That’s a regressive tax. Most of the fixed income people living in my neighborhood would be driven out of California if we charged them the current market rate for property taxes.

Corporations benefit hugely form prop13 for commercial property [1]. The current dominant left-wing pragmatic approach is to remove prop13 for corps, and leave it in place for residential properties.

[1] Corporate approach to keeping 1970s tax rate on large land lots: a) the property should be owned by a specific corp. b) corp has board of directors controlled by original owner c) deal made to sell the land d) new owner slowly replaces the BoDs as to not trigger a "corporate change". e) new BoD is fully controlled by new owner and corp now sold (with land assets). Due to prop13, that land is still taxed at original ownership rates.

It’s not fair for poor people to be driven out of their houses when rich people choose to enter the neighborhood.

That is the very essence of gentrification. If you want to destroy more communities of color in the Bay Area, this is how to do it.

If you want to protect poor homeowners, that's a noble goal, but it should be achieved with a narrowly tailored policy. Thousands of rich homeowners in Palo Alto are paying less than 10k per year on multi-million dollar properties because of Prop 13, and that's both unfair and unsustainable. Not to mention the corporate properties: Disney World, for example, pays an indefensibly low tax rate.

The negative side effects of Prop 13 far, far outweigh any benefit to poor people (most of whom are renters priced out due in part to Prop 13!).

Renters are just as impacted by prop 13 as buyers, since landlords pass on the costs.

That’s now how pricing happens at all. Rent is not based on “cost plus” pricing it is based on supply and demand

There’s an obvious and easy first step: End Prop 13 for anything that isn’t an owner occupied home. Business/capital interests won’t allow that though.

Are you in favor of a wealth tax in general or a property tax in particular?