assembly bill

SACRAMENTO — Severely disabled veterans in California could be getting an expanded tax break.

State lawmakers are considering legislation that would exempt from taxation 50% of the residential property owned by a fully disabled veteran, or 100% if their household income does not exceed $40,000.

“I’ve seen firsthand the financial challenges many disabled veterans face just trying to stay in their homes,” Assemblyman Jeff Gonzalez (R-Indio) said Thursday. “We always say we support our veterans, but support has to mean taking meaningful action to make life more affordable for them.”

Gonzalez, who introduced Assembly Bill 2022, is a Marine Corps veteran and vice chair of the Assembly Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs.

The legislation would apply only to veterans who became disabled as a result of their military service. It defines a fully disabled veteran as one who is blind in both eyes, has lost the use of at least two limbs, or is otherwise incapacitated due to an injury or disease. Surviving spouses would be eligible for the same exemptions, provided they do not remarry.

The exemptions would sunset in 2032 so legislators could review the bill’s effect before deciding whether to enact the policy permanently.

California is home to more than 1.8 million former service members, which is the largest veteran population of any state in the nation, according to the most recent census. The California Department of Veterans Affairs estimates there are 184, 283 veterans this year residing in Los Angeles County.

During a legislative hearing earlier this year, Gonzalez told lawmakers that about 380,000 veterans in the state live with service-related disabilities. He explained the rising cost of living in California is especially challenging for those on fixed incomes, and said reducing property tax burdens could help prevent the most vulnerable veterans from ending up on the streets.

“For a veteran who has already sacrificed so much, losing their home is not just a financial hardship, it is a failure of our commitment to them,” Gonzalez said.

The bill has passed two committees with unanimous support and was most recently referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

There are currently two property tax exemptions offered for fully disabled veterans in California, according to the State Board of Equalization.

The basic property tax exemption, or the $100,000 exemption, is available to all fully disabled veterans. The low-income exemption, or the $150,000 exemption, is available to fully disabled veterans whose annual household income does not exceed a specified amount — currently $81,131 — that is adjusted periodically for inflation. The exemption amount reduces the assessed value of the property, resulting in less property taxes due.

Patrick Murphy, an urban affairs professor at the University of San Francisco who focuses on tax policy, doubts the legislation would have a significant effect on homelessness.

“Homelessness among veterans is a big problem; that is pretty well-documented,” he said. “But I think if we were to list the reasons why veterans end up homeless, the burden of their property taxes would be pretty far down.”

Murphy also cautioned that Assembly Bill 2022 could face potential legal challenges if signed into law.

“Since Prop. 13 is written into the California Constitution, I would almost think there would need to actually be a proposed ballot initiative to change this,” Murphy said.

Proposition 13 mandates that property should be assessed and taxed uniformly based on purchase price. It caps property tax rates at 1% of a property’s value at the time of purchase, and limits annual assessment increases to a maximum of 2%.

Scott Kaufman, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., believes the legislation is on solid footing.

“I don’t see a problem,” he said. “The disabled veterans exemption already exists in the constitution, so I don’t think Prop. 13 trumps it because they both exist together.”

The California Teacher’s Assn. has raised other concerns with the legislation.

“We oppose tax exemptions that cut into the state’s ability to fully fund public schools by putting Prop. 98 funding at risk,” spokesperson Maggie Sisco wrote in an email.

Proposition 98 guarantees a minimum annual funding amount for K-12 schools and community colleges. The money comes from state funding and local property taxes.

According to the State Board of Equalization, the state does not reimburse local governments for the property tax revenue losses from the Disabled Veterans’ Exemption.

The bill is backed by several veterans organizations, including the American Legion, California State Commanders Veterans Council and Vietnam Veterans of America California State Council.

It also has support from the California Assn. of Realtors. Sanjay Wagle, the association’s senior vice president of government affairs, said property taxes are a concern for many disabled veterans looking to purchase a home.

“A lot of our members have seen them struggling, frankly, to make ends meet,” Wagle said. “This kind of property tax relief could be vital.”

A similar bill, SB 296, is being sponsored in the state Senate by Sens. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and Suzette Martinez Valladares (R-Acton).

