I'm aware of that particular case and think it's certainly representative of some peoples' goals in the area but it's not universal. I think it's helpful to shine a light on things like this. The parent comment I was replying to, however, just assigns a view to a grand, ambiguous They and implies that anybody arguing for preservation has ulterior motives. Not helpful.

Unfortunately this article gives me an HTTP 451 (I'm GDPR-walled)

It's easy to circumvent, but perhaps we shouldn't support sites that are so hostile to their users they block places with sane data protection laws.

Hence why I said "i.e. shredding prop 13" and why my other comment in the thread said "blame the Howard Jarvis taxpayers foundation".

> One problem with this is that a lot of land owners have been in the city for decades and their property tax rates are protected under Prop 13 [0]. Basically their tax rates get adjusted for inflation but aren't reassessed unless ownership changes or there's significant construction.

No, they don't. The tax basis value is adjusted annually to the lesser of the actual value or 2% greater than the previous year’s tax basis value in the absence of an event allowing unrestricted full-market assessment (most sales, for instance.)

The 1% maximum increase does not (except when inflation happens to be unusually low) amount to adjusting for inflation, and it's not done without reassessment (value drops—rare in the Bay but still can happen—are immediately reflected, but increases are capped.)

> Raising tax rates won't touch these people.

Plus, the same thing that creates the limit on basis increases also puts a hard cap on rates.