It's difficult to take seriously when people think untaxed property could lead to creation of a "landed gentry" from ordinary wage earners.

The purpose of property taxes to begin with was to preserve the landed gentry that already existed, from the threat of less-wealthy citizens eventually owning their own homes or farms outright without the need for the owner or property itself to continually produce rising amounts of income to keep up with gradually rising taxes.

Never forget that taxing anything but commerce, is intended to keep people who start with less, from building any generational wealth whatsoever.

Everything in this realm has been derived from this original concept.

If you remember how expensive it always was in California compared to regular states, and you paid attention at all since the 1970's, you know that Prop 13 was the main key to success that has lasted until today. Inflation and the drastic loss in the value of the dollar was so devastating that most senior citizens, and millions of younger ones would not have been able to stay otherwise. It was just on steroids in CA but it was needed everywhere else too. The other states were not as sensible at the time. Inflation was just as destructive everywhere else but it was not launched from as much of a baseline nosebleed dollar level as in CA.

Yes it may be unfair, and really apparent how much disparity in dollar terms today, but the unfairness is not because all the properties that have their taxes capped.

It's all the rest of the properties where appraisals and taxes have skyrocketed where all the unfairness lies.

That's where the correction needs to be made until everything is fair once again.

IOW the original purpose of the Proposition was to enshrine the "high-water mark" beyond which taxes are unsustainable & intolerable under non-bonanza conditions. To "encourage" taxing authorities to look for some other source of sustaining income if sustaining expenditures are intended, but rug-pulling hard-worked-for properties is exactly what the citizens voted against and intended it to last forever. If that doesn't get people's attention at the time it surely will in the future, the more so the stupider the taxes deviate from pure commerce. This was by design, remember? Very careful mathematical design. Brilliantly conceived to emphasize stupidity of both Democrats & Republicans, and the more stupid, the more stark. The people didn't just speak out against greedy party politics, they roared.

And just in case things didn't return to normal, at least those who were there at the time are OK. It serves as a very good example of how much better off everyone else would be if so much greed had not been allowed to run unchecked and compound for so long.

Nobody has an unfair advantage here, some just have a less-unfair disadvantage.

Framing it just the opposite I would have to say looks like the non-mathematical work of a pro-poverty enthusiast.

I mean one group was originally protected from poverty under emergency conditions by popular demand. Things don't really stay the same and in some terms have gone from bad to worse. So when people think more needs to be done now, what are the options?

1) Protect more people from poverty intentionally in an explicitly multi-generational way.

2) Keep things the same.

3) Remove existing poverty protections for everybody in a way that will last for multi-generations even if not explicitly written into the legal text.

Which one seems the more "progressive", and in which direction?

Looks like it's about time to brilliantly conceive of something new that can simultaneously overcome both Republican & Democrat stupidity. Not so sure that type of mathematical leadership is available any more though :\