“The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (primarily known as WMATA and often referred to as simply Metro) is a tri-jurisdictional government agency authorized by Congress
…
As a government agency, the compact grants WMATA sovereign immunity by all three jurisdictions within which it operates, and except for certain limited exceptions, it cannot be successfully sued unless it waives immunity. For the provisions of the compact, the authority is effectively a District of Columbia corporation.”

As for Prop 13 – am I really wrong? How different is this ? Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann were the most vocal and visible backers of Proposition 13. Officially titled the “People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation,” and popularly known as the “Jarvis-Gann Amendment,” Proposition 13 was placed on the ballot through the California ballot initiative process, a provision of the California constitution which allows a proposed law or constitutional amendment to be placed before the voters if backers collect a sufficient number of signatures on a petition. Proposition 13 passed with almost 65% of those who voted in favor and with the participation of nearly 70% of registered voters. After passage, it became article 13A of the California state constitution.
Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This “assessed value,” however, may only be increased by a maximum of 2% per year, until and unless the property undergoes a change in ownership. At the time of the change in ownership the low assessed value may be reassessed to full current market value which will produce a new base year value for the property, but future assessments are likewise restricted to the 2% annual maximum increase of the new base year value.
If the property’s market value increases rapidly (values of many detached dwellings in California have appreciated at annual rates averaging more than 10% over the course of several years) or if inflation exceeds 2% (common), the differential between the owner’s taxes and the taxes a new owner would have to pay can become quite large. If a property is reassessed to full market value, the increase in taxes can also be quite large.
The property may be reassessed under certain conditions other than a change in ownership, such as when additions or new construction occur. The assessed value is also subject to reduction if the market value of the property declines below its assessed value, for example, during a real estate slump. Reductions in property valuation were not provided for in Proposition 13 itself, but were made possible by the passage of Proposition 8 (SCA No. 67) in 1978.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

I think Congress at least should eliminate the commuter tax for residents of DC.

I’d be all for eliminating the income tax, except I think Congress would find a way to use DC as its petri dish in other ways.

That will cause less traffic, less wear and tear on our roads hence less money to maintain them, cleaner air, more metro riders…

Does anybody know if DC can do that on its own or Congress has to authorize it?

Unfortunately, since getting immigrant visas for my family and friends would be tough, I’m stuck here, trying to convince Americans that maybe we should look at how other countries are doing business, rather than letting our corporate-owned-and-operated Congress take us down the road to Third-World levels of income inequality.

you want to compare local commuter taxes, compare Delaware and Philadelphia. Philly has a commuter tax. You do not see differences in salaries in national/international companies like financial companies because they do not take residence into effect when pricing slots.

Prop 13 is a textbook case, period.

I think a better analogy is that civil service and union heavy companies have no way to trim dead wood. So dead wood piles up over time while the tree dies. Dead wood still votes en masse though.

If in 1990 I bought a $200k house and had a 4% property tax but it was capped at 1% increase a year I would pay much less than a guy who moved in next door to an identical house in 2000 now valued at $1M. He would start at $40k per year and I would still be sitting at 1/2 that. Despite the fact that we both now lived in $1M dollar homes.