As far as land used for agricultural uses in CA, I’m mostly okay with current owners keeping the original assessment of their parent/grandparent as long as the descendant continues to operate the land for agricultural uses and doesn’t instead subdivide and attempt to develop it with its ultra-low assessment intact. My rationale is that CA supplies food for the entire nation (especially western states) and food is a necessity. I DO realize that these landowners also receive agricultural exemptions from their respective assessors as well, which may or may not be a better deal for them than their parent/grandparent’s original assessment.
As far as wineries, I’m really on the fence here whether their current operators should be allowed to “inherit” their ancestor’s ultra-low assessment (most of them have) as they operate for profit and wine is not a necessity. However, wineries DO bring a lot of tourism to CA, and, for the most part maintain their land well, create beauty and contribute heavily to their surrounding communities. I also realize that a new winery may take several years to turn a profit and (like domestic dog or cat breeding) it is mostly a “labor of love” and is slow to show a profit, if at all. This is evidenced by the many startup wineries which end up being folded into or having to contract with larger wineries due to ultimately being financially unable to process their crop and bottle on their own. The existence of wineries in CA has also been doing a GREAT job of keeping thousands of acres of prime real estate OUT of the hands of Big Development which has undoubtedly averted more urban and suburban sprawl.
As far as your typical Norwalk Section 8 heir/slumlord (and there are many thousands in CA which fit this description, btw), AFAIK, he/she should receive title to their parent/grandparent’s multifamily investment property with a tax bill equal to its stepped-up value on the date of their deaths (or title transfer), whichever occurs first. The reason is because HUD is going to pay that landlord/heir market-rate rents on time every month no matter how much they are paying in property taxes. The landlord’s expenses are irrelevant to HUD. They pay landlords market-rate rents according to the condition of the complex/units and what the local rental market will bear no matter how much their eligible tenants’ monthly portion of the rent is. Likewise, heir/owners of CA market-rate investment properties (both residential and commercial) should also pay property tax based upon their “inherited” property’s stepped-up value on the date of title transfer. These two sets of LL’s (as well as their “straw `owners'”) who have been (legally) sucking CA and its cities/counties dry and pocketing the proceeds every month are the prime reason why Prop 58/193 needs to be repealed and the sooner, the better.
