Like CAR, I agree that Prop 13 should have applied to the original owner on their principal residence only at the time the initiative was passed (1978) regardless of their age at the time it was passed. Had the measure been worded to ONLY include the principal residence as long as the owner OCCUPIED IT and the later Props 58 and 193 were never passed, the youngest owner-residents who most benefited by Prop 13’s rollbacks (having an original assessment floor equal to the Sept 1975 rolls, not 1976 as I originally posted here) would have been approximately 60 years of age today and half or more than half of those receiving the subsidy would have been deceased by now, along with their subsidy. By 2035, the lingering effects of Prop 13 would minuscule to none. As such, the measure would have, in the end, amounted to “senior citizen tax assistance,” which is precisely how it was sold to the voters at the time.
As it stands, a very large portion of properties in CA’s most desirable coastal communities will be kept off the market into perpetuity because it costs its owners nearly nothing to keep these properties … even if vacant.
