 8 reassessment sooner than they did. My immediate goal, when elected, is to enroll 100% of eligible properties for reassessment and to correct any prior year reassessments that were missed to the extent allowed by law.
Leadership in an office is critical, and this is where I am clearly different than my opposition. I come to the campaign with a significant difference in philosophy of the office and the job. I believe in small government versus large. I believe a public servant job exists for the benefit of the taxpayer, not the other way around. I believe that when we see a market value decline of 40% over the past two years, we have an obligation to the entire population to recognize this decline as quickly as possible. We must reassess their property according to State law. An elected official must be proactive, not waiting for the public to react. Many taxpayers just “do not know the process”, which in itself is somewhat difficult at times. The Assessor-Recorder’s job is to help the voter understand this provision of the law that can actually save them tax dollars. Over assessment is over taxation. Call it what you want, this is not right, not fair and should be addressed aggressively and immediately. The question for the voters is, do they want the status quo or do they want to be part of a new approach that will aggressively address property tax reassessments in this on-going real estate market downturn.
This is not a personality contest. This is a contest of differing philosophies on the role of the government servant. I am coming as a small business taxpaying citizen without government background or experience. This is clearly different than the incumbent. The voter will decide which they prefer on June 8th.
www.largent2010.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)