Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
California Proposition 60, Replacement Property Valuation Amendment (1986)
| California Proposition 60 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Taxes |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
California Proposition 60 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 4, 1986. It was approved.
A “yes” vote supported establishing a procedure for determining the property valuation for replacement residential property for those over 55. |
A “no” vote opposed establishing a procedure for determining the property valuation for replacement residential property for those over 55. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 60 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
5,121,859 | 77.02% | ||
| No | 1,528,254 | 22.98% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 60 was as follows:
| “ | Taxation. Replacement Residences. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | TAXATION. REPLACEMENT RESIDENCES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. State Constitution Article XIII A, enacted as Proposition 13 in 1978, with certain exceptions, places a limitation on real property taxes equal to 1 percent of the value of its assessed value listed on the 1975-1976 tax bill. Property may be reassessed on change of ownership. This measure amends Article XIII A to permit the Legislature to allow persons over age 55, who sell their residence and buy or build another of equal or lesser value within two years in the same county, to transfer the old residence's assessed value to the new residence. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: This measure has no direct state or local fiscal effect unless the Legislature passes laws implementing it. If the Legislature passes such laws, property tax revenues would be reduced. The loss of this revenue would probably amount to several million dollars per year beginning in 1987-88. Cities, counties, and special districts would bear 60 percent of this loss. The other 40 percent would affect community college and school districts. Higher state aid to community college and school districts would offset these losses. The State General Fund would bear the cost for the higher aid. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the California Constitution
A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |