Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsStephanie Nordlinger
IN THE NEWS

Stephanie Nordlinger

FEATURED ARTICLES
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
July 9, 1991
What a pity that Macy's, which had the financial muscle to do so, has fled the battlefield, leaving a lady like Stephanie Nordlinger, alone and unafraid, to join the battle ("Prop. 13 Fighter Seeks a Fair Shake," June 30). We have learned that Proposition 13 is a mixed blessing, at best. Curiously, the largest body that voted against it was the vast array of state and local government employees who envisioned less money becoming available to pay them under Proposition 13. The reverse has occurred, which is why Ms. Nordlinger is in court.
ARTICLES BY DATE
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
May 9, 2013 | By Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times
Stephanie Nordlinger, who lives in a modest Baldwin Hills tract home, has been reading with interest the news stories about computer magnate Michael Dell and his low, low property taxes. Last week, the Times reported that Dell has saved more than a million dollars a year in taxes on a landmark Santa Monica hotel by exploiting a gaping legal loophole in the rules that govern how Proposition 13 is applied. By bringing his wife and two investment advisors into the 2006 deal for the Fairmont Miramar Hotel, my colleagues Jason Felch and Jack Dolan reported, Dell has so far been able to keep his taxes based on the hotel's 1999 assessed value of $86 million, rather than the $200 million he paid.
Advertisement
OPINION
March 2, 2009
Re "Vote no on B," editorial, Feb. 26 I agree with The Times' recommendation to vote no on Measure B, but for additional reasons. Voters should not be asked to approve ordinances, which are usually too complex for proper consideration. Also, no one should circulate or sign a petition for a proposition or vote for any proposition that contains, as this one does, a requirement for a supermajority to amend or repeal it. Such provisions make government more rigid and less responsive than it should be. Stephanie Nordlinger Los Angeles :: Proponents of Measure B imply there is no alternative to their plan to install 400 megawatts of photovoltaic power.
OPINION
March 2, 2009
Re "Vote no on B," editorial, Feb. 26 I agree with The Times' recommendation to vote no on Measure B, but for additional reasons. Voters should not be asked to approve ordinances, which are usually too complex for proper consideration. Also, no one should circulate or sign a petition for a proposition or vote for any proposition that contains, as this one does, a requirement for a supermajority to amend or repeal it. Such provisions make government more rigid and less responsive than it should be. Stephanie Nordlinger Los Angeles :: Proponents of Measure B imply there is no alternative to their plan to install 400 megawatts of photovoltaic power.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 24, 1992
Your otherwise excellent editorial about the cases challenging state funding formulas enacted in the wake of Proposition 13 ("Formula for Inequity?" Feb. 17) contains a significant, though common, error, namely the phrase, "If Proposition 13 is overturned by the Supreme Court. . . ." My suit against Tax Assessor Kenneth Hahn and Los Angeles County now in the U.S. Supreme Court will not and cannot lead to the "overturning" of Proposition 13. I, Macy's and Northwest Financial (whose suit is also before the Supreme Court)
NEWS
February 28, 1992 | PETER H. KING
The talk of Stephanie Nordlinger's neighborhood on Tuesday was Stephanie Nordlinger, and the Baldwin Hills woman was lucky to have missed it. "She's going to be on the news at 5!" a woman who lives next door to Nordlinger hollered across Sycamore Avenue. "Channel 2's got her." "Who?" another neighbor yelled back. "That bitch who wants our property taxes to go up!" Nordlinger was in Washington, where the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing arguments in her legal challenge to Proposition 13.
BUSINESS
February 25, 1992 | DANIEL AKST
Don't look now, but a major California sacred cow may be headed for the slaughterhouse. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 13. Specifically, it will decide whether to overturn the provision that taxes pre-1978 property owners much less than people who bought later. Nordlinger vs. Hahn, the case at hand, has a lot of people frantic.
