I think there’s some broad misconceptions on what a repeal of prop 13 has to look like. Most seem to assume that it would keep property taxes (at very least) at their current level for those with properties currently assessed at market value, and raise property taxes for those properties with assessed values below current market values. That isn’t the way it has to happen.

I don’t know what the stats look like for percentage of properties currently assessed below market value. I’m guessing the total actual dollars below market value is more impressive than the percentage of properties below value. But if prop 13 were repealed or changed, with the provision that total property taxes collected don’t increase (or with limited annual increases), the net effect would be to decrease property taxes for current buyers, as the tax on legacy property tax properties increase.

This would DECREASE the cost to new buyers (i.e., young people), not increase it.

Some would argue that it can never happen this way. That legislators won’t ever pass up a chance to collect more taxes. Arguably true, but demonstrably false. It happened when prop 13 was originally voted in. Except that revenues were capped in the wrong place, at the assessment level, rather than at the collection level. The net result was exactly the opposite of what Howard Jarvis claimed he wanted. Property tax revenues skyrocketed as values increased. In the last 30 years, total property taxes collected have increased at a rate 3 times that of total population growth and inflation combined. As measured by Jarvis’ original platform, Prop 13 has been a total failure. It can and should be fixed. I have no idea whether or not it will be.