Tom Steyer’s intentions are righteous, but his ideas don’t add up On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak to gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer about his campaign. Steyer is a billionaire environmentalist with a long history of political activity. In 2020, he sought the Democratic presidential nomination. He spent millions during President Trump’s first term on an ad campaign to have Trump impeached. As a citizen, he has held fundraisers for Democratic candidates such as President Obama and Hillary Clinton and championed numerous environmental policies. Today, he’s among the top polling candidates to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, offering a progressive message to Californians. Steyer is running heavily on making corporations “pay their fair share” and has publicly stated he would like to hold a special election to modify Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that caps property tax increases. He has proposed modifying Prop. 13 to allow the state to assess commercial property taxes based on market value. When I asked him why he thought these tax hikes wouldn’t increase prices and slow economic growth, Steyer clarified that the changes would distinguish between large and small businesses. He argued that charging people fairly for commercial real estate doesn’t seem like an unfair thing to do. He also claimed that a 1% property tax is not dramatically different from what others charge and that it wouldn’t be a big drag on business. He called the current system an “actual honest to God tax loophole” and insisted it’s a “completely just thing to do.” Unfortunately, that was the extent of his answer. Typically, increasing the cost of doing business, as such a modification would undoubtedly cause, leads to higher prices and slower economic growth.#california #gavin_newsom #tom_steyer #prop_13 #rent_control
Steyer has wrong fix for California’s Prop 13. Here’s a better way California’s fiscal challenges stem from Proposition 13, a 1978 law that caps property tax revenues by freezing valuations at 1970s levels and limiting annual growth to 2% (until sale or new construction). While billionaire gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer has correctly identified Prop 13 as the root of the state’s funding crisis, his proposed solution—reviving a “split roll” property tax reform—fails to address the core inequities of the system. Instead, it shifts the tax burden onto commercial properties while leaving the outdated, regressive structure of Prop 13 intact. Prop 13’s artificial restrictions on property valuations have created a distorted tax landscape. New property owners often pay significantly higher taxes than long-time residents for identical homes, as valuations remain frozen at purchase dates. This system disproportionately benefits established homeowners while burdening younger families and new buyers. A 2016 Legislative Analyst’s Office report highlighted how these disparities penalize mobility, rewarding those who hold property for decades while shifting costs onto newcomers. The law’s impact extends beyond individual households. It distorts urban development by severing the link between public investments and land value capture. When cities spend public funds on infrastructure like transit lines or schools, surrounding land values rise. In a fair system, this appreciation would generate additional tax revenue to fund future projects. Under Prop 13, however, the untaxed windfall of skyrocketing land values is captured by private landowners, who then charge high rents on their tax-sheltered properties.#tom_steyer #prop_13 #legislative_analyst_office #washington_state #massachusetts
