Of course, there is NO reason for us to subsidize the profits of landlords and other land/building owners. At least with a primary residence, one could make the argument that people won’t be “taxed out of their homes,” which was how Prop 13 passed in the first place. As usual, it wasn’t grandma who benefited the most, but corporate interests who gained the most from Prop 13.
Some info on Howard Jarvis and Prop 13:
Regarding the motives of Jarvis in promoting Proposition 13 and the role its passage had in rent control subsequently being enacted in most large cities in California, Greg Katz has written: “There was little doubt from his rhetoric that Howard Jarvis, who penned Prop. 13 with his on-again-off-again political ally Paul Gann, hated taxes of all kinds. But his intentions were, at best, turbid; Jarvis was at the time employed by the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association as a lobbyist. In a fundraising letter to the landlords that employed him, he claimed, ‘We are the biggest losers’ if Prop. 13 fails. (Not to mention: The Yes on 13 headquarters were located in a Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association office.) He tried to persuade renters to vote for Prop. 13 by saying it would drive down rents, by decreasing the property taxes that landlords paid. Post-13 news reports found rents weren’t going down, despite Jarvis’s promises – apparently landlords were just pocketing their property tax savings. That revelation prompted many of the rent controls still in effect around California.”[5] San Francisco community activist Calvin Welch has stated “Jarvis was the father of rent control.”[6][7] Mark Evanier has dubbed him a “horrible man” and summed up Jarvis’ years as a lobbyist for landlords with these words: “He spent a lot of time ‘n’ money trying to ram through bills that said, in essence, that if I’m your landlord, I can do any damn thing I want to you, including tearing up contracts and raising your rent or evicting you whenever I feel like it.” [8]
Note: rents did not go down, so the belief that rent would go up as a result of its repeal doesn’t really hold water. What would probably happen, is that properties would flood the market in anticipation of the repeal, which would drive down prices in many cases. Some of us would like to see this happen, as we believe that the rights of people to own their own (affordable) homes trumps the “rights” of landlords to collect rents/profit from people who need housing. Some properties could be excluded from the tax increase, but ONLY if the savings are passed on to renters (especially low-income renters) instead of padding the pockets of the profiteering parasites. At least with pensions we’re getting something in return (the best possible public employees who provide for our safety and security); with Prop 13 subsidies to landlords/landowners, we get NOTHING in return.
