In Westchester County, New York, cocktail conversation no longer revolves around the frothy real estate market. That is sooo 2006. Instead, the issue du jour is taxes. Even though I now live several states away, old friends from high school will tearfully recount how their empty-nested parents have been pushed out of the area by the engulfing tide of property and school taxes.
So it stands to reason that the New York Legislature has now passed a bill to limit property tax increases to 2 percent a year (or less if the inflation rate is lower). This is one potent political issue in the suburbs.
Watching this development from afar, though, I wonder, hasn’t New York learned anything from California’s 30+ years of experience with property tax caps? Where are the obvious comparisons to Proposition 13?
Proposition 13 is widely pilloried for contributing to the demise of public schools, skewing the incentives for local jurisdictions to attract certain types of development, and generally wreaking dysfunction on local finances.
So why does New York think the outcome of a 2 percent annual property tax cap is going to be any different there?
There are, of course, some important differences:
1. Local governments can override the cap with 60 percent of the public vote or the governing body. In California, a 2/3 supermajority (67%) is needed.
2. The cap does come with potentially significant exemptions. Court judgments, growth in a town or school district, and employee pension costs can allow taxes to go beyond the 2 percent limit without voter approval.
This tax cap will sunset in 2016, but it is hard to see this piece of legislation not becoming a permanent part of the political landscape.










Anchored between the relatively new Whole Foods on the east end (at Lincoln) and Venice mainstay Rose Cafe on the west (at Main), it could provide the missing ingredient to draw additional pedestrian activity into this area.