Letter to the Editor: Proposition 1 has too many problems to deserve support

Dear Editor,

As Wyoming voters consider Proposition 1, it’s worth remembering the lessons of California’s Proposition 13, a measure passed in 1978 when homeowners feared rising property taxes would force them out of their homes. Like Proposition 13, Proposition 1 offers significant relief, but it lacks the clarity, stability and long-term structure that made Proposition 13 effective in the early years.

Under Proposition 1, homeowners must apply for the exemption every single year to maintain the reduction. By contrast, Proposition 13 established a base year value of the home, at the time of purchase, and that value increased at a predictable rate of no more than 2% annually, with a simple 1% tax rate. It was straightforward, durable, linked to the duration of the homeowner’s ownership and easy for the homeowner to understand.

Unlike California’s Proposition 13, Wyoming’s Proposition 1 is not a tax limitation measure; it is only a tax exemption measure. It does not restrict how future taxes can be raised, how bond measures are approved, voting thresholds for new taxes, limitations on levies or caps on future property tax increases. In other words, Proposition 1 provides temporary relief but offers no protection against future tax hikes. Any new bond measure or levy can still be added to property tax bills, potentially erasing the benefit of the exemption entirely.

Proposition 13 also required that any further measure increasing property taxes be approved by two-thirds vote, a safeguard that gave the law real strength. When that threshold was later lowered, Proposition 13 lost much of its protective power. Proposition 1 contains no such guardrails.

As presented, Proposition 1 feels poorly constructed. The annual application requirement, the lack of long term stability and the absence of clear protections against future tax increases make it look more like a temporary patch than a meaningful solution. It raises serious questions about how the state and especially the counties and bloated school districts will make up the $92-$95 million in lost revenue projected for the first two years. Those answers are not provided in the measure.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am a strong supporter of fewer and lower taxes, and I’m not suggesting California’s Proposition 13 is the perfect answer for Wyoming. I am simply pointing out this proposed solution seems so sloppy, so loosely constructed and so poorly thought out that I cannot support it. Wyoming taxpayers deserve better than a half-formed measure that creates more uncertainty than relief.

This is a serious matter for our state, and as taxpayers we should demand the very best from our representatives and legislators. Proposition 1 does not meet that standard. It reads more like a rushed assignment than a serious policy solution. We should expect better and demand a measure that provides real, lasting relief – not one that creates more uncertainty than it resolves.

A. Renee Faber

Lovell