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.