This probably deserves its own post, because it doesn't fit into a satire, and in any case, there is not necessarily an obvious answer. Here are my main observations:
1. Prop 13 has traditionally been the third rail of California politics, because the benefits are very tangible and the beneficiaries are politically powerful - wealthy people who vote. However, the benefits accrue almost entirely to a very small minority of property owners who are sitting on huge gains, people like Donald Trump, but also people that own expensive property in SF/LA.
Napkin math tells you that even most homeowners are actually net losers from Prop 13. If you assume that the average household is paying in $5k a year to maintain Prop 13, it's likely that the majority of homeowners are paying in more than they receive - you'd have to be sitting on $400k in appreciation net of inflation, which does not describe most homeowners in a state where the median home is ~$800k. So you have a situation where a silent majority (renters + middle class homeowners) are paying to subsidize a small group of very wealthy homeowners + big corporate landowners, they just don't realize it.
I was being facetious at the end but in all seriousness I don't think there would be as much support for Prop 13 if everyone got a postcard in the mail each year telling them exactly how much they paid in and how much they received that year.
I really recommend the John Brooks article I linked to in the essay from the 1960s. There are interesting parallels with Prop 13, and the absurd system he described did come crumbling down not too long after. Yes, there are powerful constituencies that will fight to preserve the benefits they have gotten used to, but the system relies on the average person believing silly myths (keeps grandma from getting kicked out, benefits ordinary Californians), and if you can dispel those, popular support disappears too. There are 49 other states that do just fine without Prop 13.
2. Taking down Prop 13 would be good, but doesn't really solve the root problem, which is artificial housing scarcity. The problem is that money always flows to whomever controls the most scarce resource, so more aid for actual needy families tends to get captured by the people that own housing - absent new housing construction, needy people will end up using the extra money to bid up the price of housing. It's the same dynamic as you see with financial aid and rising college tuition.
Prop 13 could possibly be taken down by the courts because the law favors white neighborhoods in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. But it'd be a hard case and with the current court it's probably impossible:
The whole post is so good, but how does one actually move the needle on correcting this ridiculous setup?
This probably deserves its own post, because it doesn't fit into a satire, and in any case, there is not necessarily an obvious answer. Here are my main observations:
1. Prop 13 has traditionally been the third rail of California politics, because the benefits are very tangible and the beneficiaries are politically powerful - wealthy people who vote. However, the benefits accrue almost entirely to a very small minority of property owners who are sitting on huge gains, people like Donald Trump, but also people that own expensive property in SF/LA.
Napkin math tells you that even most homeowners are actually net losers from Prop 13. If you assume that the average household is paying in $5k a year to maintain Prop 13, it's likely that the majority of homeowners are paying in more than they receive - you'd have to be sitting on $400k in appreciation net of inflation, which does not describe most homeowners in a state where the median home is ~$800k. So you have a situation where a silent majority (renters + middle class homeowners) are paying to subsidize a small group of very wealthy homeowners + big corporate landowners, they just don't realize it.
I was being facetious at the end but in all seriousness I don't think there would be as much support for Prop 13 if everyone got a postcard in the mail each year telling them exactly how much they paid in and how much they received that year.
I really recommend the John Brooks article I linked to in the essay from the 1960s. There are interesting parallels with Prop 13, and the absurd system he described did come crumbling down not too long after. Yes, there are powerful constituencies that will fight to preserve the benefits they have gotten used to, but the system relies on the average person believing silly myths (keeps grandma from getting kicked out, benefits ordinary Californians), and if you can dispel those, popular support disappears too. There are 49 other states that do just fine without Prop 13.
2. Taking down Prop 13 would be good, but doesn't really solve the root problem, which is artificial housing scarcity. The problem is that money always flows to whomever controls the most scarce resource, so more aid for actual needy families tends to get captured by the people that own housing - absent new housing construction, needy people will end up using the extra money to bid up the price of housing. It's the same dynamic as you see with financial aid and rising college tuition.
Prop 13 could possibly be taken down by the courts because the law favors white neighborhoods in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. But it'd be a hard case and with the current court it's probably impossible:
https://www.prop13.wtf/2023/06/18/Prop-13-illegally-favors-white-neighborhoods.html