Another measure, Senate Bill 888, is also seeking to reduce property tax burdens for disabled veterans.
The legislation, whose author is Sen. Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta), would exclude service-related disability payments from being included in the household income used to determine eligibility for exemptions.

Counting unhoused populations is difficult due to the transient nature of homelessness, but the most recent analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development indicate veteran homelessness is on the decline nationwide. In 2024, the department’s annual count found 32,882 homeless veterans, the lowest figure since the count began in 2009.

SACRAMENTO — The debate over immigration issues has reached a fever pitch nationwide, and Angelica Salas said it’s putting her employees at risk.

Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said her staff experiences harassment and death threats.

“They ask themselves, what if someone who disagrees with our work can find where I live, will my family be safe?” Salas said, addressing state lawmakers at a recent legislative hearing.”People begin to self-censor; they step away from their work and some leave the field entirely.”

Salas was speaking in support of Assembly Bill 2624, which would provide privacy protections for those facing harassment for working or volunteering with organizations that offer legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants. The bill would create an address confidentiality program, like the one already offered to reproductive healthcare workers, and prohibit people and businesses from selling or posting images or personal information about the protected individuals on the internet.

The measure has drawn ire from Republicans, who argue it could have a chilling effect on free speech and the media. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and said it would prevent right-wing social media influencers like Shirley from conducting immigrant-related investigations in California.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who authored the legislation, said the proposed law would help keep people safe — but several 1st Amendment experts this week told The Times the bill could have unintended consequences.

“There could be grounds for concern,” said Jason Shepard, a media law and communications professor at California State Fullerton. “It reflects a legitimate and important state interest in protecting people from harassment and threats. But at the same time, this bill punishes the publication of information.”

The legislation defines “personal information” as anything that identifies, describes or relates to the protected individuals, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, physical descriptions, driver’s licenses, financial information, license plate numbers and places of employment.

Shepard said the potential new law could be applied unevenly, and the language could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.

Given the polarized political environment, Shepard said the legislation also could prompt other groups to request similar protections, as those working in a range of professions are facing increasingly heated rhetoric or attacks.

“This is not unique to people who are working in immigration support services; this really could apply to anybody engaged in public debate today,” he said.

Carolyn Iodice, the policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE, said the organization has noted an uptick in laws nationwide implementing privacy protections for those in certain professions.

She pointed to a statute enacted a few years ago in New Jersey that protects the addresses of judges, prosecutors and police officers. The law was used in 2023 to block an editor with New Brunswick Today from publishing an article about the police chief living two hours outside of the city.

“It was obviously newsworthy, but this officer was able to wield the law against this journalist, and that is the kind of thing we are worried about,” Iodice said. “When you think about handing what could be a huge number of people the ability to just block anything from being posted about them online — it could easily be abused.”

David Loy, the legal director for the nonpartisan First Amendment Coalition, said the measure would censor the free speech of all citizens, not just those who defamed or threatened immigrant aid workers.

“Someone might have a legitimate dispute with them and wants to refer to it online,” he said. “But they could then basically silence [that person] from referring to them on a Yelp review or Facebook posts that has nothing to do with threatening them — and that is going way beyond the narrow exceptions of the 1st Amendment.”

Loy said the coalition reached out to Bonta’s office and hopes to help tweak the bill.

Meanwhile, the legislation continues to face scrutiny from Republicans.

“We exposed CA Democrats for the ‘Stop Nick Shirley’ Act that silences citizen journalists who expose their fraud and corruption,” DiMaio wrote this week on social media.

Shirley released a viral video last year alleging fraud in Somali-run immigrant daycare centers in Minneapolis. He recently shared videos of himself in Sacramento confronting Democrats who support Bonta’s bill.

“The enemy is truly within,” Shirley wrote on Instagram. “When our politicians would rather protect fraudsters and illegal migrants, it’s time for us to stand up or face mass oppression from the traitors.”

Bonta dismissed the assertion that the bill is intended to deter journalists, stating in a news release that “right-wing agitators” and “ineffective legislators” were intentionally spreading misinformation.

Bonta spokesperson Daniel McGreevy said the bill has a straightforward goal of protecting immigrant service providers. He said the office is working to refine the legislation to address concerns and welcomes good-faith dialogue.

The bill is progressing through the state Legislature and most recently was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.