Okay, tried to confirm, and think the 57% might have been owner-occupied (might have been investment properties + second homes). According to this, 45% of San Diego’s residents are renters. While many of these people are living in apartments, those apartment buildings enjoy the same Prop 13 protections as SFHs, and those benefits are passed directly on to the landlords since most landlords increase rents on a regular basis to whatever the market will bear.
We are subsidizing “investors,” which is very different from protecting people from being taxed out of their own homes due to speculators who regularly push prices of RE up in California. I sincerely doubt Prop 13 would have passed if it had been billed as a way to subsidize the profits of landlords and owners of commercial buildings at the expense of taxpayers (especially when their taxes aren’t even calculated on their purchase price, but the price paid by the original owners who formed the LLCs, which could have been decades ago!).
According to this, 62.4% of housing units in L.A. are renter-occupied. 52.1% of San Diego’s housing units are renter-occupied. [edited to add: 63% of San Francisco’s housing units are renter-occupied.] This includes some of California’s most expensive real estate.
Also, according to the same link, ~16% of California’s residents live in apartments, so many of those rentals are condos and SFHs.
We still haven’t dealt with the commercial/industrial properties or large plots of land that are being held by commercial interests (like Pardee, for instance). It also doesn’t account for owners of “vacation” homes, and there are quite a few of these owners sitting on very valuable property in CA. Are you still going to imply that Prop 13 protection for non-primary residences is insignificant?
How legal entities can avoid property tax reassessments:
