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