Author: Staff Reporter

Santa Clara County assessor candidate Rishi Kumar’s proposal to exempt older adults from property taxes is stirring debate as he faces a runoff election against Neysa Fligor.

Rishi Kumar, a candidate for Santa Clara County assessor, is generating significant attention—and some controversy—with his pledge to shield older adults from property taxes. This ambitious proposal has drawn both support and criticism as Kumar prepares for a runoff election scheduled for December 30.

The special election was prompted by the abrupt resignation of Larry Stone, the county’s former assessor who held the position for 30 years. Kumar, a former councilmember from Saratoga, is competing against Neysa Fligor, the Vice Mayor of Los Altos and an assistant assessor, who secured 37% of the vote in the initial election on November 4, falling short of the outright majority needed to avoid a runoff.

Kumar’s campaign centers on a bold initiative to exempt residents aged 60 and older from property taxes on assessed properties. In response to pushback from established political figures who have labeled the proposal as illegal, Kumar clarified that he intends to advocate for a statewide ballot measure to enact this change.

The proposal aims to amend Proposition 13, a landmark law passed by voters in 1978 that limits annual increases in property assessments to a maximum of 2% until a property is reassessed due to new construction or a change of ownership. Kumar has already submitted the necessary ballot language to the state Attorney General’s Office.

“All sorts of allegations keep flying at my campaign as a result of this proposal,” Kumar told San José Spotlight. “People have basically said, ‘You don’t have the authority,’ or ‘You’re lying’ or ‘You would be misusing the authority of the office.’”

One of Kumar’s critics is his potential predecessor, Larry Stone, who expressed strong disapproval of the proposal. “I told him flat out to his face that that was illegal and somebody running for assessor should not be promising things that are illegal,” Stone stated. He argues that anyone can advocate for a ballot measure, regardless of whether they hold the office of assessor, and that Kumar’s claims of needing the position to push for such a measure are unfounded.

Kumar counters that, as assessor, he would have a unique platform to advocate for the proposed law change. “I don’t know why it was so alarming to my opponents,” he remarked.

To bolster his case, Kumar points to Virginia, which in 2010 passed a constitutional amendment allowing local governments to exempt or defer property taxes for certain older adults and disabled residents. He also highlights recent actions in Alameda County, where Assessor Phong La committed to reducing tax bills for over 8,300 homeowners whose property values had dropped significantly.

However, experts caution that if Kumar is elected, he would face the challenge of balancing his campaign for the tax measure with the administrative responsibilities of the assessor’s office. Darien Shansky, a state tax law expert and professor at UC Davis, noted, “You would need to get around 900,000 signatures for the ballot measure and run a statewide campaign. It would be a very major undertaking.”

The debate surrounding Kumar’s proposal has sparked broader discussions about the role of the assessor’s office. Stone argues that the position should remain apolitical, emphasizing that fair market value should be determined without political influence. “The job of the assessor is totally different from any other elected official,” he stated. “Anything I do from day one has nothing to do with politics whatsoever.”

Kumar, however, believes that the role inherently involves political responsibility. “If it was not a political role, you would be appointed,” he said. “Anyone who is in an elected leadership role should create policies. That’s what the people expect.”

His interest in advocating for older adults stems from his experience fundraising for senior services in Saratoga, as well as from his unsuccessful campaign for Congressional District 16 in 2024, which ultimately led to the election of former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo. “Many seniors struggle once you don’t have a source of income. They’re trying to survive,” Kumar explained. “We have received hundreds of emails and messages back to us—thousands—who say, ‘My god this will make a big difference to me.’”

The Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County has expressed a degree of support for Kumar’s proposal, with Party Chairman Joe Dehn stating, “Although the Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County has not made an endorsement in this race, we are glad to see one local politician campaigning on actually reducing the tax burden on some of his constituents, instead of the same old story of how government needs more and more.”

Kumar has assured voters that his plan would not compromise funding for essential services such as schools, libraries, and parks. He argues that local governments should focus on reducing wasteful spending rather than increasing tax rates to cover rising costs.

Stone, however, contends that older adults are among the least in need of property tax exemptions due to the protections already afforded by Proposition 13. “Seniors have the best property taxes of anybody,” he said. “The people that need property tax reductions the most in this valley are not senior citizens. This proposal is a sham.”

While the Santa Clara County Republican Party has welcomed the idea in principle, Party Chair Dave Johnson remains skeptical about its feasibility. “This scheme may help him become the assessor, as it is a popular idea,” Johnson remarked. “But— and it’s a big but—what if the state says no?”

This article was first published in San José Spotlight.

Republican lawmakers are grappling with whether to extend COVID-era Obamacare subsidies or pursue alternatives, reflecting deep divisions over the future of the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans are facing significant internal disagreements regarding the future of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, particularly as they consider extending COVID-era subsidies that could cost the government $30 billion annually.

