None of this would be a problem if the proposition had been sane. They could have just allowed primary home owners over a certain age (59.5, 65, etc) to have locked-in property taxes. The bullshit is that the “stabilization” applies to corporations with indefinite lifespans, and that the tax rates can be inherited. By corporations we’re not just talking big, actual business like Google. The way the proposition works incentivizes real estate funds to simply buy all the land they can as soon as possible to lock in a low rate that can be maintained indefinitely. This brings housing prices further up and disincentivizes actual land ownership over the long term (it makes it cheaper to rent from a group that structurally locked in a stupid low property tax rate).

It’s such a stupid fucking law. Clearly nobody bothered to think of the long term consequences

If you have $1M in capital in your $1.5M house, banks will be begging you to take out a reverse mortgage to pay your taxes. It just means that your heirs will get a slightly smaller windfall from your death rather than the full $1M.

The result of your policy is not only increased cost of housing and underdevelopment, but higher sales taxes as well. If California had a more healthy proportion of property taxes, then sales taxes wouldn't be forced up to nearly 10% to fund government.

If your turn it into apartments though, you've probably eliminated turnover, since it's much easier to own apartments through corporate forms that won't trigger a reassessment.

In other words, “investing” in property by purchasing it but not putting it to use is an unproductive investment

I bet more people will be in the later bucket than the ones who analyze things like you do. Since (property) tax policy depends on politics, which is driven mostly by emotions rather than reason, how would you persuade people to think like you? And if one cannot persuade them and simply try to impose one's preferred tax policy by whatever means, then we will see a tax revolt similar to what happened in 1978 with Prop 13.

The prop 13 issue seems pretty nuanced but a component of it is certainly helpful to low income long time residents.

I wish I had a problem like this — I could just sell the house, cash in the profit and retire...

Kind of interesting there are those who want certain people kicked out of the area (elderly homeowners) but not others (homeless).

I don’t want to kick anyone out of the area, but I don’t think people who made a million of dollars (in the example above) are the ones who need the protection the most.

Numerous elderly have trouble moving due to their poor health. Forcing them to sell is akin to an early death sentence.

I’m not sure why you keep talking about homeless though.