Disagree.

One of the very few things California was on right track with, was Prop 13. They just screwed up the implemention.

Proposition 13, adopted by California voters in 1978, mandates a property tax rate of one percent, requires that properties be assessed at market value at the time of sale, and allows assessments to rise by no more than 2 percent per year until the next sale. This means that as long as property values increase by more than 2 percent per year, homeowners gain from remaining in the same house because their taxes are lower than they would be on a different house of the same value. Proposition 13 thus gives rise to a lock-in effect for owner-occupiers that strengthens over time. It also affects the rental market, both directly because it applies to landlords and indirectly because it reduces the turnover of owner-occupied homes.

If you buy a home when you're 25 years old, and stay in that home for the next 40 years, Prop 13 makes a difference. Yes, he's not paying as much as his new neighbors. He's also been in the neighborhood longer than his new neighbors. That helps establish and provide stability to the local area. (He lives there and has skin in the game.) And if he stays long enough, provides stability in his retirement. Now if he wants to move, he does so knowing he's going to pay prevailing property tax on the new home, just like the buyer of his old place is doing. His decision ... but HE makes that decision. Not the gov't.

Where California fucked up was :

1. not restricting it just to the homeowner's single primary residence, the residence used for voter registration, and
2. creating an 'exception' for 'transfering' existing prop 13 tax eligibility to family members and/or a new location.

prop 13

prop19