Many GOP lawmakers express frustration over the rising costs associated with the ACA. While some advocate for scrapping the system entirely, others caution that a complete overhaul could lead to unintended consequences. Representative Harriet Hageman of Wyoming articulated her concerns, stating, “I don’t know that you can completely remove it. We have to have stability and certainty in the market.”

Representative Mike Kennedy from Utah echoed Hageman’s sentiments, noting that certain aspects of Obamacare have been beneficial. “It’s not going away anytime soon. I think there are some parts of the Obamacare policies that are positive,” Kennedy remarked. He emphasized the need for reform that does not simply involve funneling more money to insurance companies.

Conversely, some Republicans, like Representative Randy Fine of Florida, are more decisive in their criticism. “Obamacare is a failure,” Fine asserted. He argued that relying on borrowed funds to mask true costs does not solve the underlying issues, warning that continuing on the current path could lead to national bankruptcy.

The debate over Obamacare is intensifying as Republicans weigh the implications of allowing COVID-era subsidies to expire at the end of the month. Some party members are concerned that ending these subsidies could significantly increase premiums for approximately 90% of the 24 million individuals enrolled in the program, a point highlighted by Democrats.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal policy organization, maintaining the subsidies could result in an annual expenditure exceeding $30 billion.

As discussions unfold, Republicans are also exploring ways to reform Obamacare to enhance affordability. Representative Eric Burlison of Missouri believes that any changes must be substantial rather than superficial. “I would say we can’t be tinkering around the edges here. If we tinker, we’re really not gonna fix this problem,” Burlison stated.

Burlison suggested that rather than focusing solely on replacing Obamacare, the GOP should aim to create a more appealing alternative that could entice policyholders to leave the ACA voluntarily. “I think we need to do a new option and introduce that. And honestly, I think that this option will be so great no one will want to be in Obamacare anymore,” he remarked.

Other Republicans are open to considering more significant reforms, including the potential elimination of the program, but they remain cautious about the feasibility of such changes given the current political landscape. Representative Rich McCormick of Georgia pointed out the challenges of passing major legislation in the Senate, where 60 votes are typically required. “The question is, can you pass it? Sixty votes in the Senate. Not gonna happen. That’s just not realistic,” McCormick said.

Instead, McCormick advocates for reforms that would foster a more competitive healthcare market, which could help lower costs, even if Obamacare remains in effect. He cited the competitive pricing of non-insured medical services, such as LASIK eye surgery, as an example of how market competition can stabilize costs. “When insurance gets involved, when government gets involved, it becomes more expensive by design,” he explained.

As the deadline for subsidy decisions approaches, the Republican Party continues to grapple with its healthcare strategy, balancing the need for reform with the realities of legislative politics. The outcome of these discussions could significantly impact millions of Americans who rely on the Affordable Care Act for their health coverage.

According to Fox News, the ongoing debate highlights the complexities and divisions within the GOP as they navigate the future of healthcare policy in the United States.

Ontario Councilor Corinna Traill has been arrested and charged with making threats after allegedly leaving a disturbing voicemail for a former mayoral candidate, claiming it was generated by artificial intelligence.

Ontario Councilor Corinna Traill has been arrested and charged with making threats against a former mayoral candidate, Tom Dingwall. The charges stem from a voicemail she allegedly left for Dingwall last summer, which he claims contained violent threats.

According to the Peterborough Police Service, Traill was taken into custody on Wednesday and faces two counts of uttering threats. The incident reportedly occurred in August when Dingwall received a voicemail from Traill, warning him not to run for mayor so that a friend of hers could run unchallenged.

In a post on Facebook, Dingwall detailed the contents of the voicemail, alleging that Traill threatened to come to his home, kill him, and sexually assault his wife. He expressed his outrage, stating, “To be clear, no elected official, paid to represent us, should utilize intimidation or threats to dissuade anyone from pursuing elected office or engaging in public service, especially to the benefit of their friend.”

In response to the allegations, Traill took to Facebook in September to deny sending the voicemail. She asserted, “I want to state clearly and unequivocally: I did not create this message.” Traill claimed that artificial intelligence technology was involved in the creation of the voicemail, stating that while parts of the message included her voice, other portions were generated artificially.

She further explained that her team was investigating the origins of the message, emphasizing her commitment to serving her community. “For more than a decade I have worked to represent the best interests of our community, advocate for our residents, and ensure that local decision-making reflects the values and priorities of the people I serve,” she wrote. “That dedication will not waver in light of these circumstances.”

Traill has since been released from jail on her own recognizance and is scheduled to appear in court in January, according to the police department. Fox News Digital has reached out to Traill for further comment on the situation.

The case has raised questions about the implications of artificial intelligence in political discourse and the potential for misuse in threatening communications. As the investigation continues, the community watches closely to see how this unusual situation unfolds.

According to Fox News, the incident highlights the need for clarity and accountability in political communications, especially in an era where technology can blur the lines of authenticity.