This may be difficult to understand, and I can accept if you refuse to believe it, but it's possible to say that two steps are needed without the first step also accomplishing the second.

"e.g. 1) switch to more funding on property taxes and 2) reduce administrative bloat"

Shockingly, this does not make the two steps "self-contradictory".

Despite your condescending tone: my comment was what WOULD happen. Yours is what you'd like.

I mean, how do you communicate with someone that has no ability to make quantitative estimates? Yes, getting rid of prop 13 would require the administrative complexity of one specific job of one department to increase. No, this does not contradict the goal of reducing administrative waste. Fire a million bureaucrats (15% of the population of California works for state and local government), shut down 20 departments, and the 1000 people you need to hire for prop 13 rollback will not reduce the overall goal.

And by shifting responsibilities, you could easily do this without hiring anyone else - almost all states have a value-based property tax system, and this includes states with extremely lean administrative load compared to California, so your claim that following their model is some self-contradictory nut to crack is specious.

> someone that has no ability to make quantitative estimates

wow, thanks! Way to patronize.

We don't need "quantitative estimates" -- we just need a qualitative estimate of the propensities of politicians. Especially in California.