Proposition 13 limited the property tax rate based on the assessed value of real estate to 1% per year.
[8] Simple majority vote parcel taxes were found unconstitutional under the uniformity of property taxation provision of the California Constitution.
There has been significant political opposition to easing the statutory uniformity requirement for parcel taxes, especially from the business community which would incur a significant increased (but generally more equitable) property tax burden if the uniformity requirement were eased by the California Legislature.
[14][15] In response, the California State Senate passed a bill by Governance and Finance Chair Lois Wolk to authorize school districts to levy a higher parcel tax on commercial property,[16][17] but the bill then subsequently failed to pass in an Assembly committee.
Business interest groups in California such as the Bay Area Council, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce frequently support parcel taxes that disproportionately burden single-family residential parcels.
[21] For example, in Oakland, California, where 68.5% of the students qualify for free lunch programs, property owners pay a $195 annual parcel tax while in its enclave Piedmont, where 0.3% of students qualify for free lunch programs, owners pay at minimum a $1,200 annual parcel tax.
[6] The preceding also raises significant school funding equity issues under the California Supreme Court Serrano decisions.
Proposition 218 (1996) ("Right to Vote on Taxes Act") constitutionally reserves to local voters the right to use the initiative power to reduce or repeal any local tax, assessment, fee or charge, including provision for a significantly reduced petition signature requirement to qualify a measure on the ballot.
Matching contributions typically come from the private sector in the form of voluntary payments such as from the local business community.