NEWS
October 8, 1991 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide whether Proposition 13, California's guiding property tax law, violates the Constitution by forcing a new homeowner in Los Angeles County to pay five times as much in taxes as her neighbors. If the justices declare the state's taxing system unconstitutional, it could force a multibillion-dollar upheaval in tax bills and government finances, ultimately benefiting recent home buyers at the expense of long-time residents.
NEWS
February 26, 1992 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Most Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Tuesday of claims that California's Proposition 13 violates the Constitution because it forces new home buyers to pay more in property taxes than longtime owners of similar homes. Rather, most of the court's nine members, during an hourlong session, seemed to agree with arguments that California's system is a "rational" way to protect homeowners from inflation.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
June 30, 1991 | KEVIN RODERICK, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Stephanie Nordlinger did not begin this with any desire to play hero in a morality play over property taxes in California. Nor did she want to be anybody's villain. Yet by this time next year, Nordlinger could be the woman whose lawsuit unraveled Proposition 13. It would earn her the gratitude of one legion of homeowners--and make her infamous to another. Her name wouldn't buy many free lunches in the business world either.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 3, 1992
This period has been called, among other things, "the age of envy." The Proposition 13 case currently before the Supreme Court defies logic on any other basis ("Justices Seem Favorable to Prop. 13 at Hearing," Feb. 26). Stephanie Nordlinger is either shortsighted, stupid, has a secret agenda or all of the above. The presumed support from Los Angeles County officials not withstanding, the only winners will be those who benefit from increased government spending. Your article (Feb.
NEWS
February 28, 1992 | PETER H. KING
The talk of Stephanie Nordlinger's neighborhood on Tuesday was Stephanie Nordlinger, and the Baldwin Hills woman was lucky to have missed it. "She's going to be on the news at 5!" a woman who lives next door to Nordlinger hollered across Sycamore Avenue. "Channel 2's got her." "Who?" another neighbor yelled back. "That bitch who wants our property taxes to go up!" Nordlinger was in Washington, where the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing arguments in her legal challenge to Proposition 13.
NEWS
February 26, 1992 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Most Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Tuesday of claims that California's Proposition 13 violates the Constitution because it forces new home buyers to pay more in property taxes than longtime owners of similar homes. Rather, most of the court's nine members, during an hourlong session, seemed to agree with arguments that California's system is a "rational" way to protect homeowners from inflation.
BUSINESS
February 25, 1992 | DANIEL AKST
Don't look now, but a major California sacred cow may be headed for the slaughterhouse. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 13. Specifically, it will decide whether to overturn the provision that taxes pre-1978 property owners much less than people who bought later. Nordlinger vs. Hahn, the case at hand, has a lot of people frantic.
NEWS
February 24, 1992 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER
Proposition 13 protected California homeowners from the hyperinflation of the 1970s that sent their property tax bills, along with their home values, soaring upward. But it has not done as much to shield new buyers in the 1980s and early '90s, who on top of higher home prices have been forced to pay much steeper taxes.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 24, 1992
Your otherwise excellent editorial about the cases challenging state funding formulas enacted in the wake of Proposition 13 ("Formula for Inequity?" Feb. 17) contains a significant, though common, error, namely the phrase, "If Proposition 13 is overturned by the Supreme Court. . . ." My suit against Tax Assessor Kenneth Hahn and Los Angeles County now in the U.S. Supreme Court will not and cannot lead to the "overturning" of Proposition 13. I, Macy's and Northwest Financial (whose suit is also before the Supreme Court)
NEWS
October 8, 1991 | DAVID G. SAVAGE, TIMES STAFF WRITER
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide whether Proposition 13, California's guiding property tax law, violates the Constitution by forcing a new homeowner in Los Angeles County to pay five times as much in taxes as her neighbors. If the justices declare the state's taxing system unconstitutional, it could force a multibillion-dollar upheaval in tax bills and government finances, ultimately benefiting recent home buyers at the expense of long-time residents.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|