When I talk to my dad about Proposition 13, the one thing he remembers about the ads is that it was supposed to keep widows and single moms from losing their house. In other words, he thinks of it as an entitlement program to help poor residents. But as the article points out, it is a subsidy not for the poor; it is instead a subsidy that regressively targets property owners (including landlords and commercial properties) at the expense of recent buyers and non-property owners (including widows and single moms who do not own an appreciating property).
> This kind of logic results in net loss to citizens: > https://time.com/5530386/aoc-amazon-new-york-hq2/
I agree with you that it is unfortunate that politicians such as AOC conflate economic development incentives with welfare. That has nothing to do with Proposition 13, which is not an incentive program. In fact, the incentives that Proposition 13 does contain (to avoid developing or selling which trigger reassessment) perversely exacerbate the housing scarcity that it was supposed to alleviate.
> Also, why are those against Prop 13 the most silent (usually) on corruption in the state?
Your final question seems to imply that opponents of Proposition 13 are a special interest who are ok with corruption. I disagree. I think an impartial observer can analyze the state’s largest entitlement program and complain about the obvious regressive aspects of it.