Except, while it was always rhetorically useful to talk about seniors with limited and fixed incomes being able to stay in their homes, Prop 13 also benefits people with multiple homes, landlords with rental properties, kids inheriting their parents house and running it as an AirBnb, etc. It benefits _corporations_ and non-residential property. Corporations can also skirt around it by not triggering a reassessment by not transferring ownership all at once.
Meanwhile, why are only senior home owners worthy of that stability? Why do seniors who rent not get rent stabilization as a matter of law?
If this were really motivated out of altruistic concern for vulnerable retirees, the law would look very different.
Oh, right I'm sorry, since the beginning of 2021 if you inherit a home in CA you should move into it and run your _prior_ home as an AirBnb. My understanding is you need to make it your 'primary residence' within 1 year, but it doesn't say how long it must remain your primary residence?
With the "portability" affordances for people over 55, and with the special treatment of farms, I think there's still plenty of room for heirs to receive properties with ridiculously low assessments. A savvy person trying to give the greatest tax advantage to their heirs would sell their property with the lowest assessment, and buy the most expensive property they can, make it their permanent residence, and leave it to a child or grandchild.
In combination with the special treatment for farms, I think there's plenty of room left for people to inherit property which they don't actually need, with ridiculously low assessments.
Meanwhile, why are only senior home owners worthy of that stability? Why do seniors who rent not get rent stabilization as a matter of law?
If this were really motivated out of altruistic concern for vulnerable retirees, the law would look very different.